7 ms·
The story in the Guardian by Antony Loewenstein certainly reports that William Binney's personal opinion as a former employee of NSA is that NSA is gathering up
by tokenadult 12y ago
The story in the Guardian by Antony Loewenstein certainly reports that William Binney's personal opinion as a former employee of NSA is that NSA is gathering up and recording whatever it can and that NSA has a "totalitarian mentality." That is a very important issue, if true, but it is at least debatable that NSA is really that thorough in its actual practices and really that generally blatant in disregarding the civil rights of Americans or even of people in other countries. For one thing, Binney also points to NSA intelligence failures in the same article, and if NSA is missing major activities of other countries (the Russian intervention in Ukraine) and nonstate terrorist groups (the "Islamic State" capture of much territory in Iraq), then surely NSA doesn't have the time and resources to analyze all of the data it gathers, and maybe it is not gathering as much data as some people claim.
Several comments posted before I read all those comments and read the fine article write about NSA blackmailing politicians. I don't believe NSA blackmail can or will happen in general, for reasons I have mentioned before here on HN. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail. But I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political candidates are essentially shameless. Even after they are caught (by old-fashioned journalism, or by a jilted lover or some unrelated criminal investigation) doing something unsavory, they are still willing to run for office, and SOME ARE REELECTED. United States Senator David Vitter was reelected in 2010 even after a scandal involving behavior that I would consider shameful,[1] and the antics of former DC mayor Marion Barry[2] are probably still notorious enough that they don't need further discussion here. In short, I call baloney on the idea that NSA can keep politicians on its leash simply by knowing their secrets. Some politicians have PUBLIC lives full of dirt, and still get elected and influence policy anyway.
The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity. Some politicians, I am quite sure, could have all their secrets revealed only to have voters think "Why is that person such a straight-arrow? Why not have some fun once in a while?" The simple fact is that there is value system diversity in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity variance among United States politicians, and there isn't any universal way to unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to discover personal secrets. If politicians think that NSA is going too far (as evidently several politicians from more than one party do think), then they will receive plenty of support from the general public to rein in the surveillance. (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I am a lawyer, who as a judicial clerk for my state's Supreme Court used to review case files on attorney misconduct, and, yes, some of my law school classmates are elected officials, including one member of Congress. I am absolutely certain that there are enough politicians ready to mobilize to roll back NSA surveillance programs if they really think the programs are excessive in their scope.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scanda...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_drug_conviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...
- ryanklee 12y agoI'm interested to hear from those who voted this comment down: Why? The parent's comment, even if disagreeable in some regards, is substantial and the discussion is better for it having been made.
- frankydp 12y agoDiscussions surrounding threat mitigation and risk mitigation are uniformly one sided on HN, and even the most delicate walk down the line of acceptable mitigation is shunned. The more interesting point is the inverse position of the community in regards to network and systems security, in which all measures of threat mitigation are encouraged or "required".
- nitrogen 12y agoDiscussions of threat mitigation are irrelevant so long as the threats and their countermeasures remain undisclosed. There can be no productive debate when one side knows everything and tells the other side nothing. It doesn't matter if surveillance is used only for good (evidence suggests otherwise, though); if the surveillance organizations have all the power to operate in secrecy and distort the truth when questioned by the legislature, their "trust us" assurances are wholly untrustworthy.
- FD3SA 12y agoIt's naive to the point of absurdity. It's basically saying: The NSA/CIA/FBI/etc. couldn't even see Ukraine coming! They were on their coffee breaks, those silly spooks! They never get anything right do they? So don't worry about them collecting information on you! They couldn't even find Osama! Those slackers. Don't worry be happy!" The stupidest assumption one can make about a powerful organization is that it's incompetent and thus benign. Crack open a history book to see how benign power really can be.
- nitrogen 12y agoObserving everyone isn't about targeting everyone, it's about targeting anyone. So even if they really did miss Ukraine, that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about them recording everything else.