4 ms·

There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt s

There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this. People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. They may not have the best guidance from the government, but there are people who do believe they're doing the best they can. Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place? Why can't there just be people who actually agree with some/most of what the NSA has done, based on the laws that govern it?

task_queue 12y ago
I agree that it's best to assume earnestness in opinions, I disagree with your opening. There absolutely is a reason for the NSA to give a fuck what you or I think. They are an intelligence and security agency, operating covertly with plausible deniability is what they do. More importantly, there are laws trying to be passed that can strengthen or weaken their funding and power. Making people at home feel that the agency needs to keep up the good work is not a waste of funds to that end. They just got caught with their pants down spying on the American people. If they don't try to take hold of the narrative they might see themselves at the shit end of the political stick.
- diminoten 12y ago
  There is no political stick for them to be on, because every decision-maker in the US government knows how important the NSA is.
  - srj 12y ago
    Where's your evidence for that? The hearings in congress I think have shown that there are doubts from decision-makers.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      The lack of traction any of those movements get, and the general disconnect that every. single. congressperson. has when it comes to cyber security.
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
      Also almost half of the House tried to pass a bill to cut NSA's funding in 2013.
  - zipwitch 12y ago
    Unimportant, because they neither provide useful intel nor prevent terror attacks. Or very important, because they have lots of blackmail material?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      How would you know if they provide useful intel or prevent terror attacks?
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Do you have an actual answer to that question? Because it seems like a bad plan to spend trillions of dollars on something if you can't even show that it works.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Show to who? You?
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        If by "me" you mean "the voters" then yes of course. What was that Russian proverb Ronald Regan was always so found of? Trust but verify? The verify part is very, very important. Blind trust with no accountability is totally insane. There has to come a point, during the lives of the people who have to be held accountable for what they've done, that what they've done comes to light. Or how do you propose we hold them to account?
        diminoten 12y ago
        You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs. This isn't about you, or me, or any individual, that's not how this country works. Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.
rhizome 12y ago
People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. I don't buy the Col. Jessup rationalization at all, and I think it's simpleminded. The threats these people are defending against are ones created by their own actions, and the actions of the governments they act on behalf. Regular citizens of whatever country are affected by these activities but they don't get a voice in how or whether the "nasty job" (and it's precursors) are in their interest.
- diminoten 12y ago
  So in other words, if the US just left everyone alone, there would be zero threats to the US? Everyone acts rationally, and once you remove all rational reasons to attack the US, folks will simply stop doing it? Right.
  - rhizome 12y ago
    Of course not, and that's a highly uncharitable reading bordering on bad faith. 1) the current state of affairs does not remove threats, because the agencies are starting trouble, too; 2) the people are the ones who have to live with the effects of something, in the US a result of a democratic system where the agencies may prioritize their own imaginations over citizens' actual lives, where the agencies may have perverse incentives.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Just to be clear, is there any form of this conversation where you admit to being anything except absolutely correct on all points you're attempting to make? I get the feeling you're one of those folks who won't accept anything except what you've already concluded.
      - rhizome 12y ago
        Well you don't have to be rude about it.
benaiah 12y ago
> Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place? Regardless of how you feel about it, there is a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place - it's a well documented NSA activity. Whether it accounts for specific comments is impossible to say, but it does exist. Why then is it so absurd to think that it may be in play?
- diminoten 12y ago
  Why is it absurd? Because there's no evidence of it taking place. It's the same reason we don't believe in unicorns.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... EDIT: Added firstlook url per reply, originally pointed to https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s... ...not really sure I see a substantial difference between the 2 articles, but there you go.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      Why link to the blogspam and not the firstlook.org article it's sourced from? Oh right, because it doesn't support what you're saying. Got it.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Are you saying that GCHQ don't do it? Or that GCHQ does do it, but because they're GCHQ and not NSA that it's irrelevant? Because now you have evidence that GCHQ does it you should allow the possibility that NSA does it. The reason you don't have evidence that NSA does it might be because NSA is a secret organistion.
        12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
srj 12y ago
Which NSA activities have been necessary for you to sleep in safety? And as to the 'nasty unappealing job', what has led you to believe that is a common perspective among those who work there? The project detailings that have been released often seem downright giddy.
JoachimS 12y ago
"There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this." You and I are not the ones defining the reasons of and what NSA are interested in. You might think there are no reasons, but NSA may have a totally different view. For an organization that for real wants to capture ALL communication on this planet, waste of resources may seem like a minor issue. Thanks to Snowden, we do know that NSA and GCHQ are actively doing astroturfing. Without overstate the importance of HN, this is one place where a lot of technical talent hangs out. Talent that also talks, informs and educates others. If one want to moderate criticism from people that others listen to and rely on for information about security, privacy, HN would probably be a good place to focus on.
fit2rule 12y ago
>There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. True. But that's not what this is about. What the NSA care about is what resources he has, which they would want to use for their own purposes - this is why they monitor such individuals as work at major ISP's. Its not about thought - its about action. What actions can they perform if they gain access to this persons electronic life - in the case of sysadmins for major ISP's, there is much to be gained from infiltration, exploitation, and subterfuge.
woah 12y ago
What are you afraid of?

task_queue 12y ago

I agree that it's best to assume earnestness in opinions, I disagree with your opening. There absolutely is a reason for the NSA to give a fuck what you or I think. They are an intelligence and security agency, operating covertly with plausible deniability is what they do. More importantly, there are laws trying to be passed that can strengthen or weaken their funding and power. Making people at home feel that the agency needs to keep up the good work is not a waste of funds to that end. They just got caught with their pants down spying on the American people. If they don't try to take hold of the narrative they might see themselves at the shit end of the political stick.

diminoten 12y ago
There is no political stick for them to be on, because every decision-maker in the US government knows how important the NSA is.
- srj 12y ago
  Where's your evidence for that? The hearings in congress I think have shown that there are doubts from decision-makers.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    The lack of traction any of those movements get, and the general disconnect that every. single. congressperson. has when it comes to cyber security.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    Also almost half of the House tried to pass a bill to cut NSA's funding in 2013.
- zipwitch 12y ago
  Unimportant, because they neither provide useful intel nor prevent terror attacks. Or very important, because they have lots of blackmail material?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    How would you know if they provide useful intel or prevent terror attacks?
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      Do you have an actual answer to that question? Because it seems like a bad plan to spend trillions of dollars on something if you can't even show that it works.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        Show to who? You?
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        If by "me" you mean "the voters" then yes of course. What was that Russian proverb Ronald Regan was always so found of? Trust but verify? The verify part is very, very important. Blind trust with no accountability is totally insane. There has to come a point, during the lives of the people who have to be held accountable for what they've done, that what they've done comes to light. Or how do you propose we hold them to account?
        diminoten 12y ago
        You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs. This isn't about you, or me, or any individual, that's not how this country works. Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.

rhizome 12y ago

People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. I don't buy the Col. Jessup rationalization at all, and I think it's simpleminded. The threats these people are defending against are ones created by their own actions, and the actions of the governments they act on behalf. Regular citizens of whatever country are affected by these activities but they don't get a voice in how or whether the "nasty job" (and it's precursors) are in their interest.

diminoten 12y ago
So in other words, if the US just left everyone alone, there would be zero threats to the US? Everyone acts rationally, and once you remove all rational reasons to attack the US, folks will simply stop doing it? Right.
- rhizome 12y ago
  Of course not, and that's a highly uncharitable reading bordering on bad faith. 1) the current state of affairs does not remove threats, because the agencies are starting trouble, too; 2) the people are the ones who have to live with the effects of something, in the US a result of a democratic system where the agencies may prioritize their own imaginations over citizens' actual lives, where the agencies may have perverse incentives.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Just to be clear, is there any form of this conversation where you admit to being anything except absolutely correct on all points you're attempting to make? I get the feeling you're one of those folks who won't accept anything except what you've already concluded.
    - rhizome 12y ago
      Well you don't have to be rude about it.

benaiah 12y ago

> Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place? Regardless of how you feel about it, there is a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place - it's a well documented NSA activity. Whether it accounts for specific comments is impossible to say, but it does exist. Why then is it so absurd to think that it may be in play?

diminoten 12y ago
Why is it absurd? Because there's no evidence of it taking place. It's the same reason we don't believe in unicorns.
- smtddr 12y ago
  https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... EDIT: Added firstlook url per reply, originally pointed to https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s... ...not really sure I see a substantial difference between the 2 articles, but there you go.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Why link to the blogspam and not the firstlook.org article it's sourced from? Oh right, because it doesn't support what you're saying. Got it.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Are you saying that GCHQ don't do it? Or that GCHQ does do it, but because they're GCHQ and not NSA that it's irrelevant? Because now you have evidence that GCHQ does it you should allow the possibility that NSA does it. The reason you don't have evidence that NSA does it might be because NSA is a secret organistion.
      - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

srj 12y ago

Which NSA activities have been necessary for you to sleep in safety? And as to the 'nasty unappealing job', what has led you to believe that is a common perspective among those who work there? The project detailings that have been released often seem downright giddy.

JoachimS 12y ago

"There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this." You and I are not the ones defining the reasons of and what NSA are interested in. You might think there are no reasons, but NSA may have a totally different view. For an organization that for real wants to capture ALL communication on this planet, waste of resources may seem like a minor issue. Thanks to Snowden, we do know that NSA and GCHQ are actively doing astroturfing. Without overstate the importance of HN, this is one place where a lot of technical talent hangs out. Talent that also talks, informs and educates others. If one want to moderate criticism from people that others listen to and rely on for information about security, privacy, HN would probably be a good place to focus on.

fit2rule 12y ago

>There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think. True. But that's not what this is about. What the NSA care about is what resources he has, which they would want to use for their own purposes - this is why they monitor such individuals as work at major ISP's. Its not about thought - its about action. What actions can they perform if they gain access to this persons electronic life - in the case of sysadmins for major ISP's, there is much to be gained from infiltration, exploitation, and subterfuge.

woah 12y ago

What are you afraid of?