5 ms·

One of my coworkers actually expressed this sentiment to me. He's generally a smart guy but I don't know how you get across how damaging this is to basic comme

One of my coworkers actually expressed this sentiment to me. He's generally a smart guy but I don't know how you get across how damaging this is to basic commerce. The NSA is destroying the American technical industry piece by piece. How do we approach this existential crisis, when the folks behind the NSA apparently don't give a shit what damage they do to America?

clavalle 13y ago
Here's the thing: Every country that CAN collect data IS collecting data. If they are manufacturing anything that can be hacked to collect data and they can feasibly get away with it (read: there is no independent oversight), you can bet it is being done. Germany is no different than France is no different from the US is no different than China etc. etc. The only difference is they haven't had their Snowdens come out of the woodwork yet. I can guarantee the US intelligence apparatus is right now trying to figure out how to out a few of these foreign programs so that the US does not look quite so bad in comparison without causing a diplomatic meltdown.
- fforw 13y ago
  I think it's deluded to expect any country to come even close to what the US is doing except maybe China. The budgets of all are not anywhere high enough to pull such a thing off. The US has moved on a dark and lonely path after 9/11.. Not only in espionage, but also in remote killings, illegal imprisonment and torture. To say others do just the same seems deluded.
  - bananacurve 13y ago
    Europe outsources a good deal of their defense and intelligence to the US, and for good reason, why spend money on redundant systems when the West is working together. http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-nsas-9-eyes.7611.html http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-nsas-9-eyes.761...
  - clavalle 13y ago
    I can agree with your point that nobody quite reaches the scale of the US. I mean, I am not suggesting Uganda has huge data warehousing and analysis compounds or anything absurd like that. But I do suggest that every country is doing what they are capable. And countries like Japan, China, UK, Israel, Germany, Russia etc. are capable of quite a lot.
- aagha 13y ago
  "Germany is no different than France is no different from the US is no different than China etc. etc" What evidence do you have of this? I'm highly suspicious of the fact that the German and French governments are spying on their populace as widely as the US government is on its.
adventured 13y ago
The money is what matters politically. Interestingly in this case, while that's one of the most sickening aspects of US politics these days (the extreme dominance of money), it's also the one we can count on here. Enough damage - which seems to be a matter of time now - and a lot more companies will stand up and 'force' their politicians to dismantle the NSA's programs. Either that or the military industrial complex has reached a point of scale where it's basically going to end up destroying itself by bleeding out the economy and the tax dollars required to fund such a massive beast. I'd argue that there's no scenario in which the military industrial complex survives intact going forward, short of WW3. That's particularly fitting timing wise, as America has reached all sorts of crossroads in its path forward (huge generation changing issues on debt, education, standards of living, war, jobs). edit: Another thought - it's also going to self-cripple the military by eroding the US technology sector (capital seeds tech companies in other countries instead of the US as a response, so more technology is created outside the US in the future, in a downward spiral, potentially depriving the NSA and military of all sorts of technology and access). The relative US technology lead has been a massive competitive advantage for the military for a century.
- gonvaled 13y ago
  Isightful. And the follow-up question is: since the military industrial complex has probably already reached this conclussion, will they force war? I mean, in a more direct way than what we are used to ... In this light, trusting the USA to responsably handle the nuclear arsenal may prove to be the biggest mistake that the international community has done since WWII.
  - adventured 13y ago
    The nuclear arsenal is for Russia and China and self-defense, it's useless in WW3 unless mutual assured end-of-civilization is desired (or as a one-off response to someone like Iran or Pakistan using a nuke or a small number of them). That arsenal is no more risky in the US hands than in, say, the hands of Russia or China or Britain or France. The military industrial complex wants money and power, not global annihilation - always remember it's run by people, and they want what most people in power want. It's not a complicated beast, it's mostly about the world's largest slush fund, $700 some odd billion up for grabs every year, and they want all of it and more if they can get it. The military people want to play military, and the industrial people want to play industry, and they leverage each other to that end. Yes, I think they'll force more wars. Something that big and powerful, in a state of desperation for survival, is scary indeed. I think that's what the play in the 'sandbox' (the middle east, aka where you can launch wars and suffer no domestic enemy retaliation and you can't hardly 'lose' in a classic historical sense) has been largely about, excuses to spend large amounts of money and build & experiment with shiny new war machines. If it had been about economics, oil for example, we'd already control most of the oil in the middle east (we'd have taken Saudi Arabia and Iraq's oil through force). I think that explains Wesley Clark's shocking admission about the Pentagon planning all the wars far in advance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU

clavalle 13y ago

Here's the thing: Every country that CAN collect data IS collecting data. If they are manufacturing anything that can be hacked to collect data and they can feasibly get away with it (read: there is no independent oversight), you can bet it is being done. Germany is no different than France is no different from the US is no different than China etc. etc. The only difference is they haven't had their Snowdens come out of the woodwork yet. I can guarantee the US intelligence apparatus is right now trying to figure out how to out a few of these foreign programs so that the US does not look quite so bad in comparison without causing a diplomatic meltdown.

fforw 13y ago
I think it's deluded to expect any country to come even close to what the US is doing except maybe China. The budgets of all are not anywhere high enough to pull such a thing off. The US has moved on a dark and lonely path after 9/11.. Not only in espionage, but also in remote killings, illegal imprisonment and torture. To say others do just the same seems deluded.
- bananacurve 13y ago
  Europe outsources a good deal of their defense and intelligence to the US, and for good reason, why spend money on redundant systems when the West is working together. http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-nsas-9-eyes.7611.html http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-nsas-9-eyes.761...
- clavalle 13y ago
  I can agree with your point that nobody quite reaches the scale of the US. I mean, I am not suggesting Uganda has huge data warehousing and analysis compounds or anything absurd like that. But I do suggest that every country is doing what they are capable. And countries like Japan, China, UK, Israel, Germany, Russia etc. are capable of quite a lot.
aagha 13y ago
"Germany is no different than France is no different from the US is no different than China etc. etc" What evidence do you have of this? I'm highly suspicious of the fact that the German and French governments are spying on their populace as widely as the US government is on its.

adventured 13y ago

The money is what matters politically. Interestingly in this case, while that's one of the most sickening aspects of US politics these days (the extreme dominance of money), it's also the one we can count on here. Enough damage - which seems to be a matter of time now - and a lot more companies will stand up and 'force' their politicians to dismantle the NSA's programs. Either that or the military industrial complex has reached a point of scale where it's basically going to end up destroying itself by bleeding out the economy and the tax dollars required to fund such a massive beast. I'd argue that there's no scenario in which the military industrial complex survives intact going forward, short of WW3. That's particularly fitting timing wise, as America has reached all sorts of crossroads in its path forward (huge generation changing issues on debt, education, standards of living, war, jobs). edit: Another thought - it's also going to self-cripple the military by eroding the US technology sector (capital seeds tech companies in other countries instead of the US as a response, so more technology is created outside the US in the future, in a downward spiral, potentially depriving the NSA and military of all sorts of technology and access). The relative US technology lead has been a massive competitive advantage for the military for a century.

gonvaled 13y ago
Isightful. And the follow-up question is: since the military industrial complex has probably already reached this conclussion, will they force war? I mean, in a more direct way than what we are used to ... In this light, trusting the USA to responsably handle the nuclear arsenal may prove to be the biggest mistake that the international community has done since WWII.
- adventured 13y ago
  The nuclear arsenal is for Russia and China and self-defense, it's useless in WW3 unless mutual assured end-of-civilization is desired (or as a one-off response to someone like Iran or Pakistan using a nuke or a small number of them). That arsenal is no more risky in the US hands than in, say, the hands of Russia or China or Britain or France. The military industrial complex wants money and power, not global annihilation - always remember it's run by people, and they want what most people in power want. It's not a complicated beast, it's mostly about the world's largest slush fund, $700 some odd billion up for grabs every year, and they want all of it and more if they can get it. The military people want to play military, and the industrial people want to play industry, and they leverage each other to that end. Yes, I think they'll force more wars. Something that big and powerful, in a state of desperation for survival, is scary indeed. I think that's what the play in the 'sandbox' (the middle east, aka where you can launch wars and suffer no domestic enemy retaliation and you can't hardly 'lose' in a classic historical sense) has been largely about, excuses to spend large amounts of money and build & experiment with shiny new war machines. If it had been about economics, oil for example, we'd already control most of the oil in the middle east (we'd have taken Saudi Arabia and Iraq's oil through force). I think that explains Wesley Clark's shocking admission about the Pentagon planning all the wars far in advance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU