6 ms·

> The US chemical weapons program is downright frightening. Was: they committed to destroying those weapons, and have been doing so for 24 years. They were 89

> The US chemical weapons program is downright frightening. Was: they committed to destroying those weapons, and have been doing so for 24 years. They were 89.75% complete in 2012. The video you linked was from 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program#Decommissioning_and_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons...

cloakandswagger 10y ago
Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them?
- ruleabidinguser 10y ago
  It sounds like you're just saying this without doing any kind of real comparison between the probably very different scenarios.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them? I think you're letting your cynicism get in the way of truth and understanding. The US has signed and ratified a treaty committing to destroy all chemical weapons and never produce them again [1], and it has built the infrastructure to do so [2] [3]. It's conspiracy-nut territory to think the US is simultaneously stockpiling chemical weapons in some super-secret program without good evidence for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u-ACe1CBfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u-ACe1CBfA [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftLydix0Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftLydix0Nw
  - dhdbhshshhah 10y ago
    If you believe the US government you are a complete fool. The US government has dedicated itself to lying. Clapper lied to Congress. We have secret courts, we have secret kill lists. We have a secret mass surveillance program. But do go on about how we can trust the government. God HN commenters are just shills or idiots.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > It's conspiracy-nut territory While I agree, it was also considered conspiracy-nut territory to have believed most of the stuff in this leak. Look at how the wider tech community treats people like McAffee and Stallman.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      What's that Sincliar quote people like to throw around on here again? Oh yeah, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      > McAfee Yeah, why won't people respect the opinions of a meth-cooking, bath-salt abusing, murderer who lived in Belize with underage 'girlfriends'?
  - dnosjdndje 10y ago
    Mass surveillance was conspiracy nut territory. Wide spread market fixing, libor, gold, silver was conspiracy nut territory. The US engaging in blscksites and systematic torture was conspiracy nut territory. But criticizing your pro Government apologia only results in comments being banned and removed -- perhaps just more conspiracy nut territory?
    - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      So where's your evidence that the US is secretly stockpiling chemical weapons? Note: a cynical claim that "they're all liars." is not evidence. Or am I supposed to trust a stopped clock [the nuts] since it was shown to be right twice a day?
    - no_wizard 10y ago
      I am taking issue with this. This was not conspiracy wing nut theory. As far back as 2004 cybersecurity (for lack of a better term) experts were reporting repeatedly that governments (not just the USA) were exponentially using exploits, as were other unknown or non-govt actors, and other techniques for malicious reasons, from spying on citizens to hacking infrastructure. Here's just a nice litmus of that: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html here is even a hertiage foundation report talking about sharing privacy keeping technologies with the government in the name of 'fighting terrorism' http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologies-can-protect-privacy-information-shared-combat-terrorism http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologie... http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight-practical-lessons-foreign-intelligence http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight... and here is the ACLU sounding the alarm in August of 2004: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf Ironically, its around the same time the NSA purported to have their own 'rules' in how they gather, which were obtained here: https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Domestic-Procedures.pdf https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Dome... and of course, not more than a few years later we have these reports: https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal-fight-over-nsas-stellar-wind-surveillance/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal... It was never a wing nut conspiracy theory. Its just nobody was looking close enough to care.
  - zenocon 10y ago
    How can one not have a whole giant mountain of cynicism with all we've become aware of in the last few years? We could just as easily turn the tables and call you irresponsibly naive.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      While I get where you're coming from with cynicism, any deployment of chemical weapons by a belligerent is almost certainly a war crime under several international accords, most notably the Geneva Protocol[0]. As someone upthread pointed out, their production is also the subject of several more. All the NSA/CIA disclosures we've seen thus far are not, themselves, war crimes. The international community, with some exceptions, came to the consensus that chemical weapons are not a good thing about a century ago, while offensive hacking is a much more recent development (obviously) and basically the wild west right now. Comparing chemical weapons to offensive hacking simply because they're both big government naughties is disingenuous, to say the least. My bar of cynicism is a little higher when you're talking about the United States discretely stockpiling mustard gas versus taking down a smartphone, you know? (Maybe I, too, am irresponsibly naive.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
      - pikzen 10y ago
        Ah, yes, war crimes. The US definitely fears those, and would absolutely never shoot on POWs, rape civilians, commit mass murder, drop chemical weapons on fighters and civilians indiscriminately, use multiple atomic bombs on civilians, torture, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes) They are so terribly afraid of committing war crimes they do not recognize the International Crime Court and are reading to invade any country trying an american soldier. Surely the US would never do that!
        jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        All I said was my cynicism bar is a little higher for war crimes as opposed to hacking a phone, or capturing email. That's it. Not trying to argue or state any position or claim beyond that.
  - prodmerc 10y ago
    More importantly, it's a bit stupid/outdated to stockpile dangerous stuff when you have the facilities to produce it if/when it is actually needed.
    - the_cyber_pass 10y ago
      I think the idea of it was that if a war happened the facilities to create it would be bombed.
  - ionised 10y ago
    A few things that were considered conspiracy nut territory have been revealed to be true over the last few years. It might be time to stop throwing that dismissive pejorative around when talking about (at the very least) our western governments.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  The official policy is to use the VEP. https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/vep/ https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/vep/

cloakandswagger 10y ago

Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them?

ruleabidinguser 10y ago
It sounds like you're just saying this without doing any kind of real comparison between the probably very different scenarios.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> Just like they committed to revealing exploits to the tech industry instead of hoarding them? I think you're letting your cynicism get in the way of truth and understanding. The US has signed and ratified a treaty committing to destroy all chemical weapons and never produce them again [1], and it has built the infrastructure to do so [2] [3]. It's conspiracy-nut territory to think the US is simultaneously stockpiling chemical weapons in some super-secret program without good evidence for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u-ACe1CBfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u-ACe1CBfA [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftLydix0Nw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wftLydix0Nw
- dhdbhshshhah 10y ago
  If you believe the US government you are a complete fool. The US government has dedicated itself to lying. Clapper lied to Congress. We have secret courts, we have secret kill lists. We have a secret mass surveillance program. But do go on about how we can trust the government. God HN commenters are just shills or idiots.
- wyager 10y ago
  > It's conspiracy-nut territory While I agree, it was also considered conspiracy-nut territory to have believed most of the stuff in this leak. Look at how the wider tech community treats people like McAffee and Stallman.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    What's that Sincliar quote people like to throw around on here again? Oh yeah, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    > McAfee Yeah, why won't people respect the opinions of a meth-cooking, bath-salt abusing, murderer who lived in Belize with underage 'girlfriends'?
- dnosjdndje 10y ago
  Mass surveillance was conspiracy nut territory. Wide spread market fixing, libor, gold, silver was conspiracy nut territory. The US engaging in blscksites and systematic torture was conspiracy nut territory. But criticizing your pro Government apologia only results in comments being banned and removed -- perhaps just more conspiracy nut territory?
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    So where's your evidence that the US is secretly stockpiling chemical weapons? Note: a cynical claim that "they're all liars." is not evidence. Or am I supposed to trust a stopped clock [the nuts] since it was shown to be right twice a day?
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    I am taking issue with this. This was not conspiracy wing nut theory. As far back as 2004 cybersecurity (for lack of a better term) experts were reporting repeatedly that governments (not just the USA) were exponentially using exploits, as were other unknown or non-govt actors, and other techniques for malicious reasons, from spying on citizens to hacking infrastructure. Here's just a nice litmus of that: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0920/070.html here is even a hertiage foundation report talking about sharing privacy keeping technologies with the government in the name of 'fighting terrorism' http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologies-can-protect-privacy-information-shared-combat-terrorism http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/technologie... http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight-practical-lessons-foreign-intelligence http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/information-oversight... and here is the ACLU sounding the alarm in August of 2004: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf Ironically, its around the same time the NSA purported to have their own 'rules' in how they gather, which were obtained here: https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Domestic-Procedures.pdf https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Dome... and of course, not more than a few years later we have these reports: https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://www.eff.org/pages/calea-faq https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal-fight-over-nsas-stellar-wind-surveillance/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/12/behind-the-legal... It was never a wing nut conspiracy theory. Its just nobody was looking close enough to care.
- zenocon 10y ago
  How can one not have a whole giant mountain of cynicism with all we've become aware of in the last few years? We could just as easily turn the tables and call you irresponsibly naive.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    While I get where you're coming from with cynicism, any deployment of chemical weapons by a belligerent is almost certainly a war crime under several international accords, most notably the Geneva Protocol[0]. As someone upthread pointed out, their production is also the subject of several more. All the NSA/CIA disclosures we've seen thus far are not, themselves, war crimes. The international community, with some exceptions, came to the consensus that chemical weapons are not a good thing about a century ago, while offensive hacking is a much more recent development (obviously) and basically the wild west right now. Comparing chemical weapons to offensive hacking simply because they're both big government naughties is disingenuous, to say the least. My bar of cynicism is a little higher when you're talking about the United States discretely stockpiling mustard gas versus taking down a smartphone, you know? (Maybe I, too, am irresponsibly naive.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
    - pikzen 10y ago
      Ah, yes, war crimes. The US definitely fears those, and would absolutely never shoot on POWs, rape civilians, commit mass murder, drop chemical weapons on fighters and civilians indiscriminately, use multiple atomic bombs on civilians, torture, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes) They are so terribly afraid of committing war crimes they do not recognize the International Crime Court and are reading to invade any country trying an american soldier. Surely the US would never do that!
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        All I said was my cynicism bar is a little higher for war crimes as opposed to hacking a phone, or capturing email. That's it. Not trying to argue or state any position or claim beyond that.
- prodmerc 10y ago
  More importantly, it's a bit stupid/outdated to stockpile dangerous stuff when you have the facilities to produce it if/when it is actually needed.
  - the_cyber_pass 10y ago
    I think the idea of it was that if a war happened the facilities to create it would be bombed.
- ionised 10y ago
  A few things that were considered conspiracy nut territory have been revealed to be true over the last few years. It might be time to stop throwing that dismissive pejorative around when talking about (at the very least) our western governments.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
The official policy is to use the VEP. https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/vep/ https://epic.org/privacy/cybersecurity/vep/