3 ms·

The reason matters. It's like if grandma seems to have set your dog on fire. You don't say "Oh, what a malicious old bag she is." You dig into the complete chai

The reason matters. It's like if grandma seems to have set your dog on fire. You don't say "Oh, what a malicious old bag she is." You dig into the complete chain of events to find out the root cause. Occam's Razor also dictates that a trivially predictable outcome is an intended outcome. This media circus is trivially predictable. Ergo someone, somewhere is counting on the Internet mob to demand rough justice and shout down deeper analysis.

mikeash 13y ago
It's tempting to think that the media response is intentional on the part of the intelligence agencies. On the other hand: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" I have a feeling that a lot of salaries within these agencies depend on not understanding the inevitable media response to heavy-handed tactics like these.
mpyne 13y ago
One of my defenses of government in the types of conspiracy theories that get batted around here on HN is that government is staffed by people who are just as stupid as the rest of us, all the way up to the top. The vast majority of people I've met working in government are upstanding, want to do the right thing by their position and the people, but they have just as much highs and lows of average intelligence as the rest of the population. If your one decision maker is on the low end of that spectrum then there is the potential for ridiculously stupid acts to occur. There's no reason this shouldn't apply to GCHQ (and NSA) just as much as it applies to the rest of government. Is it truly impossible that an agency that never operates under press scrutiny would be unfamiliar with which of their actions would exacerbate press scrutiny? I don't know the org. structure for GCHQ but NSA falls under DOD and so there is definitely some familiarity with the idea of "Public Affairs", even if NSA typically never has to engage in such.
jlgreco 13y ago
Your reason for doubting that the GCHQ didn't do it is that it sounds off, but your alternative hypothesis is more complicated and there is no actual evidence of it. Your hypothesis is supported only by your feelings about GCHQ.

mikeash 13y ago

It's tempting to think that the media response is intentional on the part of the intelligence agencies. On the other hand: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" I have a feeling that a lot of salaries within these agencies depend on not understanding the inevitable media response to heavy-handed tactics like these.

mpyne 13y ago

One of my defenses of government in the types of conspiracy theories that get batted around here on HN is that government is staffed by people who are just as stupid as the rest of us, all the way up to the top. The vast majority of people I've met working in government are upstanding, want to do the right thing by their position and the people, but they have just as much highs and lows of average intelligence as the rest of the population. If your one decision maker is on the low end of that spectrum then there is the potential for ridiculously stupid acts to occur. There's no reason this shouldn't apply to GCHQ (and NSA) just as much as it applies to the rest of government. Is it truly impossible that an agency that never operates under press scrutiny would be unfamiliar with which of their actions would exacerbate press scrutiny? I don't know the org. structure for GCHQ but NSA falls under DOD and so there is definitely some familiarity with the idea of "Public Affairs", even if NSA typically never has to engage in such.

jlgreco 13y ago

Your reason for doubting that the GCHQ didn't do it is that it sounds off, but your alternative hypothesis is more complicated and there is no actual evidence of it. Your hypothesis is supported only by your feelings about GCHQ.