7 ms·

Does anyone seriously think the program is actually to stop terror? It is here to control the population in the country. Oh you want to run for president with i

by kmonsen 12y ago

Does anyone seriously think the program is actually to stop terror? It is here to control the population in the country. Oh you want to run for president with ideas we don't like? It would be sad if someone publishes all this data we are sitting on.

junto 12y ago
For that to be true, that would mean that the existing president would have been campaigning to curb the powers of the NSA before he became president and then afterwards flip flopped, changed his mind and backed off to the point of supporting more surveillance. No way! That actually happened! [1] my god, why aren't the American public and press even asking these questions? However, he must have changed his mind for some other reason, because otherwise that would mean the NSA blackmailed the president of the USA. Which of course is completely unrealistic! [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/the-surveillance-reforms-obama-supported-before-he-was-president http://www.propublica.org/article/the-surveillance-reforms-o...
- Istof 12y ago
  Obama did say everything he needed to be elected.
- kmonsen 12y ago
  There is also a long history of doing this, just one example: https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi%20mlk https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi%20mlk Another (not so clear) example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scan... He was called "Wall Streets worst nightmare", and suddenly he has to resign because he spent time with a prostitute.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Spitzer was also evading financial regulations. Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job? Because to me it seems to be a real problem when a law enforcement official is giving himself special treatment.
    - bsder 12y ago
      > Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job? Suspected parallel construction. They used illegal collected records in order to find the dirt, and then dug it out using other means that were quasi-legal. That having been said, an anti-prostitution crusader who is using prostitutes deserves exactly what he got. If he hadn't been a crusader, I would have been sympathetic. It just like Republican congressmen. I really don't care how or with whom they're having sex, as long as they aren't crusading against what they, themselves, are doing.
  - sneak 12y ago
    Joseph Nacchio is a better example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio They threw a bunch of insider trading charges at him when he impeded efforts by the NSA to get Qwest (of which he was chairman and CEO at the time) to do warrantless bulk collection.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    Spitzer was out of control. His sin was alienating all of those around him.... Many folks in Albany were cheering his demise. The other two leaders of the legislature have been prosecuted for corruption. His Lieutenant Governor upon succeeding Spitzer disclosed that he was a cocaine user that routinely cheated on his wife. You need to look at Spitzer through the lens of corruption that is NY politics... He was a victim of hubris, not conspiracy.
- rl3 12y ago
  I don't think it's blackmail. The NSA is probably afraid of the executive branch, not the other way around. More likely, it's simply the continued concentration of executive power combined with fear of political fallout in the event an attack happened in the wake of scaling back these programs.
- glitchdout 12y ago
  Given that the NSA spied on Obama when he was still a wannabe-senator, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was blackmailed [1]. Also, just watch candidate Obama debate President Obama on government surveillance [2]. I mean, short of someone providing a document detailing how the NSA intents on spying on the next presidents of the United States and manipulating them, I don't see any more clear evidence than this. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&t=3m11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&t=3m11s [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8
comex 12y ago
I'm sorry, but this is absurd. The article shows what extreme lengths they went to to keep the program secret; suddenly they're going to go around publishing data, perhaps masquerading as traditional hackers, but still significantly tipping their hand? That's the kind of thing that might work once or at most twice, only in the presence of a decently sized conspiracy (not that those don't crop up at times), only if no evidence leaks out fingering the government, only if no low-level employees with knowledge of the program, here 10x as contrary to American values as what actually happened[1], turn whistleblower. Once it did get out, it would presumably be a truly Watergate-level scandal, since you suggest behavior similar to Watergate. Hanlon's Razor - just because it sucks at catching terrorists doesn't mean it wasn't motivated by a desire to Do Something. [1] I don't think spying on the populace comports with American values, but harassing people for their political speech is a whole 'nother ballpark.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Not so absurd if you take fairly recent instances like this into account: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-your-end-is.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo...
- belorn 12y ago
  Blackmail is not about publishing, its about knowing something which someone else do not want published. As soon you publish it, all your power goes away. Of course, simple blackmail would be a poor use of such information. Much better to use it to create missinformation, know who in the targets environment that is weak, and how to subtle encourage internal disruption in the ranks. You can even identify who is likely to become the next president from early age, and then recruit those before they can become a threat to the party.
- kristopolous 12y ago
  I have another axiom I will dub "third-worldify". Take this story and replace United States with a "third world" country such as Turkmenistan or North Korea. Now, if instead it was, [Zambia] does so and so, is it believable? So therein you find your fallacy of exceptionalist presumption. If you think that, say, the Pakistani government could execute this, then I assure you the United States can. There's no magic change in the greed of power from one land to another.
deafeningblow 12y ago
Threats never have to enter the equation. At that level people can disappear, cars malfunction, health happens. If you're running for president, you've scratched the right backs and suppressed any distasteful political ideas you may have had. You aren't a threat because you've been vetted by the power structure already. I do agree that the surveillance state now exists to maintain power in all spheres. Exposing yourself is handing over a large chunk of that power, which is where I disagree with your sentiment. Just think of the value of knowing what your foreign competitors are up to, on national and economic levels.
rhino369 12y ago
This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The better argument is that it could be used to blackmail people. But right now there is zero the program is being used for those sort of nefarious purposes.
archgoon 12y ago
You'd think Snowden would've mentioned the NSA blackmailing the president.
- K_REY_C 12y ago
  That's the whole point, right? The info would be about any future presidential candidates.
rdtsc 12y ago
> It is here to control the population in the country. I am not even sure about that. It is there because it is already there. By that I mean it is a giant bureaucratic investment project with billions of dollars flowing through. Many careers (oh look job creation!), business opportunities, support, training, etc tied into it. During terrorist scares its powers expanded because there was an opportunity to expand, so expand it did. But not because some cabal of Illuminati wanted to read sexting messages of every person on earth. So now it is sort of a cancer that feeds and grows and acquires power for itself. The same with TSA and many other such, at the time, seemingly temporary institutions and measures.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  This is how I see it. NSA gonna NSA. NSA gonna maximize the amount of NSA it does. This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. It is quite literally the point of congressional oversight; to keep things from getting out of control. To ensure the US citizen's and the US's ideals and interests are being served in organizations who have every incentive to pursue their own self-interests. However 9/11 happened and they were able to capitalize big time on fear. Our intelligence community does way to much serving its own interests under the guise of serving US interests IMHO. However, I believe it is ALSO dangerous to have all this information as pointed out by the OP. Again, this is why we are supposed to have congressional oversight and why transparency and secret courts are such hot issues.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).
    - kevinnk 12y ago
      > In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. In this context what exactly would that entail?

by kmonsen 12y ago

junto 12y ago

For that to be true, that would mean that the existing president would have been campaigning to curb the powers of the NSA before he became president and then afterwards flip flopped, changed his mind and backed off to the point of supporting more surveillance. No way! That actually happened! [1] my god, why aren't the American public and press even asking these questions? However, he must have changed his mind for some other reason, because otherwise that would mean the NSA blackmailed the president of the USA. Which of course is completely unrealistic! [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/the-surveillance-reforms-obama-supported-before-he-was-president http://www.propublica.org/article/the-surveillance-reforms-o...

Istof 12y ago
Obama did say everything he needed to be elected.
kmonsen 12y ago
There is also a long history of doing this, just one example: https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi%20mlk https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi%20mlk Another (not so clear) example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scan... He was called "Wall Streets worst nightmare", and suddenly he has to resign because he spent time with a prostitute.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Spitzer was also evading financial regulations. Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job? Because to me it seems to be a real problem when a law enforcement official is giving himself special treatment.
  - bsder 12y ago
    > Or do you mean to imply that it was a fabricated hit job? Suspected parallel construction. They used illegal collected records in order to find the dirt, and then dug it out using other means that were quasi-legal. That having been said, an anti-prostitution crusader who is using prostitutes deserves exactly what he got. If he hadn't been a crusader, I would have been sympathetic. It just like Republican congressmen. I really don't care how or with whom they're having sex, as long as they aren't crusading against what they, themselves, are doing.
- sneak 12y ago
  Joseph Nacchio is a better example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio They threw a bunch of insider trading charges at him when he impeded efforts by the NSA to get Qwest (of which he was chairman and CEO at the time) to do warrantless bulk collection.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  Spitzer was out of control. His sin was alienating all of those around him.... Many folks in Albany were cheering his demise. The other two leaders of the legislature have been prosecuted for corruption. His Lieutenant Governor upon succeeding Spitzer disclosed that he was a cocaine user that routinely cheated on his wife. You need to look at Spitzer through the lens of corruption that is NY politics... He was a victim of hubris, not conspiracy.
rl3 12y ago
I don't think it's blackmail. The NSA is probably afraid of the executive branch, not the other way around. More likely, it's simply the continued concentration of executive power combined with fear of political fallout in the event an attack happened in the wake of scaling back these programs.
glitchdout 12y ago
Given that the NSA spied on Obama when he was still a wannabe-senator, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was blackmailed [1]. Also, just watch candidate Obama debate President Obama on government surveillance [2]. I mean, short of someone providing a document detailing how the NSA intents on spying on the next presidents of the United States and manipulating them, I don't see any more clear evidence than this. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&t=3m11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&t=3m11s [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

comex 12y ago

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. The article shows what extreme lengths they went to to keep the program secret; suddenly they're going to go around publishing data, perhaps masquerading as traditional hackers, but still significantly tipping their hand? That's the kind of thing that might work once or at most twice, only in the presence of a decently sized conspiracy (not that those don't crop up at times), only if no evidence leaks out fingering the government, only if no low-level employees with knowledge of the program, here 10x as contrary to American values as what actually happened[1], turn whistleblower. Once it did get out, it would presumably be a truly Watergate-level scandal, since you suggest behavior similar to Watergate. Hanlon's Razor - just because it sucks at catching terrorists doesn't mean it wasn't motivated by a desire to Do Something. [1] I don't think spying on the populace comports with American values, but harassing people for their political speech is a whole 'nother ballpark.

jacquesm 12y ago
Not so absurd if you take fairly recent instances like this into account: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-your-end-is.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-yo...
belorn 12y ago
Blackmail is not about publishing, its about knowing something which someone else do not want published. As soon you publish it, all your power goes away. Of course, simple blackmail would be a poor use of such information. Much better to use it to create missinformation, know who in the targets environment that is weak, and how to subtle encourage internal disruption in the ranks. You can even identify who is likely to become the next president from early age, and then recruit those before they can become a threat to the party.
kristopolous 12y ago
I have another axiom I will dub "third-worldify". Take this story and replace United States with a "third world" country such as Turkmenistan or North Korea. Now, if instead it was, [Zambia] does so and so, is it believable? So therein you find your fallacy of exceptionalist presumption. If you think that, say, the Pakistani government could execute this, then I assure you the United States can. There's no magic change in the greed of power from one land to another.

deafeningblow 12y ago

Threats never have to enter the equation. At that level people can disappear, cars malfunction, health happens. If you're running for president, you've scratched the right backs and suppressed any distasteful political ideas you may have had. You aren't a threat because you've been vetted by the power structure already. I do agree that the surveillance state now exists to maintain power in all spheres. Exposing yourself is handing over a large chunk of that power, which is where I disagree with your sentiment. Just think of the value of knowing what your foreign competitors are up to, on national and economic levels.

rhino369 12y ago

This is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The better argument is that it could be used to blackmail people. But right now there is zero the program is being used for those sort of nefarious purposes.

archgoon 12y ago

You'd think Snowden would've mentioned the NSA blackmailing the president.

K_REY_C 12y ago
That's the whole point, right? The info would be about any future presidential candidates.

rdtsc 12y ago

> It is here to control the population in the country. I am not even sure about that. It is there because it is already there. By that I mean it is a giant bureaucratic investment project with billions of dollars flowing through. Many careers (oh look job creation!), business opportunities, support, training, etc tied into it. During terrorist scares its powers expanded because there was an opportunity to expand, so expand it did. But not because some cabal of Illuminati wanted to read sexting messages of every person on earth. So now it is sort of a cancer that feeds and grows and acquires power for itself. The same with TSA and many other such, at the time, seemingly temporary institutions and measures.

Rapzid 12y ago
This is how I see it. NSA gonna NSA. NSA gonna maximize the amount of NSA it does. This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. It is quite literally the point of congressional oversight; to keep things from getting out of control. To ensure the US citizen's and the US's ideals and interests are being served in organizations who have every incentive to pursue their own self-interests. However 9/11 happened and they were able to capitalize big time on fear. Our intelligence community does way to much serving its own interests under the guise of serving US interests IMHO. However, I believe it is ALSO dangerous to have all this information as pointed out by the OP. Again, this is why we are supposed to have congressional oversight and why transparency and secret courts are such hot issues.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight. Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).
  - kevinnk 12y ago
    > In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. In this context what exactly would that entail?