4 ms·

I'm mixed on this. I hired a former CIA analyst a few years ago. Part of his job at the CIA was to contribute to the daily briefings provided to president Obam

I'm mixed on this. I hired a former CIA analyst a few years ago. Part of his job at the CIA was to contribute to the daily briefings provided to president Obama. I asked him how he felt about the ethics of spying on American citizens. He said I wouldn't believe the number of threats that were prevented on a daily basis because of the tools and data they have access to. He said they don't share the information about what or how many crimes they prevent because it would cause panic. They also don't share that information because it would give away how they were uncovering the plans. It seemed like a viable explanation and I don't think he had any incentive to embellish...but it also seemed like something big brother would say to get me to give up freedoms.

count 7y ago
Keep in mind that internally lots of stats/etc are posted around things like cyber attacks, where a 'port scan' is counted as 65k different attacks (all of the tcp ports getting a 'malicious' SYN == an attack). It's the functional equivalent of calling satellite overflights attacks, every time they fly by. 'We are under constant attack!' also helps the internal justification of working for/with agencies like that.
- bsamuels 7y ago
  I don't think that we can compare cybersecurity to government intelligence agencies. Cybersecurity is a field that can only grow by making people fear for their computer security, which is why you often hear such exaggerated numbers for "attacks". You could argue the same thing about the CIA, but there's no direct financial incentive like there is for growing your cybersecurity business. I believe the real crux of the problem is intellectuals won't trust intel agencies because there's no evidence that they're being used exclusively for good, and the intel agencies can't provide that evidence without burning their methodology. There's absolutely no way for us as outsiders to evaluate whether mass intelligence collection tools like PRISM are being used for good or bad, or whether they're even necessary. So instead we have to judge them based on what we know
  - count 7y ago
    I was using that as an illustration, not a direct comparison. Govt employees are graded and promoted based on two primary things: # of subordinates and $ managed. There is a tremendous incentive to grow your career through a mindset that you're always under attack. And, depending on your personal point of view YOU MIGHT NOT BE WRONG. I didn't say they weren't doing that, I was just suggesting that that frame of mind is fostered for a variety of reasons inside those agencies. And 'intellectuals' can look at history and see that, categorically, the intel agencies have not used their powers exclusively for good at any point in history under any government. That doesn't mean they're not necessary, worthwhile, or even honorable in intention. But the facts are the facts.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      You may be onto something, but I am not certain it is just a quality of govt employees. BSA depts seem to house a lot of people, who would love nothing more than to expand those laws even further. I am not saying you are wrong. I think it is just a sad reality that people push in the direction that benefit them most. edit. added not. completely changes the ending. sry
- homonculus1 7y ago
  It doesn't seem to pass the smell test, does it? Presumably these attacks would be thwarted by raiding and arresting the conspirators... the feds might be able to snuff out a story that so-and-so was plotting to assassinate the president, but I don't think they'd be able to hide it if they were kicking in that many doors on a daily basis. That would get out eventually if only through rumor and word of mouth. Maybe they plant bags of coke and call it a drug bust?
  - count 7y ago
    Being generous: The CIA isn't generally in the business of arresting people. They're a little more hands on in the dark corners of the world, traditionally. Maybe they are simply leaning on financiers via other means, and preventing attacks by re-rerouting or intercepting cash. Remember: they are very explicitly not law enforcement. Read 'The Black Banners' by Ali Soufan of the FBI to get a good sense of how not-law-enforcement the CIA is.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    "According to an old story, a lord of ancient China once asked his physician, a member of a family of healers, which of them was the most skilled in the art. The physician, whose reputation was such that his name became synonymous with medical science in China, replied, "My eldest brother sees the the spirit of sickness and removes it before it takes shape, so his name does not get out of the house. My elder brother cures illness when it is still extremely minute, so his name does not get out of the neighborhood. As for me, I puncture veins, prescribe potions, and massage skin, so from time to time my name gets out and is heard among the lords." Sun Tzu - Art of War translator's intro
lisper 7y ago
> it also seemed like something big brother would say to get me to give up freedoms Or to keep up morale at the agency. The one indisputable fact is that actual attacks are very rare. So there are only two possibilities: 1. Law enforcement is exceptionally effective at stopping them, or 2. There are very few attempted attacks to begin with. Here's a data point to help you decide which of these is more likely: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...
- akiselev 7y ago
  I don't think a datapoint about a bunch of airport security guards paid minimum wage with minimal training is relevant to the intelligence community. At least I hope not.
  - lisper 7y ago
    Law enforcement (of which TSA is a subset) is a customer of the intelligence community. If they aren't, what could possibly be the point? (You might also want to re-read the headline.)
- zymhan 7y ago
  You should've just stopped after number 2. I trust the intelligence community as little as the next techno-privacy-nut but obviously no one can come to any decision on a complex question with ONE data point.
  - lisper 7y ago
    That depends on the data point and the hypothesis. For example, the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable was pretty definitively falsified with a single data point.
deogeo 7y ago
Think how many more attacks could be prevented if everyone had to wear an ankle monitor at all times.
- sansnomme 7y ago
  Nah, smartphones have much better data logging especially with ML sensor fusion.
refurb 7y ago
That does make sense, but the problem is it's not provable. Citizens just have to take the gov'ts word that all of this spying is keeping us safe. That's just ripe for abuse. And also keep in mind that the people "preventing" these threats have a vested interested in making these "threats" sound as sinister as possible. It's similar to drug busts by cops - if they seize a kilo of cocaine, they don't say they took "$10,000 worth of drugs off the street", they say they took "$200,000 worth of drugs off the street", by making the most favorable calculation (selling individual grams at an inflated price).
ataturk 7y ago
I still don't care. I want my freedom back.
evan_ 7y ago
> He said they don't share the information about what or how many crimes they prevent because it would cause panic. You always hear people say this, but they don't seem to worry about the panic that line might cause.
7952 7y ago
In communities like HN there is always been a belief that compromising privacy is not actually required to keep people safe. Whilst I generally agree with this, I don't think it is set in stone. The threat could evolve to the point where this kind of tech is the only realistic method of detection at scale. That would be a scary world to live in. We would loose our privacy and eventually our security as attackers evolve. This could happen, but probably won't because terrorists are still very limited in numbers and talent.

count 7y ago

Keep in mind that internally lots of stats/etc are posted around things like cyber attacks, where a 'port scan' is counted as 65k different attacks (all of the tcp ports getting a 'malicious' SYN == an attack). It's the functional equivalent of calling satellite overflights attacks, every time they fly by. 'We are under constant attack!' also helps the internal justification of working for/with agencies like that.

bsamuels 7y ago
I don't think that we can compare cybersecurity to government intelligence agencies. Cybersecurity is a field that can only grow by making people fear for their computer security, which is why you often hear such exaggerated numbers for "attacks". You could argue the same thing about the CIA, but there's no direct financial incentive like there is for growing your cybersecurity business. I believe the real crux of the problem is intellectuals won't trust intel agencies because there's no evidence that they're being used exclusively for good, and the intel agencies can't provide that evidence without burning their methodology. There's absolutely no way for us as outsiders to evaluate whether mass intelligence collection tools like PRISM are being used for good or bad, or whether they're even necessary. So instead we have to judge them based on what we know
- count 7y ago
  I was using that as an illustration, not a direct comparison. Govt employees are graded and promoted based on two primary things: # of subordinates and $ managed. There is a tremendous incentive to grow your career through a mindset that you're always under attack. And, depending on your personal point of view YOU MIGHT NOT BE WRONG. I didn't say they weren't doing that, I was just suggesting that that frame of mind is fostered for a variety of reasons inside those agencies. And 'intellectuals' can look at history and see that, categorically, the intel agencies have not used their powers exclusively for good at any point in history under any government. That doesn't mean they're not necessary, worthwhile, or even honorable in intention. But the facts are the facts.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    You may be onto something, but I am not certain it is just a quality of govt employees. BSA depts seem to house a lot of people, who would love nothing more than to expand those laws even further. I am not saying you are wrong. I think it is just a sad reality that people push in the direction that benefit them most. edit. added not. completely changes the ending. sry
homonculus1 7y ago
It doesn't seem to pass the smell test, does it? Presumably these attacks would be thwarted by raiding and arresting the conspirators... the feds might be able to snuff out a story that so-and-so was plotting to assassinate the president, but I don't think they'd be able to hide it if they were kicking in that many doors on a daily basis. That would get out eventually if only through rumor and word of mouth. Maybe they plant bags of coke and call it a drug bust?
- count 7y ago
  Being generous: The CIA isn't generally in the business of arresting people. They're a little more hands on in the dark corners of the world, traditionally. Maybe they are simply leaning on financiers via other means, and preventing attacks by re-rerouting or intercepting cash. Remember: they are very explicitly not law enforcement. Read 'The Black Banners' by Ali Soufan of the FBI to get a good sense of how not-law-enforcement the CIA is.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  "According to an old story, a lord of ancient China once asked his physician, a member of a family of healers, which of them was the most skilled in the art. The physician, whose reputation was such that his name became synonymous with medical science in China, replied, "My eldest brother sees the the spirit of sickness and removes it before it takes shape, so his name does not get out of the house. My elder brother cures illness when it is still extremely minute, so his name does not get out of the neighborhood. As for me, I puncture veins, prescribe potions, and massage skin, so from time to time my name gets out and is heard among the lords." Sun Tzu - Art of War translator's intro

lisper 7y ago

> it also seemed like something big brother would say to get me to give up freedoms Or to keep up morale at the agency. The one indisputable fact is that actual attacks are very rare. So there are only two possibilities: 1. Law enforcement is exceptionally effective at stopping them, or 2. There are very few attempted attacks to begin with. Here's a data point to help you decide which of these is more likely: https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-...

akiselev 7y ago
I don't think a datapoint about a bunch of airport security guards paid minimum wage with minimal training is relevant to the intelligence community. At least I hope not.
- lisper 7y ago
  Law enforcement (of which TSA is a subset) is a customer of the intelligence community. If they aren't, what could possibly be the point? (You might also want to re-read the headline.)
zymhan 7y ago
You should've just stopped after number 2. I trust the intelligence community as little as the next techno-privacy-nut but obviously no one can come to any decision on a complex question with ONE data point.
- lisper 7y ago
  That depends on the data point and the hypothesis. For example, the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable was pretty definitively falsified with a single data point.

deogeo 7y ago

Think how many more attacks could be prevented if everyone had to wear an ankle monitor at all times.

sansnomme 7y ago
Nah, smartphones have much better data logging especially with ML sensor fusion.

refurb 7y ago

That does make sense, but the problem is it's not provable. Citizens just have to take the gov'ts word that all of this spying is keeping us safe. That's just ripe for abuse. And also keep in mind that the people "preventing" these threats have a vested interested in making these "threats" sound as sinister as possible. It's similar to drug busts by cops - if they seize a kilo of cocaine, they don't say they took "$10,000 worth of drugs off the street", they say they took "$200,000 worth of drugs off the street", by making the most favorable calculation (selling individual grams at an inflated price).

ataturk 7y ago

I still don't care. I want my freedom back.

evan_ 7y ago

> He said they don't share the information about what or how many crimes they prevent because it would cause panic. You always hear people say this, but they don't seem to worry about the panic that line might cause.

7952 7y ago

In communities like HN there is always been a belief that compromising privacy is not actually required to keep people safe. Whilst I generally agree with this, I don't think it is set in stone. The threat could evolve to the point where this kind of tech is the only realistic method of detection at scale. That would be a scary world to live in. We would loose our privacy and eventually our security as attackers evolve. This could happen, but probably won't because terrorists are still very limited in numbers and talent.