3 ms·

Ironically? Because back in the day we (the US) were terrified that the CIA or the FBI, given too much liberty of information sharing, could mutate into a USSR-

Ironically? Because back in the day we (the US) were terrified that the CIA or the FBI, given too much liberty of information sharing, could mutate into a USSR-esque KGB, keeping an eye on foreign powers but also scanning for domestic political dissidence and connecting the dots between exterior and interior threats. It was seen as a hallmark of a police state to have citizens under the same level of scrutiny as potential foreign threats. 9/11 changed a lot about how Americans perceive risk factors. The CIA, FBI, and DHS are still separate orgs, but there are now mechanisms by which they share information and the walls between domestic and foreign spying are a lot thinner.

hammock 4y ago
> back in the day we (the US) were terrified that the CIA or the FBI, given too much liberty of information sharing, could mutate into a USSR-esque KGB, keeping an eye on foreign powers but also scanning for domestic political dissidence and connecting the dots between exterior and interior threats Good thing that never happened. Unfounded fears
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The fear was, of course, justified, but the hard lesson learned in 9/11 was the old engineering lesson: everything is trade-offs. Once it became clear that there was a decent chance the plot could have been foiled had the various orgs not firewalled information from each other, the writing was on the wall for the old fears. New fears had displaced them.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    It is like that old Ben Franklin quote: “Giving up a little liberty for temporary security is totally cool, no big deal.” I think that was it at least, maybe I’m a couple words off…
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      So the irony of that quote is that most people use it as caution against government overreach. In context, Franklin was talking about a plan by the Penn family to buy the right to never pay taxes in exchange for providing private mercenaries to bolster the western Pennsylvania front against native attacks. The "those" he was referring to was government... The government of the PA colony. The "liberty" in question was the legislature's authority to determine how taxes should be levied. Hence the "deserve neither" part... "Make a short-sighted decision like that, as the leaders of this government, and you don't deserve the power vested in you."
      - bee_rider 4y ago
        This is true, but I think the original intent of quotes (for long dead figures whose lives have been mythologized anyway) is not very important. It isn’t like we’re trying to figure out the original intent of some law or something. The quote as misinterpreted is what has entered the cultural consciousness. One guy meant to say one thing, but millions gave it a timeless meaning.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - hammock 4y ago
        So it would be extremely relevant as the US government gives overt and tacit concessions to China as they are reliant on their manufacturing base for US security / arms
philwelch 4y ago
This wasn’t a purely hypothetical fear. Look up the findings of the Church Committee in the 1970’s regarding programs such as the CIA’s MKULTRA, the FBI’s COINTELPRO, and the NSA’s Project SHAMROCK.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

hammock 4y ago

> back in the day we (the US) were terrified that the CIA or the FBI, given too much liberty of information sharing, could mutate into a USSR-esque KGB, keeping an eye on foreign powers but also scanning for domestic political dissidence and connecting the dots between exterior and interior threats Good thing that never happened. Unfounded fears

shadowgovt 4y ago
The fear was, of course, justified, but the hard lesson learned in 9/11 was the old engineering lesson: everything is trade-offs. Once it became clear that there was a decent chance the plot could have been foiled had the various orgs not firewalled information from each other, the writing was on the wall for the old fears. New fears had displaced them.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It is like that old Ben Franklin quote: “Giving up a little liberty for temporary security is totally cool, no big deal.” I think that was it at least, maybe I’m a couple words off…
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    So the irony of that quote is that most people use it as caution against government overreach. In context, Franklin was talking about a plan by the Penn family to buy the right to never pay taxes in exchange for providing private mercenaries to bolster the western Pennsylvania front against native attacks. The "those" he was referring to was government... The government of the PA colony. The "liberty" in question was the legislature's authority to determine how taxes should be levied. Hence the "deserve neither" part... "Make a short-sighted decision like that, as the leaders of this government, and you don't deserve the power vested in you."
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      This is true, but I think the original intent of quotes (for long dead figures whose lives have been mythologized anyway) is not very important. It isn’t like we’re trying to figure out the original intent of some law or something. The quote as misinterpreted is what has entered the cultural consciousness. One guy meant to say one thing, but millions gave it a timeless meaning.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hammock 4y ago
      So it would be extremely relevant as the US government gives overt and tacit concessions to China as they are reliant on their manufacturing base for US security / arms

philwelch 4y ago

This wasn’t a purely hypothetical fear. Look up the findings of the Church Committee in the 1970’s regarding programs such as the CIA’s MKULTRA, the FBI’s COINTELPRO, and the NSA’s Project SHAMROCK.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]