7 ms·

NSA's Surveillance Powers Extend Far Beyond Counterterrorism

145 points by sethbannon 13y ago

ffrryuu 13y ago
Industrial espionage + attacking political opponents + labeling whistleblower as crazy and commit them to the hospital.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  Sounds sufficiently Soviet to me.
  - ffrryuu 13y ago
    We hate them because they remind us of ourselves.
bediger4000 13y ago
I'd say we will know the NSA's data is getting used when some up-and-coming political figures get sent back down due to revelations about weird porno habits, or other internet-related pecadilloes. Or maybe when we notice an entire generation does not have any representative leaders in national US politics. Only old farts, whose predilections were exercized pre-Intenet, remain. Hmmm.....
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Already happened, although it wasn't the NSA in particular. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scan... . Gee, I feel safer already.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    A world without Spitzer is in fact safer...
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Well, yeah, but still. The ends don't justify the means.
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      But one without Petraus? Perhaps less so.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    How do we know the NSA wasn't involved? Perhaps Spitzer is on the business end of a "parallel construction". That's the problem with Secret Evidence, obtained by illegal means. How can we be sure that the Secret Evidence wasn't used to start a parallel construction?
- Zoomla 13y ago
  or when politicians don't execute their promises after being elected.
einehexe 13y ago
This is a classic strawman that the EFF sets up to easily knock down. No one in their right mind thinks that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. All American interests are to be looked after. The NSA unilaterily disarming would be a dream come true to many, mostly those who would like to see the West decline.
- sinak 13y ago
  From my conversations with friends and family, I think many people think that the NSA's sole purpose is to fight terrorism. That thinking has been reinforced by the NSA and the administration repeatedly claiming that NSA surveillance is justified because it prevents terrorist attacks. If not the "sole" purpose, in the least they think it's the NSA's "main" purpose. But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case. Being useful for one major thing doesn't mean that a tool is not also useful for other things. You can in fact point out as many other minor things as you wish, but that doesn't invalidate (by itself) the usefulness for the major task. So I don't see EFF's point here. In fact that was the point I was about to make before screening the comments: "Of course NSA's powers extend beyond simple counterterrorism, who is claiming otherwise? Did they not read even a synopsis of the relevant law?"
- saraid216 13y ago
  > No one in their right mind thinks that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. There are a lot of people on HN who think that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. Most of these people can't be bothered to visit the front page of nsa.gov.
webreac 13y ago
Terrorism and paedophilia are the usual scapegoats to justify unacceptable policies.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- betterunix 13y ago
  You forgot drugs, witchcraft, etc. Whatever the uneducated masses are irrationally afraid of will be used by those in power to justify their abuses.
smokeyj 13y ago
If I could spy on anyone, I'd game the market, subvert the rule of law, and declare all my competitors terrorists. That is the American way.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- joe_inferno 13y ago
  It's like the definition of a cancer
- pstuart 13y ago
  Ultimately it has to be "the people". My casual survey of people in my social circle indicates that because most americans "have nothing to hide", they aren't too concerned. The U.S. is collectively getting what it deserves.
justinschuh 13y ago
Here's NSA's own statement on their SIGINT mission: "The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policy-makers and military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with critical information they need to defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally." http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ Now, it's not an accident that "policy-makers" comes first in that sentence. The truth is that the vast majority of productized intelligence is used solely to inform policy-makers in a capacity that will never lead to any form of military or clandestine intervention. Yes, operational uses certainly do exist, but they are not the norm. Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases, because it's a complicated and nuanced position. Instead of having that conversation (and risking both ignorant and informed criticism) they take the cynical approach of framing it as something that's hard to argue with. For many decades it was defending against the communists, and since 2001 it's been protection against terrorism. So, articles like this one are the unavoidable result of avoiding a difficult conversation. That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence. If you have the right idea, then why not share it here? It'd be a valuable comment, and I'd like to hear your point of view.
  - justinschuh 13y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your question. Nations conduct foreign intelligence primarily to inform policy makers in ways that help them further their own national interests. The majority of the time, doing so doesn't involve military or clandestine intervention. The specific reasons are as varied as nations and national interests. It could be as a diplomacy tool, to identify strategic areas for investment, to make informed decisions about trade policy and treaties, or just to keep track of what's going on in the rest of the world.
bane 13y ago
Of course it does, Counterterrorism is one of many missions it must undertake. It's not like the NSA was set up during the Cold War when terrorism was barely a policy making blip on anybody's radar or anything. In other words, Spy Agency does Spying, news at 11.

145 points by sethbannon 13y ago

ffrryuu 13y ago

Industrial espionage + attacking political opponents + labeling whistleblower as crazy and commit them to the hospital.

selimthegrim 13y ago
Sounds sufficiently Soviet to me.
- ffrryuu 13y ago
  We hate them because they remind us of ourselves.

bediger4000 13y ago

I'd say we will know the NSA's data is getting used when some up-and-coming political figures get sent back down due to revelations about weird porno habits, or other internet-related pecadilloes. Or maybe when we notice an entire generation does not have any representative leaders in national US politics. Only old farts, whose predilections were exercized pre-Intenet, remain. Hmmm.....

CamperBob2 13y ago
Already happened, although it wasn't the NSA in particular. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scan... . Gee, I feel safer already.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  A world without Spitzer is in fact safer...
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Well, yeah, but still. The ends don't justify the means.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    But one without Petraus? Perhaps less so.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- bediger4000 13y ago
  How do we know the NSA wasn't involved? Perhaps Spitzer is on the business end of a "parallel construction". That's the problem with Secret Evidence, obtained by illegal means. How can we be sure that the Secret Evidence wasn't used to start a parallel construction?
Zoomla 13y ago
or when politicians don't execute their promises after being elected.

einehexe 13y ago

This is a classic strawman that the EFF sets up to easily knock down. No one in their right mind thinks that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. All American interests are to be looked after. The NSA unilaterily disarming would be a dream come true to many, mostly those who would like to see the West decline.

sinak 13y ago
From my conversations with friends and family, I think many people think that the NSA's sole purpose is to fight terrorism. That thinking has been reinforced by the NSA and the administration repeatedly claiming that NSA surveillance is justified because it prevents terrorist attacks. If not the "sole" purpose, in the least they think it's the NSA's "main" purpose. But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > But the main point of the article is that the Obama administration justifies surveillance by saying it's critical to preventing terrorism, but that surveillance is being used for many many purposes beyond just counterterrorism, making it a poor case. Being useful for one major thing doesn't mean that a tool is not also useful for other things. You can in fact point out as many other minor things as you wish, but that doesn't invalidate (by itself) the usefulness for the major task. So I don't see EFF's point here. In fact that was the point I was about to make before screening the comments: "Of course NSA's powers extend beyond simple counterterrorism, who is claiming otherwise? Did they not read even a synopsis of the relevant law?"
saraid216 13y ago
> No one in their right mind thinks that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. There are a lot of people on HN who think that the sole purpose of the NSA is terrorism. Most of these people can't be bothered to visit the front page of nsa.gov.

webreac 13y ago

Terrorism and paedophilia are the usual scapegoats to justify unacceptable policies.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
betterunix 13y ago
You forgot drugs, witchcraft, etc. Whatever the uneducated masses are irrationally afraid of will be used by those in power to justify their abuses.

smokeyj 13y ago

If I could spy on anyone, I'd game the market, subvert the rule of law, and declare all my competitors terrorists. That is the American way.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

joe_inferno 13y ago
It's like the definition of a cancer
pstuart 13y ago
Ultimately it has to be "the people". My casual survey of people in my social circle indicates that because most americans "have nothing to hide", they aren't too concerned. The U.S. is collectively getting what it deserves.

justinschuh 13y ago

Here's NSA's own statement on their SIGINT mission: "The National Security Agency is responsible for providing foreign Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) to our nation's policy-makers and military forces. SIGINT plays a vital role in our national security by providing America's leaders with critical information they need to defend our country, save lives, and advance U.S. goals and alliances globally." http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/ Now, it's not an accident that "policy-makers" comes first in that sentence. The truth is that the vast majority of productized intelligence is used solely to inform policy-makers in a capacity that will never lead to any form of military or clandestine intervention. Yes, operational uses certainly do exist, but they are not the norm. Unfortunately, you won't find a government spokesman or politician coming out and admitting that in most cases, because it's a complicated and nuanced position. Instead of having that conversation (and risking both ignorant and informed criticism) they take the cynical approach of framing it as something that's hard to argue with. For many decades it was defending against the communists, and since 2001 it's been protection against terrorism. So, articles like this one are the unavoidable result of avoiding a difficult conversation. That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
That's why the public at large (and even many supposed experts) have entirely the wrong idea about why nations collect foreign intelligence. If you have the right idea, then why not share it here? It'd be a valuable comment, and I'd like to hear your point of view.
- justinschuh 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your question. Nations conduct foreign intelligence primarily to inform policy makers in ways that help them further their own national interests. The majority of the time, doing so doesn't involve military or clandestine intervention. The specific reasons are as varied as nations and national interests. It could be as a diplomacy tool, to identify strategic areas for investment, to make informed decisions about trade policy and treaties, or just to keep track of what's going on in the rest of the world.

bane 13y ago

Of course it does, Counterterrorism is one of many missions it must undertake. It's not like the NSA was set up during the Cold War when terrorism was barely a policy making blip on anybody's radar or anything. In other words, Spy Agency does Spying, news at 11.