4 ms·

Intelligence agencies have become a problem. It seems like they take the most aggressive, most skilled in the art of deception, most power-hungry people that so

Intelligence agencies have become a problem. It seems like they take the most aggressive, most skilled in the art of deception, most power-hungry people that society has to offer, then they give them weapons and full access to all of the country's top tech and information... What could possibly go wrong? Who came up with the idea that these were the right kinds of people we need for such jobs? Didn't the US employ ex-Nazis in intelligence jobs at some point? It's just insane to think about. These people can't be trusted to not kill innocent people and yet they're trusted with all the tech and the security of an entire nation. It's like employing a serial killer to be your body guard. Makes no sense.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Leaving aside your guesses at the demographics and sociographics inside intelligence services: who do you think should do the job?
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Not the person you're replying to but: It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Do you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      I know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone. The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views." The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks. Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.) Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.
- jongjong 3y ago
  People who are intelligent but can entertain contradictory ideas, respect differences of opinions and aren't very power hungry or status-oriented. Also they need to be highly self-aware and altruistic. There probably needs to be a mix of different people but I suspect there should be a lot more of the kinds of people I described.

RandomLensman 3y ago

Leaving aside your guesses at the demographics and sociographics inside intelligence services: who do you think should do the job?

iinnPP 3y ago
Not the person you're replying to but: It seems clear to me that protections designed to prevent corruption have been circumvented and need to be re-established. Likely by force, unfortunately.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Do you think intelligence services worked differently in the past? Why would it need force instead of legislation, change in personnel, different oversight, etc.?
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    I know they worked differently in the past. The abilities are different, just as Facebook is different from the telephone. The force piece is more of a Canadian perspective. Freedom of expression, association, and movement are not so much under attack as they are available only to those "who hold acceptable views." The volume of support needed to see change is high and clearing the volume goal involves going unnoticed by the people with more monitoring power than ever before. It also involves risking your ability to feed and house yourself. Those risks are shared with your entire group, who also have to accept those risks. Then you must factor in who is capable of such risks. Those people are generally well off enough that the basic human necessities threat is removed. They are also overwhelming likely to be benefiting from the current state of affairs (which you see a a LOT of on HN.) Force creates a new risk for any forceful partipants, but we are closing in closer and closer on the risks of force being less than the risk involved in doing nothing. That is when force can, and will, be used imho. I also don't think it's something you can predict unless you can actively relate to the poor.
jongjong 3y ago
People who are intelligent but can entertain contradictory ideas, respect differences of opinions and aren't very power hungry or status-oriented. Also they need to be highly self-aware and altruistic. There probably needs to be a mix of different people but I suspect there should be a lot more of the kinds of people I described.