4 ms·

(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 te

(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?

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?