12 ms·

Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors

322 points by rl3 11y ago

tljr 11y ago
you don't say
rtpg 11y ago
The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which they have expertise (policy).
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  So what you're saying is that they just "happen to support the NSA" while getting donations from those companies for other reasons? I think America has gone too far with its "political correctness". This is why these days media people can't even say that politicians are lying anymore. They have to say words such as "misinterpreting the truth" or "made an error", and why people like Clapper or other law enforcement agents get away with committing "errors", as opposed to calling them what they really are - crimes.
- iwwr 11y ago
  Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment. I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all. It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.
    - LLWM 11y ago
      By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
      - tehwebguy 11y ago
        These examples are missing the point. A clearer example than the server / tip is jury duty. It's not profitable for almost anyone with a job but for the most part we are forced to participate.
- glesica 11y ago
  > This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest... Hehe, as though these things just happen to go hand-in-hand.
- us0r 11y ago
  SAIC, CSC, CACI, Booz, Leidos? These are multi-billion dollar government welfare recipients.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    I'd add Palantir.
  - MadManE 11y ago
    Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.
    - AngrySkillzz 11y ago
      Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.
      - MadManE 11y ago
        Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals? Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.
        fineman 11y ago
        The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting. But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving (however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we don't owe him that livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his enterprises in that area. As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  I agree completely. It seems that the most powerful tool most people have in their debate toolbox is "you have a financial interest in X, so your opinion on X must be invalid". But this is a logical fallacy. It's incorrect dismiss a study on the Widget industry just because it was performed by scientists from Widgets-R-Us. Who else is going to do the study? Who has more understanding of widgets than those very scientists? And in particular, why should we believe that the study done by Widgets-R-Evil is somehow more pure and worthy of consideration?
  - jeffmcjunkin 11y ago
    Phrased more broadly - everyone has biases in their opinions. Make sure you know what their bias is and take it into account when listening to them. Widgets-R-Us has a strong financial incentive to make their Widgets study as advantageous to them as possible. Widgets-R-Evil has a strong incentive to blast Widgets-R-Us's study as invalid and make their own study as negative as possible, since their reason for existence (assumedly) is convincing people that Widgets are evil. The truth is A) usually without a direct incentive of its own and B) usually somewhere in the middle.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    No, you are wrong. We don't live in a perfect boolean world, and "you have a financial interest on X" is a completely valid reason to dismiss everything you have to say about X. And what's even more valid is the rationale implied at this article, that since only people with financial interest on X are defending it, it follows that X is bad and you should be against it.
dublinclontarf 11y ago
If I support the NSA can I get some of that money?
heapcity 11y ago
Pres. Eisenhower gives dire warning: 'We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether saught or unsaught by the Military Industrial Complex' (Jan. 17, 1961) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jobu 11y ago
  Most people view the term "Military Industrial Complex" from the view of the primary definition of complex - "consisting of many different and connected parts". It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex - "a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior". More of a dysfunctional mental state of the nation than an actual physical interaction.
  - klenwell 11y ago
    It seems to me the two complexes reinforce one another. Something akin to Sinclair's observation: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." But that is in interesting point that you make. I had never considered it from that angle before. Works either way for me. And even better together. Eisenhower: America's Derrida.
  - rl3 11y ago
    >It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex ... No, he did not. [1] While that's certainly an interesting thought as well as a unique angle, nothing I can find suggests that it was his intent. Moreover, the usage of the term in context of the speech itself is evidence enough: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." [2] Eisenhower clearly used the term as if it were a concrete entity, not as an abstract reference to a psychiatric state. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com... [2] http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/Reading_Copy.pdf http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents...
happyscrappy 11y ago
>Baker at one point told intelligence committee lawmakers that The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald was simply on a campaign to “cause the greatest possible diplomatic damage to the United States and its intelligence capabilities.” The problem with liars is that sometimes they tell the truth.
cies 11y ago
How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.
  - akshatpradhan 11y ago
    Right now, lobbying IS a dirty thing. How can we clean it up?
  - ihsw 11y ago
    The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying. This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out. We're morally bankrupt in every sense. Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals. Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.
    - fineman 11y ago
      "No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process." It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all. For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.
fiatjaf 11y ago
This shouldn't be news. Everyone should know it from the beggining. Show me some government program that doesn't have corruption involved.
- digital-rubber 11y ago
  hear hear! (i agree)
ganeumann 11y ago
I think the main point here is the one Todd Gitlin makes: "the onus for disclosure ultimately lies with reporters and news programs, who should be asking these experts to reveal potential conflicts of interest and to explain the basis of their assertions about national security." We all have a conflict of interest here (not least because since we are all being spied on by our governments) but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't valid. But the conflicts of interest need to be disclosed with the opinions so the readers/viewers have a chance to weight the opinions presented.
- sseveran 11y ago
  If you have ever watched CNBC or Bloomberg I am sure you have been whenever an analyst talks about a stock a disclosure screen pops indicating whether the analyst, their family or their firm have an financial stake in the company. It would be interesting to see that especially for very senior former government officials who often clock themselves in their former agencies and not as board members of x,y, and z. There is certainly more credibility as been former 4 star general than a board member of a government contractor. Now having spent some time earlier in my life working around the DC establishment I know that being a general is now basically a political position even though it is accorded the same respect that generals garnered 70 years ago. So I just expect that former senior government officials are now trading on their connections to government...since that is the most valuable asset to have. And this goes for everything, not just the military and intelligence agencies. When there is as much money as there is in Washington being connected to the people who hand it out is extremely valuable.
bradleyjg 11y ago
I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years, at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog. He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written, but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to be playing a cynical PR game. Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely should.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  I was thinking something similar, which is that I felt the article was implying that if these people didn't have a financial connection to the NSA their opinions would be different, and I don't think that is the case. Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative. So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving them money[1]. So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find that particularly noteworthy. [1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all that big a deal for them :-)
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    >> That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen. What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly. As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector). Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good reason for it to have grown so large.
MadManE 11y ago
This headline doesn't seem like it's actually news. Replace "NSA" with literally anything else, and it still makes perfect sense. People who have financial incentives to keep something around typically try to do so.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  In some cases, that's just fine. In others it is a perverse incentive we should reconsider. Prisons, domestic spying, etc.
  - MadManE 11y ago
    Whether it's a good or bad thing is irrelevant. I agree that we should be aware and try to deter some instances, but saying that having skin in the game causes incentives seems like a weird conclusion to me. It should be obvious.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      I don't think that's a weird conclusion at all. The companies have fiduciary obligations to keep, after all.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
The whole point of the article is completely irrelevant at this point. The NSA already built their huge data center in the desert. They've been scooping up data for years. They've been using methods to usurp wireless phone security in order to snoop on what should be secure networks. There's suspicions they've cracked TOR's encryption as well. Alert the media, the people who support the NSA have financial ties to them. Even with the recent court ruling, Pandora's box was opened decades ago, and I see no palatable future where anybody is able to close it.
javajosh 11y ago
Yes, HSA advocates are secretly biased, and unlike politicians and their campaign ads, their bias is covert. But that's not the story we need reported on, because this story is preaching to the choir. The real story is understanding the American public's malleability in the face of advertising/punditry in general. There is a real story analyzing in-depth (and with open-minded sympathy) why real believers in the practice believe that it is actually truly the right thing to do. I suspect that the public won't understand what's at risk until the IRS starts using NSA collected data to conduct (automated, universal) audits.
mmrasheed 11y ago
I find recent NSA related craps utterly outdated, dull and juvenile. At this point, distinction between news on NSA's secret projects and government's public release of secret documents seems blurry and overlapping. NSA has been working on quantum computing for decades. Recent success of both Israel and NSA in harnessing quantum computing for practical purposes is well known for at least couple of years. When quantum computing can blow off present mathematical proof of concepts in security, why waste time talking about decade old NSA technology? Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years?
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  >Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years? Because then you have to acknowledge that threats exist that are not the US government, and that is not kosher because the goal is to reduce US power.
  - bob-2 11y ago
    > the goal is to reduce US power. Better put: the goal is to reduce US abuse of power. Accountability is the focus, not disarmament.
    - mineshaftgap 11y ago
      You are essentially arguing that other Western nations have no agency and are forced to do the US's bidding.
pointernil 11y ago
As an European I often wonder, how do people in the US cope with this level of corporate driven politics... I have the impression in Europe this kind of connections do exists but are seen as a serious problem and actively worked against in the legislation and even with this those connection are increasing and "growing" in weight on politics. I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal modus operandi in US politics. Are Europe and the US approaching some kind of middle point in the level of inter-connectivity of corporations and politics: Europe reaching it from the lower levels and the US by reaching it from higher levels? It is really absurd how since the 60s resp. 70s after the nations coped more or less with the devastation of the 2 World Wars, politics has been reduced essentially to economic interests and agendas AND in the process gave it self up to the economic agents: large corporations which are defining politics. Are economics, money, corporations over-represented in politics?
- andrewmutz 11y ago
  If I understand the article correctly, the people they are talking about don't hold public office. They are private citizens who are pro-NSA and who have corporate ties to the NSA, and are speaking publicly. So I don't think this article is an example of politicians having corporate motivations, but rather talking heads on TV having corporate motivation.

322 points by rl3 11y ago

tljr 11y ago

you don't say

rtpg 11y ago

The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors" are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify Microsoft as "A NSA contractor". This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which they have expertise (policy).

higherpurpose 11y ago
So what you're saying is that they just "happen to support the NSA" while getting donations from those companies for other reasons? I think America has gone too far with its "political correctness". This is why these days media people can't even say that politicians are lying anymore. They have to say words such as "misinterpreting the truth" or "made an error", and why people like Clapper or other law enforcement agents get away with committing "errors", as opposed to calling them what they really are - crimes.
iwwr 11y ago
Government contracting is a very large and lucrative business. The surveillance programs are large data pipelines that require datacenters, computing, storage and state-of-the-art analysis. Then, given the secret nature of the program, the bidding process is less strict as a matter of cost and hence more profitable.
- logicallee 11y ago
  if we were serious about the social benefit to having a failsafe black box that we can sometimes under extraordinary conditions retrieve intelligence from, then companies should be required to operate these programs (send data to that black box) without benefit, and over their protests, by law. they shouldn't be paid for it. it should be a burden. It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment. I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all. It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.
  - LLWM 11y ago
    By the same reasoning, criminals literally pay the police to lock them up or shoot at them. Isn't that crazy????? No, that's how taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose which government functions to pay for.
    - tehwebguy 11y ago
      These examples are missing the point. A clearer example than the server / tip is jury duty. It's not profitable for almost anyone with a job but for the most part we are forced to participate.
glesica 11y ago
> This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest... Hehe, as though these things just happen to go hand-in-hand.
us0r 11y ago
SAIC, CSC, CACI, Booz, Leidos? These are multi-billion dollar government welfare recipients.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  I'd add Palantir.
- MadManE 11y ago
  Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone is easy to confuse.
  - AngrySkillzz 11y ago
    Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers. The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.
    - MadManE 11y ago
      Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or less deserving of government money than individuals? Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.
      - fineman 11y ago
        The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting. But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving (however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we don't owe him that livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his enterprises in that area. As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
I agree completely. It seems that the most powerful tool most people have in their debate toolbox is "you have a financial interest in X, so your opinion on X must be invalid". But this is a logical fallacy. It's incorrect dismiss a study on the Widget industry just because it was performed by scientists from Widgets-R-Us. Who else is going to do the study? Who has more understanding of widgets than those very scientists? And in particular, why should we believe that the study done by Widgets-R-Evil is somehow more pure and worthy of consideration?
- jeffmcjunkin 11y ago
  Phrased more broadly - everyone has biases in their opinions. Make sure you know what their bias is and take it into account when listening to them. Widgets-R-Us has a strong financial incentive to make their Widgets study as advantageous to them as possible. Widgets-R-Evil has a strong incentive to blast Widgets-R-Us's study as invalid and make their own study as negative as possible, since their reason for existence (assumedly) is convincing people that Widgets are evil. The truth is A) usually without a direct incentive of its own and B) usually somewhere in the middle.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  No, you are wrong. We don't live in a perfect boolean world, and "you have a financial interest on X" is a completely valid reason to dismiss everything you have to say about X. And what's even more valid is the rationale implied at this article, that since only people with financial interest on X are defending it, it follows that X is bad and you should be against it.

dublinclontarf 11y ago

If I support the NSA can I get some of that money?

heapcity 11y ago

Pres. Eisenhower gives dire warning: 'We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether saught or unsaught by the Military Industrial Complex' (Jan. 17, 1961) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jobu 11y ago
Most people view the term "Military Industrial Complex" from the view of the primary definition of complex - "consisting of many different and connected parts". It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex - "a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior". More of a dysfunctional mental state of the nation than an actual physical interaction.
- klenwell 11y ago
  It seems to me the two complexes reinforce one another. Something akin to Sinclair's observation: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." But that is in interesting point that you make. I had never considered it from that angle before. Works either way for me. And even better together. Eisenhower: America's Derrida.
- rl3 11y ago
  >It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex ... No, he did not. [1] While that's certainly an interesting thought as well as a unique angle, nothing I can find suggests that it was his intent. Moreover, the usage of the term in context of the speech itself is evidence enough: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." [2] Eisenhower clearly used the term as if it were a concrete entity, not as an abstract reference to a psychiatric state. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com... [2] http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/Reading_Copy.pdf http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents...

happyscrappy 11y ago

>Baker at one point told intelligence committee lawmakers that The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald was simply on a campaign to “cause the greatest possible diplomatic damage to the United States and its intelligence capabilities.” The problem with liars is that sometimes they tell the truth.

cies 11y ago

How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of. Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.
- akshatpradhan 11y ago
  Right now, lobbying IS a dirty thing. How can we clean it up?
- ihsw 11y ago
  The only good lobbyist is one that doesn't profit from his lobbying. This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out. We're morally bankrupt in every sense. Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals. Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.
  - fineman 11y ago
    "No boss, trust me on this. Sometimes - for the process to work - I have to let these guys pay me subvert the process." It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all. For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.

fiatjaf 11y ago

This shouldn't be news. Everyone should know it from the beggining. Show me some government program that doesn't have corruption involved.

digital-rubber 11y ago
hear hear! (i agree)

ganeumann 11y ago

I think the main point here is the one Todd Gitlin makes: "the onus for disclosure ultimately lies with reporters and news programs, who should be asking these experts to reveal potential conflicts of interest and to explain the basis of their assertions about national security." We all have a conflict of interest here (not least because since we are all being spied on by our governments) but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't valid. But the conflicts of interest need to be disclosed with the opinions so the readers/viewers have a chance to weight the opinions presented.

sseveran 11y ago
If you have ever watched CNBC or Bloomberg I am sure you have been whenever an analyst talks about a stock a disclosure screen pops indicating whether the analyst, their family or their firm have an financial stake in the company. It would be interesting to see that especially for very senior former government officials who often clock themselves in their former agencies and not as board members of x,y, and z. There is certainly more credibility as been former 4 star general than a board member of a government contractor. Now having spent some time earlier in my life working around the DC establishment I know that being a general is now basically a political position even though it is accorded the same respect that generals garnered 70 years ago. So I just expect that former senior government officials are now trading on their connections to government...since that is the most valuable asset to have. And this goes for everything, not just the military and intelligence agencies. When there is as much money as there is in Washington being connected to the people who hand it out is extremely valuable.

bradleyjg 11y ago

I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years, at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog. He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written, but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to be playing a cynical PR game. Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely should.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
I was thinking something similar, which is that I felt the article was implying that if these people didn't have a financial connection to the NSA their opinions would be different, and I don't think that is the case. Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative. So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving them money[1]. So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find that particularly noteworthy. [1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all that big a deal for them :-)
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  >> That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen. What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly. As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector). Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good reason for it to have grown so large.

MadManE 11y ago

This headline doesn't seem like it's actually news. Replace "NSA" with literally anything else, and it still makes perfect sense. People who have financial incentives to keep something around typically try to do so.

spacemanmatt 11y ago
In some cases, that's just fine. In others it is a perverse incentive we should reconsider. Prisons, domestic spying, etc.
- MadManE 11y ago
  Whether it's a good or bad thing is irrelevant. I agree that we should be aware and try to deter some instances, but saying that having skin in the game causes incentives seems like a weird conclusion to me. It should be obvious.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    I don't think that's a weird conclusion at all. The companies have fiduciary obligations to keep, after all.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

The whole point of the article is completely irrelevant at this point. The NSA already built their huge data center in the desert. They've been scooping up data for years. They've been using methods to usurp wireless phone security in order to snoop on what should be secure networks. There's suspicions they've cracked TOR's encryption as well. Alert the media, the people who support the NSA have financial ties to them. Even with the recent court ruling, Pandora's box was opened decades ago, and I see no palatable future where anybody is able to close it.

javajosh 11y ago

Yes, HSA advocates are secretly biased, and unlike politicians and their campaign ads, their bias is covert. But that's not the story we need reported on, because this story is preaching to the choir. The real story is understanding the American public's malleability in the face of advertising/punditry in general. There is a real story analyzing in-depth (and with open-minded sympathy) why real believers in the practice believe that it is actually truly the right thing to do. I suspect that the public won't understand what's at risk until the IRS starts using NSA collected data to conduct (automated, universal) audits.

mmrasheed 11y ago

I find recent NSA related craps utterly outdated, dull and juvenile. At this point, distinction between news on NSA's secret projects and government's public release of secret documents seems blurry and overlapping. NSA has been working on quantum computing for decades. Recent success of both Israel and NSA in harnessing quantum computing for practical purposes is well known for at least couple of years. When quantum computing can blow off present mathematical proof of concepts in security, why waste time talking about decade old NSA technology? Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years?

happyscrappy 11y ago
>Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years? Because then you have to acknowledge that threats exist that are not the US government, and that is not kosher because the goal is to reduce US power.
- bob-2 11y ago
  > the goal is to reduce US power. Better put: the goal is to reduce US abuse of power. Accountability is the focus, not disarmament.
  - mineshaftgap 11y ago
    You are essentially arguing that other Western nations have no agency and are forced to do the US's bidding.

pointernil 11y ago

As an European I often wonder, how do people in the US cope with this level of corporate driven politics... I have the impression in Europe this kind of connections do exists but are seen as a serious problem and actively worked against in the legislation and even with this those connection are increasing and "growing" in weight on politics. I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal modus operandi in US politics. Are Europe and the US approaching some kind of middle point in the level of inter-connectivity of corporations and politics: Europe reaching it from the lower levels and the US by reaching it from higher levels? It is really absurd how since the 60s resp. 70s after the nations coped more or less with the devastation of the 2 World Wars, politics has been reduced essentially to economic interests and agendas AND in the process gave it self up to the economic agents: large corporations which are defining politics. Are economics, money, corporations over-represented in politics?

andrewmutz 11y ago
If I understand the article correctly, the people they are talking about don't hold public office. They are private citizens who are pro-NSA and who have corporate ties to the NSA, and are speaking publicly. So I don't think this article is an example of politicians having corporate motivations, but rather talking heads on TV having corporate motivation.