4 ms·

Ok, that is an instance of the CIA looking bad... how does that apply to the content of this leak?

by John23832 10y ago

monocasa 10y ago
They hacked Senate oversight computers. What do you think they used to do that?
- John23832 10y ago
  Which goes to my point. If you have any issues, you have an issue with the fact that they hack congressional computers, not that that possess exploits and malware, which this article is about. You have an issue with their actions in that particular case, which is outside the scope of this article, or the argument that I was making.
  - monocasa 10y ago
    > They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc. I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. > outside the scope of this article wat?
    - kbenson 10y ago
      He's making the point that this is a tool. A weapon, but a tool. It's a very targeted tool, requiring manual delivery to an individual system. Getting upset at the CIA having this is like getting upset that they have assault rifles. Sure, they can do horrible things with assault rifles, and agents could even storm a US household and kill citizens. But as much as that would reflect horribly on the CIA, the fact that assault rifles exist and they have access to them is not indicative of their intent to use them on US citizens, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. Their charter means that these tools have valid reasons for existence under their normal, expected operating parameters.
      - monocasa 10y ago
        I mean, your example is not really the best. Rifles are just another tool that I'd call for to be removed from the CIAs arsenal if they were on record as using them against the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.
        kbenson 10y ago
        Why? What if it was knives? Should be make sure the CIA has no knives? The problem isn't the tool, it's the people in place that let them be used inappropriately. If the Army used a tank inappropriately, I wouldn't call for all tanks to be removed from the Army's arsenal, I would call for a review of the people and procedures that allowed it to happen. Tanks are a valid and essential part of our offensive and defensive arsenal. As are assault rifles. As are missiles. As are digital infiltration and information gathering techniques and software.
        monocasa 10y ago
        Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup).
        kbenson 10y ago
        > Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup). There you go. The tanks weren't removed, the organization was disbanded. Having tanks is not an indicator that an organization will attempt a coup, if having tanks is useful to the normal function of that organization. At this point, you're making my points for me, so either it's evident to you at this point, or you aren't going to get it (as you're consistently misinterpreting the point), or you're trolling. In any case, I don't see this continuing productively past this point, since I'm just repeating myself.
        monocasa 10y ago
    - John23832 10y ago
      > I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. Again, you're not arguing that the possession of the tools, which this article presents, is the bad thing. Your issue seems to be with the hacking of congressional computers, which I agree, is a bad thing. The scope of this article (and the previous leak) is showcasing the tools and abilities of the CIA. I argue that we want the CIA, the espionage arm of the US government, to have the ability/tools to conduct espionage. Now how they apply those abilities/tools is up for debate and scrutany. Good god people, this is literally the anti-encryption argument, with the tables flipped.
      - monocasa 10y ago
        When they apply those tools against the very checks and balances governing the use of those tools, the only safe option is to (at least temporarily) remove those tools from their arsenal.
        John23832 10y ago
        Or you could police the actions of the CIA, which is what you have a problem with. You are getting into hypotheticals and speculation at this point.
        monocasa 10y ago
        It's not hypotheticals or speculation that the CIA used hacking tools against the Senate.

Ok, that is an instance of the CIA looking bad... how does that apply to the content of this leak?

monocasa 10y ago

They hacked Senate oversight computers. What do you think they used to do that?

John23832 10y ago
Which goes to my point. If you have any issues, you have an issue with the fact that they hack congressional computers, not that that possess exploits and malware, which this article is about. You have an issue with their actions in that particular case, which is outside the scope of this article, or the argument that I was making.
- monocasa 10y ago
  > They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc. I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. > outside the scope of this article wat?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    He's making the point that this is a tool. A weapon, but a tool. It's a very targeted tool, requiring manual delivery to an individual system. Getting upset at the CIA having this is like getting upset that they have assault rifles. Sure, they can do horrible things with assault rifles, and agents could even storm a US household and kill citizens. But as much as that would reflect horribly on the CIA, the fact that assault rifles exist and they have access to them is not indicative of their intent to use them on US citizens, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. Their charter means that these tools have valid reasons for existence under their normal, expected operating parameters.
    - monocasa 10y ago
      I mean, your example is not really the best. Rifles are just another tool that I'd call for to be removed from the CIAs arsenal if they were on record as using them against the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Why? What if it was knives? Should be make sure the CIA has no knives? The problem isn't the tool, it's the people in place that let them be used inappropriately. If the Army used a tank inappropriately, I wouldn't call for all tanks to be removed from the Army's arsenal, I would call for a review of the people and procedures that allowed it to happen. Tanks are a valid and essential part of our offensive and defensive arsenal. As are assault rifles. As are missiles. As are digital infiltration and information gathering techniques and software.
        monocasa 10y ago
        Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup).
        kbenson 10y ago
        > Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup). There you go. The tanks weren't removed, the organization was disbanded. Having tanks is not an indicator that an organization will attempt a coup, if having tanks is useful to the normal function of that organization. At this point, you're making my points for me, so either it's evident to you at this point, or you aren't going to get it (as you're consistently misinterpreting the point), or you're trolling. In any case, I don't see this continuing productively past this point, since I'm just repeating myself.
        monocasa 10y ago
  - John23832 10y ago
    > I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check. Again, you're not arguing that the possession of the tools, which this article presents, is the bad thing. Your issue seems to be with the hacking of congressional computers, which I agree, is a bad thing. The scope of this article (and the previous leak) is showcasing the tools and abilities of the CIA. I argue that we want the CIA, the espionage arm of the US government, to have the ability/tools to conduct espionage. Now how they apply those abilities/tools is up for debate and scrutany. Good god people, this is literally the anti-encryption argument, with the tables flipped.
    - monocasa 10y ago
      When they apply those tools against the very checks and balances governing the use of those tools, the only safe option is to (at least temporarily) remove those tools from their arsenal.
      - John23832 10y ago
        Or you could police the actions of the CIA, which is what you have a problem with. You are getting into hypotheticals and speculation at this point.
        monocasa 10y ago
        It's not hypotheticals or speculation that the CIA used hacking tools against the Senate.