3 ms·

I posted the following comment in another thread[0], but it is even more relevant here: The other thing that is so worrying about the US having the co

I posted the following comment in another thread[0], but it is even more relevant here: The other thing that is so worrying about the US having the communications of people around the world indiscriminately is that it basically means that the NSA is in a position to blackmail any citizen of any country that enters into a position of power in that country. Forget installing a shah of Iran or propping some dictator in a South American country. They can now do the same at an arms length. Just collect dirt on all foreigners, wait until they get into power, then use whatever dirt you collected over many years to blackmail that person to do things that are in the self interest of the people at the NSA instead of the self interest of the people that duly elected that representative. This whole situation is a legitimate threat to democracy in this country, but Congress may try to put checks and balances in place to slow the rate at which it erodes democracy at home. However, of more immediate importance is how this is a legitimate threat to democracy everywhere outside the US. Many Americans may hear the NSA say things like "We don't do anything illegal and coercive with this information at home" and may believe them. But do most Americans think it is reasonable to coerce elected officials or other countries using any information gathered by the NSA? Should we not be asking the NSA if they actually do that? This is one of the questions I most want to see asked: "General Keith B. Alexander, has the NSA ever wittingly used collected information on any foreigner elected to office by his or her citizens to coerce or blackmail that duly elected official to pursue policies that may not be in the interest of the citizens that elected them?" IMHO any type of coercion or blackmail of any leader of any country is tantamout to an act of war against the citizens of that country. However these acts would often never be known by the citizens of those countries. Instead, if they are unhappy with coerced actions, they can only blame the politician being coerced instead of being able to blame the people pulling the strings. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5959271

shadowfox 13y ago
While I happen to agree with you, I suspect that many Americans don't see anything wrong with using information like that. Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about. (It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- malandrew 13y ago
  I think the agreement or disagreement for many (not all) Americans would depend on how the question is phrased. If you asked Americans a pretty balanced and transparent question such as: "Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, using intimate personal information gathered via surveillance programs to coerce/blackmail democratically leaders of other countries if it helps strengthen the US economically and politically?" ... it would probably result in much less support for such programs. If you ask a much more vague question such as: "Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, using information gathered via surveillance programs to help strengthen the US economically and politically?" ... I'm certain that the degree of support would be much higher. Most Americans support strengthening the position of the US, but I'm sure that if you get into the nitty gritty details of how that is accomplished, especially when it involves violating human rights, then I'm certain Americans will agree that there should be limits on how the USG and its intelligence agencies achieve their goals. You can see this clearly by just considering recent US transgressions on human rights such as Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding.
  - socillion 13y ago
    I support it. I don't see what is so abhorrent since intelligence agencies were universally established for manipulation like that. I also have a hard time believing this sort of activities are specific to US agencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recrui...
    - malandrew 13y ago
      HUMINT assets in the government of countries we are actively hostile with makes sense, but you agree with this sort of behavior even when it involves allies?
mpyne 13y ago
Normally I'm on the other side of these debates... but has the lack of Internet surveillance ever before prevented the U.S. (or other nations) from blackmailing, coercing, influencing elections or otherwise committing acts of war against a country? The solution is to ensure good people are elected and that good oversight and accountability controls are in place... but that would also help with law enforcement and national security programs, if implemented.
- pyvek 13y ago
  No, governments have and will do whatever is possible to commit act of wars against any country to serve its own interest. But the issue is that in this digital era, the power that governments exercise is exponentially larger than in the past and the room for potential abuse has also grown substantially with it. History has show that even with little power (as compared to now), many great awful things have been done. Things get progressively worse and people get used to them. Today it has been revealed that all our communication channels are tapped. People will make arguments that they have nothing to hide and even if not, they will soon forget and learn to live with it. Tomorrow, governments around will ask for your fingerprints and retina scans (this is already happening in India). People will meh and get over it. Then they will install cameras everywhere and try to track all your movements. Given the amount of electronics surrounding us, cameras would be just another in heap and people won't budge. We are technologists and we know that though hard, these things are possible to implement at a national level. You said that the solution is to ensure that good people are elected. It is very much important to do that asap. The system is turning more opaque every second. As governments accrue more power over the lives of citizens, it will harder to take govt down if things go wrong. Snowden did what is defined as "illegal" but the law is wrong in the first place. People are moaning over the internet that what NSA is doing is unconstitutional but has it achieved much yet? Petitioning the White House isn't probably going to get any proper answer. NSA didn't ask people whether they were OK with such surveillance, it was all decided behind closed doors. Even in a system where you can openly ask representatives and govt about its actions and they are not answering, so just think of the future when questioning the government's motives will land you a red ticket. I am genuinely worried.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
>IMHO any type of coercion or blackmail of any leader of any country is tantamout to an act of war against the citizens of that country. That is quite a bold statement and I think greatly reduces what nearly every government would consider an act of war to the lowest bar possible - namely embarrassment. An act of war is broadly something that would have a direct, immediate and lasting impact on a large segment of civilian, non-affiliated, non-combatant, non-hostile persons. Your ideas don't meet that threshold and persons within their own governments would likely be held to those same "war" declarations.
- malandrew 13y ago
  If I and the other constituents of my district elect a representative to a government office and then it is later discovered that a foreign government previously collected coercive personal information on that representative and used it to benefit the country it represents at the detriment of the citizens that elected that representative, then that most certainly constitutes a unilateral action that has "a direct, immediate and lasting impact on a large segment of civilian, non-affiliated, non-combatant, non-hostile persons."
  - socillion 13y ago
    The only reason blackmail works is that the target wants to keep that information private. Anyone who discovered the information could release it, including press. I think we can agree that releasing the information is thus not an act of war, so the target acquiescing to blackmail means they themselves are choosing to elevate the situation, not the foreign blackmailer. Hence, blackmail is not an act of war.
    - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
      Excellent reasoning, didn't think about the person protecting their data as the one escalating the situation.
  - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
    It certainly can be argued, but I don't think it does by definition. My problem is that your distinction is false between foreign power and native power. If the same coercive actions (soft blackmail like with Rep. Wiener or Chappaquiddick etc...) are taken by other politicians or croneys seeking power in the same nation, people don't raise nearly the fuss - that's just "politics." See: Every negative election everywhere. I make no distinction - the end goal is that one group has more "power" or access over the others. Literally impossible to get rid of this quirk of politics with our biology. Making those things "Acts of war" is just untenable.
e3pi 13y ago
> it basically means that the NSA is in a position to blackmail any citizen of any country that enters into a position of power in that country. Tactical creeping barrages and strategic `ground-zero megaton' leaked bombshells: upon corporate competitive peers, to foreign and domestic press, other rivals, without attribution who leaked it, where false flag ops becomes trivial with no attribution. This is very dangerous allowing invisibly owning anyone of sufficient value or manipulative interest. Imagine the chaos if rival states all had NSA's panopticon power and were determined to use it.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
It applies to Americans too, as Russ Tice says they can't use the info they get on a court, but they can get the info anyway without restrictions. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/ http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-... Russ also says that all candidates to presidency, all judges, all people in power are followed close by the NSA, Obama included. E.g There is something very strange about Obama birth certificate, or Obama studies, thesis that nobody remembers. Imagine for a moment that Obama is not American, or have sex with other women, or whatever.... the people that have access to the evidence become very powerful. Now add to it all the secrets of judges, congressmen, and soon you have absolute power in the shadow.

shadowfox 13y ago

While I happen to agree with you, I suspect that many Americans don't see anything wrong with using information like that. Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about. (It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 13y ago
I think the agreement or disagreement for many (not all) Americans would depend on how the question is phrased. If you asked Americans a pretty balanced and transparent question such as: "Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, using intimate personal information gathered via surveillance programs to coerce/blackmail democratically leaders of other countries if it helps strengthen the US economically and politically?" ... it would probably result in much less support for such programs. If you ask a much more vague question such as: "Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, using information gathered via surveillance programs to help strengthen the US economically and politically?" ... I'm certain that the degree of support would be much higher. Most Americans support strengthening the position of the US, but I'm sure that if you get into the nitty gritty details of how that is accomplished, especially when it involves violating human rights, then I'm certain Americans will agree that there should be limits on how the USG and its intelligence agencies achieve their goals. You can see this clearly by just considering recent US transgressions on human rights such as Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding.
- socillion 13y ago
  I support it. I don't see what is so abhorrent since intelligence agencies were universally established for manipulation like that. I also have a hard time believing this sort of activities are specific to US agencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recruiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_HUMINT_asset_recrui...
  - malandrew 13y ago
    HUMINT assets in the government of countries we are actively hostile with makes sense, but you agree with this sort of behavior even when it involves allies?

mpyne 13y ago

Normally I'm on the other side of these debates... but has the lack of Internet surveillance ever before prevented the U.S. (or other nations) from blackmailing, coercing, influencing elections or otherwise committing acts of war against a country? The solution is to ensure good people are elected and that good oversight and accountability controls are in place... but that would also help with law enforcement and national security programs, if implemented.

pyvek 13y ago
No, governments have and will do whatever is possible to commit act of wars against any country to serve its own interest. But the issue is that in this digital era, the power that governments exercise is exponentially larger than in the past and the room for potential abuse has also grown substantially with it. History has show that even with little power (as compared to now), many great awful things have been done. Things get progressively worse and people get used to them. Today it has been revealed that all our communication channels are tapped. People will make arguments that they have nothing to hide and even if not, they will soon forget and learn to live with it. Tomorrow, governments around will ask for your fingerprints and retina scans (this is already happening in India). People will meh and get over it. Then they will install cameras everywhere and try to track all your movements. Given the amount of electronics surrounding us, cameras would be just another in heap and people won't budge. We are technologists and we know that though hard, these things are possible to implement at a national level. You said that the solution is to ensure that good people are elected. It is very much important to do that asap. The system is turning more opaque every second. As governments accrue more power over the lives of citizens, it will harder to take govt down if things go wrong. Snowden did what is defined as "illegal" but the law is wrong in the first place. People are moaning over the internet that what NSA is doing is unconstitutional but has it achieved much yet? Petitioning the White House isn't probably going to get any proper answer. NSA didn't ask people whether they were OK with such surveillance, it was all decided behind closed doors. Even in a system where you can openly ask representatives and govt about its actions and they are not answering, so just think of the future when questioning the government's motives will land you a red ticket. I am genuinely worried.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

>IMHO any type of coercion or blackmail of any leader of any country is tantamout to an act of war against the citizens of that country. That is quite a bold statement and I think greatly reduces what nearly every government would consider an act of war to the lowest bar possible - namely embarrassment. An act of war is broadly something that would have a direct, immediate and lasting impact on a large segment of civilian, non-affiliated, non-combatant, non-hostile persons. Your ideas don't meet that threshold and persons within their own governments would likely be held to those same "war" declarations.

malandrew 13y ago
If I and the other constituents of my district elect a representative to a government office and then it is later discovered that a foreign government previously collected coercive personal information on that representative and used it to benefit the country it represents at the detriment of the citizens that elected that representative, then that most certainly constitutes a unilateral action that has "a direct, immediate and lasting impact on a large segment of civilian, non-affiliated, non-combatant, non-hostile persons."
- socillion 13y ago
  The only reason blackmail works is that the target wants to keep that information private. Anyone who discovered the information could release it, including press. I think we can agree that releasing the information is thus not an act of war, so the target acquiescing to blackmail means they themselves are choosing to elevate the situation, not the foreign blackmailer. Hence, blackmail is not an act of war.
  - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
    Excellent reasoning, didn't think about the person protecting their data as the one escalating the situation.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  It certainly can be argued, but I don't think it does by definition. My problem is that your distinction is false between foreign power and native power. If the same coercive actions (soft blackmail like with Rep. Wiener or Chappaquiddick etc...) are taken by other politicians or croneys seeking power in the same nation, people don't raise nearly the fuss - that's just "politics." See: Every negative election everywhere. I make no distinction - the end goal is that one group has more "power" or access over the others. Literally impossible to get rid of this quirk of politics with our biology. Making those things "Acts of war" is just untenable.

e3pi 13y ago

> it basically means that the NSA is in a position to blackmail any citizen of any country that enters into a position of power in that country. Tactical creeping barrages and strategic `ground-zero megaton' leaked bombshells: upon corporate competitive peers, to foreign and domestic press, other rivals, without attribution who leaked it, where false flag ops becomes trivial with no attribution. This is very dangerous allowing invisibly owning anyone of sufficient value or manipulative interest. Imagine the chaos if rival states all had NSA's panopticon power and were determined to use it.

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago

It applies to Americans too, as Russ Tice says they can't use the info they get on a court, but they can get the info anyway without restrictions. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-nsa-whistleblower-goes-on-record-reveals-new-information-names-culprits/ http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/06/19/podcast-show-112-... Russ also says that all candidates to presidency, all judges, all people in power are followed close by the NSA, Obama included. E.g There is something very strange about Obama birth certificate, or Obama studies, thesis that nobody remembers. Imagine for a moment that Obama is not American, or have sex with other women, or whatever.... the people that have access to the evidence become very powerful. Now add to it all the secrets of judges, congressmen, and soon you have absolute power in the shadow.