2 ms·

I am arguing the incentive to lie isn't worth the risk in this case. And they're not likely to give sources because of the whole "protecting sources and method

I am arguing the incentive to lie isn't worth the risk in this case. And they're not likely to give sources because of the whole "protecting sources and methods" bias they have to not reveal how they know what they know. I'm making an argument about their motive here. The damage they'd face from lying is great (what if another leak comes out? What if a backdoor is found in the patch communicating with NSA infrastructure?) and the possible benefit relatively small.

roenxi 3y ago
These people lie professionally. It is their job to conceal and misrepresent their activities. They've lied to everyone already at some point. They certainly lie to people outside the US, they've lied to people in the US, they've lied to their oversight committees in Congress and they've lied to the president. It seems likely they're lying to each other for office politics reasons. How are they supposed to take damage from lying? They have no credibility to lose. The NSA Wikipedia page takes a while to scroll through and is a saga of backdoors and skullduggery. "Spies lied, news at 11" will read the headline. I'm not saying this specific thing is true or not, what do I know. But if it turned out to be a lie, who could claim to be surprised? It has entered the public record that they developed tech to pretend to be foreigners like the PRC when conducting their cybercrime activities.
- rockskon 3y ago
  They are hurting for talent. Each instance of high-profile bad press makes it harder for them to replace their aging workforce and makes companies more reluctant to give them any data or research assistance. Beyond that, they've had a huge brain drain in recent years with their talent being hired away by the private sector. Which also means you should be wary about who gets hired at Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Hurricane Electric. Last I heard a supervisor from the NSA who was in charge of some team dedicated to breaking cryptography in the early 2000's had since been hired by Amazon to lead cryptographic implementation at AWS. Could be fine. Could be beneficial for Amazon's cryptographic security. But I know I'd be worried on what her reaction would be if the NSA came to her privately and asked for her to make a change at AWS that makes it easier for the NSA to exploit. As for them lying....you have to look at incentives. Spies lie for a reason. They twist words, they lie by omission, they attack peoples' character, they claim their push for changes in the name of public safety is more important than freedoms. They don't lie just for the sake of lying. Lying is not its own reward.

roenxi 3y ago

These people lie professionally. It is their job to conceal and misrepresent their activities. They've lied to everyone already at some point. They certainly lie to people outside the US, they've lied to people in the US, they've lied to their oversight committees in Congress and they've lied to the president. It seems likely they're lying to each other for office politics reasons. How are they supposed to take damage from lying? They have no credibility to lose. The NSA Wikipedia page takes a while to scroll through and is a saga of backdoors and skullduggery. "Spies lied, news at 11" will read the headline. I'm not saying this specific thing is true or not, what do I know. But if it turned out to be a lie, who could claim to be surprised? It has entered the public record that they developed tech to pretend to be foreigners like the PRC when conducting their cybercrime activities.

rockskon 3y ago
They are hurting for talent. Each instance of high-profile bad press makes it harder for them to replace their aging workforce and makes companies more reluctant to give them any data or research assistance. Beyond that, they've had a huge brain drain in recent years with their talent being hired away by the private sector. Which also means you should be wary about who gets hired at Amazon/Google/Microsoft/Apple/Hurricane Electric. Last I heard a supervisor from the NSA who was in charge of some team dedicated to breaking cryptography in the early 2000's had since been hired by Amazon to lead cryptographic implementation at AWS. Could be fine. Could be beneficial for Amazon's cryptographic security. But I know I'd be worried on what her reaction would be if the NSA came to her privately and asked for her to make a change at AWS that makes it easier for the NSA to exploit. As for them lying....you have to look at incentives. Spies lie for a reason. They twist words, they lie by omission, they attack peoples' character, they claim their push for changes in the name of public safety is more important than freedoms. They don't lie just for the sake of lying. Lying is not its own reward.