In democracies, voters warm to secret services | Hacker News Reader

In democracies, voters warm to secret services

reuters.com

41 pointsprivong12 comments

> safeguards against the services going “rogue”

Safeguards...LOL. We’re not even permitted to ask what they deem to be secret. Congress has fully abdicated any oversight, notwithstanding the occasional theatrical performance. Frankly, they’re probably scared. Lindsay Graham recently warned a sitting president he had better not cross the FBI.

> Lindsay Graham recently warned a sitting president he had better not cross the FBI.

Said president has a history of at least tiptoeing on the thin line between lawful and criminal, if not outright crossing it. In his very own interest he should not cross the FBI - either because of obstruction of justice or because it would provoke a constitutional crisis.

"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," - Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Can you imagine if J. Edgar Hoover had access to the low level detail that is currently available to the intelligence communities? Both Truman and Kennedy had mulled over dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, but figured that the political fallout to them and their party for doing so would trounce the benefits. Now 50 years later the issue has metastasized and become extremely politicized.

> "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,"

That secret services actually have that level of leverage over sitting presidents and other politicians is the core problem.

Can't people elect honest people (i.e. not bought off by BigCapital/Russians/Chinese, doesn't have multiple cases of rape or sexual harassment, countless extramarital affairs, doesn't have videos circulating with them showing Nazi salutes or similar) any more?

Seems like any random cat and dog could run for office and actually win the post than the bunch of entrenched politicians. That people don't give a flying f..k what their representatives do and give them a kick into their behinds when they get caught being bribed - and instead even reelecting them - is way beyond my comprehension.

And the danger is not just people like Hoover exploiting the leverage, IMHO that's a minuscule threat. What the FBI can find out about a politician can most likely be also discovered by Russia or China and turned into leverage there, with way more potential for damage. And: just because you're president this does not mean you should be able to get off scot free with collusion with Russians or with rape. Or with anything. Public servants serve the constituents and have to be accountable, otherwise it's no longer a democracy.

> Can't people elect honest people (i.e. not bought off by BigCapital/Russians/Chinese, doesn't have multiple cases of rape or sexual harassment, countless extramarital affairs, doesn't have videos circulating with them showing Nazi salutes or similar) any more?

Most of those aren't really honesty issues.

The Secret Service is not the principal federal law enforcement agency of the United States. The SS cannot take fabricated political hit pieces and massage them into a form of intelligence documentation from which they garner subpoenas from. And not just any subpoena, an administrative subpoena in the form of a National Security Letter under title V of the Patriot Act. From there they can review all email/search communications and telephone communications for as long as the NSA has been collecting records, and potentially use that information to manipulate an incoming president. I think you may underestimate the power of the intelligence community. Senior individuals in these institution I would suggest may be more influential than the sitting politicians that they work for.

"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." -Lavrentiy Beria

Not this voter, so long as bulk collection and national security letters are abused. Terrorists cannot capture my government; spy agencies could facilitate a coup.

China's internal control organizations aren't that secret. When they don't want you to do something, they come and tell you not to do it. Naomi Wu, the maker and blogger from Shenzhen, commented obliquely that the authorities came to visit her because she was becoming highly visible outside China. They told her they didn't have a problem.

This is a traditional Chinese solution. China's governments have been into social control, and in fear of a peasant uprising, for centuries. As people became more mobile, the control systems changed, but the intent didn't.

If the Bitcoin crowd in China gets in trouble, it will be because they ignored the heavy hinting that they should stop doing some things.

Anti-western — for lack of a more appropriate definition — Terrorism has killed less people than car accidents, tabagism or alcoholism. Yet we spend and jeopardize all that precious liberty that generations won by getting shot at by riot police. We could just stop droning peasants with grotesquely sophisticated weapons and obtain a more durable effect on our own security

tabagism. An uncommon term that encompasses the acute and chronic, physical and psychological effects of tobacco abuse, e.g., tobacco dependence, tobacco poisoning.

Had to look that one up.

Which voters, exactly? The same voters who voted for Brexit based on false promises and politics of misinformation? Or perhaps the same voters who thought they were voting for affordable health care but against Obamacare?

The world is safer now than ever before, but I don't think we have secret services to thank for it.

NO! WE DON'T!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com