5 ms·

They are not toothless, they put them in those positions of power and do so gladly. Remember that Snowden always said he was ready to come back to the U.S and

by maeln 6y ago

They are not toothless, they put them in those positions of power and do so gladly. Remember that Snowden always said he was ready to come back to the U.S and be trialled, as long as the trial wouldn't be a secret trial. Those who created the laws for those secret trial where not the CIA or the NSA, it was politician. The same way they made it so that it is forbidden to talk about the programs of certain agencies, even for law maker, meaning they approve programs without debate, with only a few senator knowing what the program is even about. They created those laws, not the NSA, not the CIA, they could choose as easily to remove them. But it is too useful for them. The NSA can create a massive surveillance network that serves them without having to ever disclose it to the public.

pulse7 6y ago
Trials are secret because they don't want to reveal further secrets. On the other hand you hear people saying: "If you are doing everything right, you have nothing to hide."
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  The difference is that in a democracy you should be responsible for the actions of government and you need to be able to audit governmental action, not the other way around. I am surprised that they really have zero cases where mass surveillance helped. I would have thought they would make some up at least, but that got probably too hot. Of course there is a massive amount of secret cases where it did help, but they just cannot tell you about... It is a bad excuse that can be used to justify anything. Instead the case for secrecy needs justification.
- bdamm 6y ago
  If you have nothing to hide, it's only because there's nobody trying to hurt you right now.
Gibbon1 6y ago
Far as I understand the first director the FBI J. Edgar Hoover had blackmail on a lot of federal politicians. Which is why he left his position feet first. When Hoover died Nixon replaced him with someone with no previous ties to the agency. The CIA has deep ties to the American upper classes. And probably serves their interests over the states. Or their own interests. Aldrich Ames was living well beyond is means for years. A good supposition is people at his level routinely trade intel to 'friendly' government an corporate interests.
- imglorp 6y ago
  Right. Look at the din over the Epstein stuff, due to covering/blackmailing/etc over the misbehavior by a small group. Then imagine a single entity that has every domestic text, phone call, and email ever sent, searchable and indexed, on any politician, judge, or candidate. It's far, far, more power than merely spying on foreign powers.
  - autisticcurio 6y ago
    The security services have to do some unpleasant stuff in order to attempt some control over people. Whats the oldest profession in the book, then ask yourself what is the second oldest profession in the book? Would that be blackmail?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > The CIA has deep ties to the American upper classes That’s hardly unique to the US. Other nations’ intelligence agencies tend to attract the aristocracy, e.g. all the Oxbridge alum at MI6/GCHQ.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Joining the intelligence services was basically the way the British upper class avoided combat service in ww2
    - peteretep 6y ago
      You can level a lot of shit at the British upper classes, but being war-shy isn’t one of them. Until about 50 years ago, the entirety of the officer corps was picked from the gentry, and it’s not _that_ different today. Junior officers are just as much cannon fodder as other ranks.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure junior officers were actually one of the hardest hit sections of the Army in WW1 and WW2. I read a book recently about a young (19!) year old tank commander in WW2 and he was told by his CO when arriving in Normandy that his life expectancy was 10 days. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Action-Armoured-Commanders-1944-45/dp/1474603289/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=103394305403&dchild=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqvaXsKLP6wIVYoBQBh04vgqJEAAYASAAEgIoqvD_BwE&hvadid=446291246879&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9046888&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=14773114840466312779&hvtargid=kwd-317742079097&hydadcr=24402_1816050&keywords=tank+action+book&qid=1599214534&sr=8-1&tag=googhydr-21 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Action-Armoured-Commanders-194...
save_ferris 6y ago
> They created those laws, not the NSA, not the CIA, they could choose as easily to remove them. But it is too useful for them. This is true, but it's not the entire truth either. Most congressmen don't have access to the really sensitive intelligence that comes from these surveillance operations, so it can't be that useful to many of them. A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected, and working to remove powerful operations like this deeply threaten a legislator's political viability during elections. Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  >Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections. This, to me, is the heart of the issue. American politics are fundamentally corrupted by campaign financing
  - hyperdimension 6y ago
    I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.
    - entropicdrifter 6y ago
      I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.
      - DataWorker 6y ago
        The public are only given a reflection of the candidate and even that is mediated by the media. Why worry about being accountable when you can spin the truth to suit your party agenda while half the media or more go merrily along with it. The public don’t see truth surrounding our leadership but a reflection that’s often far removed from reality. And it’s been this way since the beginning.

by maeln 6y ago

pulse7 6y ago

Trials are secret because they don't want to reveal further secrets. On the other hand you hear people saying: "If you are doing everything right, you have nothing to hide."

raxxorrax 6y ago
The difference is that in a democracy you should be responsible for the actions of government and you need to be able to audit governmental action, not the other way around. I am surprised that they really have zero cases where mass surveillance helped. I would have thought they would make some up at least, but that got probably too hot. Of course there is a massive amount of secret cases where it did help, but they just cannot tell you about... It is a bad excuse that can be used to justify anything. Instead the case for secrecy needs justification.
bdamm 6y ago
If you have nothing to hide, it's only because there's nobody trying to hurt you right now.

Gibbon1 6y ago

Far as I understand the first director the FBI J. Edgar Hoover had blackmail on a lot of federal politicians. Which is why he left his position feet first. When Hoover died Nixon replaced him with someone with no previous ties to the agency. The CIA has deep ties to the American upper classes. And probably serves their interests over the states. Or their own interests. Aldrich Ames was living well beyond is means for years. A good supposition is people at his level routinely trade intel to 'friendly' government an corporate interests.

imglorp 6y ago
Right. Look at the din over the Epstein stuff, due to covering/blackmailing/etc over the misbehavior by a small group. Then imagine a single entity that has every domestic text, phone call, and email ever sent, searchable and indexed, on any politician, judge, or candidate. It's far, far, more power than merely spying on foreign powers.
- autisticcurio 6y ago
  The security services have to do some unpleasant stuff in order to attempt some control over people. Whats the oldest profession in the book, then ask yourself what is the second oldest profession in the book? Would that be blackmail?
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> The CIA has deep ties to the American upper classes That’s hardly unique to the US. Other nations’ intelligence agencies tend to attract the aristocracy, e.g. all the Oxbridge alum at MI6/GCHQ.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Joining the intelligence services was basically the way the British upper class avoided combat service in ww2
  - peteretep 6y ago
    You can level a lot of shit at the British upper classes, but being war-shy isn’t one of them. Until about 50 years ago, the entirety of the officer corps was picked from the gentry, and it’s not _that_ different today. Junior officers are just as much cannon fodder as other ranks.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure junior officers were actually one of the hardest hit sections of the Army in WW1 and WW2. I read a book recently about a young (19!) year old tank commander in WW2 and he was told by his CO when arriving in Normandy that his life expectancy was 10 days. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Action-Armoured-Commanders-1944-45/dp/1474603289/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=103394305403&dchild=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqvaXsKLP6wIVYoBQBh04vgqJEAAYASAAEgIoqvD_BwE&hvadid=446291246879&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9046888&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=14773114840466312779&hvtargid=kwd-317742079097&hydadcr=24402_1816050&keywords=tank+action+book&qid=1599214534&sr=8-1&tag=googhydr-21 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Action-Armoured-Commanders-194...

save_ferris 6y ago

> They created those laws, not the NSA, not the CIA, they could choose as easily to remove them. But it is too useful for them. This is true, but it's not the entire truth either. Most congressmen don't have access to the really sensitive intelligence that comes from these surveillance operations, so it can't be that useful to many of them. A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected, and working to remove powerful operations like this deeply threaten a legislator's political viability during elections. Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
>Remember, there's an incredible amount of money changing hands in the military-industrial complex, and money plays a huge role in winning elections. This, to me, is the heart of the issue. American politics are fundamentally corrupted by campaign financing
- hyperdimension 6y ago
  I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.
    - DataWorker 6y ago
      The public are only given a reflection of the candidate and even that is mediated by the media. Why worry about being accountable when you can spin the truth to suit your party agenda while half the media or more go merrily along with it. The public don’t see truth surrounding our leadership but a reflection that’s often far removed from reality. And it’s been this way since the beginning.