3 ms·

As a multibillionaire my first concern is absolutely ensuring the loyalty of my security forces. I wonder how the Chinese address this.

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
One example worth looking into might be the Eastern Roman Empire’s Varangian Guard[1]. This elite force was primarily composed of Germanic mercenaries who didn’t care much for politics - in a foreign land far away from their own - as long as they got paid and could retire wealthy back home. Conversely, the Western Roman Empire’s Praetorian Guard was composed of elite Roman soldiers, who had far more skin in the game of imperial politics, and occasionally offed an emperor they didn’t like. So the condensed answer from this historical example might be: pay disinterested professionals handsomely, but maybe don’t expect for them to stick around forever. Not sure how well this advice works in the digital age though. YMMV. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard
madeuptempacct 8y ago
This is hard. Governments traditionally do it by having multiple agencies competing with each other to some degree. This was cultivated directly in the USSR, where GRU (military intelligence) and the KGB ("internal" / "less militarized" intelligence) competed with each other. Putin now has a full handful of competing agencies that I don't even want to get started on. Likewise, the US ABCs provide checks and balances for one another - if this wasn't the case, one agency could seize control. The funny thing is that having more of these does protect the constitution, unlike what most conspiracy theorists seem to think. Despite these checks, in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev, guarded by a general of the KGB (Vladimir Medvedev iirc) and his squad was forced to abdicate by threat from KGB higher ups supporting Yeltsin. Later on, the communist party wanted to take back control and ordered "original" Vympel (GRU diversionary unit) to storm the presidential palace with Yeltstin in it. I.e. it was an example of the "checks and balances" working, but Vympel stood down due to guaranteed civilian casualties. Btw, this could have single-handedly brought communism back to Russia. Anyway, that was a really long prelude to our first point. 1. Hire multiple agencies which would require collussion to take you out discretely. Balanced against more and more people having access to you. 2. Pay them well - though you will never be able to pay them as much as it costs your competition to take you out. Balanced against unacceptable turn-over rate due to dimishing marginal returns of labor. 3. Filter out fanatics somehow. Not balanced against anything, just hard to do. 4. Increase automation. Balanced against privacy concerns and tech-savvy threats. It still comes down to contractors. * Neither of these terms really applies, except in relation to GRU. Absolutely on the example above too - one of the best examples of "free-minded" men being loyal...until they weren't for later emperors, but that's a story for another day.
- yardie 8y ago
  This helps explains why different US services have so much overlap. Like you know what he purpose of the DEA, ATF, and ICE because it's in the title. But I could never pin down why the FBI, US Marshall, or Secret Service would get called in. Media wise, the FBI is the most famous.
- swayvil 8y ago
  I imagine a security automation, basically a drone-army. Serviced only by family members and intensely indoctrinated technicians. Admin passwords passed down from father to eldest son.

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago

One example worth looking into might be the Eastern Roman Empire’s Varangian Guard[1]. This elite force was primarily composed of Germanic mercenaries who didn’t care much for politics - in a foreign land far away from their own - as long as they got paid and could retire wealthy back home. Conversely, the Western Roman Empire’s Praetorian Guard was composed of elite Roman soldiers, who had far more skin in the game of imperial politics, and occasionally offed an emperor they didn’t like. So the condensed answer from this historical example might be: pay disinterested professionals handsomely, but maybe don’t expect for them to stick around forever. Not sure how well this advice works in the digital age though. YMMV. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

madeuptempacct 8y ago

This is hard. Governments traditionally do it by having multiple agencies competing with each other to some degree. This was cultivated directly in the USSR, where GRU (military intelligence) and the KGB ("internal" / "less militarized" intelligence) competed with each other. Putin now has a full handful of competing agencies that I don't even want to get started on. Likewise, the US ABCs provide checks and balances for one another - if this wasn't the case, one agency could seize control. The funny thing is that having more of these does protect the constitution, unlike what most conspiracy theorists seem to think. Despite these checks, in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev, guarded by a general of the KGB (Vladimir Medvedev iirc) and his squad was forced to abdicate by threat from KGB higher ups supporting Yeltsin. Later on, the communist party wanted to take back control and ordered "original" Vympel (GRU diversionary unit) to storm the presidential palace with Yeltstin in it. I.e. it was an example of the "checks and balances" working, but Vympel stood down due to guaranteed civilian casualties. Btw, this could have single-handedly brought communism back to Russia. Anyway, that was a really long prelude to our first point. 1. Hire multiple agencies which would require collussion to take you out discretely. Balanced against more and more people having access to you. 2. Pay them well - though you will never be able to pay them as much as it costs your competition to take you out. Balanced against unacceptable turn-over rate due to dimishing marginal returns of labor. 3. Filter out fanatics somehow. Not balanced against anything, just hard to do. 4. Increase automation. Balanced against privacy concerns and tech-savvy threats. It still comes down to contractors. * Neither of these terms really applies, except in relation to GRU. Absolutely on the example above too - one of the best examples of "free-minded" men being loyal...until they weren't for later emperors, but that's a story for another day.

yardie 8y ago
This helps explains why different US services have so much overlap. Like you know what he purpose of the DEA, ATF, and ICE because it's in the title. But I could never pin down why the FBI, US Marshall, or Secret Service would get called in. Media wise, the FBI is the most famous.
swayvil 8y ago
I imagine a security automation, basically a drone-army. Serviced only by family members and intensely indoctrinated technicians. Admin passwords passed down from father to eldest son.