4 ms·

Can you clarify your "central European" remark? It comes off a bit offensive... And while you're at it, can you explain how exactly you imagine making ordinary

by jdimov9 11y ago

Can you clarify your "central European" remark? It comes off a bit offensive... And while you're at it, can you explain how exactly you imagine making ordinary communication more expensive? Last but not least, where in the world did you get the idea that the NSA is well-intentioned?

Tloewald 11y ago
I did not mean to offend, and apologize if offense was taken. I don't know where the accent comes from and it's certainly not anyone's fault how they speak English (and kudos for speaking English since I suck at languages). The fact is, it seemed central (or eastern) European to me, and if I were trying to sell (say) Americans or western Europeans on privacy products, anything suggesting the former eastern bloc would not fill me with confidence. Make of that what you will. I refer to making ordinary communication more expensive to break into. (Security is a relative term; you simply make things more expensive than who-ever it is surveilling you cares to pay. Good encryption is more expensive to break than weak encryption which in turn beats no encryption.) "The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances." Have you got any information to suggest this is not what the NSA tries to do? Michael Hayden's perjury in front of congress aside, I don't think people at the NSA go to work, rubbing their hands together and evilly cackling about all the civil liberties they're going to violate. Indeed, can you nominate anyone who has actually been harmed by NSA surveillance? To the extent it works, we probably won't know about it for decades. Maybe never -- there are aspects of WWII Sigint and cryptography that are still undisclosed. Now, if you don't like the US and its allies (and there are plenty of reasons not to, I won't deny that), sure -- that might tick you off. But it's not like every other country doesn't act in its own self-interest. I believe that the people in the NSA are attempting to honestly pursue its aims -- they may differ on their opinions as to how best to do this.
- programmernews3 11y ago
  The point was to show, where you get the idea is well-intentioned. Citing a text from probably from the nsa.gov website is no argument for showing the NSA is well-intentioned. Besides that, your citation show in my opinion the NSA is not well-intentioned because it uses terms like "under all circumstances". Do you think that when somebody tells you he would do SIGINT under all circumstances is well-intentioned? "Indeed, can you nominate anyone who has actually been harmed by NSA surveillance?" In the end we are all harmed by NSA surveillance or surveillance by other secret services, because we have to waste or life time to protect our rights. Concrete individual example are the German chancellor and French presidents. The people of the Country are indirectly affected by such operations because it attacks the integrity of the state. But I emphasize that we should not look on the people on the top of the state but on the common population. We are the victims of spying. Using the Internet is for most people a tool to develop their personality. If your process of developing your personality is under enduring surveillance (and you know it), it is no free development of your personality. And we have a right to develop our personality freely. Besides indivdual effect surveillance has social effects like the chilling effect, which is subverting freedom. It's not only about surveillance but also about other operations like PSYOPS, which has the aim to manipulate the public. Of course it's bullshit to think it is well-intentioned because there is no legitimate reason to take such influence on the public opinion. Here are information about PSYOPS programs: http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-tricking.html http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-trickin... We are also indirectly harmed because they are attacking protests groups which we support. What do you want to tell? That the NSA doesn't kill anybody? Asides from the fact, that NSA's collected data is used for killing people without court proceedings: Why should rogue powers kill people if they can reach their goals with other (harmful) means?
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    I think you are being naive. All governments spy. Governments that don't spy are doing a disservice to their citizens. And it is the job of spies to push the envelope. It would be nice to live in the land of milk and honey in an anarcho-syndicalist commune, but in the mean time we have to be real. Nothing Edward Snowden revealed should have surprised anyone on this forum. Nor should the fact that everyone else is doing the same kind of thing (indeed, usually with fewer protections for private citizens). The damage to U.S. Largely comes from the idiotic belief that the U.S. Is somehow exceptional in gathering intelligence by whatever means it can. We can argue at the margins about, say, whether cell phone metadata should be held by the provider or the government, but not tracking this stuff is actually impractical so it comes down to whom do you trust more: Verizon or the U.S. Government? While it's good that Edward Snowden catalyzed awareness and debate over privacy issues, all the "damage" to (for example) US business interests is from the publicizing of NSA actions and not the actions themselves. It's not like Russia (where Snowden now resides) is in any way more transparent or less invasive than the U.S.

by jdimov9 11y ago

Tloewald 11y ago

I did not mean to offend, and apologize if offense was taken. I don't know where the accent comes from and it's certainly not anyone's fault how they speak English (and kudos for speaking English since I suck at languages). The fact is, it seemed central (or eastern) European to me, and if I were trying to sell (say) Americans or western Europeans on privacy products, anything suggesting the former eastern bloc would not fill me with confidence. Make of that what you will. I refer to making ordinary communication more expensive to break into. (Security is a relative term; you simply make things more expensive than who-ever it is surveilling you cares to pay. Good encryption is more expensive to break than weak encryption which in turn beats no encryption.) "The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances." Have you got any information to suggest this is not what the NSA tries to do? Michael Hayden's perjury in front of congress aside, I don't think people at the NSA go to work, rubbing their hands together and evilly cackling about all the civil liberties they're going to violate. Indeed, can you nominate anyone who has actually been harmed by NSA surveillance? To the extent it works, we probably won't know about it for decades. Maybe never -- there are aspects of WWII Sigint and cryptography that are still undisclosed. Now, if you don't like the US and its allies (and there are plenty of reasons not to, I won't deny that), sure -- that might tick you off. But it's not like every other country doesn't act in its own self-interest. I believe that the people in the NSA are attempting to honestly pursue its aims -- they may differ on their opinions as to how best to do this.

programmernews3 11y ago
The point was to show, where you get the idea is well-intentioned. Citing a text from probably from the nsa.gov website is no argument for showing the NSA is well-intentioned. Besides that, your citation show in my opinion the NSA is not well-intentioned because it uses terms like "under all circumstances". Do you think that when somebody tells you he would do SIGINT under all circumstances is well-intentioned? "Indeed, can you nominate anyone who has actually been harmed by NSA surveillance?" In the end we are all harmed by NSA surveillance or surveillance by other secret services, because we have to waste or life time to protect our rights. Concrete individual example are the German chancellor and French presidents. The people of the Country are indirectly affected by such operations because it attacks the integrity of the state. But I emphasize that we should not look on the people on the top of the state but on the common population. We are the victims of spying. Using the Internet is for most people a tool to develop their personality. If your process of developing your personality is under enduring surveillance (and you know it), it is no free development of your personality. And we have a right to develop our personality freely. Besides indivdual effect surveillance has social effects like the chilling effect, which is subverting freedom. It's not only about surveillance but also about other operations like PSYOPS, which has the aim to manipulate the public. Of course it's bullshit to think it is well-intentioned because there is no legitimate reason to take such influence on the public opinion. Here are information about PSYOPS programs: http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-tricking.html http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-trickin... We are also indirectly harmed because they are attacking protests groups which we support. What do you want to tell? That the NSA doesn't kill anybody? Asides from the fact, that NSA's collected data is used for killing people without court proceedings: Why should rogue powers kill people if they can reach their goals with other (harmful) means?
- Tloewald 11y ago
  I think you are being naive. All governments spy. Governments that don't spy are doing a disservice to their citizens. And it is the job of spies to push the envelope. It would be nice to live in the land of milk and honey in an anarcho-syndicalist commune, but in the mean time we have to be real. Nothing Edward Snowden revealed should have surprised anyone on this forum. Nor should the fact that everyone else is doing the same kind of thing (indeed, usually with fewer protections for private citizens). The damage to U.S. Largely comes from the idiotic belief that the U.S. Is somehow exceptional in gathering intelligence by whatever means it can. We can argue at the margins about, say, whether cell phone metadata should be held by the provider or the government, but not tracking this stuff is actually impractical so it comes down to whom do you trust more: Verizon or the U.S. Government? While it's good that Edward Snowden catalyzed awareness and debate over privacy issues, all the "damage" to (for example) US business interests is from the publicizing of NSA actions and not the actions themselves. It's not like Russia (where Snowden now resides) is in any way more transparent or less invasive than the U.S.