5 ms·

>us vs. them bullshit Surely not an appropriate point to raise when defending an agency whose raison d'etre is to acquire and analyze all foreign communication

by dictum 13y ago

>us vs. them bullshit Surely not an appropriate point to raise when defending an agency whose raison d'etre is to acquire and analyze all foreign communications. Its existence comes from a us vs. them mentality. What's happening is that for the USG, "them" now includes not only foreigner suspects; it includes all foreigners and many Americans—probably all Americans. I don't expect the intelligence agencies of a dictatorship to explain to me, as a non-citizen, how they're "on my side". I wish I could have better expectations for a non-dictatorship, the US: I wish, as foreigner, I wasn't assumed to be an enemy. So no, the NSA is not on my side, and it's probably not on most Americans' side. Also, things change, and all they're collecting will be using against you when they decide to no longer be on your side.

diminoten 13y ago
Okay so you're not in a dictatorship, and the NSA isn't "out to get" you. If you're a US citizen, then the NSA is trying, at least, to prevent you from being harmed by foreign threats by gathering data on those threats and alerting other US government agencies. That's what they do. As long as the US exists, someone will have to do this. If you're not a US citizen, then the NSA will take a look at you. Period. That's what they do, and your government will be taking a look at me in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons. Neither of our respective intel groups are assuming either of us are enemies, but that doesn't mean these intelligence groups aren't going to look at us. Being investigated does not mean you're an enemy. You're not a "them" just because someone looks at you, I don't know why people think this is how it is. So no, if you're not a US citizen, the NSA is no more on your side than the British NHS will pay for my appendix removal.
- dictum 13y ago
  As far as I'm aware, the country of which I am a citizen does not take an adversarial approach to other countries. If I learned that it's spying on people of other countries, I'd be just as concerned as I am about the NSA/the USG. None of that changes the fact that the NSA and the USG have a us vs. them mentality and it's only natural that Americans look at their government with a corresponding us vs. them view. I can understand the USG watching a tourist, since they might commit a crime on US soil. But I'm a not a tourist. I'm not on American soil. My data is flowing through servers in the US, American-developed routers and American-developed OSes only because of the historical accident that the US loved globalization so much that its corporations now dominate the world and made the technical standards the whole world depends on. If I could limit my exposure to the USG, I would. I want nothing from them, just as I don't expect an appendix removal from the NHS. The line drawn between foreigners and American citizens stands on very thin ground. It's fraying. Think about it: who are the people with the greatest power to commit a terrorist act, the people who are already inside the US or the people who are outside? Americans will be spied on. The NSA merely collects all data, and the magic of parallel construction will distribute it to the FBI or your friendly corrupt local authority.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    The US has organizations which look inward for terrorists - the FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, local law enforcement, etc. We have our own country fairly well covered, with well-establish legal precedent and rules of engagement. The NSA is an intelligence gathering organization for the parts of the world we don't have covered, and its goal is to collect global intelligence. It doesn't treat anyone adversarially, as it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. It's massively near-sighted to think there are no groups in the world plotting the harm of US citizens. You might not be part of those groups, but how do we know if we don't look at you?
    - dictum 13y ago
      >it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. It has no troops, but it has the CIA, who can assemble a makeshift covert "troop" in no time. >You might not be part of those groups, but how do we know if we don't look at you? Exactly the reasoning soon to be used to allow domestic mass surveillance. Mark my words.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        That is hardly the most significant thing I wrote in my comment. edit: US citizens already get looked at by other government orgs. What you're talking about already happens.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. Well, if you ignore that thing where the NSA is an part of the Department of Defense, and that its director is also the commander of a sub-unified command of the US military, sure.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        The NSA is not the DoD, so yes, it'd make sense to ignore that fact.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  As you should know surveillance is used for far more broadly than for preventing terrorism. It is beyond comprehension that you can ignore documented abuses, even ones that have recently been reported. You cannot justify arbitrary powers simply by pointing to the fact that (US and ally) citizens may be safer from terrorism. Otherwise you should be advocating for more invasive surveillance. > Being investigated does not mean you're an enemy. No it means I lose my autonomy and therefore my freedom. It means I can never have goals that meaningfully oppose those who surveil me.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Otherwise, your autonomy is not lost, just because someone is watching you. That's malarky.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      Have you ever read Sun Tzu? Knowing is way more than half the battle. Autonomy includes a balance of power and ability to defend yourself, and citizens are unable to spy back on the NSA. Even if the power is not being abused today (which I doubt), it hands over the keys completely to the next Stalin (or even just the next Nixon).
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Citizens elect representatives who do the "spying back" on the NSA. If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. There will never be a "next" Stalin. We're past the days when such a person is possible.
        lukifer 13y ago
        > There will never be a "next" Stalin. I find that somewhat naive, especially when Putin is enjoying wide popularity. (Not because he has anything resembling Stalin's track record of evil, but rather to demonstrate that many in the public still desire a powerful unitary executive.) There is an instinct in the human animal that craves charismatic, authoritarian power when times are tough. But even if you're correct, I'm honestly more concerned about institutions than individuals. Institutions, whether "public" or "private", have a tendency to converge towards the survival of the institution as their only goal, and in some ways take on a life of their own; replacing any one employee or leader doesn't necessarily change the overall momentum and internal culture. This is my middle-of-the-road estimation of the danger, nestled between the unlikely extremes of "100% selfless heroes guarding us while we sleep" and "shadow government quietly pulling the strings of the world". In other words, I'm much more nervous about "Brazil" than "1984". See also: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-soaking-in-it.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-... > If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. We're working on that.

by dictum 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

Okay so you're not in a dictatorship, and the NSA isn't "out to get" you. If you're a US citizen, then the NSA is trying, at least, to prevent you from being harmed by foreign threats by gathering data on those threats and alerting other US government agencies. That's what they do. As long as the US exists, someone will have to do this. If you're not a US citizen, then the NSA will take a look at you. Period. That's what they do, and your government will be taking a look at me in exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons. Neither of our respective intel groups are assuming either of us are enemies, but that doesn't mean these intelligence groups aren't going to look at us. Being investigated does not mean you're an enemy. You're not a "them" just because someone looks at you, I don't know why people think this is how it is. So no, if you're not a US citizen, the NSA is no more on your side than the British NHS will pay for my appendix removal.

dictum 13y ago
As far as I'm aware, the country of which I am a citizen does not take an adversarial approach to other countries. If I learned that it's spying on people of other countries, I'd be just as concerned as I am about the NSA/the USG. None of that changes the fact that the NSA and the USG have a us vs. them mentality and it's only natural that Americans look at their government with a corresponding us vs. them view. I can understand the USG watching a tourist, since they might commit a crime on US soil. But I'm a not a tourist. I'm not on American soil. My data is flowing through servers in the US, American-developed routers and American-developed OSes only because of the historical accident that the US loved globalization so much that its corporations now dominate the world and made the technical standards the whole world depends on. If I could limit my exposure to the USG, I would. I want nothing from them, just as I don't expect an appendix removal from the NHS. The line drawn between foreigners and American citizens stands on very thin ground. It's fraying. Think about it: who are the people with the greatest power to commit a terrorist act, the people who are already inside the US or the people who are outside? Americans will be spied on. The NSA merely collects all data, and the magic of parallel construction will distribute it to the FBI or your friendly corrupt local authority.
- diminoten 13y ago
  The US has organizations which look inward for terrorists - the FBI, DEA, ATF, TSA, local law enforcement, etc. We have our own country fairly well covered, with well-establish legal precedent and rules of engagement. The NSA is an intelligence gathering organization for the parts of the world we don't have covered, and its goal is to collect global intelligence. It doesn't treat anyone adversarially, as it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. It's massively near-sighted to think there are no groups in the world plotting the harm of US citizens. You might not be part of those groups, but how do we know if we don't look at you?
  - dictum 13y ago
    >it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. It has no troops, but it has the CIA, who can assemble a makeshift covert "troop" in no time. >You might not be part of those groups, but how do we know if we don't look at you? Exactly the reasoning soon to be used to allow domestic mass surveillance. Mark my words.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      That is hardly the most significant thing I wrote in my comment. edit: US citizens already get looked at by other government orgs. What you're talking about already happens.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > it has no "troops" with which to engage foreigners. Well, if you ignore that thing where the NSA is an part of the Department of Defense, and that its director is also the commander of a sub-unified command of the US military, sure.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      The NSA is not the DoD, so yes, it'd make sense to ignore that fact.
foobarqux 13y ago
As you should know surveillance is used for far more broadly than for preventing terrorism. It is beyond comprehension that you can ignore documented abuses, even ones that have recently been reported. You cannot justify arbitrary powers simply by pointing to the fact that (US and ally) citizens may be safer from terrorism. Otherwise you should be advocating for more invasive surveillance. > Being investigated does not mean you're an enemy. No it means I lose my autonomy and therefore my freedom. It means I can never have goals that meaningfully oppose those who surveil me.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Well yes, you can never have the goal of harming US citizens. Otherwise, your autonomy is not lost, just because someone is watching you. That's malarky.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Have you ever read Sun Tzu? Knowing is way more than half the battle. Autonomy includes a balance of power and ability to defend yourself, and citizens are unable to spy back on the NSA. Even if the power is not being abused today (which I doubt), it hands over the keys completely to the next Stalin (or even just the next Nixon).
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Citizens elect representatives who do the "spying back" on the NSA. If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. There will never be a "next" Stalin. We're past the days when such a person is possible.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        > There will never be a "next" Stalin. I find that somewhat naive, especially when Putin is enjoying wide popularity. (Not because he has anything resembling Stalin's track record of evil, but rather to demonstrate that many in the public still desire a powerful unitary executive.) There is an instinct in the human animal that craves charismatic, authoritarian power when times are tough. But even if you're correct, I'm honestly more concerned about institutions than individuals. Institutions, whether "public" or "private", have a tendency to converge towards the survival of the institution as their only goal, and in some ways take on a life of their own; replacing any one employee or leader doesn't necessarily change the overall momentum and internal culture. This is my middle-of-the-road estimation of the danger, nestled between the unlikely extremes of "100% selfless heroes guarding us while we sleep" and "shadow government quietly pulling the strings of the world". In other words, I'm much more nervous about "Brazil" than "1984". See also: http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-soaking-in-it.html http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-... > If the citizenry didn't like what the representatives were doing, they'd elect different ones. We're working on that.