4 ms·

> The NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory until recently. NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory “until recently”? Really? Bamford’s The Puzzle Palace

by evgen 9y ago

> The NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory until recently. NSA surveillance was a conspiracy theory “until recently”? Really? Bamford’s The Puzzle Palace came out in 1982. We have known about the NSA (known, not ‘suspected’) since before Edward Snowden was born. People in the crypto and infosec community have considered them the top threat for decades. Actual techniques and processes are news when verified, but please do not try to suggest that either the existence of nor extent of NSA activity were in any way surprising or considered a conspiracy theory.

garmaine 9y ago
Some parts of it were a genuine surprise. In he 90’s we learned of differential cryptanalysis and that the NSA’s involvement in DES strengthened it, not backdoored it as everyone thought. Turns out that was the exception not the rule. Likewise although certainly some people in tech knew the extant of PRISM, I think all but he most paranoid infosec people presumed they nevertheless obeyed the law and didn’t dragnet snoop on Americans. I’d heard stories of the backbone interconnects that were routing all traffic through NSA servers. I presumed that was just to get access for when they needed it (with a warrant) or to mask what specific data stream they were interested in. I didn’t take as seriously as I should have the possibility that they were in fact simply recording everything.
wallace_f 9y ago
In my opinion this is like me saying: Greider's The Secrets of the Temple came out in '87. People have similarly considered the central bank a top threat for hundreds of years. It's so laughably obviously a tool of the plutocracy, but just as Clapper testified before congress and other reputable sources had claimed the NSA was not conducting domestic surveillance, as is the case with the Fed's missdeeds. Just have a look at the Fed's website yourself(1). They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not creating money out of thin air, but that is exactly what they do: when the Fed's balance sheet ballooned after 2008 by over 4 trillion dollars--where do people think they got 4 trillion dollars from? That's 4 actual trillion dollars--not being snarky here. So while I can somewhat agree with you, but I hope you can see my point about what gets labelled as a conspiracy doesn't matter if a lot of reputable people like Bernie Sanders, JFK, Ron Paul, Aaron Swartz, etc have already called foul. Anyways the EFF has a useful timeline for NSA spying: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline 1 - https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm
- antonvs 9y ago
  > They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not creating money out of thin air How else would one create money?
  - zaphod4prez 9y ago
    By acquiring whatever backs the money and printing money that represents it. In other words, the treasury would buy gold from somewhere else, and create money representing that value. This is how our monetary system worked when it was gold- & silver-backed. Now it's a fiat system, where there is no reserve of some asset held to back the currency ("out of thin air").
    - antonvs 9y ago
      That "backing" is nonsensical. A currency is a proxy for the wealth in an economy. All that using gold or silver to "back" it does is cause the price of that commodity to rise to reflect the size of the entire economy. As such, the "intrinsic" value of the commodity is irrelevant - it may as well be paper. Which is why that's what it now is.

by evgen 9y ago

garmaine 9y ago

Some parts of it were a genuine surprise. In he 90’s we learned of differential cryptanalysis and that the NSA’s involvement in DES strengthened it, not backdoored it as everyone thought. Turns out that was the exception not the rule. Likewise although certainly some people in tech knew the extant of PRISM, I think all but he most paranoid infosec people presumed they nevertheless obeyed the law and didn’t dragnet snoop on Americans. I’d heard stories of the backbone interconnects that were routing all traffic through NSA servers. I presumed that was just to get access for when they needed it (with a warrant) or to mask what specific data stream they were interested in. I didn’t take as seriously as I should have the possibility that they were in fact simply recording everything.

wallace_f 9y ago

In my opinion this is like me saying: Greider's The Secrets of the Temple came out in '87. People have similarly considered the central bank a top threat for hundreds of years. It's so laughably obviously a tool of the plutocracy, but just as Clapper testified before congress and other reputable sources had claimed the NSA was not conducting domestic surveillance, as is the case with the Fed's missdeeds. Just have a look at the Fed's website yourself(1). They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not creating money out of thin air, but that is exactly what they do: when the Fed's balance sheet ballooned after 2008 by over 4 trillion dollars--where do people think they got 4 trillion dollars from? That's 4 actual trillion dollars--not being snarky here. So while I can somewhat agree with you, but I hope you can see my point about what gets labelled as a conspiracy doesn't matter if a lot of reputable people like Bernie Sanders, JFK, Ron Paul, Aaron Swartz, etc have already called foul. Anyways the EFF has a useful timeline for NSA spying: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline 1 - https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm

antonvs 9y ago
> They always try to say, in roundabout ways, that they are not creating money out of thin air How else would one create money?
- zaphod4prez 9y ago
  By acquiring whatever backs the money and printing money that represents it. In other words, the treasury would buy gold from somewhere else, and create money representing that value. This is how our monetary system worked when it was gold- & silver-backed. Now it's a fiat system, where there is no reserve of some asset held to back the currency ("out of thin air").
  - antonvs 9y ago
    That "backing" is nonsensical. A currency is a proxy for the wealth in an economy. All that using gold or silver to "back" it does is cause the price of that commodity to rise to reflect the size of the entire economy. As such, the "intrinsic" value of the commodity is irrelevant - it may as well be paper. Which is why that's what it now is.