10 ms·

>But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people are just now discovering that NSA was breaking into computers around the world. That is literally the

by pvnick 13y ago

>But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that people are just now discovering that NSA was breaking into computers around the world. That is literally the charter of the NSA. It's why they exist at all. You're presenting a red herring here, tptacek. Any third grader who played played Splinter Cell would say, "No duh!" But the news isn't that the NSA is breaking into computers. The news is the scope of the intrusions (installing malware on 50k computers), and of the motivations for the behavior. We've been told it's to protect us from the extremist muslims attempting to establish a caliphate here in America [1]. That was a lie. 50k computers with US-planted malware on them is not a defensive maneuver. It's an offensive one. It's not about protecting America. It's about global information dominance. Now, whether we want that or not is a different question; there are advantages and disadvantages to the issue depending to a large degree on whether or not you believe in American exceptionalism. But this is about an executive power grab, not about "spies spy, let's all go home now," and you're deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. [1] http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/Transcript_of_GEN_Alexanders_Black_Hat_Speech_31_July_2013.pdf http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/speeches_testimonies/T...

tptacek 13y ago
The NSA was breaking into huge numbers of computers long before we were worried about a "caliphate", and the fact that they were doing it was showing up on people's resumes before 9/11 as well. And this isn't about "American Exceptionalism". China didn't hack Google because they were upset about NSA hacking; they did it because Google had information they wanted, so they took it.
- pvnick 13y ago
  Then let's stop deluding ourselves and make it clear that the NSA's charter is about promoting what a small number of powerful unelected beaurocrats believe to be American interests, both politically and economically [1], without significant oversight. Then we can have an honest discussion on whether or not that's a good thing. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz...
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Where do I sign your petition? I'm right there with you.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    And while we're at it, let's stop letting them wave the "but the terrorists" flag every time they justify a program for which the goal is a lot more than terrorism (assuming many programs are about terrorism at all. Personally, I suspect most programs have nothing to do with terrorism, but that there is no better way to push through support than to argue "but the terrorists").
    - belzeboss 13y ago
      Many attacks against USA are motivated because of actions like the ones from NSA. Other countries are starting to consider the USA an enemy to be defeated because bulshit likes this is getting shown. If citizens of other countries start to make an outcry their leaders will make retaliations even if just for show.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
DanBC 13y ago
> The news is the scope of the intrusions (installing malware on 50k computers), and of the motivations for the behavior. GCHQ have said for at least 15 years that their mission is to monitor all communications, world wide, at frequencies from DC to light. They've said that they provide intelligence for their customers, who are the Ministry of Defence and other parts of government. (MI5, MI6, etc). > It's about global information dominance. GCHQ / NSA have never ever said anything different. > But this is about an executive power grab, It's a grab that happened a decade or more ago.
- pvnick 13y ago
  I don't know anything about GCHQ, but I don't want British intelligence to have intimate details about my life stored in some nosql database, and I see it as an offensive maneuver by a foreign government from which my government fails to protect me. See my reply to tptacek's post sibling to yours for a general response to your inquiry.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Well, they do. Just like Russia and China. I agree it's offensive. Now what? Next you'll tell me governments routinely have foreigners killed.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Well, they do. Just like Russia and China. I seriously doubt that. Russia, for example, could not care less about 99.9% of western citizens (whereas for western spying agencies, those are potential dissidents to be kept on check). And even if they cared, what exactly would they do with that information? It's not like they are particularly powerful, imperialist or try to play global cop (post USSR). It's also not like they arrange puppet politicians and governments in foreign countries, as western powers are known to do.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    I see it as an offensive maneuver by a foreign government from which my government fails to protect me. Which is why you should be angry at your government for failing to protect you.
malandrew 13y ago
Yup. TBH I simply don't understand the logic that makes an offensive act against a non-combatants by an individual illegal, but somehow permits that same act against non-combatants by a nation state. It it is illegal for an individual to murder someone, then it should be illegal for the government to do so. If it is illegal for a programmer to infect thousands of computers of innocent people with malware, then it should be illegal for the government to do so. I have no doubt in my mind that among those 50k are many innocent people (foreign and domestic), and that among the domestic infections, I doubt the NSA could produce a warrant or other legal instrument that permits them to have caused that infection. Under what wacky laws do we actually permit such malware. And are there any provisions in those laws proscribing corrections for any offensive malware programs that cause collateral damage.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  What does illegal mean in the context of government? The government decides what's illegal. If you want to declare some government's action illegal, you need to find a bigger government to impose their laws on the little government.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    If you live in a nation of laws, i.e. some form of functioning democracy, the people decide what is legal through their representatives, and this can change gradually as attitudes shift. The government is supposed to be an instrument of the people, not the other way around.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      I assume the parent is talking about the USG spying on or murdering other not-US people, in which case the people of the US have more or less decided that's what they want.

by pvnick 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

The NSA was breaking into huge numbers of computers long before we were worried about a "caliphate", and the fact that they were doing it was showing up on people's resumes before 9/11 as well. And this isn't about "American Exceptionalism". China didn't hack Google because they were upset about NSA hacking; they did it because Google had information they wanted, so they took it.

pvnick 13y ago
Then let's stop deluding ourselves and make it clear that the NSA's charter is about promoting what a small number of powerful unelected beaurocrats believe to be American interests, both politically and economically [1], without significant oversight. Then we can have an honest discussion on whether or not that's a good thing. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz...
- tptacek 13y ago
  Where do I sign your petition? I'm right there with you.
- malandrew 13y ago
  And while we're at it, let's stop letting them wave the "but the terrorists" flag every time they justify a program for which the goal is a lot more than terrorism (assuming many programs are about terrorism at all. Personally, I suspect most programs have nothing to do with terrorism, but that there is no better way to push through support than to argue "but the terrorists").
  - belzeboss 13y ago
    Many attacks against USA are motivated because of actions like the ones from NSA. Other countries are starting to consider the USA an enemy to be defeated because bulshit likes this is getting shown. If citizens of other countries start to make an outcry their leaders will make retaliations even if just for show.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 13y ago

> The news is the scope of the intrusions (installing malware on 50k computers), and of the motivations for the behavior. GCHQ have said for at least 15 years that their mission is to monitor all communications, world wide, at frequencies from DC to light. They've said that they provide intelligence for their customers, who are the Ministry of Defence and other parts of government. (MI5, MI6, etc). > It's about global information dominance. GCHQ / NSA have never ever said anything different. > But this is about an executive power grab, It's a grab that happened a decade or more ago.

pvnick 13y ago
I don't know anything about GCHQ, but I don't want British intelligence to have intimate details about my life stored in some nosql database, and I see it as an offensive maneuver by a foreign government from which my government fails to protect me. See my reply to tptacek's post sibling to yours for a general response to your inquiry.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Well, they do. Just like Russia and China. I agree it's offensive. Now what? Next you'll tell me governments routinely have foreigners killed.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Well, they do. Just like Russia and China. I seriously doubt that. Russia, for example, could not care less about 99.9% of western citizens (whereas for western spying agencies, those are potential dissidents to be kept on check). And even if they cared, what exactly would they do with that information? It's not like they are particularly powerful, imperialist or try to play global cop (post USSR). It's also not like they arrange puppet politicians and governments in foreign countries, as western powers are known to do.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  I see it as an offensive maneuver by a foreign government from which my government fails to protect me. Which is why you should be angry at your government for failing to protect you.

malandrew 13y ago

Yup. TBH I simply don't understand the logic that makes an offensive act against a non-combatants by an individual illegal, but somehow permits that same act against non-combatants by a nation state. It it is illegal for an individual to murder someone, then it should be illegal for the government to do so. If it is illegal for a programmer to infect thousands of computers of innocent people with malware, then it should be illegal for the government to do so. I have no doubt in my mind that among those 50k are many innocent people (foreign and domestic), and that among the domestic infections, I doubt the NSA could produce a warrant or other legal instrument that permits them to have caused that infection. Under what wacky laws do we actually permit such malware. And are there any provisions in those laws proscribing corrections for any offensive malware programs that cause collateral damage.

tedunangst 13y ago
What does illegal mean in the context of government? The government decides what's illegal. If you want to declare some government's action illegal, you need to find a bigger government to impose their laws on the little government.
- grey-area 13y ago
  If you live in a nation of laws, i.e. some form of functioning democracy, the people decide what is legal through their representatives, and this can change gradually as attitudes shift. The government is supposed to be an instrument of the people, not the other way around.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    I assume the parent is talking about the USG spying on or murdering other not-US people, in which case the people of the US have more or less decided that's what they want.