5 ms·

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 d

by 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.
- smtddr 12y ago
  It's because of this: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 The only difference between USA's corruption and others, is that USA is super-good at hiding it.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Well, and of course, the entire scale of it compared to very corrupt countries where police ask for bribes whenever they feel like it.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Doesn't sound so different: https://www.aclu.org/blog/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police https://www.aclu.org/blog/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-...
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        Until you actually have lived in one of those high corrupt countries, I don't think you'll be able to see the difference.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        I've lived in quite a few places with extremely high corruption and to be honest I don't know what I prefer, probably on the one hand it feels comfortable to have the corruption hidden behind a layer of veneer, on the other to have it out in the open at least allows you to discuss the problem with others without coming across as paranoid.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        This is quite true, at least with my experience of living in China (which is not that corrupt, but more corrupt than the USA, and mostly in the open).
smtddr 12y ago
They don't have to reveal where the data came from. You got crazy(read: anti-status quo) ideas and you're getting close to being able to implement them? .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..." Or the news doesn't even approach you; they just blast it online/TV and wreck you, the end. Journalists don't have to tell you how they got the info at all. Anonymously by mail, whatever. NSA's collected data is perfectly (ab)usable without revealing its source and to believe it hasn't already happened numerous times is denial. There must be all kinds of unrevealed scandals they're sitting on and it's undeniable human nature that at the government level the knowledge of these scandals hasn't been used as leverage on people. I can't even accept NSA employees haven't numerously abused their access to spy on friends & family.
- discardorama 12y ago
  > .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..." They already do something similar: it's called parallel construction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

by comex 12y ago

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.

smtddr 12y ago
It's because of this: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014 The only difference between USA's corruption and others, is that USA is super-good at hiding it.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Well, and of course, the entire scale of it compared to very corrupt countries where police ask for bribes whenever they feel like it.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Doesn't sound so different: https://www.aclu.org/blog/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police https://www.aclu.org/blog/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-...
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Until you actually have lived in one of those high corrupt countries, I don't think you'll be able to see the difference.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        I've lived in quite a few places with extremely high corruption and to be honest I don't know what I prefer, probably on the one hand it feels comfortable to have the corruption hidden behind a layer of veneer, on the other to have it out in the open at least allows you to discuss the problem with others without coming across as paranoid.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        This is quite true, at least with my experience of living in China (which is not that corrupt, but more corrupt than the USA, and mostly in the open).

smtddr 12y ago

They don't have to reveal where the data came from. You got crazy(read: anti-status quo) ideas and you're getting close to being able to implement them? .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..." Or the news doesn't even approach you; they just blast it online/TV and wreck you, the end. Journalists don't have to tell you how they got the info at all. Anonymously by mail, whatever. NSA's collected data is perfectly (ab)usable without revealing its source and to believe it hasn't already happened numerous times is denial. There must be all kinds of unrevealed scandals they're sitting on and it's undeniable human nature that at the government level the knowledge of these scandals hasn't been used as leverage on people. I can't even accept NSA employees haven't numerously abused their access to spy on friends & family.

discardorama 12y ago
> .... NSA leaks info to your opponent(s) and/or media(loves destructive info already)... and suddenly your opponent comes by with it. In shock you go, "How did you get this info?!!!" Opponent says "...I have my sources..." They already do something similar: it's called parallel construction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction