3 ms·

Agreed. I think the Snowden revelations have harmed the NSA's reputation to the point where most people on HN just assume NSA is a bond-level villain. The NSA s

Agreed. I think the Snowden revelations have harmed the NSA's reputation to the point where most people on HN just assume NSA is a bond-level villain. The NSA serves a purpose, they are meant to be prepared offensively and defensively for the USA's security, which includes the internet. I have no problems with the NSA's purpose and would prefer they continue to exist and prepare against threats to the country. I do believe the NSA overstepped their mandate in domestic surveillance, and should be held accountable, but let's not forget that this world does have bad guy's - plenty of nations would lose no sleep at night if they hurt America.

sroerick 12y ago
The article addresses this very point. It specifically explores the conflict of interest that the NSA must work both offensively and defensively. It makes the argument that the balance has shifted so drastically to the offensive that our defensive is being weakened.
- iwwr 12y ago
  What the article fails to mention is the NSA's instrumental efforts in weakening crypto standards and computer security in general. We don't know the extent of that undermining yet, but it's likely significant. They are also hoarding security vulnerabilities and not releasing them, as responsible researchers should. They're weakening security for everyone. Now, the US government as a whole is in a very strong position to actually push for genuine security compliance and to ultimately defend against even the most determined state cyber warfare initiative. They haven't done that because they want a way to get into systems even if it makes people less safe on the whole.
TheOsiris 12y ago
precisely, and this is why I'm starting to think that snowden has - at least - caused as much harm as good by his revelations. if he had stopped at revealing the domestic surveillance he would be an undisputed hero/patriot. but with all of these unnecessary leaks that does nothing but harm to national interest I can understand how others might view him otherwise.
- jallmann 12y ago
  Others have said as much. Here is a quote from William Binney, another NSA whistleblower, on advice that he has for Snowden: > I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason. The whole interview is a great read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    The US public has a legitimate interest in knowing about NSA's hacking abilities, because vulnerabilities used by the NSA abroad can just as easily be used domestically by foreign or criminal attackers.
    - jallmann 12y ago
      Against a well-prepared adversary, a vulnerability can only be exploited once -- a zero day. After disclosure, or evidence of an exploit in circulation, such vulnerabilities become useless towards the agency's mandate, whether or not you agree with that mandate. Realpolitik? Definitely.
- vorg 12y ago
  > if he had stopped at revealing the domestic surveillance he would be an undisputed hero/patriot. but with all of these unnecessary leaks that does nothing but harm to national interest It's also important the public realize the NSA is more than just the National Stalking Agency.
  - TheOsiris 12y ago
    I think with the domestic surveillance revelations that became abundantly clear.
CamperBob2 12y ago
Agreed. I think the Snowden revelations have harmed the NSA's reputation to the point where most people on HN just assume NSA is a bond-level villain. Not so much Blofeld as Klingon: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421112/NSA-director-Keith-Alexander-modeled-secret-war-room-Star-Treks-Enterprise.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421112/NSA-director...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pyre 12y ago
> I do believe the NSA overstepped their mandate in domestic surveillance They've been doing it longer than the Internet. The "Five Eyes" have existed for a while, so that they can have a legal loophole for domestic spying (e.g. "We can't spy on our citizens, so we'll just ask our allies to do it for us!"). To me this indicates that, while the stated purpose behind the organization may have merits, the execution of that purpose has been flawed for some time.
tintwash 12y ago
Sapir-Whorf and Newspeak. What does "security" mean? I have no doubt that the NSA's job is "national security" and that some portion of that work serves the people. Nobody knows what that portion is, by design. If you bury the difficult, complicated issues under terms like "security", "threat to the country", and "bad guys", you're basically just supporting the NSA on faith. Forget the terminology and FUD of "threats", and let's ask ourselves what the concrete benefit to the people of the United States (or better yet, the world) is for the NSA to be arming themselves for the destruction of computer systems. Is the benefit Cold Waresque deterrence through keeping the rest of the world in fear? Is this the strategy we want our work and taxes to support? Maybe it's too complicated to think about, and even if we wanted to critically analyse the situation, secrecy prevents us from knowing anything besides what the government desires the people to know. It's easier to just trust in benevolent "national security" protecting us from Eastasia. Let's not forget that the world does have bad guys, and besides, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
foldr 12y ago
>that this world does have bad guy's No, movies have bad guys.

sroerick 12y ago

The article addresses this very point. It specifically explores the conflict of interest that the NSA must work both offensively and defensively. It makes the argument that the balance has shifted so drastically to the offensive that our defensive is being weakened.

iwwr 12y ago
What the article fails to mention is the NSA's instrumental efforts in weakening crypto standards and computer security in general. We don't know the extent of that undermining yet, but it's likely significant. They are also hoarding security vulnerabilities and not releasing them, as responsible researchers should. They're weakening security for everyone. Now, the US government as a whole is in a very strong position to actually push for genuine security compliance and to ultimately defend against even the most determined state cyber warfare initiative. They haven't done that because they want a way to get into systems even if it makes people less safe on the whole.

TheOsiris 12y ago

precisely, and this is why I'm starting to think that snowden has - at least - caused as much harm as good by his revelations. if he had stopped at revealing the domestic surveillance he would be an undisputed hero/patriot. but with all of these unnecessary leaks that does nothing but harm to national interest I can understand how others might view him otherwise.

jallmann 12y ago
Others have said as much. Here is a quote from William Binney, another NSA whistleblower, on advice that he has for Snowden: > I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason. The whole interview is a great read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
- nitrogen 12y ago
  The US public has a legitimate interest in knowing about NSA's hacking abilities, because vulnerabilities used by the NSA abroad can just as easily be used domestically by foreign or criminal attackers.
  - jallmann 12y ago
    Against a well-prepared adversary, a vulnerability can only be exploited once -- a zero day. After disclosure, or evidence of an exploit in circulation, such vulnerabilities become useless towards the agency's mandate, whether or not you agree with that mandate. Realpolitik? Definitely.
vorg 12y ago
> if he had stopped at revealing the domestic surveillance he would be an undisputed hero/patriot. but with all of these unnecessary leaks that does nothing but harm to national interest It's also important the public realize the NSA is more than just the National Stalking Agency.
- TheOsiris 12y ago
  I think with the domestic surveillance revelations that became abundantly clear.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Agreed. I think the Snowden revelations have harmed the NSA's reputation to the point where most people on HN just assume NSA is a bond-level villain. Not so much Blofeld as Klingon: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421112/NSA-director-Keith-Alexander-modeled-secret-war-room-Star-Treks-Enterprise.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421112/NSA-director...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pyre 12y ago

> I do believe the NSA overstepped their mandate in domestic surveillance They've been doing it longer than the Internet. The "Five Eyes" have existed for a while, so that they can have a legal loophole for domestic spying (e.g. "We can't spy on our citizens, so we'll just ask our allies to do it for us!"). To me this indicates that, while the stated purpose behind the organization may have merits, the execution of that purpose has been flawed for some time.

tintwash 12y ago

Sapir-Whorf and Newspeak. What does "security" mean? I have no doubt that the NSA's job is "national security" and that some portion of that work serves the people. Nobody knows what that portion is, by design. If you bury the difficult, complicated issues under terms like "security", "threat to the country", and "bad guys", you're basically just supporting the NSA on faith. Forget the terminology and FUD of "threats", and let's ask ourselves what the concrete benefit to the people of the United States (or better yet, the world) is for the NSA to be arming themselves for the destruction of computer systems. Is the benefit Cold Waresque deterrence through keeping the rest of the world in fear? Is this the strategy we want our work and taxes to support? Maybe it's too complicated to think about, and even if we wanted to critically analyse the situation, secrecy prevents us from knowing anything besides what the government desires the people to know. It's easier to just trust in benevolent "national security" protecting us from Eastasia. Let's not forget that the world does have bad guys, and besides, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

foldr 12y ago

>that this world does have bad guy's No, movies have bad guys.