11 ms·
Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
- mistercow 13y ago>“They may want to come after the US government, but frankly, you know, the dot-mil stuff is about the hardest target in the United States,” Hayden said Is he trying to get .mil sites targeted? Does he understand psychology at all?
- mcguire 13y agoDoes he understand security at all? "Hardest target"? This is not a smart man.
- jimparkins 13y agoWe live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. This sounds like an old transcript saying that if you disagree with the government / military you must instantly be a communist. Feels like we are only a step away from public service announcements on how to spot if your child is a terrorist because they spend a lot of time on their computer.
- JonnieCache 13y agoMistakes? That's a very charitable view.
- northwest 13y ago> We live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. But now, we have storage and much faster circulation of information. Which means we can track these "mistakes", dig them up easily whenever they're about to be repeated and discuss them again (better yet, "fork" the old discussion and adapt it to the current issue). Maybe somebody should build the perfect tool to do just this. (I feel it doesn't exist yet, but the need is now clearly here.) EDIT: I tried to hint at that (in this case regarding surveillance only) here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152935
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun" Ecclesiastes 1:9
- scrrr 13y agoSo expressing support for Snowden is suggested to be a sign I might be a threat to a country. Way to accelerate the self-censorship (and the subsequent censorship of thought) that this whole surveillance disaster creates.
- rainsford 13y agoI don't know exactly who Hayden was talking about, but various people on the Internet have done a lot more than "express support". Calls for "revolution" and "rioting in the streets" seem to pop up in comments on these stories on a pretty regular basis on various sites. But there have also been suggestions of more specific action, including shooting FISA court judges and others and one guy on Reddit speculating about blowing up parts of the power grid. Now I'm sure most of that is pointless Internet talk. But it certainly goes way beyond expressions of support or discussion of changing policy or laws through democratic means.
- perlpimp 13y agoAll over it has been established that per-se democracy does not exist anymore. Meaning that wealthy and powerful have more democracy allotted to them than to the rest. Actually what is seems is that government is putting screws real tight on the lid because if whole FIAT dollar thing fails - there will be no more democracy and only Militarized police and thorough monitoring of the people will stop an extraordinary event such as Civil war or revolution from happening.
- bhashkarsharma 13y agoReminds me of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
- rustynails 13y agoVarious sites? Can you confirm? I don't read reddit because it really is lowest common denominator (it's the tabloid of the forums). But I haven't seen the comments you're referring to anywhere that I'd consider reputable.
- hathaway 13y agoI hate this type of pointless rhetoric. Politics of fear.
- kshatrea 13y agoPeople need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. The word "terrorist" is only the latest in a long string. tl;dr government != country.
- weland 13y ago> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground. Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.
- kshatrea 13y agoI am an Indian so I wasn't referring to the US in particular although my bad that I didn't make it clear. Well, the voting system is not necessarily perfect, at least not here. In my country there are sects where people sell their votes for alcohol. I stand by my assertion that government != country on a philosophical level if not a practical one.
- TDL 13y agoThe principles are the same whether in India or the U.S. I'm in agreement with you, however, "government != country".
- northwest 13y agoIt's a very clever recruiting strategy. ;-)
- Ygg2 13y agoFor what? Witchunters?
- dbond 13y agowitches -> communists -> terrorists -> hackers...
- tmister 13y agoYou missed a small intermediate state between terrorists and hackers, "Chinese hackers".
- nickdoesdesign 13y agoAnd the one in between witches and communists "anarchists".
- cpursley 13y agoand libertarians
- alan_cx 13y agoYou forgot file sharers, drugs and pedophiles. All of which have been since been said to fund the terrorism. Which in the case of drugs, IIRC, is true. Didn't the CIA use cocaine trafficking to fund some black type ops?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoDidn't the CIA use cocaine trafficking to fund some black type ops? Yes, and if the number of bankers recently convicted of widely exposed and very large money laundering operations (Wachovia, HSBC, etc) is any indication, they continue to do so. See also: # Air America # The Iran Contra affair. # Mena Arkansas (CIA investigated itself and found no wrongdoing) # BCCI (CIA money laundering) # The Politics of Heroin - McCoy (book with lots of source citations) # Crop spraying in Central America[1], (the policy efforts have directly[2] and indirectly[3] increases cocaine production, yet they continue.) # Etc. etc. ad nauseam [1] With bullet-resistant crop-dusters! (look for "Air Tractor") http://www.economist.com/node/17647585 http://www.economist.com/node/17647585 [2] Search for "Roundup Ready Cocaine" [3] By killing subsistence farmers' food crops, incentivizing the cultivation of higher profit crops like coca.
- ethanazir 13y agoRespect my authorty!
- ohwp 13y agoThis is a great argument against people who "got nothing to hide". If the government suddenly decides you are a terrorist you will understand privacy is a good thing.
- bostik 13y agoThere was a very good article on that subject in Chronicle two years ago. (http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...) IIRC Bruce Schneier has made an excellent point too: "nothing to hide" becomes destructive the moment those in power get to decide what is the current definition of "illegal" or "dangerous". Just find all occurrences and shows of support of the $new_threat in the available personal histories and persecute at will. In other words, it's never the right approach.
- nohuck13 13y agoOriginal Guardian article here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-director-cyber-terrorism-snowden?CMP=twt_gu http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-direct... Interesting quote further down where he begs the question, Betteridge's-law-of-headlines-style: Hayden: "But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest, but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."
- tootie 13y agoYeah, the Salon article is thinly veiled editorial. It extrapolates quite a bit from what Hayden actually said which was pretty reasonable. He is not saying hackers=terrorists, but rather some hackers may turn to terrorism-style attacks and he is probably correct.
- nohuck13 13y agoYup. Though Hayden is engaged in politicking. Salon is engaged in politicking while reporting on Hayden's politicking. When I'm feeling extra rational, I really dislike this, even when I agree with views like Salon's. It's bad if we fight dumb politicking with more dumb politicking from the other direction.
- tmzt 13y agoWhat will they do about the person or persons who disclosed the provenance of the information leading to the closing of multiple designated sites in countries in MENA? Should we not protect the sources and methods involved in obtaining communications (not chatter, but actual intelligence) of such high valued targets as the head of the group we are most interested in, and a local organization with similar goals and growing scale? I assume that whoever this person was is on the run, or at least not speaking from an official podium or floor of an illustrious deliberative body, right?
- AsymetricCom 13y agoHow long do I have to use this site before I get downvote?
- unimpressive 13y agoIt comes at 500 karma. You'll have to wait a while. And if you mean the article, then you'll never get downvote. There is no downvoting articles. Only flagging.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoThat explains the new accounts with 500+ karma...
- unimpressive 13y agoLinks? That sounds very interesting if theres a real pattern to it.
- northwest 13y agoAre you threatening me? ;-) Kidding aside, I almost never downvote (power = responsibility)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI haven't seen that formula before
- northwest 13y agoYeah, it's not really popular, these days. And don't count on it becoming more popular any time soon.
- 13y ago
- viraptor 13y agoSometimes I wish that "Little brother" was a completely made up story. But lately many parts of it read like a script for what's happening at the moment. What is published by news lately makes me wonder what would happen the next time some big event in the US happens... the first "conspiracy theory" will be - NSA/FBI/... organised it (wouldn't be hard, people were given "support" before so that they can be arrested - just skip the arrest part) to prove more monitoring and control is needed. And could anyone really disagree at that point? Some of that was already seen after the news about closing the embassies. There were many comments saying it's only a show, put on to "prove" that there really is a danger of something happening.
- brudgers 13y ago"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years." This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims. The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
- stablepeak 13y agoI understood the quote as an insult to nerds who are afraid to talk to women and not as homophobia.
- hugofirth 13y agoAgreed - it is interesting that the phrasing in the article was deliberately gender agnostic. What is the relevance of political correctness in the context of a boorish and petty insult?
- brudgers 13y agoThe premises upon which you have concluded that the statement is not homophobia are: () It is an insult targeted at the named groups. () It is targeted at men. () Not trying to bed women is an insult to men. All three premises are dubious. Insults are directed at the person to be insulted. In so far as it is an insult, it was almost certainly targeted at members of the audience sympathetic to transparency and privacy. Which is not to say that there probably weren't any nerds among the policy wonks at the Bi-Partisan Security Center where Hayden's remarks were delivered It is really your second premise that begins to illuminate why the remarks are homophobic - the premise of the insult has been entangled with not gender in general [despite reading that way] but masculinity in particular. Once entangled, we get to the intended essence of the insult - implying that someone is unsuccessful under the model of heterosexual masculinity. The essence of the insult is that it feminizes its intended targets. I think we both agree, he is saying that those who favor government transparency and the privacy of citizens aren't fully realized as men. The premises upon which the insult is based are rather self-contradictory on their face when it comes to women - they contain the implication that it's ok for women to be soft. Deeper down of course, the model of "real men" contains a rubric for determining success which applies to all the ambitious regardless of gender. I cannot prove that his remark is homophobic, but entanglement of insult with a lack of conformance to a purely heterosexual model of human relations and the connotation of heterosexual masculinity in particular certainly are meta-data consistent with homophobia.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoyesterday Muslims, today hackers, tomorrow 82 year old nuns will be called terrorists!
- pvnick 13y agoI assume you're talking about this: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7 https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7
- wtvanhest 13y agoLook, I'm not comfortable with the NSA program but... This is the second Salon article in 2 days that is way over sensationalized. I get that this is interesting to people on HN, but I think we could wait for better articles to upvote.
- duaneb 13y agoThe interesting parts are quoted anyway.
- cpursley 13y agoLesson? Don't pose a threat or appear to threaten the 'legitimacy' of the mafia, er, state.
- nicholassmith 13y agoWhat's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Which side of the argument you're stood on. It's completely ridiculous in many ways, but it's often been the case that people who are passionate activists willing to stand up against perceived injustices are viewed as a menace. It just means that they now think hackers are a serious threat.
- duaneb 13y agoI'm more worried about who they will label as hackers. Probably everyone on Hacker News, for instance.
- Link- 13y agoIn other words: "In the name of the People, we demand more power."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hackersocial2 13y agobetter than suicide bombers
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoThe thing is, Hayden has a point. Geesh, never thought I'd be saying that! Terrorism is an act of politics, not warfare. It's the use of stealth to deliberately attack civilian targets in order to affect political change. (My working definition only). The goal of terrorism isn't dead people, and you don't weigh a terrorist campaign by how many bodies it creates. Terrorism is all about striking fear into the heart of the population in order to get them to vote or behave differently. That's why the tactic of terrorism is so effective against modern democracies. With the help of mass media, a few crazy people can inflict fear on millions. So sure, in response to the United States' government implementing draconian surveillance technology, some 20-somethings that live in their parent's basement and have no life (notice how quickly the stereotypes come?) will strike out stealthily in order to inflict fear on the population, to be noticed. But what he's missing is what military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned: you don't put out fires by dumping gasoline on them. In other words, the asshole that approved of this idiotic idea to store everything possible and then search later is the last person in the world you want defending it. He's gone off the reservation and somebody should shut him up before he makes things worse. If the establishment starts circling the wagons on this issue, and it looks like that's what is happening, it's going to drive a wedge between the people and the government. This is not a good thing for them to be doing, terrorist threat or not. All these political and agency leaders are betting that the next time there's a terrorist attack -- and there will be -- that anybody who supported killing this program will be rounded up and laughed at. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't bet on it.
- duaneb 13y agoTerrorism has not been used in any well-defined way for years and is a demagoguery technique. The government has been throwing fuel on the "let's exploit our ability to terrify our citizens" since 9/11.
- rittme 13y agoand if you're a hacker outside US soil you should start watching out for the drones...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoI feel there is a fundamental mismatch of what constitutes a matter of national security. All (?) nation states have a right to prevent their own destruction, but I think the triggers that set off the immune system reaction are important - I, and I think a lot of HN, would say there is a minimum level of expected harm before a matter is consider national security level - lets say for arguments sake a loss of 2% GDP or 1,000 dead. And the motivation of the persons is irrelevant - so the banking crisis of 2008 would be considered a national security matter by me, but two maniacs hacking a soldier to death on the streets of the UK would not (a crime yes, murder, yes, possibly politically motivated yes - but not a matter that threatens our nationstate) However Hayden seems to be the reverse - there is no minimum level of harm (one life is too many, one defaced website is too much) but the political motivations of the people is important - so his views in the banking crisis and murders on the street seem reversed. Maybe it is a useful viewpoint
- w_t_payne 13y agoMichael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed. So, here is my response:- There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power. It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture, religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles. It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation State. To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions. So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and identifiable physical threat. As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive biases. Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units, and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on. Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf on which he feels most comfortable. This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer. So, we have two threads in his speculation:- The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.
- skue 13y agoSo Hayden is playing bad cop, while Alexander plays god cop? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6135833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6135833
- kstop 13y agoI can't help but wonder if he's maybe exaggerating the security of .mil.
- miguelrochefort 13y agoThe next major "terrorist" movement will come from transparency groups, but not for the reasons you think. Actually, most of you would probably be against such groups. Instead of focusing on government transparency, they will seek total transparency. They will track everything, everywhere. They will collect information about you and me. They will install cameras and trackers everywhere (in a decentralised fashion). They will link your online profiles together. They will make your address and phone number public. The next major "terrorist" movement will force societal transparency. They won't be personally motivated. They will do it for the well-being of society as a whole. Privacy is evil, and we should get rid of it before it's too late. Information should flow freely, and it will. I predict that transparency will be forced upon us all, not just the government. But most of you can't see it.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoThis is the next move. Criminalizing the opposition not because of their actions, but simply because they are the opposition. And it's not a response to Snowden, it has been decades in the making by slowly making everything that could potentially pose a threat a criminal offense. It's only a matter of time before the question will be asked: "Are you now or have you ever been a hacker?"
- ianstallings 13y agoMust be fundraising time. Yawns.
- mcphilip 13y agoFor a glimpse at one possible future of U.S. democracy, I highly recommend this longform nonfiction article about Turkey [1]. It goes into detail about "...the resistance of what is commonly referred to as derin devlet, the 'deep state.'" Later on: "The deep state, historians say, has functioned as a kind of shadow government, disseminating propaganda to whip up public fear or destabilizing civilian governments not to its liking." The indifference with which our intelligence apparatus treats foreigners could easily be (or already has?) turned on U.S. citizens if a similar "deep state" narrative develops in the U.S. All it would take are a couple loosely linked plots successfully pulled off by American citizens to construct a narrative (i.e. rationale) for turning the full forces of the intelligence apparatus onto all U.S. citizens. [1]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...
- laumars 13y agoGreywolf Borealis in the Salon comments section put it better than I ever could: > Hackers may be the terrorists of the future, but the real terrorist of today is the NSA. They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. That is pretty scary.
- mr_spothawk 13y ago>They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. Correction: They're employing the same hackers.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoMcCarthy again. Here's the thing about McCarthy, Communists were fucking everywhere. I don't mean ideological communists, I mean Soviet secret agents. They were in every level of government. They helped funnel the most secret of information to the USSR. And that's not all, the Soviets were erecting a police state to control hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. They had a tremendous military force with millions of soldiers. They were cranking out more tanks than had ever been in any war in history. And bombers. And they had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to US cities in short order. But none of that justified Senator McCarthy's abuses of power and violations of the rights of American citizens. Here we are now faced with the threat of terrorism. Or to be more broad about it, the threat of jihadist radical Islamist fundamentalists (both in al qaeda and elsewhere). We know that these forces pose a serious threat to the US, just as the Soviets did. But is this danger on the same scale as the Cold War? Not even close. Does it justify abrogation of our cherished liberty and privacy? Never.
- duaneb 13y agoI frankly don't believe for an instance "terrorists" pose any substantial threat to the US. Even 911 is chump change on the scale of how much terror our own government had brought down on foreigners, and the idea that they used 3000 dead to justify a seize of power is just disgusting.
- baseten 13y ago>"twentysomethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in >five or six years" Has he SEEN Snowden's former girlfriend? This trope should be retired based on that point alone.
- mindcrime 13y agoPeople should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. As true today as ever... And unfortunately for us, at the moment, the balance is way to far in favor of "the people are scared of their government". People like Snowden and Manning risk moving the balance the other way, so of course high-ranking government official types will spazz out over this stuff. Transparency is anathema to corruption and abuse of power.
- rdl 13y agoAs long as we are going to try to be provocative: Hayden is responsible for most of the technical and policy changes at NSA (and presumably the same at CIA) which "caused" both Snowden and Manning, or at least turned then from minor discontents to 1) motivated leakers 2) with the means to leak massive amounts. I personally support Snowden, but think Manning was indiscriminate and motivated mainly by personal issues, using public interest as a fig leaf. Were I to hang Manning for treason, there would be a gallows to the left for Hayden. Arguably being much more senior and invested in the system, and presumed to be trustworthy and competent, his crimes were worse, even if less direct.
- runn1ng 13y ago...aaaand to Guantanamo you go.
- Adam503 13y agoMichael Hayden was NSA director from 1999 to 2005. Michael Hayden literally was being paid a big salary to stop 9/11 from happening. How'd that go for him? Not so good. Look at ALL THE TOOLS we now know the NSA Director really had at his disposal to prevent a foreign terrorist from hitting the US on 9/11. Micheal Hayden name's should down in along side infamous names like the Admiral who commanded the Pacific Fleet the day of Pearl Harbor. Michael Hayden is the textbook definition of "the man who can't find his ass with two hands and an assmap." Hayden's picture should appear next to it in Famous Quotation books.
- nohuck13 13y agoCompletely off topic to otherwise excellent discussion, but funny how "nihilists" were the first thing he flagged up. I can't think of nihilists without thinking of The Big Lebowski. http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/81096/nihilists.jpg http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/81096/nihilists.j...
- darkarmani 13y agoI find this quote highly offensive: "Who for them are the World Trade Centers?" Thousands of people died and many others thought they barely cheated death. It's insulting to compare that with the dangers of these "hackers." Is there a Godwin's law of the NSA now that involves the WTC?