5 ms·

He seems to be saying that it would be better (for the US) if the NSA continued to secretly spy on all the world's communications networks. That's certainly on

He seems to be saying that it would be better (for the US) if the NSA continued to secretly spy on all the world's communications networks. That's certainly one point of view, but it's not one I expected to see in Mother Jones, or on HN. Isn't the whole point of this uproar that we do not trust these unelected (by the US, never mind the global population) spooks with unfettered access to all communications?

ihsw 13y ago
> Isn't the whole point of this uproar that we do not trust these unelected (by the US, never mind the global population) spooks with unfettered access to all communications? Yes, however some people think "the government" can do no wrong because it "works for the people." The government they support also happens to be fighting a "War on Terror" where terror can include personal opinions that are critical of the American government and her corporate pillars[1][2][3][4]. Many still see distrust of government as indicative of mental illness, where such distrust is born from paranoia and anarchist/libertarian propaganda. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_oil [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics)
- datanotdata 13y ago
  “Every word that is spoken and sung here represents at least this one thing: that this humiliating age has not succeeded in winning our respect.” -Hugo Ball
- blackcat 13y ago
  >Many still see distrust of government as indicative of mental illness, where such distrust is born from paranoia and anarchist/libertarian propaganda. If you are actually worried that you will be spirited away to be tortured by the US while living as a normal, non-radical muslim in England you may have cognitive issues. If you are white triply so.
bpatrianakos 13y ago
I don't think he's saying it would be good for anyone for the NSA to continue snooping as they do. I think your first point is wrong, your last point is right, and the two are unrelated. The issue isn't the fact that the NSA snoops. That's their job and it has value when their power to do so is used judiciously. The problem is that its not being used judiciously. Rather than singling out as few people as possible to root out the bad guys their just collecting everything they can. They don't need to do this and doing so opens up the possibility for huge abuses of power. That's the issue. I think the article is right that the crypto revelations aren't pertinent to this discussion. I would even consider the crypto revelations a red herring. Is it important how the NSA spies on everyone? No, its only important to know that they do it at all when speaking in the context of how the Snowden leaks are important to creating a national debate and, hopefully, by some miracle, create reforms. I think its reasonable that as a US citizen you're okay with the NSA being able to break crypto. You just want to be able to trust that they're using it against the bad guys and not you. Even now that we know they're probably using it against innocent civilians its more harmful to the NSA's ability to go after the "bad guys" when they legitimately do (and they still do serve that purpose) and isn't really helping the debate over whether their over collection of data is okay and how to reform that system.
- kelnos 13y ago
  I think its reasonable that as a US citizen you're okay with the NSA being able to break crypto. You just want to be able to trust that they're using it against the bad guys and not you. This is very interesting and got me thinking. I think that yes, in principle I agree, but there are limits. I draw a distinction between types of "breaking encryption". There's the standard kinda that "anyone" can do: social engineering, secret mathematical hacks, 0day exploits, brute force attacks, etc. Then there's the special stuff that only organizations in the position of the NSA can do: putting backdoors in cryptosystems (and pressuring commercial vendors to do so), influencing development of new cryptosystems to make them weaker, etc. I'm ok with the first set of methods, but not the latter. When you weaken a cryptosystem, you weaken it for everyone, not just the people you want to be able to spy on. Even if the NSA's activities were completely above-board and their power was used appropriately, weaker crypto that everyone uses means that no one can trust their crypto, whether it's to secure corporate communications, keep discussion of an unpopular idea secret, or just trust that when you access your bank's website, a random attacker can't use an NSA backdoor to steal your banking info.
kelnos 13y ago
I think we (on HN) underestimate just how OK a large part of the US is about all of this stuff. "The terrorists" in many ways have already won: people are scared. My take on it is that a large part of the US populace (and also in other parts of the first world) believe that giving up what we on HN consider essential liberty is a fine trade-off for some extra security (real or imagined). Yes, the Snowden disclosures have tipped many people (who were on the fence) toward an active dislike of what US intelligence agencies are doing, but I think there is still a very large percentage of people -- perhaps even still a majority -- who truly think all this makes them safer, and that the cost is worth it. I won't pretend to understand that point of view, but... there it is.
rtpg 13y ago
I never got the unelected point. Do you think these initiatives are strictly done at the NSA level? At one point an elected official (being the top of the chain in the executive and the legislative) agreed to this stuff happening. In what universe do we build a government where everyone is an "elected official"?

ihsw 13y ago

> Isn't the whole point of this uproar that we do not trust these unelected (by the US, never mind the global population) spooks with unfettered access to all communications? Yes, however some people think "the government" can do no wrong because it "works for the people." The government they support also happens to be fighting a "War on Terror" where terror can include personal opinions that are critical of the American government and her corporate pillars[1][2][3][4]. Many still see distrust of government as indicative of mental illness, where such distrust is born from paranoia and anarchist/libertarian propaganda. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_oil [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_lobby [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics)

datanotdata 13y ago
“Every word that is spoken and sung here represents at least this one thing: that this humiliating age has not succeeded in winning our respect.” -Hugo Ball
blackcat 13y ago
>Many still see distrust of government as indicative of mental illness, where such distrust is born from paranoia and anarchist/libertarian propaganda. If you are actually worried that you will be spirited away to be tortured by the US while living as a normal, non-radical muslim in England you may have cognitive issues. If you are white triply so.

bpatrianakos 13y ago

I don't think he's saying it would be good for anyone for the NSA to continue snooping as they do. I think your first point is wrong, your last point is right, and the two are unrelated. The issue isn't the fact that the NSA snoops. That's their job and it has value when their power to do so is used judiciously. The problem is that its not being used judiciously. Rather than singling out as few people as possible to root out the bad guys their just collecting everything they can. They don't need to do this and doing so opens up the possibility for huge abuses of power. That's the issue. I think the article is right that the crypto revelations aren't pertinent to this discussion. I would even consider the crypto revelations a red herring. Is it important how the NSA spies on everyone? No, its only important to know that they do it at all when speaking in the context of how the Snowden leaks are important to creating a national debate and, hopefully, by some miracle, create reforms. I think its reasonable that as a US citizen you're okay with the NSA being able to break crypto. You just want to be able to trust that they're using it against the bad guys and not you. Even now that we know they're probably using it against innocent civilians its more harmful to the NSA's ability to go after the "bad guys" when they legitimately do (and they still do serve that purpose) and isn't really helping the debate over whether their over collection of data is okay and how to reform that system.

kelnos 13y ago
I think its reasonable that as a US citizen you're okay with the NSA being able to break crypto. You just want to be able to trust that they're using it against the bad guys and not you. This is very interesting and got me thinking. I think that yes, in principle I agree, but there are limits. I draw a distinction between types of "breaking encryption". There's the standard kinda that "anyone" can do: social engineering, secret mathematical hacks, 0day exploits, brute force attacks, etc. Then there's the special stuff that only organizations in the position of the NSA can do: putting backdoors in cryptosystems (and pressuring commercial vendors to do so), influencing development of new cryptosystems to make them weaker, etc. I'm ok with the first set of methods, but not the latter. When you weaken a cryptosystem, you weaken it for everyone, not just the people you want to be able to spy on. Even if the NSA's activities were completely above-board and their power was used appropriately, weaker crypto that everyone uses means that no one can trust their crypto, whether it's to secure corporate communications, keep discussion of an unpopular idea secret, or just trust that when you access your bank's website, a random attacker can't use an NSA backdoor to steal your banking info.

kelnos 13y ago

I think we (on HN) underestimate just how OK a large part of the US is about all of this stuff. "The terrorists" in many ways have already won: people are scared. My take on it is that a large part of the US populace (and also in other parts of the first world) believe that giving up what we on HN consider essential liberty is a fine trade-off for some extra security (real or imagined). Yes, the Snowden disclosures have tipped many people (who were on the fence) toward an active dislike of what US intelligence agencies are doing, but I think there is still a very large percentage of people -- perhaps even still a majority -- who truly think all this makes them safer, and that the cost is worth it. I won't pretend to understand that point of view, but... there it is.

rtpg 13y ago

I never got the unelected point. Do you think these initiatives are strictly done at the NSA level? At one point an elected official (being the top of the chain in the executive and the legislative) agreed to this stuff happening. In what universe do we build a government where everyone is an "elected official"?