13 ms·
Cybersecurity can be critical for the nation and the agency tasked with national cybersecurity can also do atrocious things. The two are not mutually exclusive.
by elliekelly 4y ago
Cybersecurity can be critical for the nation and the agency tasked with national cybersecurity can also do atrocious things. The two are not mutually exclusive.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWhat is the most atrocious thing that the NSA has done?
- throwawayQuwcy 4y agoThat's classified and don't go looking too hard otherwise your smart-car might decide to uncontrollably accelerate into a tree one day
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoThat's not an answer.
- imwillofficial 4y agoYour question is trolling and not worth answering.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoHow do you figure?
- throwawayQuwcy 4y agoYou asked a question, people attempted to reply, ALL of your responses was adversarial: "Please cite a reputable source that supports this conspiracy theory. " "That's not an answer." "What is the definition of atrocious or atrocity? " "Atrocity - an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. "
- axus 4y agoLying to Congress is up there, it means we don't know the real answer to your question.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWhat is the definition of atrocious or atrocity?
- jackdaniel 4y agoNeglected and even actively undermined the right to privacy is an act against the society. Some would consider that being an atrocity - contributing to a dystopia with oveareaching control of unchecked guardians ;)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoAtrocity - an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury.
- jackdaniel 4y agoUndermining the right to privacy is wicked, especially when you consider incorporated methods. Atracious: extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel - after Merriam-Webster. The key word here is "or". Mind, that ovearreaching control has a great potential of abuse, including physical violence. Also notice, that the right to privacy is often recognized as a human right.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago"Most" is tricky, but using things like sim card and IP tracking to approve drone strikes that end up killing scores of civilians is pretty atrocious. Oh, or the false Gulf of Tonkin report probably led to millions of deaths.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> Oh, or the false Gulf of Tonkin report probably led to millions of deaths. Please cite a reputable source that supports this conspiracy theory.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoWhat? We passed this resolution that led to an increased US presence in southeast Asia in response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that later evidence has shown never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution The NSA itself later admitted they lied about the report, ignoring any sigint that contradicted what they believed happened.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> The National Security Agency (NSA) had broken North Vietnam's codes, and McNamara emphasized to Johnson that certain decrypts conveyed that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had been damaged by American destroyers, thus proving that the second incident happened. However, several intelligence analyses at the time accused McNamara of having either misinterpreted, either intentionally or by mistake, decrypts referring to the first incident of August 2 and presenting them as referring to the second alleged incident of August 4.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI don't understand why you think this quote is relevant, maybe you think that was the only part used so the entire thing was an honest mistake that still killed many? Here's some others parts from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident >In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that an attack on the USS Maddox happened on August 2, but the August 4 attack, for which Washington authorized retaliation, never happened. >As the evening progressed, further signals intelligence (SIGINT) did not support any such ambush, but the NSA personnel were apparently so convinced of an attack that they ignored the 90% of SIGINT that did not support that conclusion, and that was also excluded from any reports they produced for the consumption by the president. McNamara admits of didn't happen, the NSA admits they intentionally doctored the report.