11 ms·

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

by 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

by count 7y ago

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