5 ms·

This damned-if-they-do sentiment risks dismissing positive policy moves. If this headline read "NSA is expanding surveillance programs" people would be up in ar

This damned-if-they-do sentiment risks dismissing positive policy moves. If this headline read "NSA is expanding surveillance programs" people would be up in arms over the privacy implications. Instead they announce that they believe it should be dismantled and the response is... the same? I understand the hesitation. Outright dismissing positive change feels like a counter-productive stance to adopt.

JasonFruit 7y ago
I understand why you say this, but even if they're truly doing the right thing here, I only owe them gratitude enough to say, "Thanks for stopping spying on me, finally, at least in this way." Add that to the number of times the NSA has shown itself to be untrustworthy and intentionally deceptive, and I'm willing to seem ungrateful and hard to satisfy. They've cultivated a hostile relationship, toward fixing which this is at best a small step.
- netwanderer3 7y ago
  They could be invasive, by monitoring even when there's nothing going on, but there are well-defined rules and strict protocols in place, and I have never heard any cases where they have used the data to attack anyone personally or are there?
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    Not sure if this[0] falls under the "attack anyone personally" umbrella but it definitely falls under the invasive, even when there's nothing going on, portion of your comment. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
  - ionised 7y ago
    Certain employees were discovered to have been using these tools to spy on wives, partners, love interests, children etc. That's just the stuff we actually heard about.
  - ibeckermayer 7y ago
    I never consented to have my data snooped on by some cabal of creeps out in Washington DC. If they suspect I’m up to something, then show sufficient evidence to get a warrant and be transparent about it. Whether they’ve acted on the data or not is irrelevant — they’re stealing what should be my property and building tools for tyranny.
  - syshum 7y ago
    You wont, because of a little thing called Parallel Construction. NSA finds something out illegally, unethically, they pass it to another agency so proceeds to figure out a way to "discover" what the NSA did in a way that is legal, or at least plausible to the courts, thus never having to admit the investigation started with the NSA
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Bartweiss 7y ago
I'm never really sure how to react to these stories... In general, I agree with you that "they suck anyway" is an unhelpful stance, but the NSA's track record is singularly bad. They went in front of the Church Committee and lied outright to Congress, then dodged all consequences when a DoJ investigation explicitly concluded that their stonewall tactics were too effective to defeat. Decades later, when we look at Clapper's testimony to Congress, nothing much seems to have improved. At best, every word of the promises and announcements has an exotic meaning no one could intuit, which won't be provided until after the story is leaked. At worst, they're naked lies. I don't know what healthy progress and activism here look like, because as far as I can tell they've never happened. (Barring, I suppose, James Bamford's work.) When Congress repeatedly fails to bring an agency to heel, and the DoJ outright admits it's not up to the task, it's hard to find much faith in anything that agency says.
mindslight 7y ago
The only positive "policy move" would be the agency being cutoff, disbanded, and any employee involved in attacks against persons on US soil or US persons abroad going to prison. Announcing that they may be shrinking their scope really has no bearing on the matter that they continue to operate with impunity. You wouldn't stop clamoring for justice for an armed robber that announces they're moving on to simple pickpocketing for fear of making them reconsider.
code_duck 7y ago
I think what you’re seeing is skepticism that the plan is to decrease overall surveillance. It sounds as if they are merely phasing out an obsolete method.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Outright dismissing positive change They say that "logistical and legal burdens of keeping it outweigh its intelligence benefits", but the important criticisms weren't about it being expensive without results that justify it. Not a word about it being wrong or anything. As for "dismantling", being skeptical of that is absolutely warranted, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness > Although the program was formally suspended, its data mining software was later adopted by other government agencies, with only superficial changes being made. The core architecture of TIA continued development under the code name "Basketball." According to a 2012 New York Times article, the legacy of Total Information Awareness is "quietly thriving" at the National Security Agency (NSA)
ionised 7y ago
Seems naive to believe that any announcement coming from the NSA is truthful or positive.
screye 7y ago
That is the point of the boy who cried wolf. If you lie enough times, you lose all credibility and even good actions will be received with a massive amount of scepticism. They dug their own grave and now they have to lie in it. (in the sense of their reputation among the populace)

JasonFruit 7y ago

I understand why you say this, but even if they're truly doing the right thing here, I only owe them gratitude enough to say, "Thanks for stopping spying on me, finally, at least in this way." Add that to the number of times the NSA has shown itself to be untrustworthy and intentionally deceptive, and I'm willing to seem ungrateful and hard to satisfy. They've cultivated a hostile relationship, toward fixing which this is at best a small step.

netwanderer3 7y ago
They could be invasive, by monitoring even when there's nothing going on, but there are well-defined rules and strict protocols in place, and I have never heard any cases where they have used the data to attack anyone personally or are there?
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  Not sure if this[0] falls under the "attack anyone personally" umbrella but it definitely falls under the invasive, even when there's nothing going on, portion of your comment. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
- ionised 7y ago
  Certain employees were discovered to have been using these tools to spy on wives, partners, love interests, children etc. That's just the stuff we actually heard about.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  I never consented to have my data snooped on by some cabal of creeps out in Washington DC. If they suspect I’m up to something, then show sufficient evidence to get a warrant and be transparent about it. Whether they’ve acted on the data or not is irrelevant — they’re stealing what should be my property and building tools for tyranny.
- syshum 7y ago
  You wont, because of a little thing called Parallel Construction. NSA finds something out illegally, unethically, they pass it to another agency so proceeds to figure out a way to "discover" what the NSA did in a way that is legal, or at least plausible to the courts, thus never having to admit the investigation started with the NSA
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Bartweiss 7y ago

I'm never really sure how to react to these stories... In general, I agree with you that "they suck anyway" is an unhelpful stance, but the NSA's track record is singularly bad. They went in front of the Church Committee and lied outright to Congress, then dodged all consequences when a DoJ investigation explicitly concluded that their stonewall tactics were too effective to defeat. Decades later, when we look at Clapper's testimony to Congress, nothing much seems to have improved. At best, every word of the promises and announcements has an exotic meaning no one could intuit, which won't be provided until after the story is leaked. At worst, they're naked lies. I don't know what healthy progress and activism here look like, because as far as I can tell they've never happened. (Barring, I suppose, James Bamford's work.) When Congress repeatedly fails to bring an agency to heel, and the DoJ outright admits it's not up to the task, it's hard to find much faith in anything that agency says.

mindslight 7y ago

The only positive "policy move" would be the agency being cutoff, disbanded, and any employee involved in attacks against persons on US soil or US persons abroad going to prison. Announcing that they may be shrinking their scope really has no bearing on the matter that they continue to operate with impunity. You wouldn't stop clamoring for justice for an armed robber that announces they're moving on to simple pickpocketing for fear of making them reconsider.

code_duck 7y ago

I think what you’re seeing is skepticism that the plan is to decrease overall surveillance. It sounds as if they are merely phasing out an obsolete method.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> Outright dismissing positive change They say that "logistical and legal burdens of keeping it outweigh its intelligence benefits", but the important criticisms weren't about it being expensive without results that justify it. Not a word about it being wrong or anything. As for "dismantling", being skeptical of that is absolutely warranted, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness > Although the program was formally suspended, its data mining software was later adopted by other government agencies, with only superficial changes being made. The core architecture of TIA continued development under the code name "Basketball." According to a 2012 New York Times article, the legacy of Total Information Awareness is "quietly thriving" at the National Security Agency (NSA)

ionised 7y ago

Seems naive to believe that any announcement coming from the NSA is truthful or positive.

screye 7y ago

That is the point of the boy who cried wolf. If you lie enough times, you lose all credibility and even good actions will be received with a massive amount of scepticism. They dug their own grave and now they have to lie in it. (in the sense of their reputation among the populace)