6 ms·

The information released today includes a number of internal NSA documents, training slides and internal guidance, which demonstrate the care with whic

by pvnick 13y ago

The information released today includes a number of internal NSA documents, training slides and internal guidance, which demonstrate the care with which NSA’s foreign intelligence collection pursuant to Section 501 is run, managed, and overseen. In other words, this selective declassification is not about being transparent and open. It's propaganda designed to take some of the flak off the administration. Not that there's anything inherently wrong or surprising about that since it's the kind of thing we've come to expect from our politicians. It's just that if I knew how different the Obama administration's actions would be from what 2008 candidate Obama's rhetoric led my 20-year-old self to believe, I wouldn't have donated money to him.

ConceptJunkie 13y ago
> It's just that if I knew how different the Obama administration's actions would be from what 2008 candidate Obama's rhetoric led my 20-year-old self to believe, I wouldn't have donated money to him. If enough people felt this way, things could be a lot better. I can forgive someone who believed the rhetoric the first time, even though a lot of us didn't. It's a lesson we all have to learn, and if the lesson is learned, the mistakes aren't so bad. Unfortunately, a majority of voters didn't think this was enough to prevent them from re-electing him in 2012, nor I fear, from electing another person just like him in 2016.
- mikeash 13y ago
  It's not like the other realistic choice in 2012 would have been any better about this stuff. The root of the problem is that the majority of voters like this stuff. Americans are, by and large, terrified of terrorists (imagine that) and want their government doing everything imaginable to stop it. Never mind that terrorism is less dangerous than e. coli or sharks, it's an important issue to a lot of people. That is what we need to change, not a few politicians. Convince the public, and the rest will follow. Not that I have any clue how to even start.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Not that I have any clue how to even start. Start with Hollywood. Perceptions can be changed through entertainment. It has worked well to promote equal rights. Bit by bit, entertainment can acclimate us to new ideas. White House Down is an interesting example of a starting point: [spoiler alert] Instead of the terrorists coming from the Middle East, they come from the military industrial complex and secret service.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Because Hollywood's never had military contractors as bad guys before...
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    By your logic, why shouldn't Americans worry much more about E. coli than NSA surveillance? What evidence do we have from Snowden (or elsewhere) that NSA surveillance has killed or even harmed anyone in the US? You can feel "terrorized" that the NSA might use its powers for great evil, but to the average voter that probably seems less likely than one or a series of high casualty attacks by foreign nationals. I don't want to get into an argument about how we're all deeply harmed whenever laws are violated, and especially when the powerful can violate them at will. Sure. But the mortality rate argument is a loser: The public and policy makers will never make these kinds of serious decisions based only on a death toll. If they did, we'd have banned passenger cars decades ago.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I think people should, in fact, prioritize e. coli over NSA overreach. Worrying about being spied on is the sort of high-end top-of-the-Maslow-hierarchy luxury you can indulge in after you have reliable access to good food and such. That's not to say that I don't think it's serious. But food safety is much more fundamental. No, decisions will not be made based purely on death toll. But we must demand some sort of rational basis, and when it comes to terrorism, there is none.
      - 13y ago
dragonwriter 13y ago
> In other words, this selective declassification is not about being transparent and open. It's propaganda designed to take some of the flak off the administration. That was pretty much the public explanation given when the order for declassification was issued (it was framed as an effort to reassure the public about the programs in the wake of the leaks), so that shouldn't be too surprising.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Yup. When the order was announced I interpreted it as "Find as many documents that support our policy position and doesn't tell the public what they don't already know. Also, feel free to redact anything that might be interpreted as negative, so that whatever documents you release are seen in a positive light." James Clapper and Co are not qualified to determine what the US people need to know here. A mutually trusted third party or parties should be going through the documents and figuring out what should be released.

by pvnick 13y ago

ConceptJunkie 13y ago

> It's just that if I knew how different the Obama administration's actions would be from what 2008 candidate Obama's rhetoric led my 20-year-old self to believe, I wouldn't have donated money to him. If enough people felt this way, things could be a lot better. I can forgive someone who believed the rhetoric the first time, even though a lot of us didn't. It's a lesson we all have to learn, and if the lesson is learned, the mistakes aren't so bad. Unfortunately, a majority of voters didn't think this was enough to prevent them from re-electing him in 2012, nor I fear, from electing another person just like him in 2016.

mikeash 13y ago
It's not like the other realistic choice in 2012 would have been any better about this stuff. The root of the problem is that the majority of voters like this stuff. Americans are, by and large, terrified of terrorists (imagine that) and want their government doing everything imaginable to stop it. Never mind that terrorism is less dangerous than e. coli or sharks, it's an important issue to a lot of people. That is what we need to change, not a few politicians. Convince the public, and the rest will follow. Not that I have any clue how to even start.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Not that I have any clue how to even start. Start with Hollywood. Perceptions can be changed through entertainment. It has worked well to promote equal rights. Bit by bit, entertainment can acclimate us to new ideas. White House Down is an interesting example of a starting point: [spoiler alert] Instead of the terrorists coming from the Middle East, they come from the military industrial complex and secret service.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Because Hollywood's never had military contractors as bad guys before...
- twoodfin 13y ago
  By your logic, why shouldn't Americans worry much more about E. coli than NSA surveillance? What evidence do we have from Snowden (or elsewhere) that NSA surveillance has killed or even harmed anyone in the US? You can feel "terrorized" that the NSA might use its powers for great evil, but to the average voter that probably seems less likely than one or a series of high casualty attacks by foreign nationals. I don't want to get into an argument about how we're all deeply harmed whenever laws are violated, and especially when the powerful can violate them at will. Sure. But the mortality rate argument is a loser: The public and policy makers will never make these kinds of serious decisions based only on a death toll. If they did, we'd have banned passenger cars decades ago.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I think people should, in fact, prioritize e. coli over NSA overreach. Worrying about being spied on is the sort of high-end top-of-the-Maslow-hierarchy luxury you can indulge in after you have reliable access to good food and such. That's not to say that I don't think it's serious. But food safety is much more fundamental. No, decisions will not be made based purely on death toll. But we must demand some sort of rational basis, and when it comes to terrorism, there is none.
    - 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> In other words, this selective declassification is not about being transparent and open. It's propaganda designed to take some of the flak off the administration. That was pretty much the public explanation given when the order for declassification was issued (it was framed as an effort to reassure the public about the programs in the wake of the leaks), so that shouldn't be too surprising.

malandrew 13y ago
Yup. When the order was announced I interpreted it as "Find as many documents that support our policy position and doesn't tell the public what they don't already know. Also, feel free to redact anything that might be interpreted as negative, so that whatever documents you release are seen in a positive light." James Clapper and Co are not qualified to determine what the US people need to know here. A mutually trusted third party or parties should be going through the documents and figuring out what should be released.