12 ms·

I do understand that it is now the status quo to disavow everything the NSA is, but foreign intelligence gathering is their mission and releasing these details

I do understand that it is now the status quo to disavow everything the NSA is, but foreign intelligence gathering is their mission and releasing these details simply doesn't help the cause of fixing the NSA's less savoury incursions. While arguably any foreign intelligence agency of note isn't going to be caught off guard by these leaks, leaking these details does offer political ammunition to the very people who stand to gain from the expansion of the NSA's mission into civilian data gathering. It helps to make the case that the leaks aren't such a good thing after all and are compromising the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US of A. Add a bit of spin and you can quickly use this to get back to business as usual and people will actually support them as now it'll become a matter of identity instead of what it should be - a surgical exploration of a cancer afflicting a nation state.

ProAm 13y ago
This is what happens when you screw up at the magnitude the NSA has, EVERYTHING will be released and scrutinized for the foreseeable future. Right or wrong they made the bed they now have to sleep in.
- privong 13y ago
  Plus, the assumption that they're only using their surveillance technologies against foreign powers is now known to (often) be a false assumption. So it's not immediately clear which systems are only being used against foreign powers, so one wouldn't even know what might be held back (if one were to take the position that things only affecting espionage against other nations should be kept quiet).
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Exactly. The entire argument rests on the idea that we are certain that the NSA is trustworthy and is using its powers judiciously against, not only foreign powers, but those that pose a security risk. That assertion is exactly what is in question (for good reason). I think some people see the NSA as fundamentally good and trustworthy, but perhaps exercising a little bad judgment and/or overreach. Others see their breach of trust as reason for grave concern and a flagrant abuse of power that merits our consideration that it may be the tip of an iceberg inadvertently revealed by a rogue agency. Where people fall on that continuum probably drives their responses to subsequent revelations more than anything.
    - dobbsbob 13y ago
      US allies see this as industrial espionage not overreach
tcdent 13y ago
Who's to say that American intelligence gathering is on the right 'side'? Why should members of 'foreign' countries be held to a different standard?
- melling 13y ago
  Can we get a Politics tab on the HN bar so we can filter the endless political debates? This should make everyone happy?
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    Why do you go into political discussion boards (meaning political news here), when you don't like them? Just wondering.
    - brodney 13y ago
      I came looking for a discussion of the mechanism by which such an attack might be possible.
      - rosser 13y ago
        You can probably tell by the top post in any given sub-thread whether it's going to be technical or political. You also have a scroll {gesture, wheel, bar}. I think you can probably take it from there...
      - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        That's Ok, but you might agree, that since last year, the topic is highly political. I also don't think, that you could simply dissect discussion lines ...
      - marcosdumay 13y ago
        They plug wireless network cards (certainly not usng standard WiFi) into the computer. That's the entire technical challenge.
      - 13y ago
eru 13y ago
What if the foreignerns don't want to spied up on? Or do they count for less?
- melling 13y ago
  Nobody wants to be spied on. You wouldn't need spying if everyone just volunteered all their desired information.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    Just go to Facebook ;) SCNR!
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  Sometimes when you hear the US arguments in this matter with "foreign ears", you feel just as a second class human. No wonder, when you don't belong to "gods own people", isn't it?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  I'm sure no one wants to be spied upon, but the real world doesn't work that way.
- IBM 13y ago
  What is the use of acting naive about foreign affairs, diplomacy, and statecraft? Are you really suggesting that your country's intelligence service doesn't attempt to do the same?
  - lancewiggs 13y ago
    The USA has diplomatic relations with foreign countries based on trust. They also trade with those foreign countries - and that international trade is what makes the economy and our lifestyles work. Targeting "all foreigners" destroys trust that foreigners have in the USA system for trade and diplomacy, lowering the impact of the state on both.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
That's an odd argument and seems completely circular. You effectively state that the leaks aren't such a good thing ipso facto, then you go on to say that leaking these details proves it; thus they shouldn't be leaked. Kind of hard to find where that argument begins and ends. I know where your thinking is going, but you would first have to establish the NSA's trustworthiness to get there. That is exactly what is in question and, importantly, for legitimate reasons.
- dboat 13y ago
  I think he means that a distinction should be made when considering whether to leak information. Is this information something the public needs to know, because it tells them something important about their democracy, or would releasing this be an ironic hindrance to the common public interest? That's how I read it anyway.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    The "common public interest" should not be limited to the US public. (even if it were, I'd argue that they are only mutually exclusive in the short term). IMHO, the public should know everything its government is doing on its behalf. A more appropriate question would be how long the government is allowed to keep its secrets. I don't dispute that there is definite realpolitik value in keeping secrets when trying to achieve short-term gains. However defaulting prevents that society in the future from determining if your actions were just when done in their name. Every time a politician acts in the name of myself and my fellow citizens, it reflects on me. On the other hand, I and my fellow citizens voted that person in to get things done on my behalf. The eventual publication of all governmental secrets keeps governments honest long term. After aboute ~10 years, a secret poorly received when made public after the fact no longer reflects poorly on the current officials in government (unless those responsible are still involved in government). What it does do is allow society to have a debate about whether they approve in hindsight of a government's actions. If the government wants to keep a certain category of secret indefinitely, it should specifically ask the public if they acquiesce via a majority vote. A future public should be able to overturn that vote and make something public. Unilaterally affording government officials the right to make things secret indefinitely is a path to tyranny. The truth keeps governments honest. Does such a policy put a country at a disadvantage when competing against adversaries without such a policy? Yes, it does, in the short term, since any governmental actor must consider the potential for fallout when their actions/policies enter the public domain. On the other hand, there are long term game theoretic advantages of holding your country to a higher standard. It establishes a basis upon which the population of other democratic countries judge their own government. The US used to have this positive influence upon the World. There was a time when citizens of less free countries would look to the US and ask themselves, "Why can't my country be free like the US?". That question is no longer asked because we are no longer a guiding light for the world to follow, instead we've become the ship on the beach that has become the lighthouse to the sea. Long-term, citizens the whole world over are going to be better off by establishing a precedence that everything their governments do in their name (from the local and state levels to the federal) will eventually become public.
skue 13y ago
As upset as I am about the NSA, I agree that reports like these may be hard to justify as whistleblowing. This seems to be less about accountability and more about gawking at the NSA's toys. I suppose the NYT could argue that this article only reiterates what was previously reported on the ANT program, and the technology disclosed in that report is over 5 years old. Still, this article may get more attention because when ANT was previously reported the media (and much of HN) got distracted by the NSA's ability to jailbreak iPhones (in 2008!) and largely ignored the passive radio-based technology that was also described.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  There's classified data coming from Washington or whatever government agencies to newspapers all the time through "sources". Do you really think everything that is given passes the highest standards for what should or not be leaked? At the end of the day it's the newspapers who decide what gets published.
  - niels_olson 13y ago
    It's also worth keeping in mind that the NSA may percieve, in this case rightly, that pushing this angle, which is all re-hashed information, would in fact not expose new information but could potentially reframe the debate in their favor.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  I think that your idolatry of the NSA is unwarranted. They have powers and technologies that they can use to actively thwart anyone who will cross an American interest. They're not a military organization; the military is simply one of their biggest customers. What they are, is a totalitarian control mechanism for American political and business interests to apply around the world. So if you are on the 'American' side of this fuzzy, electronic wall that they have erected, and if you are an American who will do what is necessary to further American interests in the world - okay. The NSA is on your side. But for those of us who do not live under the crux of American hegemony - and there are quite a few of us, after all - knowing about these heinous violations of human rights, and the tactics and technology that these totalitarians are using, is very important. We are not all Americans, here, nor do we all derive profit from American military-industrial efforts. To some, the NSA is a heinous, despicable construction. I, for one, am glad to see leaks around this organization; as I am with any leaks that will reveal the truth about the tyranny we all live under.
sinak 13y ago
I generally agree with this. I'm not sure what exactly this adds to the overall conversation. Does anyone have thoughts on why the NYT would choose to publish it, perhaps beyond pageviews? I tend to think that leaks like this one may weaken the overall view towards the Snowden leaks. As far as I can tell from reading the article it's a tool that's used in specific cases, and likely has value in that capacity.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Well the NYT may have something bigger in the pipeline that builds on that. NSA have this awesome ability, NSA abused it by spying on americans.
BWStearns 13y ago
As the Snowden leaks get further away from "they're spying on Americans" and more into "they're doing their job" I'm getting less and less sympathetic. This is just a way to exfiltrate data, if that way was on steroids and a bigger budget, but still very much within the scope of the legally declared mission of the agency. Why is anyone upset that a technical spy agency is spying using technical means?
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  As a foreigner, comments like yours make me question my assumption that regular Americans are not responsible for the atrocities committed by USG. Why is anyone upset? I don't know, people don't want to be spied on? Hmm, yes, that may be the case here.
  - BWStearns 13y ago
    As a rational person on planet earth I can safely assume that if your country is not too broke to afford a spy service then it has probably attempted to spy/spied on the US at some point. That's what countries do when they don't know something that someone else is unwilling to tell them. Do you really think that the US is unique in spying? or that the scale is even unique? Pro tip: if you do you're wrong.
    - vdaniuk 13y ago
      Yes, the scale is unique for many reasons, one of the most important being that most of internet backbone including consumer services are located in the US jurisdiction. Your pro tip is worth nothing.
      - BWStearns 13y ago
        So Russia and China have no comparably scaled intelligence efforts?
mrobot 13y ago
Agreed, i also found this article odd.
tomelders 13y ago
It's now reasonable to assume that any resources the NSA have are being used on innocent people form around the world with no connection (supposed or otherwise) with terrorism. So I think it is valid for victims to be made aware of the tools their enemies in the security services are using against them.
ds9 13y ago
"releasing these details simply doesn't help the cause of fixing the NSA's less savoury incursions" -- of course it doesn't. Why would anyone expect that? At least, I'm not convinced there is any realistic prospect of NSA's programmes, or other similar abuses being "fixed" in the forseeable future. Meanwhile, everyone, US and others alike, needs and is rightfully entitled to secure communications (in a moral sense, not to be confused with the laws of particular states). Unless there is some guarantee that the methods exposed could never be used improperly, exposing them is a vital public service.

ProAm 13y ago

This is what happens when you screw up at the magnitude the NSA has, EVERYTHING will be released and scrutinized for the foreseeable future. Right or wrong they made the bed they now have to sleep in.

privong 13y ago
Plus, the assumption that they're only using their surveillance technologies against foreign powers is now known to (often) be a false assumption. So it's not immediately clear which systems are only being used against foreign powers, so one wouldn't even know what might be held back (if one were to take the position that things only affecting espionage against other nations should be kept quiet).
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  Exactly. The entire argument rests on the idea that we are certain that the NSA is trustworthy and is using its powers judiciously against, not only foreign powers, but those that pose a security risk. That assertion is exactly what is in question (for good reason). I think some people see the NSA as fundamentally good and trustworthy, but perhaps exercising a little bad judgment and/or overreach. Others see their breach of trust as reason for grave concern and a flagrant abuse of power that merits our consideration that it may be the tip of an iceberg inadvertently revealed by a rogue agency. Where people fall on that continuum probably drives their responses to subsequent revelations more than anything.
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    US allies see this as industrial espionage not overreach

tcdent 13y ago

Who's to say that American intelligence gathering is on the right 'side'? Why should members of 'foreign' countries be held to a different standard?

melling 13y ago
Can we get a Politics tab on the HN bar so we can filter the endless political debates? This should make everyone happy?
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  Why do you go into political discussion boards (meaning political news here), when you don't like them? Just wondering.
  - brodney 13y ago
    I came looking for a discussion of the mechanism by which such an attack might be possible.
    - rosser 13y ago
      You can probably tell by the top post in any given sub-thread whether it's going to be technical or political. You also have a scroll {gesture, wheel, bar}. I think you can probably take it from there...
    - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
      That's Ok, but you might agree, that since last year, the topic is highly political. I also don't think, that you could simply dissect discussion lines ...
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      They plug wireless network cards (certainly not usng standard WiFi) into the computer. That's the entire technical challenge.
    - 13y ago

eru 13y ago

What if the foreignerns don't want to spied up on? Or do they count for less?

melling 13y ago
Nobody wants to be spied on. You wouldn't need spying if everyone just volunteered all their desired information.
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  Just go to Facebook ;) SCNR!
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
Sometimes when you hear the US arguments in this matter with "foreign ears", you feel just as a second class human. No wonder, when you don't belong to "gods own people", isn't it?
res0nat0r 13y ago
I'm sure no one wants to be spied upon, but the real world doesn't work that way.
IBM 13y ago
What is the use of acting naive about foreign affairs, diplomacy, and statecraft? Are you really suggesting that your country's intelligence service doesn't attempt to do the same?
- lancewiggs 13y ago
  The USA has diplomatic relations with foreign countries based on trust. They also trade with those foreign countries - and that international trade is what makes the economy and our lifestyles work. Targeting "all foreigners" destroys trust that foreigners have in the USA system for trade and diplomacy, lowering the impact of the state on both.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

That's an odd argument and seems completely circular. You effectively state that the leaks aren't such a good thing ipso facto, then you go on to say that leaking these details proves it; thus they shouldn't be leaked. Kind of hard to find where that argument begins and ends. I know where your thinking is going, but you would first have to establish the NSA's trustworthiness to get there. That is exactly what is in question and, importantly, for legitimate reasons.

dboat 13y ago
I think he means that a distinction should be made when considering whether to leak information. Is this information something the public needs to know, because it tells them something important about their democracy, or would releasing this be an ironic hindrance to the common public interest? That's how I read it anyway.
- malandrew 13y ago
  The "common public interest" should not be limited to the US public. (even if it were, I'd argue that they are only mutually exclusive in the short term). IMHO, the public should know everything its government is doing on its behalf. A more appropriate question would be how long the government is allowed to keep its secrets. I don't dispute that there is definite realpolitik value in keeping secrets when trying to achieve short-term gains. However defaulting prevents that society in the future from determining if your actions were just when done in their name. Every time a politician acts in the name of myself and my fellow citizens, it reflects on me. On the other hand, I and my fellow citizens voted that person in to get things done on my behalf. The eventual publication of all governmental secrets keeps governments honest long term. After aboute ~10 years, a secret poorly received when made public after the fact no longer reflects poorly on the current officials in government (unless those responsible are still involved in government). What it does do is allow society to have a debate about whether they approve in hindsight of a government's actions. If the government wants to keep a certain category of secret indefinitely, it should specifically ask the public if they acquiesce via a majority vote. A future public should be able to overturn that vote and make something public. Unilaterally affording government officials the right to make things secret indefinitely is a path to tyranny. The truth keeps governments honest. Does such a policy put a country at a disadvantage when competing against adversaries without such a policy? Yes, it does, in the short term, since any governmental actor must consider the potential for fallout when their actions/policies enter the public domain. On the other hand, there are long term game theoretic advantages of holding your country to a higher standard. It establishes a basis upon which the population of other democratic countries judge their own government. The US used to have this positive influence upon the World. There was a time when citizens of less free countries would look to the US and ask themselves, "Why can't my country be free like the US?". That question is no longer asked because we are no longer a guiding light for the world to follow, instead we've become the ship on the beach that has become the lighthouse to the sea. Long-term, citizens the whole world over are going to be better off by establishing a precedence that everything their governments do in their name (from the local and state levels to the federal) will eventually become public.

skue 13y ago

As upset as I am about the NSA, I agree that reports like these may be hard to justify as whistleblowing. This seems to be less about accountability and more about gawking at the NSA's toys. I suppose the NYT could argue that this article only reiterates what was previously reported on the ANT program, and the technology disclosed in that report is over 5 years old. Still, this article may get more attention because when ANT was previously reported the media (and much of HN) got distracted by the NSA's ability to jailbreak iPhones (in 2008!) and largely ignored the passive radio-based technology that was also described.

higherpurpose 13y ago
There's classified data coming from Washington or whatever government agencies to newspapers all the time through "sources". Do you really think everything that is given passes the highest standards for what should or not be leaked? At the end of the day it's the newspapers who decide what gets published.
- niels_olson 13y ago
  It's also worth keeping in mind that the NSA may percieve, in this case rightly, that pushing this angle, which is all re-hashed information, would in fact not expose new information but could potentially reframe the debate in their favor.
fit2rule 13y ago
I think that your idolatry of the NSA is unwarranted. They have powers and technologies that they can use to actively thwart anyone who will cross an American interest. They're not a military organization; the military is simply one of their biggest customers. What they are, is a totalitarian control mechanism for American political and business interests to apply around the world. So if you are on the 'American' side of this fuzzy, electronic wall that they have erected, and if you are an American who will do what is necessary to further American interests in the world - okay. The NSA is on your side. But for those of us who do not live under the crux of American hegemony - and there are quite a few of us, after all - knowing about these heinous violations of human rights, and the tactics and technology that these totalitarians are using, is very important. We are not all Americans, here, nor do we all derive profit from American military-industrial efforts. To some, the NSA is a heinous, despicable construction. I, for one, am glad to see leaks around this organization; as I am with any leaks that will reveal the truth about the tyranny we all live under.

sinak 13y ago

I generally agree with this. I'm not sure what exactly this adds to the overall conversation. Does anyone have thoughts on why the NYT would choose to publish it, perhaps beyond pageviews? I tend to think that leaks like this one may weaken the overall view towards the Snowden leaks. As far as I can tell from reading the article it's a tool that's used in specific cases, and likely has value in that capacity.

venomsnake 13y ago
Well the NYT may have something bigger in the pipeline that builds on that. NSA have this awesome ability, NSA abused it by spying on americans.

BWStearns 13y ago

As the Snowden leaks get further away from "they're spying on Americans" and more into "they're doing their job" I'm getting less and less sympathetic. This is just a way to exfiltrate data, if that way was on steroids and a bigger budget, but still very much within the scope of the legally declared mission of the agency. Why is anyone upset that a technical spy agency is spying using technical means?

vdaniuk 13y ago
As a foreigner, comments like yours make me question my assumption that regular Americans are not responsible for the atrocities committed by USG. Why is anyone upset? I don't know, people don't want to be spied on? Hmm, yes, that may be the case here.
- BWStearns 13y ago
  As a rational person on planet earth I can safely assume that if your country is not too broke to afford a spy service then it has probably attempted to spy/spied on the US at some point. That's what countries do when they don't know something that someone else is unwilling to tell them. Do you really think that the US is unique in spying? or that the scale is even unique? Pro tip: if you do you're wrong.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Yes, the scale is unique for many reasons, one of the most important being that most of internet backbone including consumer services are located in the US jurisdiction. Your pro tip is worth nothing.
    - BWStearns 13y ago
      So Russia and China have no comparably scaled intelligence efforts?

mrobot 13y ago

Agreed, i also found this article odd.

tomelders 13y ago

It's now reasonable to assume that any resources the NSA have are being used on innocent people form around the world with no connection (supposed or otherwise) with terrorism. So I think it is valid for victims to be made aware of the tools their enemies in the security services are using against them.

ds9 13y ago

"releasing these details simply doesn't help the cause of fixing the NSA's less savoury incursions" -- of course it doesn't. Why would anyone expect that? At least, I'm not convinced there is any realistic prospect of NSA's programmes, or other similar abuses being "fixed" in the forseeable future. Meanwhile, everyone, US and others alike, needs and is rightfully entitled to secure communications (in a moral sense, not to be confused with the laws of particular states). Unless there is some guarantee that the methods exposed could never be used improperly, exposing them is a vital public service.