5 ms·

I suppose the logical fallacy you're employing is a variation of the argument from authority, isn't it? Why don't you present an actual argument in support of

I suppose the logical fallacy you're employing is a variation of the argument from authority, isn't it? Why don't you present an actual argument in support of "SIGINT Enterprise" instead?

leroy_masochist 10y ago
Sorry, so criticizing the article puts the onus on me to write you my version of what the article should be?
- logicallee 10y ago
  I second your parent comment's request for you to write that here. (please take the 4 point karma hit, as it will be downvoted.) This place is as good as any. If you're really worried about the backlash (from HN) you (or 'someone') could reply under a throwaway, detailing those thoughts and arguments. >Why don't you present an actual argument in support of "SIGINT Enterprise" instead?
  - leroy_masochist 10y ago
    I guess the short version would be that it provides the overwhelming majority of the actionable intelligence that drives both national strategy and tactical decision-making. Also that virtually all "domestic collection" is collection on foreign adversaries whose comms include at least some American selectors, which is a very, very different proposition from using national-level SIGINT platforms to engage domestic targets. I can't provide tangible examples to people who aren't read-in, and thus my argument ultimately rests on a very annoying appeal to authority, i.e., "If you were privy to what I know, you'd agree with me." I get how problematic that argument is, but in this case I think it actually is true. I wish there were a way that I could get around this quandary, but there really isn't. Sorry -- I know that the above is probably not convincing to >90% of the HN community. But it's my honest opinion.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      How can I get myself blacklisted from intelligence work so that I can be my normal weird self without being read into anything, ever? Also while retaining the right and ability to be extremely critical on forums like this one, while using all of the actually-public information (i.e. what has been published by the New York Times.) I'm artistic and write and do lots of stuff under all sorts of pseudonyms, I travel, I want to directly engage the Chinese government on better IP laws, I want to directly do all sorts of stuff that would be way too suspicious or off limits if I had anything to do with intelligence - all without meeting your qualification for what are "comms with at least some Americans" or whatever. I just want to stay on the free side. I'm an American and foreign dual citizen. I get the argument for why people who work with intelligence need to be held to a different standard and arguably have fewer freedoms than people outside of it. I just want to stay on the other, civilian or outsider side of that line. How do I do that (other than not agreeing to that work)? This is an issue that is coming up for me and I am seriously thinking of paying some psychologist to say that I have some kind of specific tourrette's syndrome where if I'm recruited for any kind of conspiracy/intelligence "community"/whatever is on the other side of that curtain, I spasm out, and then just going ahead and pretending to do that if it ever happens. Please give me specific actionable steps I can take. I don't want to change my attitude or habits. By the way, when intelligence agencies (don't know which ones, may not even be US) read my writing or what I'm doing, they have actually physically gotten the wrong idea. Which is fine, I don't care - they didn't bother me. It's their job to stay invisible and out of civilians' hair. but I am not going to change my attitude or behavior. I'm an American as well and I think I certainly have the freedom not to participate in any institution I didn't sign up for explicitly. America isn't a police state. I don't have to watch what I say, certainly privately or anonymously, in case some bureaucrat gets the wrong idea. I don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare. I wanted to show you another commenter who raise a similar concern, but couldn't find it. He talked about how stifling and restrictive it was to work on some generic (not even secret) government contract, where they couldn't even do basic things like travel without announcing it exactly etc etc. Anyway in this comment I am asking specifically how I can disqualify myself. What would keep someone from being read into anything, ever, or joining the intelligence "community". (Obviously this is just speculation, I'm just interested in your idea.)

I suppose the logical fallacy you're employing is a variation of the argument from authority, isn't it? Why don't you present an actual argument in support of "SIGINT Enterprise" instead?

leroy_masochist 10y ago

Sorry, so criticizing the article puts the onus on me to write you my version of what the article should be?

logicallee 10y ago
I second your parent comment's request for you to write that here. (please take the 4 point karma hit, as it will be downvoted.) This place is as good as any. If you're really worried about the backlash (from HN) you (or 'someone') could reply under a throwaway, detailing those thoughts and arguments. >Why don't you present an actual argument in support of "SIGINT Enterprise" instead?
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  I guess the short version would be that it provides the overwhelming majority of the actionable intelligence that drives both national strategy and tactical decision-making. Also that virtually all "domestic collection" is collection on foreign adversaries whose comms include at least some American selectors, which is a very, very different proposition from using national-level SIGINT platforms to engage domestic targets. I can't provide tangible examples to people who aren't read-in, and thus my argument ultimately rests on a very annoying appeal to authority, i.e., "If you were privy to what I know, you'd agree with me." I get how problematic that argument is, but in this case I think it actually is true. I wish there were a way that I could get around this quandary, but there really isn't. Sorry -- I know that the above is probably not convincing to >90% of the HN community. But it's my honest opinion.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    How can I get myself blacklisted from intelligence work so that I can be my normal weird self without being read into anything, ever? Also while retaining the right and ability to be extremely critical on forums like this one, while using all of the actually-public information (i.e. what has been published by the New York Times.) I'm artistic and write and do lots of stuff under all sorts of pseudonyms, I travel, I want to directly engage the Chinese government on better IP laws, I want to directly do all sorts of stuff that would be way too suspicious or off limits if I had anything to do with intelligence - all without meeting your qualification for what are "comms with at least some Americans" or whatever. I just want to stay on the free side. I'm an American and foreign dual citizen. I get the argument for why people who work with intelligence need to be held to a different standard and arguably have fewer freedoms than people outside of it. I just want to stay on the other, civilian or outsider side of that line. How do I do that (other than not agreeing to that work)? This is an issue that is coming up for me and I am seriously thinking of paying some psychologist to say that I have some kind of specific tourrette's syndrome where if I'm recruited for any kind of conspiracy/intelligence "community"/whatever is on the other side of that curtain, I spasm out, and then just going ahead and pretending to do that if it ever happens. Please give me specific actionable steps I can take. I don't want to change my attitude or habits. By the way, when intelligence agencies (don't know which ones, may not even be US) read my writing or what I'm doing, they have actually physically gotten the wrong idea. Which is fine, I don't care - they didn't bother me. It's their job to stay invisible and out of civilians' hair. but I am not going to change my attitude or behavior. I'm an American as well and I think I certainly have the freedom not to participate in any institution I didn't sign up for explicitly. America isn't a police state. I don't have to watch what I say, certainly privately or anonymously, in case some bureaucrat gets the wrong idea. I don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare. I wanted to show you another commenter who raise a similar concern, but couldn't find it. He talked about how stifling and restrictive it was to work on some generic (not even secret) government contract, where they couldn't even do basic things like travel without announcing it exactly etc etc. Anyway in this comment I am asking specifically how I can disqualify myself. What would keep someone from being read into anything, ever, or joining the intelligence "community". (Obviously this is just speculation, I'm just interested in your idea.)