12 ms·

It's depressing that this article is so high on HN right now. It's another example of a poor report trivializing an important debate. Meanwhile, many of the com

by Arnor 13y ago

It's depressing that this article is so high on HN right now. It's another example of a poor report trivializing an important debate. Meanwhile, many of the comments here are snarky and sardonic which further degrades the dialog. This is a serious subject and should be treated as such. It's easy to shout hurray for your side. It's easy to demonize your enemy. According to the government, Snowden is a traitor. According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true, but they are difficult to get past. Although Snowden is certainly not a traitor, the accusation is serious. His life and freedom hang in the balance. Politicians and political pundits are looking for an easy solution when they demonize Snowden. Making him out to be the enemy makes it easier to keep the country calm about the issues he unveiled. While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. They are shocking. They evoke emotional response. They can be frightening -- especially since we don't know how much deeper the programs go. Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives. Accept that, take a breath, then reevaluate your grievances. I'm not suggesting that there's nothing to be angry or worried about. I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. I'm saying that this is important and meaningful and needs to be treated as such rather than another opportunity to win points in some silly political game.

tekromancr 13y ago
Thank you.
carlob 13y ago
Just how many lives has terrorism claimed in the past decade? Smoking has probably claimed more lives just today than terrorist attacks on US soil in the past decade. So I don't think it warrants any action at all. Let's face it the aim of terrorism is to scare people and if we are so scared that we're giving away basic human rights (and correspondence secrecy is a basic human right) then the terrorist won.
- hnriot 13y ago
  You're missing the first rule of any bureaucracy like the NSA, it has nothing to do with catching terrorists, but far more to do with perpetuating the bureaucracy and increasing it's budget. Catching anyone is a distant second.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- wicknicks 13y ago
  I cringe at the idea of traveling nowadays because of all the drama at the security checkpoints. Taking off hoodie, shoes, keys, laptop.. Its painful enough to remember to put them on once, that I need to do it again at the airport with a long line behind me.
- 3am 13y ago
  "Decade" is a very convenient window. How about 15 years (or even 12)? Also, smoking is an awful example because - due to the dishonesty of the cigarette industry and the real health risks - there was massive federal regulation of tobacco consumption and marketing starting in the 1970s, as well as the $200B+ Tobacco Master Settlement that came later. There was enormous public action at the state and federal level against the tobacco industry. EDIT: I dont' care about karma any more, but you downvoters suck. pg, mark my words that this Snowden/NSA crap will be the end of HN as a quality forum. It's unreadable lately. Every tin-foil hatter or teenage naif out there is using it as their personal forum in this pissing match of who can be more strident over something that any halfway intelligent person had assumed was happening already.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You can include 9/11 in the window, it doesn't make any quantitative difference. Terrorism is a negligible threat no matter how you slice it. 9/11 was less than a month's worth of American traffic fatalities. Why don't reckless drivers get even 1/100th of the attention?
antocv 13y ago
"Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism.". Hahaha. You made a funny. On a serious note, do you have anything to back that statement up besides your own opinion? The primary goal of these programs and of the government is to control a population. If they die its not so much too control, but rest assured these agencies have no qualm of taking or ruining a life or 100 000 lives to further their own interests.
hawkharris 13y ago
I agree. In fact, I wish that HN users wouldn't post links to Vice at all. The quality of research and reporting is generally poor, and the tone is sensational. Plus, the reporters' motives are questionable because Vice is a strange hybrid between a news outlet and an ad agency. Its executives have publicly acknowledge this. [1] Whenever I point this out, someone always says, "Well, yeah, but all news is messed up." As a former investigative journalist, I find this to be a stupid argument. Americans have an incredible number of news sources to choose from. There are plenty of independent outlets with greater journalistic integrity; those who feel that all news is on par with Vice need to realize their options. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_widdicombe http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
gcb0 13y ago
Yes, it is easy to defend you side because, that is politics. The majority defend their interest. and if there's enough segmentation, there may even be a close to fair compromise. Only problem now is that it's not about majority, but accumulated power. Those policies were never to defend the country (and by believing that you make me question my judgment to even start to argue with you). They are there for specific interests.
jwingy 13y ago
I think you're mostly on the point, but unless you have serious inside knowledge, I don't know if you can really assume PRISM is about national security and not about other nefarious purposes.
blueprint 13y ago
> While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. What are your criteria by which you recognize evil?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
especially since we don't know how much deeper the programs go. Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism So you don't know how deep it goes, but already decided what you would find at the other end of it if you did. Okay? Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives. Regardless of the optimism you bring to the topic, a lot of the same people who are for these programs, are also for wars that get a whole lot of people killed for nothing but dominance. So, hmmm. Oh, and did it ever occur to you that for some people learning about the world comes first, then cynicism about certain issues second, not the other way around as is often so conveniently implied? I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. That is exactly what you just did -- "the primary goal of these programs is to save lives".
- Arnor 13y ago
  I'm afraid you've misunderstood on several levels. My language was careful, your reading was not. First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program positive or negative. I have not "decided what [I will] find at the other end..." I am critical of the programs, but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, but I make no mention of additional goals or side effects. These goals and side effects are part of the larger discussion that can only be productive when we take a deep breath and set aside our preconceived notions of the programs. This is as difficult to me as it is to anyone. My initial reaction to the news of these programs was visceral. I was angry and frustrated. Now my frustration has been rechanneled to the sadly fruitless discussion. In short, there are effects outside the primary goal (of saving lives) that are bad and should be criticized. If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. I won't respond to what is "often so conveniently implied" since I never implied any such thing.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    --- but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. --- Fair enough, but then why take the easy way out of the discussion, and instead of addressing individual posts guilty of the above in your opinion directly, but just fire that salvo into the room? Okay, you're free to do that, to summarize and save yourself time, but at least know that I read a lot of ("you're all wrong because of strawman strawman") in the last weeks on HN, and reacted more polemic to your post than maybe was called for. Apologies for that. But still, I disagree. "Orwellian" to me is about language and the resulting inability to reason, not telescreens and 5 minutes of hate. We live on a planet were Saddam was attacked in the windfall of 9/11, while huge chunk of the American people believed he had something to do with it. It's not like administration said "hey, we need this war, but we don't want you to support it for false reasons, Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11, he's just this super epic dictator and weapons wiz". That would still have been bullshit deserving of a hanging "if the Nuremberg laws were applied", but it would have been a nice gesture. But no. They used it passively. Result of the whole exercise, so far that is? More dead people than the whole history of terrorism against the US several times over. While talking about democracy, posing on an aircraft carrier, all that stuff. Not that I can blame the NSA for that, I don't. But there is no Orwellian institution in an otherwise sane society, it's all connected. The NSA is just one aspect of it, not even a very interesting one IMHO. But hey, you do recall "Total Information Awareness", and how they scrambled to change the name when they realized they were too honest, right? So the NSA certainly does Orwellian in-house, too. But even when they don't, they are a tool in the toolbox of an Orwellian state. The only way to deny that would be to say they are actually independant of it, which would be a problem also. So there you go.. Even when I say NSA, I don't mean to exclude anyone else. In Germany the Verfassungsschutz (literally "constitution protection") is basically the sole reason the NPD (neonazi party) can't be dealt with, because it and the neonazi scene is so filled with undercover operatives. That got so bad that the cops in Sachsen-Anhalt, to be able to raid them without forewarning, decided to not inform the Verfassungsschutz anymore ( German, but at least it's source: http://www.taz.de/!103340/ http://www.taz.de/!103340/ ). I don't know if it's strictly Orwellian, but it's fucking crazy, and fucking evil. Well-meant, banal evil; the kind that actually really matters, the big killer. Suicide bombers and killing sprees are horrible, flying planes into a building I still haven't fully wrapped my head around -- but all that still vanishes compared to the killings committed in total by perfectly calm, perfectly well-meaning people, operating strictly within the law. --- Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, --- Which in turn implies benevolence. Instead of how centers of power act, in self-interest. How many people are killed by international terrorism -- I mean the kind the NSA idly watches because it's the US doing it? And how many such deaths does the NSA credibly avert? Finally, how many people could be clothed, fed and sheltered by 1% the budget of the NSA? I mean, if saving lifes is really the "primary" (why in quotes?) goal, why not at least A/B test a little? --- If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. --- Yes, but I also find backlashes to progress. Consider the 60s and the backlash to that. I see that were people were robbed and killed in the past, they're now simply left behind in the ever faster growing gap between the super rich and the rest. I see much energy with those who fear and are greedy, and much aimlessness or premature celebration of those who love. I see the threshold for how many people you need to fool or blackmail or have on your side for complete, endless control sink rapidly as technology progresses, too. But still, I didn't loose sight of the good. I make sure to look at clouds and smile at dogs every day. I've met nice cops, I've seen brutal ones, I know bureaucrats who are just a little slow, but friendly, and those who harbour resentment towards anyone not as bald or fat as they. And especially that I would say quite a bunch of those, and soldiers too, have... serious issues... makes me feel for those who are their fellows who are decent people. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and even if none of my post is about "the good stuff", and disagrees with you on many points, you can believe me that I hear you on this, and agree. Sometimes I say it myself, but sometimes I don't think it's helpful. Imagine there is a burning house, we need help putting out the fire, and some guy says "but consider all those houses that are NOT burning". Even if it's well meant it can be irritating. I don't believe in collective punishment or blame, but I DO believe in those who are not meant getting out of the way instead of shielding those I'm trying to get at, or are being used by third parties as a shield even. I mean, if they can live with collateral damage meaning people being murdered utterly dead, they can live with me mistakenly considering someone a mediocre cog in a crappy machine, one would think. Not even anyone I consider a "perpetrator" I really wish evil on, I don't care for punishment as much as about self-defense. But you can't forgive the attacker until you stopped the attack, because that would be just bending over. So ideally, quite a bunch of people really ought to be lead right up to the guillotine and then forgiven. I see no other way that is not a farce and pissing on graves. But when it comes to "just" words: human history might go on for a looong time, and anyone who could take offense, no matter how bad they feel about it, will be long dead when the principles of power and rationalization will still be the same. Just read the old testament, this stuff is old as dirt. As long as there is recorded history, the world has been Orwellian as far as I can tell. I'm not so naive to think I will see the end of it, but I'll throw my weight into the scale regardless. I'm calling it, and screw anyone who doesn't like it because it applies to their little parcel of the world as well. I'm sorry if my post is so long and incoherent, and also if it seems unfriendly or is full of typos, but I've been awake for a full 29 hours, and I'm beginning to feel it. Maybe I should have posted tomorrow but here goes. Don't take it to personally where I do you wrong, I don't know you.
dwaltrip 13y ago
According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true, but they are difficult to get past. This is simply an opinion. Over these past few weeks I have had cycles of getting angry, then pensive, and then taking a break from thinking about these issues for a while. I have just woken up, and I am feeling calm and peaceful right now. Yet, I still feel extremely strongly that these programs are immensely out of control and offensive to the ideals this country supposedly stands for, regardless of any "noble" intentions behind them.
mikeash 13y ago
I don't agree with your statement that the surveillance programs are not evil because their goal is to save lives. Essentially nobody is intentionally evil. There's a reason we say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and it's not because we're all civil engineering aficionados. Evil can and does arise from people trying to do their best to make the world a better place. To say that the program isn't evil because it's trying to save lives is incredibly dangerous. At the risk of triggering a Godwin, let's all recall that Hitler rose to power "trying to defend the country from terrorism". We probably don't have any nascent Hitlers, but we certainly have people who will abuse power if they get it, and ignoring people with good intentions will make them impossible to detect.
- nostromo 13y ago
  We don't even need to evoke Hitler. Let's look at a more recent American president: Nixon. From Wikipedia: > Nixon and his close aides ordered harassment of activist groups and political figures, using the FBI, CIA, and the Internal Revenue Service. Imagine empowering Nixon with the abilities of today's intelligence community.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I sometimes amuse myself by thinking about how Nixon would be far too liberal to get elected today. Of course, a Nixon coming of age in today's climate might be quite different.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Barry Goldwater too.
    - thwest 13y ago
      The man did found the EPA.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    This. As cliché as it may sound, John Dalberg-Acton was very very accurate when he said ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Right now, the way this agency is being run and the way it is being handed power by the few in Congress that know all the details is as close to absolute informational power as you can have.
coldtea 13y ago
>While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. "Evil" is a BS religious term. It obscures political issues. Those programs are: far-reaching, constitution breaking, targeted as dissidents, useless for real terrorists, and, in a word unacceptable in a proper democracy. Nobody cares if they those doing it are "evil" or not. I also take offence with "Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives.". Surveillance programs have been with us long before terrorism -- they have been traditionally been deployed, along with secret services, state police, etc, against dissident citizens -- and they have a long history in the US and in all Western countries (and, it goes without saying, in all third world dictatorships). So that their "primary goal is to save lives" needs a ton of citations. Why? Because some politicians say so? They might even believe it -- though politicians are seldom as naive, except while they are not in office. That doesn't make it true. Any huge bureaucracy such as a government, that supports trillions of dollars in private interests, finds a way to perpetuate itself and squash those that want change to the status quo and "make waves". People don't have to be "evil" -- they just have to do their work and show some zeal. Real "evil" is banal and ordinary, not like in the movies.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
D9u 13y ago
"According to the government, Snowden is a traitor. According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true..." Ummm, I'm not sure if you are an American, or not, but those of us who believe in the US Constitution, as well as its Bill of Rights, know that the words contained therein are the only thing stopping our government from becoming another East Germany/North Korea style police state. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America plainly lays out the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects (the communications media of the era,) and it also spells out the requirements which the government must meet in order to breach that right to privacy. The current domestic surveillance program fails to meet these requirements on many levels. Perhaps you don't find the abrogation of our Bill of Rights to be evidence of a government gone "completely out of the control." but a vast number of "We the People" are outraged at a great many of the acts being done in our name, without our consent. Secret courts, secret judges, secret police, secret wars, secret torture... Does any of that sound familiar? The terrorism excuse is flimsy at best, especially in light of the fact that exponentially fewer Americans are harmed by terrorist acts than are killed by drunk driving on an annual basis. Prescription drugs kill more Americans each year than all of the terrorist acts in the last 10 years combined. It seems that those who would choose to marginalize the fact that our government has overstepped its mandate would rather shun the intent of the very Bill of Rights which made America the beacon of freedom and liberty for all. History has a way of repeating itself, and those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. This "silly little game" is neither silly, nor little, this issue deals with an attack upon our Bill of Rights, which so many have fought and died for.
- Arnor 13y ago
  You've quoted me egregiously out of context. "silly little game" (not even verbatim) came from this sentence: >I'm saying that this is important and meaningful and needs to be treated as such rather than another opportunity to win points in some silly political game. You left out the "important and meaningful" part and the "treated as such" part. What I refer to as a silly game is the attempt to wrack up points for one side or the other rather than taking the debate seriously and analyzing it in a sober manner. As I've said before. I'm very critical of these programs. But rather than contorting my mind through anger into assuming the NSA is the Third Reich, I try to take a step back. To your point on the 4th Amendment. I agree that there is probably a violation there. I hope that there will come a time when the conversation about these programs is honest and sober enough to analyze these programs with the appropriate care. Like several others, you've mistaken my reluctance to jump on your angry bandwagon as opposition. Far from it. At a gut level, I agree with most everything you've said here. Still, it's harmful to the public debate because it is hasty and hyperbolic.
kenrikm 13y ago
A semi-smart terrorist could get in a Battlefield 3 server and talk about blowing stuff up with his terror buddies and no one would think anything of it. Context is Key, do you think the NSA monitors all game servers worldwide? No? hmm.. Well then who are they really trying to spy on?
joelrunyon 13y ago
> It's depressing that this article is so high on HN right now Not to pick an ad hominem - but if you've only been a HN member fro 4 days, it seems strange you'd be "depressed" that a certain story grabs the various members of this forum's interest.
- Arnor 13y ago
  Haha, yeah, I recently lost the password to my previous handle. Read for several months before I ventured to comment as QEDTurtles.
WayneDB 13y ago
You complain about poor reporting and then you continue on to make a number of claims that are completely unsupported. - Snowden is certainly not a traitor - His life and freedom hang in the balance. - the surveillance programs are not evil - they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism - the primary goal of these programs is to save lives Let's see your evidence.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
How in the world is the government not "completely out of control"? At this point basic decisions that violate the constitution are made almost daily. Hell, today we decided that the right to vote wasn't important the week after the government confirmed it is unconstitutionally spying on its citizens. What would you need for out of control? Them to be randomly shooting citizens? The idea that we should accept unconstitutional surveillance because the government's stated reason is that this "saves lives" (it doesn't) is just absolutely shocking and quite frankly, seems quite stupid.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Them to be randomly shooting citizens? they actually doing it already. There are only a couple of minor details for now, like it is off American soil and supposedly only for ones whom government designated as terrorists. Though i don't see how public would seriously object to shooting terrorists on American soil as well, and with government having complete unchecked power over terrorist designation ... Already, people protesting animal farms are terrorists according to the current laws like AETA in MA.
bspatafora 13y ago
Thank you for posting this. I haven't been here all that long, and it has (honestly) been scaring me how extreme and often simplistic the political views of the intelligent and relatively (or quite) powerful people here seem to be.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  What scares me is how far the US has fallen, how little regard the have for privacy and even human rights (e.g. Gitmo, Pakistan, etc.) but people like you still take offense that someone might imagine that the government might be out of control. Of course they're fucking out of control, get your head out of your goddamn ass.
rdtsc 13y ago
> While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. I am tired of exceptionalism being thrown around. Had this been Pol Pot or Stalin few would be saying "oh they just tried to build a better society there were not evil, they purged the enemies of the people that would have prevented the utopia to take hold". Even the most depraved dictators and butches had justifications for their crimes and reasons why they were not evil. And most importantly they had supporters that were brainwashed enough to keep defending it. So here we also argue, of course our countrymen, elected officials, and heads of department and CEOs of large military industrial conglomerates are not "evil" they just want to save us from the terrorism. Because we are _special_. We are inherently good (unlike those other inherently _evil_ countries). We are a "city on a hill" a "shining example" etc etc. This is not a systemic problem just a small faux pas... Just because there may not be one single person to blame for everything doesn't mean evil isn't happening. Just because it is spread and washed over in a big sea of bureaucracy were every cog does one small task (and compartmentalization in the intelligence apparatus amplifies this), doesn't mean that things are just a little out of hand. They are way out of hand. > Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. I can't think of too many instances of what we know consider evil regimes that didn't justify their actions in exactly the same way "we are just trying to defend our country from terror of <insert bogeyman here>". > Accept that, take a breath, then reevaluate your grievances. ... I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. So what are you saying? I don't understand. What I am saying is that these programs are evil. This has been going on for too long. There is too much invasion of privacy. There is too much corruption. Too much lobbying and spending on wars and military. Now is the time to get angry. Now is the time to protest. A few whistle blowers came before Snowden. Everyone had time to take breaths while they were ignored. Ok, ignore this one. Slide further downhill.
visarga 13y ago
> Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. By reading everyone in the world's mail? No way. I don't believe that. It's an attempt at classifying people by their social impact and political orientation in order to manipulate them in elections and send police to harass the political enemies of whoever uses the database. It's a grab for power. Information is power. They don't care about terrorism. It's not terrorism. It's more probable to die shot by a policeman than a terrorist. It's easier to die slipping in the bathroom, for pete's sake!

by Arnor 13y ago

tekromancr 13y ago

Thank you.

carlob 13y ago

Just how many lives has terrorism claimed in the past decade? Smoking has probably claimed more lives just today than terrorist attacks on US soil in the past decade. So I don't think it warrants any action at all. Let's face it the aim of terrorism is to scare people and if we are so scared that we're giving away basic human rights (and correspondence secrecy is a basic human right) then the terrorist won.

hnriot 13y ago
You're missing the first rule of any bureaucracy like the NSA, it has nothing to do with catching terrorists, but far more to do with perpetuating the bureaucracy and increasing it's budget. Catching anyone is a distant second.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
wicknicks 13y ago
I cringe at the idea of traveling nowadays because of all the drama at the security checkpoints. Taking off hoodie, shoes, keys, laptop.. Its painful enough to remember to put them on once, that I need to do it again at the airport with a long line behind me.
3am 13y ago
"Decade" is a very convenient window. How about 15 years (or even 12)? Also, smoking is an awful example because - due to the dishonesty of the cigarette industry and the real health risks - there was massive federal regulation of tobacco consumption and marketing starting in the 1970s, as well as the $200B+ Tobacco Master Settlement that came later. There was enormous public action at the state and federal level against the tobacco industry. EDIT: I dont' care about karma any more, but you downvoters suck. pg, mark my words that this Snowden/NSA crap will be the end of HN as a quality forum. It's unreadable lately. Every tin-foil hatter or teenage naif out there is using it as their personal forum in this pissing match of who can be more strident over something that any halfway intelligent person had assumed was happening already.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You can include 9/11 in the window, it doesn't make any quantitative difference. Terrorism is a negligible threat no matter how you slice it. 9/11 was less than a month's worth of American traffic fatalities. Why don't reckless drivers get even 1/100th of the attention?

antocv 13y ago

"Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism.". Hahaha. You made a funny. On a serious note, do you have anything to back that statement up besides your own opinion? The primary goal of these programs and of the government is to control a population. If they die its not so much too control, but rest assured these agencies have no qualm of taking or ruining a life or 100 000 lives to further their own interests.

hawkharris 13y ago

I agree. In fact, I wish that HN users wouldn't post links to Vice at all. The quality of research and reporting is generally poor, and the tone is sensational. Plus, the reporters' motives are questionable because Vice is a strange hybrid between a news outlet and an ad agency. Its executives have publicly acknowledge this. [1] Whenever I point this out, someone always says, "Well, yeah, but all news is messed up." As a former investigative journalist, I find this to be a stupid argument. Americans have an incredible number of news sources to choose from. There are plenty of independent outlets with greater journalistic integrity; those who feel that all news is on par with Vice need to realize their options. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_widdicombe http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...

gcb0 13y ago

Yes, it is easy to defend you side because, that is politics. The majority defend their interest. and if there's enough segmentation, there may even be a close to fair compromise. Only problem now is that it's not about majority, but accumulated power. Those policies were never to defend the country (and by believing that you make me question my judgment to even start to argue with you). They are there for specific interests.

jwingy 13y ago

I think you're mostly on the point, but unless you have serious inside knowledge, I don't know if you can really assume PRISM is about national security and not about other nefarious purposes.

blueprint 13y ago

> While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. What are your criteria by which you recognize evil?

PavlovsCat 13y ago

especially since we don't know how much deeper the programs go. Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism So you don't know how deep it goes, but already decided what you would find at the other end of it if you did. Okay? Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives. Regardless of the optimism you bring to the topic, a lot of the same people who are for these programs, are also for wars that get a whole lot of people killed for nothing but dominance. So, hmmm. Oh, and did it ever occur to you that for some people learning about the world comes first, then cynicism about certain issues second, not the other way around as is often so conveniently implied? I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. That is exactly what you just did -- "the primary goal of these programs is to save lives".

Arnor 13y ago
I'm afraid you've misunderstood on several levels. My language was careful, your reading was not. First, my post gives no judgement on Prism or other program positive or negative. I have not "decided what [I will] find at the other end..." I am critical of the programs, but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, but I make no mention of additional goals or side effects. These goals and side effects are part of the larger discussion that can only be productive when we take a deep breath and set aside our preconceived notions of the programs. This is as difficult to me as it is to anyone. My initial reaction to the news of these programs was visceral. I was angry and frustrated. Now my frustration has been rechanneled to the sadly fruitless discussion. In short, there are effects outside the primary goal (of saving lives) that are bad and should be criticized. If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. I won't respond to what is "often so conveniently implied" since I never implied any such thing.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  --- but I choose not to take the easy way out by demonizing the NSA or portraying these programs as an Orwellian nightmare. --- Fair enough, but then why take the easy way out of the discussion, and instead of addressing individual posts guilty of the above in your opinion directly, but just fire that salvo into the room? Okay, you're free to do that, to summarize and save yourself time, but at least know that I read a lot of ("you're all wrong because of strawman strawman") in the last weeks on HN, and reacted more polemic to your post than maybe was called for. Apologies for that. But still, I disagree. "Orwellian" to me is about language and the resulting inability to reason, not telescreens and 5 minutes of hate. We live on a planet were Saddam was attacked in the windfall of 9/11, while huge chunk of the American people believed he had something to do with it. It's not like administration said "hey, we need this war, but we don't want you to support it for false reasons, Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11, he's just this super epic dictator and weapons wiz". That would still have been bullshit deserving of a hanging "if the Nuremberg laws were applied", but it would have been a nice gesture. But no. They used it passively. Result of the whole exercise, so far that is? More dead people than the whole history of terrorism against the US several times over. While talking about democracy, posing on an aircraft carrier, all that stuff. Not that I can blame the NSA for that, I don't. But there is no Orwellian institution in an otherwise sane society, it's all connected. The NSA is just one aspect of it, not even a very interesting one IMHO. But hey, you do recall "Total Information Awareness", and how they scrambled to change the name when they realized they were too honest, right? So the NSA certainly does Orwellian in-house, too. But even when they don't, they are a tool in the toolbox of an Orwellian state. The only way to deny that would be to say they are actually independant of it, which would be a problem also. So there you go.. Even when I say NSA, I don't mean to exclude anyone else. In Germany the Verfassungsschutz (literally "constitution protection") is basically the sole reason the NPD (neonazi party) can't be dealt with, because it and the neonazi scene is so filled with undercover operatives. That got so bad that the cops in Sachsen-Anhalt, to be able to raid them without forewarning, decided to not inform the Verfassungsschutz anymore ( German, but at least it's source: http://www.taz.de/!103340/ http://www.taz.de/!103340/ ). I don't know if it's strictly Orwellian, but it's fucking crazy, and fucking evil. Well-meant, banal evil; the kind that actually really matters, the big killer. Suicide bombers and killing sprees are horrible, flying planes into a building I still haven't fully wrapped my head around -- but all that still vanishes compared to the killings committed in total by perfectly calm, perfectly well-meaning people, operating strictly within the law. --- Second, I point out the "primary" goal is to save lives, --- Which in turn implies benevolence. Instead of how centers of power act, in self-interest. How many people are killed by international terrorism -- I mean the kind the NSA idly watches because it's the US doing it? And how many such deaths does the NSA credibly avert? Finally, how many people could be clothed, fed and sheltered by 1% the budget of the NSA? I mean, if saving lifes is really the "primary" (why in quotes?) goal, why not at least A/B test a little? --- If you can criticize the bad without losing sight of the good, you can find progress. --- Yes, but I also find backlashes to progress. Consider the 60s and the backlash to that. I see that were people were robbed and killed in the past, they're now simply left behind in the ever faster growing gap between the super rich and the rest. I see much energy with those who fear and are greedy, and much aimlessness or premature celebration of those who love. I see the threshold for how many people you need to fool or blackmail or have on your side for complete, endless control sink rapidly as technology progresses, too. But still, I didn't loose sight of the good. I make sure to look at clouds and smile at dogs every day. I've met nice cops, I've seen brutal ones, I know bureaucrats who are just a little slow, but friendly, and those who harbour resentment towards anyone not as bald or fat as they. And especially that I would say quite a bunch of those, and soldiers too, have... serious issues... makes me feel for those who are their fellows who are decent people. So I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and even if none of my post is about "the good stuff", and disagrees with you on many points, you can believe me that I hear you on this, and agree. Sometimes I say it myself, but sometimes I don't think it's helpful. Imagine there is a burning house, we need help putting out the fire, and some guy says "but consider all those houses that are NOT burning". Even if it's well meant it can be irritating. I don't believe in collective punishment or blame, but I DO believe in those who are not meant getting out of the way instead of shielding those I'm trying to get at, or are being used by third parties as a shield even. I mean, if they can live with collateral damage meaning people being murdered utterly dead, they can live with me mistakenly considering someone a mediocre cog in a crappy machine, one would think. Not even anyone I consider a "perpetrator" I really wish evil on, I don't care for punishment as much as about self-defense. But you can't forgive the attacker until you stopped the attack, because that would be just bending over. So ideally, quite a bunch of people really ought to be lead right up to the guillotine and then forgiven. I see no other way that is not a farce and pissing on graves. But when it comes to "just" words: human history might go on for a looong time, and anyone who could take offense, no matter how bad they feel about it, will be long dead when the principles of power and rationalization will still be the same. Just read the old testament, this stuff is old as dirt. As long as there is recorded history, the world has been Orwellian as far as I can tell. I'm not so naive to think I will see the end of it, but I'll throw my weight into the scale regardless. I'm calling it, and screw anyone who doesn't like it because it applies to their little parcel of the world as well. I'm sorry if my post is so long and incoherent, and also if it seems unfriendly or is full of typos, but I've been awake for a full 29 hours, and I'm beginning to feel it. Maybe I should have posted tomorrow but here goes. Don't take it to personally where I do you wrong, I don't know you.

dwaltrip 13y ago

According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true, but they are difficult to get past. This is simply an opinion. Over these past few weeks I have had cycles of getting angry, then pensive, and then taking a break from thinking about these issues for a while. I have just woken up, and I am feeling calm and peaceful right now. Yet, I still feel extremely strongly that these programs are immensely out of control and offensive to the ideals this country supposedly stands for, regardless of any "noble" intentions behind them.

mikeash 13y ago

I don't agree with your statement that the surveillance programs are not evil because their goal is to save lives. Essentially nobody is intentionally evil. There's a reason we say "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and it's not because we're all civil engineering aficionados. Evil can and does arise from people trying to do their best to make the world a better place. To say that the program isn't evil because it's trying to save lives is incredibly dangerous. At the risk of triggering a Godwin, let's all recall that Hitler rose to power "trying to defend the country from terrorism". We probably don't have any nascent Hitlers, but we certainly have people who will abuse power if they get it, and ignoring people with good intentions will make them impossible to detect.

nostromo 13y ago
We don't even need to evoke Hitler. Let's look at a more recent American president: Nixon. From Wikipedia: > Nixon and his close aides ordered harassment of activist groups and political figures, using the FBI, CIA, and the Internal Revenue Service. Imagine empowering Nixon with the abilities of today's intelligence community.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I sometimes amuse myself by thinking about how Nixon would be far too liberal to get elected today. Of course, a Nixon coming of age in today's climate might be quite different.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Barry Goldwater too.
  - thwest 13y ago
    The man did found the EPA.
- malandrew 13y ago
  This. As cliché as it may sound, John Dalberg-Acton was very very accurate when he said ""Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Right now, the way this agency is being run and the way it is being handed power by the few in Congress that know all the details is as close to absolute informational power as you can have.

coldtea 13y ago

>While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. "Evil" is a BS religious term. It obscures political issues. Those programs are: far-reaching, constitution breaking, targeted as dissidents, useless for real terrorists, and, in a word unacceptable in a proper democracy. Nobody cares if they those doing it are "evil" or not. I also take offence with "Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives.". Surveillance programs have been with us long before terrorism -- they have been traditionally been deployed, along with secret services, state police, etc, against dissident citizens -- and they have a long history in the US and in all Western countries (and, it goes without saying, in all third world dictatorships). So that their "primary goal is to save lives" needs a ton of citations. Why? Because some politicians say so? They might even believe it -- though politicians are seldom as naive, except while they are not in office. That doesn't make it true. Any huge bureaucracy such as a government, that supports trillions of dollars in private interests, finds a way to perpetuate itself and squash those that want change to the status quo and "make waves". People don't have to be "evil" -- they just have to do their work and show some zeal. Real "evil" is banal and ordinary, not like in the movies.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

D9u 13y ago

"According to the government, Snowden is a traitor. According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true..." Ummm, I'm not sure if you are an American, or not, but those of us who believe in the US Constitution, as well as its Bill of Rights, know that the words contained therein are the only thing stopping our government from becoming another East Germany/North Korea style police state. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America plainly lays out the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects (the communications media of the era,) and it also spells out the requirements which the government must meet in order to breach that right to privacy. The current domestic surveillance program fails to meet these requirements on many levels. Perhaps you don't find the abrogation of our Bill of Rights to be evidence of a government gone "completely out of the control." but a vast number of "We the People" are outraged at a great many of the acts being done in our name, without our consent. Secret courts, secret judges, secret police, secret wars, secret torture... Does any of that sound familiar? The terrorism excuse is flimsy at best, especially in light of the fact that exponentially fewer Americans are harmed by terrorist acts than are killed by drunk driving on an annual basis. Prescription drugs kill more Americans each year than all of the terrorist acts in the last 10 years combined. It seems that those who would choose to marginalize the fact that our government has overstepped its mandate would rather shun the intent of the very Bill of Rights which made America the beacon of freedom and liberty for all. History has a way of repeating itself, and those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. This "silly little game" is neither silly, nor little, this issue deals with an attack upon our Bill of Rights, which so many have fought and died for.

Arnor 13y ago
You've quoted me egregiously out of context. "silly little game" (not even verbatim) came from this sentence: >I'm saying that this is important and meaningful and needs to be treated as such rather than another opportunity to win points in some silly political game. You left out the "important and meaningful" part and the "treated as such" part. What I refer to as a silly game is the attempt to wrack up points for one side or the other rather than taking the debate seriously and analyzing it in a sober manner. As I've said before. I'm very critical of these programs. But rather than contorting my mind through anger into assuming the NSA is the Third Reich, I try to take a step back. To your point on the 4th Amendment. I agree that there is probably a violation there. I hope that there will come a time when the conversation about these programs is honest and sober enough to analyze these programs with the appropriate care. Like several others, you've mistaken my reluctance to jump on your angry bandwagon as opposition. Far from it. At a gut level, I agree with most everything you've said here. Still, it's harmful to the public debate because it is hasty and hyperbolic.

kenrikm 13y ago

A semi-smart terrorist could get in a Battlefield 3 server and talk about blowing stuff up with his terror buddies and no one would think anything of it. Context is Key, do you think the NSA monitors all game servers worldwide? No? hmm.. Well then who are they really trying to spy on?

joelrunyon 13y ago

> It's depressing that this article is so high on HN right now Not to pick an ad hominem - but if you've only been a HN member fro 4 days, it seems strange you'd be "depressed" that a certain story grabs the various members of this forum's interest.

Arnor 13y ago
Haha, yeah, I recently lost the password to my previous handle. Read for several months before I ventured to comment as QEDTurtles.

WayneDB 13y ago

You complain about poor reporting and then you continue on to make a number of claims that are completely unsupported. - Snowden is certainly not a traitor - His life and freedom hang in the balance. - the surveillance programs are not evil - they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism - the primary goal of these programs is to save lives Let's see your evidence.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

How in the world is the government not "completely out of control"? At this point basic decisions that violate the constitution are made almost daily. Hell, today we decided that the right to vote wasn't important the week after the government confirmed it is unconstitutionally spying on its citizens. What would you need for out of control? Them to be randomly shooting citizens? The idea that we should accept unconstitutional surveillance because the government's stated reason is that this "saves lives" (it doesn't) is just absolutely shocking and quite frankly, seems quite stupid.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Them to be randomly shooting citizens? they actually doing it already. There are only a couple of minor details for now, like it is off American soil and supposedly only for ones whom government designated as terrorists. Though i don't see how public would seriously object to shooting terrorists on American soil as well, and with government having complete unchecked power over terrorist designation ... Already, people protesting animal farms are terrorists according to the current laws like AETA in MA.

bspatafora 13y ago

Thank you for posting this. I haven't been here all that long, and it has (honestly) been scaring me how extreme and often simplistic the political views of the intelligent and relatively (or quite) powerful people here seem to be.

flyinRyan 13y ago
What scares me is how far the US has fallen, how little regard the have for privacy and even human rights (e.g. Gitmo, Pakistan, etc.) but people like you still take offense that someone might imagine that the government might be out of control. Of course they're fucking out of control, get your head out of your goddamn ass.

rdtsc 13y ago

> While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. I am tired of exceptionalism being thrown around. Had this been Pol Pot or Stalin few would be saying "oh they just tried to build a better society there were not evil, they purged the enemies of the people that would have prevented the utopia to take hold". Even the most depraved dictators and butches had justifications for their crimes and reasons why they were not evil. And most importantly they had supporters that were brainwashed enough to keep defending it. So here we also argue, of course our countrymen, elected officials, and heads of department and CEOs of large military industrial conglomerates are not "evil" they just want to save us from the terrorism. Because we are _special_. We are inherently good (unlike those other inherently _evil_ countries). We are a "city on a hill" a "shining example" etc etc. This is not a systemic problem just a small faux pas... Just because there may not be one single person to blame for everything doesn't mean evil isn't happening. Just because it is spread and washed over in a big sea of bureaucracy were every cog does one small task (and compartmentalization in the intelligence apparatus amplifies this), doesn't mean that things are just a little out of hand. They are way out of hand. > Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. I can't think of too many instances of what we know consider evil regimes that didn't justify their actions in exactly the same way "we are just trying to defend our country from terror of <insert bogeyman here>". > Accept that, take a breath, then reevaluate your grievances. ... I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. So what are you saying? I don't understand. What I am saying is that these programs are evil. This has been going on for too long. There is too much invasion of privacy. There is too much corruption. Too much lobbying and spending on wars and military. Now is the time to get angry. Now is the time to protest. A few whistle blowers came before Snowden. Everyone had time to take breaths while they were ignored. Ok, ignore this one. Slide further downhill.

visarga 13y ago

> Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. By reading everyone in the world's mail? No way. I don't believe that. It's an attempt at classifying people by their social impact and political orientation in order to manipulate them in elections and send police to harass the political enemies of whoever uses the database. It's a grab for power. Information is power. They don't care about terrorism. It's not terrorism. It's more probable to die shot by a policeman than a terrorist. It's easier to die slipping in the bathroom, for pete's sake!