4 ms·

Yet in a strange quirk of British manners, nobody ever seems to have a good word to say about [intelligence agencies], despite their remarkable record. It is as

Yet in a strange quirk of British manners, nobody ever seems to have a good word to say about [intelligence agencies], despite their remarkable record. It is as if they, not bigoted murderous fundamentalists or powerful autocratic governments, are the real threat to liberty. I don't think it is just British manners, especially since it is not constrained to Britain. At the end he concludes: In the end - and maybe this is the biggest change of all - we all have to accept that perfect safety is illusory. [...] But I think any democracy worthy of the name can live with that, because it’s the price of freedom. The reason we are more afraid of agencies like the NSA or the GCHQ than murderous fundamentalists or autocratic governments is that they have shown us that they are violently unwilling to accept the illusory nature of perfect security. In their fevered race to gain control over the cyberspace they have violated our freedom--in this realm anyway--far worse ways than any other attacker to date. We've had all of our worst digital security nightmares confirmed. And the perpetrators are our own "protectors." Earlier he says this: More than ever, we will need a strong and capable intelligence agency to keep our society safe. In light of what we know now I have no doubts about the strength or capability of our intelligence agencies. I worry mostly that they aren't particularly interested in keeping us safe, let alone free.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
The reason we are more afraid of agencies like the NSA or the GCHQ than murderous fundamentalists or autocratic governments is that they have shown us that they are violently unwilling to accept the illusory nature of perfect security. In their fevered race to gain control over the cyberspace they have violated our freedom--in this realm anyway--far worse ways than any other attacker to date. We've had all of our worst digital security nightmares confirmed. And the perpetrators are our own "protectors." I really think you've overstating this. It's naive to think that security agencies are 'unwilling to accept the illusory nature of perfect security' – in fact, they're almost certainly the most acutely aware of it. Let's be blunt—security agencies want access to all of our communication not so that we can be 'terrorised' or 'have our freedom violated', but because they consider it an effective tool to achieve their ends. That's typically things like preventing international crime and terrorism, though there's no doubt that such a power is also abused for less justifiable ends. Much more effective than cliché complaints about security services 'perpetration' of 'violation of our freedom' would be the honest realisation that security services want such a power because they believe–I think fairly rationally—that it would benefit them. It's the job of the rest of society to push back against that, and to make it clear that it is not an acceptable compromise to make, and that we are willing to constrain them. I just can't help but feel that painting such agencies as fools is an ineffective approach to doing that.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > It's the job of the rest of society to push back against that, and to make it clear that it is not an acceptable compromise to make, and that we are willing to constrain them. +1 > I just can't help but feel that painting such agencies as fools is an ineffective approach to doing that. No, but such a tactic could will help to dissuade young people from pursuing careers in those agencies, which could lead to their long-term atrophy and therefore become fools. Especially if the young people instead work against such agencies by learning and implementing strong end-to-end cryptography.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  They are fools because they are neglecting their real duties whilst wasting enormous efforts and funds on the chaff. You don't find more needles by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack in the presence of a fixed number of needles.
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    > You don't find more needles by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack in the presence of a fixed number of needles. No, but if you declare more and more chaff as a needle, you can claim success. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-r...
    - msandford 12y ago
      Sadly very true. The average person can't tell the difference.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    And what makes you think they don't realize that?

matthewmacleod 12y ago

The reason we are more afraid of agencies like the NSA or the GCHQ than murderous fundamentalists or autocratic governments is that they have shown us that they are violently unwilling to accept the illusory nature of perfect security. In their fevered race to gain control over the cyberspace they have violated our freedom--in this realm anyway--far worse ways than any other attacker to date. We've had all of our worst digital security nightmares confirmed. And the perpetrators are our own "protectors." I really think you've overstating this. It's naive to think that security agencies are 'unwilling to accept the illusory nature of perfect security' – in fact, they're almost certainly the most acutely aware of it. Let's be blunt—security agencies want access to all of our communication not so that we can be 'terrorised' or 'have our freedom violated', but because they consider it an effective tool to achieve their ends. That's typically things like preventing international crime and terrorism, though there's no doubt that such a power is also abused for less justifiable ends. Much more effective than cliché complaints about security services 'perpetration' of 'violation of our freedom' would be the honest realisation that security services want such a power because they believe–I think fairly rationally—that it would benefit them. It's the job of the rest of society to push back against that, and to make it clear that it is not an acceptable compromise to make, and that we are willing to constrain them. I just can't help but feel that painting such agencies as fools is an ineffective approach to doing that.

sarciszewski 12y ago
> It's the job of the rest of society to push back against that, and to make it clear that it is not an acceptable compromise to make, and that we are willing to constrain them. +1 > I just can't help but feel that painting such agencies as fools is an ineffective approach to doing that. No, but such a tactic could will help to dissuade young people from pursuing careers in those agencies, which could lead to their long-term atrophy and therefore become fools. Especially if the young people instead work against such agencies by learning and implementing strong end-to-end cryptography.
jacquesm 12y ago
They are fools because they are neglecting their real duties whilst wasting enormous efforts and funds on the chaff. You don't find more needles by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack in the presence of a fixed number of needles.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > You don't find more needles by exponentially increasing the size of the haystack in the presence of a fixed number of needles. No, but if you declare more and more chaff as a needle, you can claim success. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-r...
  - msandford 12y ago
    Sadly very true. The average person can't tell the difference.
- icebraining 12y ago
  And what makes you think they don't realize that?