5 ms·

Ask HN: Is there any reason not to defund the intelligence community?

• kstenerud 5y ago
  Your country's intelligence service protects you from malicious actors. Defunding them would be as dangerous as defunding your military.
  • logicallee 5y ago
    (I'm a U.S. citizen so this refers to the U.S.) Could you be a bit more specific about how the intelligence service "protects me from malicious actors"? In terms of threat actors it seems: -> People are subject to ransomware attacks. There are viruses. -> There are scams occurring on a daily basis in and outside of the United States. -> Large companies act maliciously (illegally abusing their market power and then treating customers maliciously) In terms of threat actors within government: -> The existence of intelligence service is itself a threat, since who knows what its decisions will be in five years, ten years, fifteen years, twenty years? -> There is no accountability to any insider threat actor. People have no protection nor recourse if they were targetted. (You could think of a few famous public cases.) It doesn't seem to me that there is any inherent protection from malicious actors. With the military, there is a chain of command that goes to the President, a civilian leader elected by the people. Whenever an intelligence service is secret, doesn't that accountability just disappear?
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • kstenerud 5y ago
      You're starting from an assumption that your own country's security services are themselves a threat, so I doubt that this discussion will be fruitful. There are two main protective functions of a country's securiy service, usually split into separate departments or organizations: - Internal threats (terrorism, organized crime, sedition, etc) - External threats (espionage, propaganda, disinformation, sabotage, etc) These services work to neutralize bad actors, thwart their plans, and support their prosecution. Like in all government institutions, there is a chain of responsibility going all the way up to the commander in chief. In order to have a stable society, you need protection from these threats (in addition to protection from physical threats).
      • logicallee 5y ago
        The country was literally founded on the principle of being independent so for sure my own country's security services are themselves a threat if they don't have oversight. You mention that there is a chain of responsibility - but responsibility doesn't equal oversight, does it? Let's take a simple point: in this post I asked "Are there any benefits to having an intelligence community, and if so what?" In your first point "internal threats" you mention "sedition". What keeps a member of the IC from looking at my post and saying, "You know what this smells pretty seditious to me, I think I'll just look up this woman's file and see what I can snoop into about her" and then targeting that person based on their thoughts? By contrast, if I wrote a question "Are there any benefits to having a senate?" and a senator looked at my post, they could at most Google me or something - I would be "secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" based on someone's mood at that moment in time.
        • kstenerud 5y ago
          Yes, I encountered similar opinions during the years I lived in the USA, and it seems to be a very American cultural idiosyncrasy (you seem to have a very deep distrust of governments and experts). All I can offer is my observation, having lived in many countries, that the American security apparatus, while not the absolute best (compared to, say, Israel), is still pretty damn good and effective overall. Certainly in the top 10%, and certainly good enough to ensure that the USA maintains its prosperity, position, and reserve currency status for the next couple of decades at least. What's going to ruin your country within 50 years is the runaway inequality, unless it's addressed in a very serious (i.e. painful redistribution of wealth) way.
          • logicallee 5y ago
            You raise a few pointss. Regarding: "it seems to be a very American cultural idiosyncrasy" It's an interesting disdainful view of freedom. Do you think it is a coincidence that as you glance at large companies: https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/ most were founded in the United States, or could the freedom for people to do whatever they want have something to do with it? Regarding wealth inequality, my opinion is that as long as people don't literally steal from each other and defraud each other, basic necessities are easy to come by. Sadly you are correct in your first paragraph: "you seem to have a very deep distrust of governments". I myself actually am an expert, and in my expert opinion governments engage in formal theft and fraud. In the case of IC, how would we even know? For example, how could one sue a member of the government for criminal and unconstitutional behavior, if it's hidden?
• h2odragon 5y ago
  hope the Intelligence Services in your country are good at seeing the difference between "critics / opponents of the intelligence service" and "enemies of the nation." From their perspective the two are so often similar.
  • logicallee 5y ago
    Don't worry, the worst thing they would do is just shoot me in the head or something (all over the world), the second worst thing is chemically castrate me (Turing) or electrocute me, the third worst thing is put me in solitary confinement (famous cases), the fourth worst thing is waterboard me or torture me physically (Guantanimo), and the fourth worst thing is apparently historically the German Stasi would subtlely try to ruin people's relationships with their family. That is a small risk to pay in exchange for learning the answer to the question: -> Are there any reasons not to defund the intelligence community? If so, what? It appears its members could just get other jobs, while this would increase freedom without any downsides. Are there any benefits to having an intelligence community, and if so what? So that's why I don't mind posting it. You haven't listed any. Are there any reasons not to defund the intelligence community? If so, what? It appears its members could just get other jobs, while this would increase freedom without any downsides. Are there any benefits to having an intelligence community, and if so what? If you know of any, please do list them.
• version_five 5y ago
  Replace "intelligence community" with "cybersecurity program" at a big company, and you may see it's not so black and white. If your security department is good (especially at prevention), you have few major incidents and people wonder why you need them. But they could also be useless or too big, and your company just doesn't have any major cyber threats. Maybe (probably) there is room to reduce intelligence budgets, but how and where is not so simple. Unfortunately it's a complex problem that would need study before anything is changed. These populist "defund" ideas sound good but are not the way to go imo
  • logicallee 5y ago
    The benefits of a "cybersecurity program" at a big company are very clear: they keep employees safe from outsiders who attempt to infiltrate the organization, exfiltrate data, etc. However, aren't these exact things literally the tasks of intelligence services? (infiltration, exfiltration)? If so it seems that there is is no benefit to funding them. Besides what you've written about an analogy with cybersecurity programs at big companies, can you think of any specific benefits to having an intelligence community, and if so what?
• sharemywin 5y ago
  Here's a good article that explains it in detail: https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/int006.html https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/int006.html Here's page about "OFFICE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, PRIVACY AND TRANSPARENCY - WHO WE ARE" https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we- https://www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we- are/organizations/clpt/clpt-who-we-are It's so big part of it has the job of keeping the rest of the organization in check.
  • logicallee 5y ago
    sharemywin, I don't get it, the section on collection (first subsection at the top) says: "Collection, as a function of intelligence, appears straightforward, and its necessity is not seriously challenged." This seems like nonsense. Isn't the fourth amendment obviously a challenge to it: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" ? do you personally believe that the benefits listed on the first page you linked ( https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/int006.html https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/int006.html ), namely covert action, counterintelligence, support to American diplomacy, support to monitoring of treaties and other agreements, support to military operations, support to defense planning, economic intelligence, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, counterproliferation, countering international organized crime, support to criminal justice and regulatory agencies, collecting and analyzing environmental information, collecting and analyzing information on world health problems, and information warfare, outweigh the downsides to the intrusion of privacy without a judge particularly describing the place to be searched in each case, and the persons or things to be seized? What makes you believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides? If the people looking at the above weren't looking at it, they could be doing something more productive with their lives even witout an intelligence community. 2. regarding your second link, I checked it out, it says "Please note, the CLPT Officer’s statutory duty extends only to the administration of programs and operations of the ODNI" which is just a small part of the intelligence community as a whole. it's like the "white house" of the intelligence community. a complaint to the white house wouldn't fix something wrong with the senate, and likewise a complaint to ODNI couldn't fix anything wrong in the intelligence community if "the CLPT Officer’s statutory duty extends only to the administration of programs and operations of the ODNI." It's like if I complained to the President about a local politician. What's the President supposed to do about it? In the case of IC it seems there is no actual legitimate oversight. And unlike the Senate, they're not elected. So why pay for it? These people could do something else with their lives other than snoop on people.