4 ms·

Read the following description of SIGINT : https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml > They then use the information to help

by seren 11y ago

Read the following description of SIGINT : https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml > They then use the information to help protect our troops, support our allies, fight terrorism, combat international crime and narcotics, support diplomatic negotiations, and advance many other important national objectives. Again the focus is on "threat", "crime", "combat" and at the end the very vague "important national objectives". Don't you feel the strong cognitive dissonance between the missions that are put at the forefront and what it is really done ?

jonnybgood 11y ago
National objective isn't vague at all. A national objective is an actual mandate by the president to the Sec. of Defense for some operation to occur. For example, a national objective would be "Degrade ISIS operations in Iraq." The Sec. would take this down the chain of the DoD through all the planning (which typically involves intelligence at this point) until finally seeing bombs dropping on ISIS in Iraq. Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.
rtpg 11y ago
What about "support diplomatic negotiations"? The NSA is pretty straightforward about spying on foreign governments it seems
- seren 11y ago
  I would say it depends of the context. Negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and making sure the other party is not only trying to buy time sounds OK in my book. On the other trying to get the upper hand in a trade treaty is not so great. And the European case it is probably more of the later.
  - caskance 11y ago
    >On the other trying to get the upper hand in a trade treaty is not so great What's wrong with that? Trying to get the best deal for your side is the entire point of a negotiation.
    - seren 11y ago
      You have to take into account, that a trade deal is something your enter voluntarily between partners/allies in the hope it will be a win-win for both sides. If there is an information asymmetry, you don't negotiate as equal, but rather as dupe and knave. Would you sit at a poker table if you knew the cards where marked ? In regards of the revelation, even if there are a few years old, at the time of tense TIPP negotiation, it makes a bad impression.
      - caskance 11y ago
        If I knew the cards were marked and how And I knew exactly how much or how little each of the other players knew about - the marking system - and the other players' knowledge of it And I knew that I was the only one at the table with the power to punish any bad actors And I knew that my family needed money I didn't have Why on earth would I stay away?

by seren 11y ago

jonnybgood 11y ago

National objective isn't vague at all. A national objective is an actual mandate by the president to the Sec. of Defense for some operation to occur. For example, a national objective would be "Degrade ISIS operations in Iraq." The Sec. would take this down the chain of the DoD through all the planning (which typically involves intelligence at this point) until finally seeing bombs dropping on ISIS in Iraq. Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.

rtpg 11y ago

What about "support diplomatic negotiations"? The NSA is pretty straightforward about spying on foreign governments it seems

seren 11y ago
I would say it depends of the context. Negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and making sure the other party is not only trying to buy time sounds OK in my book. On the other trying to get the upper hand in a trade treaty is not so great. And the European case it is probably more of the later.
- caskance 11y ago
  >On the other trying to get the upper hand in a trade treaty is not so great What's wrong with that? Trying to get the best deal for your side is the entire point of a negotiation.
  - seren 11y ago
    You have to take into account, that a trade deal is something your enter voluntarily between partners/allies in the hope it will be a win-win for both sides. If there is an information asymmetry, you don't negotiate as equal, but rather as dupe and knave. Would you sit at a poker table if you knew the cards where marked ? In regards of the revelation, even if there are a few years old, at the time of tense TIPP negotiation, it makes a bad impression.
    - caskance 11y ago
      If I knew the cards were marked and how And I knew exactly how much or how little each of the other players knew about - the marking system - and the other players' knowledge of it And I knew that I was the only one at the table with the power to punish any bad actors And I knew that my family needed money I didn't have Why on earth would I stay away?