9 ms·

For NSA chief, terrorist threat drives passion to "collect it all" observers say

86 points by 1337biz 13y ago

marshray 13y ago
Translation: "He's only guilty of loving too much"
- wavefunction 13y ago
  This is like the old interview chestnut "what's your biggest weakness?" "I just work too hard and care too much sometimes!"
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Stalker excuse number one.
contingencies 13y ago
Any five page article featuring phrases like Alexander’s sensibilities is fluff. His proposed solution: Private companies should give the government access to their networks. Really? Let's not get too far in to the obvious totalitarian risk and sheer bureaucratic idiocy of such a perspective. Pathetic puff piece on a morally bankrupt individual.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Is it possible to disagree with someone about the appropriate scope of surveillance without their being a "morally bankrupt individual?" Imagine a world where most people don't think information privacy is a big deal. Imagine a world where most people do think terrorism is a big deal. This is a hypothetical, so don't argue the hypothetical (i.e. whether information privacy is important or whether terrorists are a threat). Is it possible, just maybe, that a non-morally bankrupt individual could put those two things together and come to the good-faith conclusion that collecting large amounts of data to protect against a terrorist threat is in the public interest? Especially if that individual conservative but reasonable legal opinions stating that data held by private companies about their users are not within the scope of the 4th amendment? That hypothetical is probably closer to reality than you'd like to admit. My in-laws are not afraid of the NSA. They are afraid of Al Qaeda. Many legal experts reasonably read precedent like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland) to give a narrow scope to the 4th amendment when it comes to information in the possession of third parties. These people are not all "morally bankrupt." They just don't share your values and priorities. Probably most relevant is that you'll never convince my in-laws otherwise by dismissing them as "sheeple" or be able to effect any change by dismissing anyone who interprets the 4th amendment differently as "morally bankrupt."
  - D9u 13y ago
    I'd rather imagine a world where the public servants believe in adherance to the standards of ethics befitting of a nation who justifies its actions by claiming moral high ground. I'm not afraid of al Qaeda because, as our illustrious president said, Americans refuse to be terrorized. When our public servants can perjure themselves before Congress, then they are fitting of the description morally bankrupt. Some may say that Clapper was merely lying to preserve state secrets, but he didn't have to lie about anything he felt uncomfortable speaking on, he could have simply said, "I can't talk about that," which would have been the truth. Perhaps your in-laws are comfortable being lied to by our public servants, however I am not.
  - dmix 13y ago
    > dismissing anyone who interprets the 4th amendment differently as "morally bankrupt. If you get to the top rank of any government agency, you have a moral responsibility to understand and respect constitutional law. The 4th amendment was not instantiated so it could be interpreted at will by whomever is currently in power. Doing so is the exact opposite of acting morally in the context of ruling over a democratic society. That is the very definition of a republic: A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter", not the private concern of the rulers.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > The 4th amendment was not instantiated so it could be interpreted at will by whomever is currently in power. It has to be interpreted to be applied in any event. That's why rayiner mentioned 'narrow scope' in his hypothetical. In this actual case it's not that Gen. Alexander decided the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, it's that Gen. Alexander managed to get a lot more people than himself, in all 3 branches of government, to agree that legal precedent would make systems such as being used at the NSA legal. Now we can argue that something simply being legal isn't actually carte blanche to go do it (e.g. rayiner has said as much in a different topic, that the law isn't meant to withstand everyone to try to push its boundaries all at once). But we can also argue that someone with a task T should take advantage of every available tool at their disposal to finish that task. This is the tack taken by those who say that Google/Facebook/etc. have no culpability for not paying more taxes, as long as they avoid doing so by legal means. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this WaPo piece is actually more concerning than news of PRISM, data collection, etc. I assume the NSA is collecting data, but I assume also that senior NSA leaders would be aware of why we do not concentrate power in the hands of individuals, and why we do not try to 'merge swimlanes' of functions.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Look how prescient the NSA are. They've been working on this capability for sixty years or more.
- srean 13y ago
  Upvoted you back up. Sarcasm is not always easy to detect.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    No worries.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ajays 13y ago
Once in a while, there's a scandal about the Whitehouse pulling up IRS records of opponents (or so it is claimed). Just wait till the day some jerk in the WH decides to pull up ALL communications of opponents: every phone call, every text, every email. He'd be able to blackmail the Congress into doing anything he wanted.
- subsystem 13y ago
  Blackmailing would be far too transparent for the military. "Information Superiority (IS) is defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) as the 'degree of dominance in the information domain that permits the conduct of operations without effective opposition'." http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/97_jwstp/jw4a.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/97_jwstp/jw4a...
jivatmanx 13y ago
A General should not have been allowed to attain this much political power. Or repeatedly lie to congress without repercussions. Yet more checks and balances that are clearly out of whack.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  Checks and balances were designed to keep political leaders from running amok in our nation. The idea, of course, being that the political leaders would keep the military leaders and governmental policy makers from running amok. That was the IDEA anyway.
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    And yet the first president was a military leader. Checks and balances twisted from the start.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Mere military service does not mean a President is hopelessly compromised. One of the most-quoted critics of the military-industrial(-Congress?) complex was the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, after all. Sometimes the guy from the military can tell you exactly how screwed up it is.
D9u 13y ago
What drives his passion to lie to the nation to which he swore an oath?
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  He mentioned something about General Hummel and The Rock and how he was doing the right thing...
Raticide 13y ago
If we installed cameras inside everyones TV that allowed the government to view inside everyones home I can guarantee we'd catch a lot more terrorists.
- jrn 13y ago
  xbox one?
- nsns 13y ago
  Or better still, incarcerate everyone, there'd be no more crime at all ("it's for your own good!").
- D9u 13y ago
  >Implying that terrorists watch TV?
- Amadou 13y ago
  Since, for all intents and purposes, there are no terrorists in the USA. I don't think we would. We are already over-arresting people for terrorism such that we're basically putting away people for sitting around talking crap while drinking beer. Unless you meant to say "terrorists" with sarcasm quotes?
mindcrime 13y ago
What I want to know, is why this asshole still has a job? Or James Clapper for that matter. And Barack Obama. I don't know about you guys, but more and more I'm reminded of that old Queensryche lyric: Let's tip the power balance and tear down their crown. Educate the masses, We'll burn the White House down. Speak to me the pain you feel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L5Jo09l7U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L5Jo09l7U
- tzs 13y ago
  > What I want to know, is why this asshole still has a job? Have you considered the possibility that the people in a position to decide whether or not he has a job have more relevant information than you do, and are better qualified to evaluate it, and so that when they come to a different conclusion than you it could be that you are the one who is wrong? A lot of smart people inexplicably overlook this possibility.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    How much more f%!#ng "relevant information" do we need?!??? We KNOW these fucknuts are shitting on the Constitution, lying to the American people and/or Congress, and running a rogue agency whose regard for the law is limited to it's own byzantine (and secret, I might add) interpretations of said law. I fail to see what other "information" is going to change that in the slightest. Sure, in some hypothetical alternate universe ,these guys might be "in the right", but we don't live in a hypothetical, alternate universe as far as I can tell. I'll also offer this up: If you or I were called to testify before a Congressional committee and we perjured ourselves with blatant lies, then later admitted it, don't you think there would be some repercussions?
  - danenania 13y ago
    Your logic can be used to justify literally any action by those in power who have access to secret information. Rolling over and saying "our leaders have all the info so they know best!" as your rights are violated hasn't exactly been a winning strategy throughout history.
coldtea 13y ago
>For NSA chief, terrorist threat drives passion to "collect it all" observers say Classic BS attempt to make something systemic, widespread and decades old look like the "personal crusade" of a "bad apple" and/or a "all too human" good guy.
ck2 13y ago
"you have to know everything in order to be completely safe" - Erich Mielke, head of the Stasi, East Germany
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
stephen_cagle 13y ago
that, and pokemon.
visarga 13y ago
I don't buy it. It's not for terrorism - we've been fighting terrorism for long, without total surveillance. It's for controlling the society.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well the whole point is that it took Gen. Alexander to finally bring about the changes to law and org. structure needed to even do it on this level. That doesn't mean it's not for counter-terrorism at face value, though the purpose behind the systems wouldn't change how dangerous they are anyways.
motters 13y ago
These things are always a tradeoff. The number of terrorists is a tiny fraction of the population, and the amount of damage which they cause is small compared to road accidents, tsunamis or common and preventable diseases. Is it really worth compromising everyone's communications because of such a low level threat? Collecting everything isn't even remotely proportionate to the scale of the problem, and it's counter-productive even in utilitarian terms. The main issue is that it's not really about terrorists. The NSA recruiters admitted as much in the audio recording in which they attempted to define the term "adversary" to an audience which was smarter than they had bargained for. It's very clear that they consider everyone to be an adversary, whether or not they're engaged in terrorism or crime and regardless of their nationality.
SimHacker 13y ago
He should satisfy his OCD by playing Pokemon instead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVp-zIONsrs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVp-zIONsrs
w_t_payne 13y ago
Here is a seemingly innocuous little question for you all: Now that PRISM's cover has been "blown" - what sort of personality type do you think will be most attracted by the prospect of getting a job at the NSA? Might I suggest that a career with the NSA has suddenly become a compelling and attractive alternative for all those creeps that find idea of power without responsibility positively intoxicating. Indeed, I suspect that the recruiters and security screening personnel are (as we speak) busy filtering out anybody who might leak - i.e. all those candidates who actually posses a conscience - making it much more likely that over time the NSA & it's sister organizations will become increasingly sadistic and power-hungry in their institutional cultures. Regretfully, this seems like a foregone conclusion, given that the present public attention to the issue is not making a jot of difference to how the security services operate. Indeed, they are as clearly unmoved by public opinion as their operations are (effectively) beyond the reach of the law. As a result, we should not only consider the consequences of this untrammeled power-grab by the security services as a potential worst-case threat:- We should positively expect this threat to materialize. In addition to this expectation of malicious intent, we should also expect the technological advantage that the security services have over the general population to increase over time. The "internet of things" is coming, and it will not be too long before disposable "smart" sensors can be mass produced, making the surveillance state truly ubiquitous. The tele-screens of Orwell's 1984 already seem quaint in comparison to the surveillance capabilities enabled by the ubiquitous smart-phone. How much more in thrall to the authorities will we be when sub-millimeter scale sensors can be purchased by the thousands-to-the-dollar, and scattered almost invisibly across the urban environment; maybe even in the food supply - certainly embedded in fitness and health-insurance tracking applications. Orwell had his vision of a "boot stamping down on a human face - forever" - my fear is based on a vision that is a little different - given our increasingly intimate relationship with technology - a vision of the latex-clad hands of the state -- violently engaged in the mass rectal exam of the human race -- forever." Remember - if Nixon got into power under the full glare of public scrutiny - just think of the personality types that proliferate in the shadows.

86 points by 1337biz 13y ago

marshray 13y ago

Translation: "He's only guilty of loving too much"

wavefunction 13y ago
This is like the old interview chestnut "what's your biggest weakness?" "I just work too hard and care too much sometimes!"
venomsnake 13y ago
Stalker excuse number one.

contingencies 13y ago

Any five page article featuring phrases like Alexander’s sensibilities is fluff. His proposed solution: Private companies should give the government access to their networks. Really? Let's not get too far in to the obvious totalitarian risk and sheer bureaucratic idiocy of such a perspective. Pathetic puff piece on a morally bankrupt individual.

rayiner 13y ago
Is it possible to disagree with someone about the appropriate scope of surveillance without their being a "morally bankrupt individual?" Imagine a world where most people don't think information privacy is a big deal. Imagine a world where most people do think terrorism is a big deal. This is a hypothetical, so don't argue the hypothetical (i.e. whether information privacy is important or whether terrorists are a threat). Is it possible, just maybe, that a non-morally bankrupt individual could put those two things together and come to the good-faith conclusion that collecting large amounts of data to protect against a terrorist threat is in the public interest? Especially if that individual conservative but reasonable legal opinions stating that data held by private companies about their users are not within the scope of the 4th amendment? That hypothetical is probably closer to reality than you'd like to admit. My in-laws are not afraid of the NSA. They are afraid of Al Qaeda. Many legal experts reasonably read precedent like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland) to give a narrow scope to the 4th amendment when it comes to information in the possession of third parties. These people are not all "morally bankrupt." They just don't share your values and priorities. Probably most relevant is that you'll never convince my in-laws otherwise by dismissing them as "sheeple" or be able to effect any change by dismissing anyone who interprets the 4th amendment differently as "morally bankrupt."
- D9u 13y ago
  I'd rather imagine a world where the public servants believe in adherance to the standards of ethics befitting of a nation who justifies its actions by claiming moral high ground. I'm not afraid of al Qaeda because, as our illustrious president said, Americans refuse to be terrorized. When our public servants can perjure themselves before Congress, then they are fitting of the description morally bankrupt. Some may say that Clapper was merely lying to preserve state secrets, but he didn't have to lie about anything he felt uncomfortable speaking on, he could have simply said, "I can't talk about that," which would have been the truth. Perhaps your in-laws are comfortable being lied to by our public servants, however I am not.
- dmix 13y ago
  > dismissing anyone who interprets the 4th amendment differently as "morally bankrupt. If you get to the top rank of any government agency, you have a moral responsibility to understand and respect constitutional law. The 4th amendment was not instantiated so it could be interpreted at will by whomever is currently in power. Doing so is the exact opposite of acting morally in the context of ruling over a democratic society. That is the very definition of a republic: A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter", not the private concern of the rulers.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > The 4th amendment was not instantiated so it could be interpreted at will by whomever is currently in power. It has to be interpreted to be applied in any event. That's why rayiner mentioned 'narrow scope' in his hypothetical. In this actual case it's not that Gen. Alexander decided the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, it's that Gen. Alexander managed to get a lot more people than himself, in all 3 branches of government, to agree that legal precedent would make systems such as being used at the NSA legal. Now we can argue that something simply being legal isn't actually carte blanche to go do it (e.g. rayiner has said as much in a different topic, that the law isn't meant to withstand everyone to try to push its boundaries all at once). But we can also argue that someone with a task T should take advantage of every available tool at their disposal to finish that task. This is the tack taken by those who say that Google/Facebook/etc. have no culpability for not paying more taxes, as long as they avoid doing so by legal means. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this WaPo piece is actually more concerning than news of PRISM, data collection, etc. I assume the NSA is collecting data, but I assume also that senior NSA leaders would be aware of why we do not concentrate power in the hands of individuals, and why we do not try to 'merge swimlanes' of functions.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Look how prescient the NSA are. They've been working on this capability for sixty years or more.

srean 13y ago
Upvoted you back up. Sarcasm is not always easy to detect.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  No worries.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ajays 13y ago

Once in a while, there's a scandal about the Whitehouse pulling up IRS records of opponents (or so it is claimed). Just wait till the day some jerk in the WH decides to pull up ALL communications of opponents: every phone call, every text, every email. He'd be able to blackmail the Congress into doing anything he wanted.

subsystem 13y ago
Blackmailing would be far too transparent for the military. "Information Superiority (IS) is defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) as the 'degree of dominance in the information domain that permits the conduct of operations without effective opposition'." http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/97_jwstp/jw4a.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/97_jwstp/jw4a...

jivatmanx 13y ago

A General should not have been allowed to attain this much political power. Or repeatedly lie to congress without repercussions. Yet more checks and balances that are clearly out of whack.

bilbo0s 13y ago
Checks and balances were designed to keep political leaders from running amok in our nation. The idea, of course, being that the political leaders would keep the military leaders and governmental policy makers from running amok. That was the IDEA anyway.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  And yet the first president was a military leader. Checks and balances twisted from the start.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Mere military service does not mean a President is hopelessly compromised. One of the most-quoted critics of the military-industrial(-Congress?) complex was the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII, after all. Sometimes the guy from the military can tell you exactly how screwed up it is.

D9u 13y ago

What drives his passion to lie to the nation to which he swore an oath?

hkmurakami 13y ago
He mentioned something about General Hummel and The Rock and how he was doing the right thing...

Raticide 13y ago

If we installed cameras inside everyones TV that allowed the government to view inside everyones home I can guarantee we'd catch a lot more terrorists.

jrn 13y ago
xbox one?
nsns 13y ago
Or better still, incarcerate everyone, there'd be no more crime at all ("it's for your own good!").
D9u 13y ago
>Implying that terrorists watch TV?
Amadou 13y ago
Since, for all intents and purposes, there are no terrorists in the USA. I don't think we would. We are already over-arresting people for terrorism such that we're basically putting away people for sitting around talking crap while drinking beer. Unless you meant to say "terrorists" with sarcasm quotes?

mindcrime 13y ago

What I want to know, is why this asshole still has a job? Or James Clapper for that matter. And Barack Obama. I don't know about you guys, but more and more I'm reminded of that old Queensryche lyric: Let's tip the power balance and tear down their crown. Educate the masses, We'll burn the White House down. Speak to me the pain you feel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L5Jo09l7U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6L5Jo09l7U

tzs 13y ago
> What I want to know, is why this asshole still has a job? Have you considered the possibility that the people in a position to decide whether or not he has a job have more relevant information than you do, and are better qualified to evaluate it, and so that when they come to a different conclusion than you it could be that you are the one who is wrong? A lot of smart people inexplicably overlook this possibility.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  How much more f%!#ng "relevant information" do we need?!??? We KNOW these fucknuts are shitting on the Constitution, lying to the American people and/or Congress, and running a rogue agency whose regard for the law is limited to it's own byzantine (and secret, I might add) interpretations of said law. I fail to see what other "information" is going to change that in the slightest. Sure, in some hypothetical alternate universe ,these guys might be "in the right", but we don't live in a hypothetical, alternate universe as far as I can tell. I'll also offer this up: If you or I were called to testify before a Congressional committee and we perjured ourselves with blatant lies, then later admitted it, don't you think there would be some repercussions?
- danenania 13y ago
  Your logic can be used to justify literally any action by those in power who have access to secret information. Rolling over and saying "our leaders have all the info so they know best!" as your rights are violated hasn't exactly been a winning strategy throughout history.

coldtea 13y ago

>For NSA chief, terrorist threat drives passion to "collect it all" observers say Classic BS attempt to make something systemic, widespread and decades old look like the "personal crusade" of a "bad apple" and/or a "all too human" good guy.

ck2 13y ago

"you have to know everything in order to be completely safe" - Erich Mielke, head of the Stasi, East Germany

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

stephen_cagle 13y ago

that, and pokemon.

visarga 13y ago

I don't buy it. It's not for terrorism - we've been fighting terrorism for long, without total surveillance. It's for controlling the society.

mpyne 13y ago
Well the whole point is that it took Gen. Alexander to finally bring about the changes to law and org. structure needed to even do it on this level. That doesn't mean it's not for counter-terrorism at face value, though the purpose behind the systems wouldn't change how dangerous they are anyways.

motters 13y ago

These things are always a tradeoff. The number of terrorists is a tiny fraction of the population, and the amount of damage which they cause is small compared to road accidents, tsunamis or common and preventable diseases. Is it really worth compromising everyone's communications because of such a low level threat? Collecting everything isn't even remotely proportionate to the scale of the problem, and it's counter-productive even in utilitarian terms. The main issue is that it's not really about terrorists. The NSA recruiters admitted as much in the audio recording in which they attempted to define the term "adversary" to an audience which was smarter than they had bargained for. It's very clear that they consider everyone to be an adversary, whether or not they're engaged in terrorism or crime and regardless of their nationality.

SimHacker 13y ago

He should satisfy his OCD by playing Pokemon instead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVp-zIONsrs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVp-zIONsrs

w_t_payne 13y ago

Here is a seemingly innocuous little question for you all: Now that PRISM's cover has been "blown" - what sort of personality type do you think will be most attracted by the prospect of getting a job at the NSA? Might I suggest that a career with the NSA has suddenly become a compelling and attractive alternative for all those creeps that find idea of power without responsibility positively intoxicating. Indeed, I suspect that the recruiters and security screening personnel are (as we speak) busy filtering out anybody who might leak - i.e. all those candidates who actually posses a conscience - making it much more likely that over time the NSA & it's sister organizations will become increasingly sadistic and power-hungry in their institutional cultures. Regretfully, this seems like a foregone conclusion, given that the present public attention to the issue is not making a jot of difference to how the security services operate. Indeed, they are as clearly unmoved by public opinion as their operations are (effectively) beyond the reach of the law. As a result, we should not only consider the consequences of this untrammeled power-grab by the security services as a potential worst-case threat:- We should positively expect this threat to materialize. In addition to this expectation of malicious intent, we should also expect the technological advantage that the security services have over the general population to increase over time. The "internet of things" is coming, and it will not be too long before disposable "smart" sensors can be mass produced, making the surveillance state truly ubiquitous. The tele-screens of Orwell's 1984 already seem quaint in comparison to the surveillance capabilities enabled by the ubiquitous smart-phone. How much more in thrall to the authorities will we be when sub-millimeter scale sensors can be purchased by the thousands-to-the-dollar, and scattered almost invisibly across the urban environment; maybe even in the food supply - certainly embedded in fitness and health-insurance tracking applications. Orwell had his vision of a "boot stamping down on a human face - forever" - my fear is based on a vision that is a little different - given our increasingly intimate relationship with technology - a vision of the latex-clad hands of the state -- violently engaged in the mass rectal exam of the human race -- forever." Remember - if Nixon got into power under the full glare of public scrutiny - just think of the personality types that proliferate in the shadows.