8 ms·

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers. They went after members of congress. The Senate and the House -

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers. They went after members of congress. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms. Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after state department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people! They went after anti-war groups. They went after US companies that do international business around the world. They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs like the red cross and people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil rights groups... Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a bunch of different people they went after that I saw! The names and the phone numbers of congress. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too, and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home in their congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves - in my opinion - into a rogue agency that has J Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids." --former nsa officer Russ Tice... June 20th interview on Boiling Frogs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc (full 1hr+ radio interview) or watch 11 minute RT interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk

pvnick 13y ago
I remember this post being made here on HN around when the revelations first started coming out and we were still trying to collect ourselves and adjust to the new realities of omnipresent surveillance. It was on the front page and had a ton of upvotes. I really hope that Snowden has evidence of this. Whether he does or not is just about make-it-or-break-it for whether we'll see any real reform.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  I can imagine a scenario in which even rock solid evidence of that sort wouldn't lead to real reform. "Hello Senator thanks so much for meeting with us today. We understand you're considering co-sponsoring that new 'privacy' bill. We just wanted to take a few minutes of your time to emphasize some points that we feel have some bearing on the bill in question. "I have here in front of me a few hard copies of some of your communications. I must say, they make for some interesting reading..."
  - pestaa 13y ago
    Sounds like more reason to step up and pass the bill.
  - FBT 13y ago
    For all that the US government has done some really nasty stuff, I don't believe they are really evil people. They are doing what they think is best for their country, based on their ideas of what is best. No one is rubbing their hands together and cackling over the evil laws that they past. Given this, congress has passed some pretty nasty stuff. But they were doing it for all the best reasons. They are honorable people, who likely wouldn't fold to blackmail, if they thought that they were being blackmailed into doing something bad for the US. I respect them that much, at least.
    - xradionut 13y ago
      "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Why don't you dig around and look at all the pieces of information, abuses, problems not corrected, situations allowed to spiral out of control, the waste of trillions of dollars, the cover ups, the intimidation, the assassinations, the governments overthrown, the hundreds of thousands of dead in other countries..., then come have a discussion about evil and the folks the control our government.
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      They are honorable people, who likely wouldn't fold to blackmail, if they thought that they were being blackmailed into doing something bad for the US. I respect them that much, at least. I'm curious to know your age. I used to feel as you do, but as people get older they tend to get more cynical. In particular, the idea that Americans are intrinsically honorable died an abrupt death in my mind after studying some of our history. Blackmail is one of the most basic tools in politics, and it's just that: a tool. Framing an effective tool as evil is beside the point, because an effective tool is always going to end up being used. And indeed we see that it's been used astonishingly often since WWII (and certainly before that as well). The most obvious example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover but there are many more. For what it's worth, the founding fathers probably wouldn't want you to assume our government are honorable people who wouldn't fold to blackmail. They would encourage you to assume the worst, and then be pleasantly surprised if your expectations were proven wrong. Thus far, the evidence has been pretty grim. Snowden seems to share your ideals and belief system (e.g. belief in honor for honor's sake and "people will do what's right, not merely what's lucrative") yet he was so offended by what he ultimately discovered at the NSA that he fled the country and left his life behind in order to expose it. In other words, he did what he thought was best for his country based on his ideas of what is best, and his ideals seem to be pretty close to yours.
r00fus 13y ago
The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is being collected, but who's the audience? And what is their agenda?
- slashdotaccount 13y ago
  Information has become the most valueable thing. Whoever controls it, they surely do have much more power than any elected leader.
  - r00fus 13y ago
    Being elected means being public. In the information security state, that's a huge weakness. When pervasive monitoring is the normal, the powerful are those not being monitored.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  The primary agenda of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate that bureaucracy. The targets mentioned fit very well with that goal.
- ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
  The first thing people in power do, is make sure they stay in power. They can't have anyone changing anything that would cause waves and disruptions.
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  Rule number 1: It's ALWAYS about the money. The agenda is the protection of excessive money/wealth. Which tells you where to look for "who's behind it": Rich people, very rich people. Also: The military-industrial complex. And I honestly don't know how one can take down such a power structure that's in such an advanced stage. I think it's like terminal cancer: it will only die when the host dies.
  - adventured 13y ago
    The military industrial complex is the biggest pile of assignable loot in world history. $5+ trillion over the last decade alone. Far more if you count everything connected to it. They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever, and they'll be damned if they're going to give up all that money. One way to dictate that is through control of the political process.
differentView 13y ago
Does this mean an unknown person or group that has control of the NSA intelligence is effectively running the United States?
- pyoung 13y ago
  No, it means that the NSA can, and has, collected data on just about anyone. What they do with it, my guess is not much unless there is an actual national security threat, is still up for question.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    When in doubt, assume the worse so that you might only be pleasantly surprised. Assume there is a J. Edgar Hoover 2.0.
    - teddyh 13y ago
      That would not be assuming the worst; A J. Edgar Hoover 2.0 would still be a person. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis
  - judk 13y ago
    What you think is a security threat and what they think is a security threat are not the same thing. That is the essence of the problem.
  - differentView 13y ago
    Am I being too cynical to think that if the person/group with this intelligence wants to move the United States in a certain direction, they can easily threaten, blackmail, or leak embarrassing/illegal information about those politicians/high-ranking military officers/CEOs of large corporations standing in their way. I am not saying every powerful person can be blackmailed, threatened, or have career-ruining secrets, but even if you have the power to control the actions of 1% of those people, that's a pretty significant power.
belorn 13y ago
The surveillance service began their history by monitoring enemy armies, knowing what the troop movements were and locating potential weaknesses. Their purpose was to help the military in defending the nation. They later grow to encompass international commerce, as that too related to national defense. Knowing where, how, and who are able to transport material in and out of countries is paramount in successful wars between nations. Of course, having access to private information in the international market, they were also able to start supporting their own nations companies and improve the nations ability to commercial out compete foreign companies. Afterward, the next step was to encompass everyone in ubiquitous surveillance. Having a working social graph of their own citizen, as well as anyone else can very much relate to national defense, now called nation security. Knowing who might in 10 years become the next President of the United States is important, as otherwise the wrong candidate might get elected. Surveillance of news papers is also of paramount importance, as otherwise state officials won't have time to react to the fast pace of inquiries that otherwise might happen. Documents destined to be shredded could be laying around for just anyone to read.[¹] The next step they took was a bit more bloody. Secret indefinitely incarceration, torture, and kill lists (The renamed Deathsquad of old). Using military force in targeting journalists, and publications. I wish I know what the next stage is. The insight from the old big leaders of west Germany, USSR and China has not made any new innovations on this front. At most, they were better at scaling the last step up and increasing the size of the kill lists, torture chambers, and the nastiness of the military force against journalists. I wonder if the national security agency feel a need to go one up on this, and innovate further. The virtual strip search by massive radiation machines are a nice touch, but they surely can do more. [¹]: http://snowdenandthefuture.info/ http://snowdenandthefuture.info/
- adventured 13y ago
  Virtual behavior modification and prediction. Inducing an entire culture to gradually change how it behaves, and its beliefs, through a mixture of opportunism on real events, simulated events, and trial balloons. Some of that isn't new, but the ability to use vast computing resources to map behavior prediction of 300 million people to an accurate degree, is. They no longer need your friends, family and neighbors to rat you out as a traitor (terrorist sympathizer?). They already know everything you have said, everywhere you have been, and everything you've done. ARGUS is very new. And it's a required cornerstone of behavior control. They'll have a hard time dictating who you are, if they don't know where you are at all times. The ideal fascist state is one of total compliance. A step forward for them would be to accomplish that with even less bloodshed, by essentially brain washing an entire culture toward a new way of thinking (war is peace, slavery is freedom). Not just empty slogans, posters, and fear, but actual belief across an entire culture. When you look at the near complete lack of protest against the rise of the fascist state in America, you can see they're already well on their way to having accomplished that.
cmdkeen 13y ago
The FBI did this for decades - Hoover's level of corruption is truly scary. He had dirt on every incoming US President and most representatives for years, and would offer to help his chosen candidate during the election cycle. But it ended with his death and there was a backlash from power. That's what doesn't make me worry about the NSA actually spying on US political figures. As for them spying on foreigners - so what? It's been common knowledge for years that Western countries spy on each other, Echelon demonstrated that electronic means were being used to. The British ran a mole inside the German finance ministry for years - unsurprising when you consider the damage Black Wednesday did to the British economy.
- pradocchia 13y ago
  But it ended with his death and there was a backlash from power. That's what doesn't make me worry about the NSA actually spying on US political figures. On the contrary, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt brought down Nixon through the Washington Post, in his role as Deep Throat of Watergate fame. This all happened after Hoover died in 72.
  - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
    There will always be career men/women who have seen a lot of laundry, who might be bitter when passed up for promotion in favor of a political crony, and find that helping along justice makes for sweet revenge. That is why extremely malicious conspiracies involving more than a dozen or so people are not believable. As the circle of those in the know increases, the likelihood that someone will think they did not get dealt fairly goes up rapidly, and those with gripes will find they are holding the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons against those who wronged them.
    - meowface 13y ago
      >That is why extremely malicious conspiracies involving more than a dozen or so people are not believable. As the circle of those in the know increases, the likelihood that someone will think they did not get dealt fairly goes up rapidly, and those with gripes will find they are holding the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons against those who wronged them. Exactly. That is one of many reasons why I find all the 9/11 conspiracies completely infeasible. Especially since those would require the cooperation of not only a few dozen, but probably a few hundred people.

pvnick 13y ago

I remember this post being made here on HN around when the revelations first started coming out and we were still trying to collect ourselves and adjust to the new realities of omnipresent surveillance. It was on the front page and had a ton of upvotes. I really hope that Snowden has evidence of this. Whether he does or not is just about make-it-or-break-it for whether we'll see any real reform.

jessaustin 13y ago
I can imagine a scenario in which even rock solid evidence of that sort wouldn't lead to real reform. "Hello Senator thanks so much for meeting with us today. We understand you're considering co-sponsoring that new 'privacy' bill. We just wanted to take a few minutes of your time to emphasize some points that we feel have some bearing on the bill in question. "I have here in front of me a few hard copies of some of your communications. I must say, they make for some interesting reading..."
- pestaa 13y ago
  Sounds like more reason to step up and pass the bill.
- FBT 13y ago
  For all that the US government has done some really nasty stuff, I don't believe they are really evil people. They are doing what they think is best for their country, based on their ideas of what is best. No one is rubbing their hands together and cackling over the evil laws that they past. Given this, congress has passed some pretty nasty stuff. But they were doing it for all the best reasons. They are honorable people, who likely wouldn't fold to blackmail, if they thought that they were being blackmailed into doing something bad for the US. I respect them that much, at least.
  - xradionut 13y ago
    "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Why don't you dig around and look at all the pieces of information, abuses, problems not corrected, situations allowed to spiral out of control, the waste of trillions of dollars, the cover ups, the intimidation, the assassinations, the governments overthrown, the hundreds of thousands of dead in other countries..., then come have a discussion about evil and the folks the control our government.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    They are honorable people, who likely wouldn't fold to blackmail, if they thought that they were being blackmailed into doing something bad for the US. I respect them that much, at least. I'm curious to know your age. I used to feel as you do, but as people get older they tend to get more cynical. In particular, the idea that Americans are intrinsically honorable died an abrupt death in my mind after studying some of our history. Blackmail is one of the most basic tools in politics, and it's just that: a tool. Framing an effective tool as evil is beside the point, because an effective tool is always going to end up being used. And indeed we see that it's been used astonishingly often since WWII (and certainly before that as well). The most obvious example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover but there are many more. For what it's worth, the founding fathers probably wouldn't want you to assume our government are honorable people who wouldn't fold to blackmail. They would encourage you to assume the worst, and then be pleasantly surprised if your expectations were proven wrong. Thus far, the evidence has been pretty grim. Snowden seems to share your ideals and belief system (e.g. belief in honor for honor's sake and "people will do what's right, not merely what's lucrative") yet he was so offended by what he ultimately discovered at the NSA that he fled the country and left his life behind in order to expose it. In other words, he did what he thought was best for his country based on his ideas of what is best, and his ideals seem to be pretty close to yours.

r00fus 13y ago

The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is being collected, but who's the audience? And what is their agenda?

slashdotaccount 13y ago
Information has become the most valueable thing. Whoever controls it, they surely do have much more power than any elected leader.
- r00fus 13y ago
  Being elected means being public. In the information security state, that's a huge weakness. When pervasive monitoring is the normal, the powerful are those not being monitored.
ojbyrne 13y ago
The primary agenda of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate that bureaucracy. The targets mentioned fit very well with that goal.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
The first thing people in power do, is make sure they stay in power. They can't have anyone changing anything that would cause waves and disruptions.
frank_boyd 13y ago
Rule number 1: It's ALWAYS about the money. The agenda is the protection of excessive money/wealth. Which tells you where to look for "who's behind it": Rich people, very rich people. Also: The military-industrial complex. And I honestly don't know how one can take down such a power structure that's in such an advanced stage. I think it's like terminal cancer: it will only die when the host dies.
- adventured 13y ago
  The military industrial complex is the biggest pile of assignable loot in world history. $5+ trillion over the last decade alone. Far more if you count everything connected to it. They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever, and they'll be damned if they're going to give up all that money. One way to dictate that is through control of the political process.

differentView 13y ago

Does this mean an unknown person or group that has control of the NSA intelligence is effectively running the United States?

pyoung 13y ago
No, it means that the NSA can, and has, collected data on just about anyone. What they do with it, my guess is not much unless there is an actual national security threat, is still up for question.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  When in doubt, assume the worse so that you might only be pleasantly surprised. Assume there is a J. Edgar Hoover 2.0.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    That would not be assuming the worst; A J. Edgar Hoover 2.0 would still be a person. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis
- judk 13y ago
  What you think is a security threat and what they think is a security threat are not the same thing. That is the essence of the problem.
- differentView 13y ago
  Am I being too cynical to think that if the person/group with this intelligence wants to move the United States in a certain direction, they can easily threaten, blackmail, or leak embarrassing/illegal information about those politicians/high-ranking military officers/CEOs of large corporations standing in their way. I am not saying every powerful person can be blackmailed, threatened, or have career-ruining secrets, but even if you have the power to control the actions of 1% of those people, that's a pretty significant power.

belorn 13y ago

The surveillance service began their history by monitoring enemy armies, knowing what the troop movements were and locating potential weaknesses. Their purpose was to help the military in defending the nation. They later grow to encompass international commerce, as that too related to national defense. Knowing where, how, and who are able to transport material in and out of countries is paramount in successful wars between nations. Of course, having access to private information in the international market, they were also able to start supporting their own nations companies and improve the nations ability to commercial out compete foreign companies. Afterward, the next step was to encompass everyone in ubiquitous surveillance. Having a working social graph of their own citizen, as well as anyone else can very much relate to national defense, now called nation security. Knowing who might in 10 years become the next President of the United States is important, as otherwise the wrong candidate might get elected. Surveillance of news papers is also of paramount importance, as otherwise state officials won't have time to react to the fast pace of inquiries that otherwise might happen. Documents destined to be shredded could be laying around for just anyone to read.[¹] The next step they took was a bit more bloody. Secret indefinitely incarceration, torture, and kill lists (The renamed Deathsquad of old). Using military force in targeting journalists, and publications. I wish I know what the next stage is. The insight from the old big leaders of west Germany, USSR and China has not made any new innovations on this front. At most, they were better at scaling the last step up and increasing the size of the kill lists, torture chambers, and the nastiness of the military force against journalists. I wonder if the national security agency feel a need to go one up on this, and innovate further. The virtual strip search by massive radiation machines are a nice touch, but they surely can do more. [¹]: http://snowdenandthefuture.info/ http://snowdenandthefuture.info/

adventured 13y ago
Virtual behavior modification and prediction. Inducing an entire culture to gradually change how it behaves, and its beliefs, through a mixture of opportunism on real events, simulated events, and trial balloons. Some of that isn't new, but the ability to use vast computing resources to map behavior prediction of 300 million people to an accurate degree, is. They no longer need your friends, family and neighbors to rat you out as a traitor (terrorist sympathizer?). They already know everything you have said, everywhere you have been, and everything you've done. ARGUS is very new. And it's a required cornerstone of behavior control. They'll have a hard time dictating who you are, if they don't know where you are at all times. The ideal fascist state is one of total compliance. A step forward for them would be to accomplish that with even less bloodshed, by essentially brain washing an entire culture toward a new way of thinking (war is peace, slavery is freedom). Not just empty slogans, posters, and fear, but actual belief across an entire culture. When you look at the near complete lack of protest against the rise of the fascist state in America, you can see they're already well on their way to having accomplished that.

cmdkeen 13y ago

The FBI did this for decades - Hoover's level of corruption is truly scary. He had dirt on every incoming US President and most representatives for years, and would offer to help his chosen candidate during the election cycle. But it ended with his death and there was a backlash from power. That's what doesn't make me worry about the NSA actually spying on US political figures. As for them spying on foreigners - so what? It's been common knowledge for years that Western countries spy on each other, Echelon demonstrated that electronic means were being used to. The British ran a mole inside the German finance ministry for years - unsurprising when you consider the damage Black Wednesday did to the British economy.

pradocchia 13y ago
But it ended with his death and there was a backlash from power. That's what doesn't make me worry about the NSA actually spying on US political figures. On the contrary, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt brought down Nixon through the Washington Post, in his role as Deep Throat of Watergate fame. This all happened after Hoover died in 72.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  There will always be career men/women who have seen a lot of laundry, who might be bitter when passed up for promotion in favor of a political crony, and find that helping along justice makes for sweet revenge. That is why extremely malicious conspiracies involving more than a dozen or so people are not believable. As the circle of those in the know increases, the likelihood that someone will think they did not get dealt fairly goes up rapidly, and those with gripes will find they are holding the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons against those who wronged them.
  - meowface 13y ago
    >That is why extremely malicious conspiracies involving more than a dozen or so people are not believable. As the circle of those in the know increases, the likelihood that someone will think they did not get dealt fairly goes up rapidly, and those with gripes will find they are holding the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons against those who wronged them. Exactly. That is one of many reasons why I find all the 9/11 conspiracies completely infeasible. Especially since those would require the cooperation of not only a few dozen, but probably a few hundred people.