6 ms·

They Know Much More Than You Think

103 points by danboarder 13y ago

danso 13y ago
With all the stories that have come out post-Snowden, I'll admit that many of the details or revelations have kind of become noise to me (it doesn't help that the subject matter is prone to technical interpretation). But James Bamford's take on it is one of the clearest, contextualized explanations of the situation...I personally think that Bamford should be thought of in the same pantheon of great government reporters as Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh...he researched and wrote the very first book on the NSA, starting out by reading through the NSA staff newsletters that he stumbled upon and working his way methodically through the organization. A real inspiration for how accountability journalism can be done even when the subject is the NSA and you don't have a Snowden.
pstuart 13y ago
So what can we do to change this?
- snitko 13y ago
  Maybe you can vote better next time. Because, after all, voting is a real thing, it can change things. At least, I heard Obama said this.
  - hdevalence 13y ago
    Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process. If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed. If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton of hard work.
    - dkhenry 13y ago
      Voting is the end all be all of the political process. Also it happens yearly, and in most places multiple times per year. Go collect signatures and put yourself on the ballot, Yes it takes hard work, but that hard work is to get people to check a box and vote. As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Have you tried? I admire your confidence in getting any result out of being on a ballot.
    - pstuart 13y ago
      The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted. It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered. Edit: replying to fotbr below Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.
      - nathan_long 13y ago
        A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Thanks. I do vote, and voting does have an impact in a limited way, locally.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    Relevant only if you're a member of Electoral College.
- northwest 13y ago
  You can start be adding your "2 cents" of awareness to humanity. (Everybody needs to add their 2 cents, b/c that's how you create a fortune.) Talk about the issues with your friends and family. Maybe blog about it. Become politically active. In general, ask yourself "where do I personally have the biggest leverage" and invest more of your time there.
fastfade 13y ago
My America is gone - I no longer know who the good guys are.
ArkyBeagle 13y ago
"The value we are trading away, under the surveillance programs as presently constituted, are quality of governance. This is not a debate about privacy. It is a debate about corruption." http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html Orwell himself could not have said it better.
uptown 13y ago
If what we believe to be true is in-fact true regarding data collection - isn't every future President compromised? Somewhere, in the massive archive of phone calls and emails and financial transactions that make-up the digital profile of their path from birth to the door of the White House is a lie, or a half-truth, or something that doesn't quite mesh with the public persona they represented in order to attain elected office. Somewhere in that archive is something in their past that could be used against them in a way that would render their Presidency impotent at the very least. Wouldn't those with access to this information use that for their own gain? To show the newly elected President what they know, and leverage him or her to make things happen in a manner that benefits their objectives. Now step down the ladder of power and authority. Couldn't the same methods be used against Senators? Congressmen and women? Or maybe judges, mayors, police chiefs? Stock Markets? Banks? CEOs? College admissions boards? The potential targets are endless and infinite. A brilliant quote from Sneakers: "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!" The world where these things are possible scares the hell out of me - because I fear that the amassing of this information will inevitably lead to its abuse.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Sven7 13y ago
  Its recursive. What applies to everyone, applies to everyone within the NSA/intelligence community too...as long as they stay staffed with people atleast.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    Don't think it's that recursive. If you run for office, and an embarassing photo or phone call from the past is "leaked" anonymously to ruin your chances, you cannot turn around and leak something on intelligence community.
    - 13y ago
w_t_payne 13y ago
Perhaps it is coincidence, but a lot of recent policy changes seem to have the effect of moving us towards authoritarianism. It is worth bearing in mind that everything that us humans do, ultimately, is driven by our biology: our natural instincts and our natural drives. We are pack animals. The pack has alpha males and beta males. The alpha males are driven to show their dominance of the beta males by reminding them of their subservient status as frequently, as forcefully and as intrusively as possible. Authoritarianism is nothing more than the societal manifestation of that natural drive. Us beta males (the general population) are having our noses rubbed in the dirt by the alpha males (the authorities) so that they can feel good about their own superiority. We are just reverting to type - stupid, prideful apes that we are.
- jka 13y ago
  Alpha humans I'm not so concerned about - every group has a few larger-than-life personalities who will show off a little more, lead the pack, etc - I'm not sure it's strictly fair to say that these individuals are always driven to rub people's noses in things and trying to take authority. Some people make good leaders and have empathy. What I am worried about, and the criteria that fits your description more neatly (in my opinion -- I'm not a psychologist) is sociopathic behaviour - manipulative, deceptive, sans empathy, and in pursuit of power/dominance, but often outwardly charming. These people can do very well and reach very powerful positions - there are statistics showing that density of sociopaths is higher amongst the population of CEOs than amongst the general population for example. There's probably fair reason to assume that many would love to have access to the kind of information and power that spy agencies now possess. Interestingly and controversially there has also been research into using 'big data' to identify sociopathic tendencies. Would spy agencies use this, and would they ever turn the glass on their own employees/leaders? I think the answer is that they would, but they would easily be convinced that they need powerful leaders to ensure the ongoing dominance of their countries on a global scale. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-psychopaths http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-psych... PS: I felt compelled to reply because I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that this is a purely natural result of human pack behaviour - it is possible to spot and call out sociopathic behaviour if it can be identified, and so I don't personally think this trend towards authoritarianism is natural or unstoppable.
coldcode 13y ago
Also the likelihood of a future president using this information to further their political connections is pretty high. If you can destroy members of the other party using all this information you will have to or they will. This will lead to much more inter-party fighting to become the holder of the data first.

103 points by danboarder 13y ago

danso 13y ago

With all the stories that have come out post-Snowden, I'll admit that many of the details or revelations have kind of become noise to me (it doesn't help that the subject matter is prone to technical interpretation). But James Bamford's take on it is one of the clearest, contextualized explanations of the situation...I personally think that Bamford should be thought of in the same pantheon of great government reporters as Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh...he researched and wrote the very first book on the NSA, starting out by reading through the NSA staff newsletters that he stumbled upon and working his way methodically through the organization. A real inspiration for how accountability journalism can be done even when the subject is the NSA and you don't have a Snowden.

pstuart 13y ago

So what can we do to change this?

snitko 13y ago
Maybe you can vote better next time. Because, after all, voting is a real thing, it can change things. At least, I heard Obama said this.
- hdevalence 13y ago
  Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process. If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed. If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton of hard work.
  - dkhenry 13y ago
    Voting is the end all be all of the political process. Also it happens yearly, and in most places multiple times per year. Go collect signatures and put yourself on the ballot, Yes it takes hard work, but that hard work is to get people to check a box and vote. As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Have you tried? I admire your confidence in getting any result out of being on a ballot.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well. There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation. I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted. It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered. Edit: replying to fotbr below Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.
    - nathan_long 13y ago
      A move in the right direction would be to make and sell easy, strong, encrypted communication apps and services for those who may have something to hide: eg, journalists. Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Thanks. I do vote, and voting does have an impact in a limited way, locally.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  Relevant only if you're a member of Electoral College.
northwest 13y ago
You can start be adding your "2 cents" of awareness to humanity. (Everybody needs to add their 2 cents, b/c that's how you create a fortune.) Talk about the issues with your friends and family. Maybe blog about it. Become politically active. In general, ask yourself "where do I personally have the biggest leverage" and invest more of your time there.

fastfade 13y ago

My America is gone - I no longer know who the good guys are.

ArkyBeagle 13y ago

"The value we are trading away, under the surveillance programs as presently constituted, are quality of governance. This is not a debate about privacy. It is a debate about corruption." http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html Orwell himself could not have said it better.

uptown 13y ago

If what we believe to be true is in-fact true regarding data collection - isn't every future President compromised? Somewhere, in the massive archive of phone calls and emails and financial transactions that make-up the digital profile of their path from birth to the door of the White House is a lie, or a half-truth, or something that doesn't quite mesh with the public persona they represented in order to attain elected office. Somewhere in that archive is something in their past that could be used against them in a way that would render their Presidency impotent at the very least. Wouldn't those with access to this information use that for their own gain? To show the newly elected President what they know, and leverage him or her to make things happen in a manner that benefits their objectives. Now step down the ladder of power and authority. Couldn't the same methods be used against Senators? Congressmen and women? Or maybe judges, mayors, police chiefs? Stock Markets? Banks? CEOs? College admissions boards? The potential targets are endless and infinite. A brilliant quote from Sneakers: "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!" The world where these things are possible scares the hell out of me - because I fear that the amassing of this information will inevitably lead to its abuse.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Sven7 13y ago
Its recursive. What applies to everyone, applies to everyone within the NSA/intelligence community too...as long as they stay staffed with people atleast.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  Don't think it's that recursive. If you run for office, and an embarassing photo or phone call from the past is "leaked" anonymously to ruin your chances, you cannot turn around and leak something on intelligence community.
  - 13y ago

w_t_payne 13y ago

Perhaps it is coincidence, but a lot of recent policy changes seem to have the effect of moving us towards authoritarianism. It is worth bearing in mind that everything that us humans do, ultimately, is driven by our biology: our natural instincts and our natural drives. We are pack animals. The pack has alpha males and beta males. The alpha males are driven to show their dominance of the beta males by reminding them of their subservient status as frequently, as forcefully and as intrusively as possible. Authoritarianism is nothing more than the societal manifestation of that natural drive. Us beta males (the general population) are having our noses rubbed in the dirt by the alpha males (the authorities) so that they can feel good about their own superiority. We are just reverting to type - stupid, prideful apes that we are.

jka 13y ago
Alpha humans I'm not so concerned about - every group has a few larger-than-life personalities who will show off a little more, lead the pack, etc - I'm not sure it's strictly fair to say that these individuals are always driven to rub people's noses in things and trying to take authority. Some people make good leaders and have empathy. What I am worried about, and the criteria that fits your description more neatly (in my opinion -- I'm not a psychologist) is sociopathic behaviour - manipulative, deceptive, sans empathy, and in pursuit of power/dominance, but often outwardly charming. These people can do very well and reach very powerful positions - there are statistics showing that density of sociopaths is higher amongst the population of CEOs than amongst the general population for example. There's probably fair reason to assume that many would love to have access to the kind of information and power that spy agencies now possess. Interestingly and controversially there has also been research into using 'big data' to identify sociopathic tendencies. Would spy agencies use this, and would they ever turn the glass on their own employees/leaders? I think the answer is that they would, but they would easily be convinced that they need powerful leaders to ensure the ongoing dominance of their countries on a global scale. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-psychopaths http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-psych... PS: I felt compelled to reply because I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that this is a purely natural result of human pack behaviour - it is possible to spot and call out sociopathic behaviour if it can be identified, and so I don't personally think this trend towards authoritarianism is natural or unstoppable.

coldcode 13y ago

Also the likelihood of a future president using this information to further their political connections is pretty high. If you can destroy members of the other party using all this information you will have to or they will. This will lead to much more inter-party fighting to become the holder of the data first.