5 ms·

I have no problem voicing my beliefs publicly. I'm always more than willing to explain the policies of the NSA, and happy to denounce the actions of Edward Snow

I have no problem voicing my beliefs publicly. I'm always more than willing to explain the policies of the NSA, and happy to denounce the actions of Edward Snowden. I don't think he was a traitor, by definition, but what he did was wrong. It isn't necessary to divulge confidential information, the situation is pretty clear. I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it would be off topic. I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Only a small minority of people who work for the government, directly or as contractors, are ashamed of their employer or having a crisis of conscience. In general, nothing polarizes people and brings them together like an external threat. If everyone is shouting that you're bad, the most basic human instinct is to shout back even louder. This whole thing has been a delight for management in the intelligence services. Some employees and contractors are much more motivated now. And many of those who support Snowden are still indifferent about the issues that he raised. It's either "go team!" or "eh, a job's a job." Only a minority are racked with self-doubt because of what's being posted about their employer on hackernews and reddit. Most will gladly tell you what they think, openly or in private, with no fear of criticism or backlash.

bhayden 12y ago
So is that essentially to say you agree with surveillance of citizens, without warrant or probable cause?
- pyre 12y ago
  It's ok because: - only the "good guys" do it - No one ever abuses it. - Even if someone abuses it they would never just get a slap on the wrist (maybe just fired, and security clearance revoked) rather than criminal charges. - The disincentive for abuse is "patriotism" and no one has ever decided not to be a "patriot"... ever. - Absolutely zero people in government seek out power, or have weird ideas about controlling what other people can do or think. - No one in the intelligence "community" would ever abuse surveillance to (e.g.) blackmail politicians for funding/votes/more power. Because every single one of them always make 100% perfect moral choices. - It's only used for "threats to national security"... except when it isn't, but the winning the "War on Drugs"/spying on animal rights activists/making sure US companies win bids for foreign contracts/making sure that the correct politicians are re-elected really all fall under the umbrella of "National Security" if you think about it... /s
mathetic 12y ago
>> If everyone is shouting that you're bad, the most basic human instinct is to shout back even louder. Citation needed. Even if this is the case, then it is lucky that we developed cognitive tools that allow us to reflect on our actions and try to comprehend why those people are shouting at us in a civilised society.
- stingraycharles 12y ago
  Well this is basically part of how you try to convince someone of your opinion. If you only shout "you are bad", you are going to get shouts back. It's all about the way how to have a decent discussion. If you first acknowledge that the other party has some good points (for example, acknowledge the need for the government to acquire intelligence), and use that as a basis for further discussion, you have a much better chance to get rid of that instinct and have a reasonable discussion. Right now, as we did/do with the people of wallstreet, it's a kind of "you are either with us, or against us" discussion. No good ever comes from that.
  - copsarebastards 12y ago
    If it gets to the point where someone is hacking into my personal communications I no longer am interested in conversing that person. Our differences are too fundamental for a conversation to be productive. My interests at this point are seeing that this person is stripped of power and brought to justice (the knowledgeable members of the NSA should be put in jail, just as any other group conspiring to commit a felony would be). No conversation is going to result in them agreeing that they should be stripped of power and jailed, so discussion is pointless. The discussions I'm having are not with members of the NSA, they're with other people who might potentially be able to help at least prevent further criminal activity by the NSA.
  - amyjess 12y ago
    > Right now, as we did/do with the people of wallstreet, it's a kind of "you are either with us, or against us" discussion. No good ever comes from that. It also doesn't help that most anti-Wall Street rhetoric has much in common, either intentionally or unintentionally, with antisemitic dogwhistles. Enough of Wall Street's population is Jewish that they recognize the dogwhistling and tune out.
diafygi 12y ago
> I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Every single lawsuit challenging mass surveillance has been resisted by the Executive on the basis of state secrets and lack of standing. The Executive is using a judicial tactic to avoid having to answer the question of whether these programs are constitutional. When that question is asked, it usually ends in the programs being illegal[1][2][3]. So if you're not afraid, would you mind answering some questions? One of the biggest problems I have right now is that your side simply stonewalls or deflects core questions thrown by my side. I would love to be convinced that what you're doing is right. 1) How are broad secret court[4] and non-court[5] orders constitutional? The 4th Amendment appears to only allow targeted warrants, so from where does the government draw this broad surveillance power? So far, the only legal defense been invoking the state secrets privilege[6], which prevents the core question from being addressed. 2) How is the DEA's parallel construction program[7] constitutional? This seems as if the DEA is not allowing a fair trail by withholding evidence from the defendant. 3) If you think the above are unconstitutional, why should they be allowed to exist? How can the rule of law persist with unclear or secret exceptions? Are there things that are more important than the rule of law? What possible impacts does this prioritization have? I thought we should strive to live under a rule-of-law, and I feel like the Executive and their workers (including you) don't mind having a rule-of-man system. Please convince me otherwise. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-a... [5]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters [6]: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege [7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...
- bhayden 12y ago
Sven7 12y ago
Not surprised. We heard the exact same reaction from Wall Street after 2008.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kidcoach 12y ago
> I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it would be off topic. Would you care to litigate it somewhere else ?
Mikhail_Edoshin 12y ago
Don't you think that your observations could be naturally distorted by survivorship bias? I mean, it would be very hard for people to have a conflict between beliefs and their job duties for a prolonged time; something gotta give. Those who stay, change their beliefs (or articulate their loyalty at least to themselves and, perhaps, become "more motivated" as you describe) and those who keep their beliefs just quit and you no longer see them around.
copsarebastards 12y ago
So we live in a country where members of the government can brazenly talk about how they conspired to commit felonies against citizens with no fear of criticism or backlash. Great.

bhayden 12y ago

So is that essentially to say you agree with surveillance of citizens, without warrant or probable cause?

pyre 12y ago
It's ok because: - only the "good guys" do it - No one ever abuses it. - Even if someone abuses it they would never just get a slap on the wrist (maybe just fired, and security clearance revoked) rather than criminal charges. - The disincentive for abuse is "patriotism" and no one has ever decided not to be a "patriot"... ever. - Absolutely zero people in government seek out power, or have weird ideas about controlling what other people can do or think. - No one in the intelligence "community" would ever abuse surveillance to (e.g.) blackmail politicians for funding/votes/more power. Because every single one of them always make 100% perfect moral choices. - It's only used for "threats to national security"... except when it isn't, but the winning the "War on Drugs"/spying on animal rights activists/making sure US companies win bids for foreign contracts/making sure that the correct politicians are re-elected really all fall under the umbrella of "National Security" if you think about it... /s

mathetic 12y ago

>> If everyone is shouting that you're bad, the most basic human instinct is to shout back even louder. Citation needed. Even if this is the case, then it is lucky that we developed cognitive tools that allow us to reflect on our actions and try to comprehend why those people are shouting at us in a civilised society.

stingraycharles 12y ago
Well this is basically part of how you try to convince someone of your opinion. If you only shout "you are bad", you are going to get shouts back. It's all about the way how to have a decent discussion. If you first acknowledge that the other party has some good points (for example, acknowledge the need for the government to acquire intelligence), and use that as a basis for further discussion, you have a much better chance to get rid of that instinct and have a reasonable discussion. Right now, as we did/do with the people of wallstreet, it's a kind of "you are either with us, or against us" discussion. No good ever comes from that.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  If it gets to the point where someone is hacking into my personal communications I no longer am interested in conversing that person. Our differences are too fundamental for a conversation to be productive. My interests at this point are seeing that this person is stripped of power and brought to justice (the knowledgeable members of the NSA should be put in jail, just as any other group conspiring to commit a felony would be). No conversation is going to result in them agreeing that they should be stripped of power and jailed, so discussion is pointless. The discussions I'm having are not with members of the NSA, they're with other people who might potentially be able to help at least prevent further criminal activity by the NSA.
- amyjess 12y ago
  > Right now, as we did/do with the people of wallstreet, it's a kind of "you are either with us, or against us" discussion. No good ever comes from that. It also doesn't help that most anti-Wall Street rhetoric has much in common, either intentionally or unintentionally, with antisemitic dogwhistles. Enough of Wall Street's population is Jewish that they recognize the dogwhistling and tune out.

diafygi 12y ago

> I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Every single lawsuit challenging mass surveillance has been resisted by the Executive on the basis of state secrets and lack of standing. The Executive is using a judicial tactic to avoid having to answer the question of whether these programs are constitutional. When that question is asked, it usually ends in the programs being illegal[1][2][3]. So if you're not afraid, would you mind answering some questions? One of the biggest problems I have right now is that your side simply stonewalls or deflects core questions thrown by my side. I would love to be convinced that what you're doing is right. 1) How are broad secret court[4] and non-court[5] orders constitutional? The 4th Amendment appears to only allow targeted warrants, so from where does the government draw this broad surveillance power? So far, the only legal defense been invoking the state secrets privilege[6], which prevents the core question from being addressed. 2) How is the DEA's parallel construction program[7] constitutional? This seems as if the DEA is not allowing a fair trail by withholding evidence from the defendant. 3) If you think the above are unconstitutional, why should they be allowed to exist? How can the rule of law persist with unclear or secret exceptions? Are there things that are more important than the rule of law? What possible impacts does this prioritization have? I thought we should strive to live under a rule-of-law, and I feel like the Executive and their workers (including you) don't mind having a rule-of-man system. Please convince me otherwise. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-a... [5]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters [6]: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege [7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...

bhayden 12y ago

Sven7 12y ago

Not surprised. We heard the exact same reaction from Wall Street after 2008.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kidcoach 12y ago

> I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it would be off topic. Would you care to litigate it somewhere else ?

Mikhail_Edoshin 12y ago

Don't you think that your observations could be naturally distorted by survivorship bias? I mean, it would be very hard for people to have a conflict between beliefs and their job duties for a prolonged time; something gotta give. Those who stay, change their beliefs (or articulate their loyalty at least to themselves and, perhaps, become "more motivated" as you describe) and those who keep their beliefs just quit and you no longer see them around.

copsarebastards 12y ago

So we live in a country where members of the government can brazenly talk about how they conspired to commit felonies against citizens with no fear of criticism or backlash. Great.