Hacker News Reader

Comment by craftinator | Hacker News Reader

I'd vote for the NSA to be disbanded, all personnel fired, all equipment destroyed. Would anyone else vote for that?

In that case, another agency would simply pick up the slack.

I'll propose an alternative idea. Repurpose the NSA towards hardening communications infrastructure in terms of both reliability and anonymity. Use them to help test software for vulnerabilities or even design better software.

At this rate, realistically, how many years until they (and their brethren) are the power behind the throne. In a surveillance era, some version of GoogleCIA will have the ability to move or alter elections in any way they like. It's always for the best reasons of course.

> In a surveillance era, some version of GoogleCIA will have the ability to move or alter elections in any way they like. It's always for the best reasons of course.

I think we're past that tipping point already.

I'm thinking more in the form of actually driving all policy rather than merely placing a desired candidate in office.

For all I know, maybe we've already hit that point.

Even the Soviets managed a rough balance between party/army/intelligence services, but modern surveillance and parsing have some serious mojo.

I guess it'll become more obvious once the CIA Directorship becomes an inherited position.

I actually like your idea much more! Due to the black box nature of the NSA though, I don't think we could verify that they had actually repurposed to that end. I imagine that the NSA would create a new group that would occasionally make improvements (very much like SE Linux) and highly publicize it, while continuing operations status quo.

All the personnel would go work for a private company doing the same thing whether in the US or for someone other than the US. $$$ talks.

[0]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-spying-raven-specialr...

regarding the stuff they already have: doesn't whatever they have have huge historical value? it could be the difference between being a lost civilization and being well-preserved.

I'm not saying it should continue but if I could vote between destroying it or putting it on mars in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years I'd probably choose the latter. (not saying collection should continue.)

humanity has zero qualms about reading historical letters among famous people but these days it's all digital so we would be a lost civilization otherwise.

I don't know if it has access to this stuff but if it does wouldn't it be better to put it somewhere for the future? Though the way we have no qualms about opening Pharaohs' tombs in Egypt presumably we can't count on our direct descendents not opening it early either. I don't know how anyone can make a legit time capsule.

what do you think? better to destroy all that data?

If a government agency openly announced, today, that they would be indiscriminately collecting phone and internet data from Americans for the express purpose of putting it in a time capsule to be opened in 1,000 years, would you be pleased?

(FWIW, I would not.)

No. (And I think it should stop, if it's happening.)

If a trove of private correspondence is found from an ancient civilization, that was clearly not meant for disseminatuon but intercepted unlawfully, do you think we should destroy it?

I think it's okay to answer this question in the negative. But an argument could be made that people should have a right to privacy unbroken even by long posterity.

What do you think of that question?

If it's happening...?

I stopped reading. Please educate yourself on the NSA's faculties and budget.

No, and I strongly suspect most people would vote against that. Hence why it exists.

Unfortunately, the people don't get a say in this. At all. We vote on politicians, not policies.

In 2015, Pew polled people on this and there was a near 50/50 split on support for telephonic surveillance, and slightly more Americans believed that security was more important than civil liberties and that NSA hadn't gone far enough to protect them. If the people had a direct say in policy, there's little evidence they'd go the way you want them to.

"was a near 50/50 split on support for telephonic surveillance"

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americ...

> A majority of Americans (54%) disapprove of the U.S. government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while 42% approve of the program.

There was a gap of twelve percentage points between approval and disapproval.

There's always the problem of information. I'm certain that basically no citizens know enough about the NSA, the surveillance capabilities and extent of data collection etc to make an informed decision. So they're not really polling what people believe - they're polling what the media companies think which people get their information from.

Thank you for the research! I wouldn't necessarily compare a poll to a vote, but it's a good starting point.

There are entities that are much more concerning. The NSA's PR attempts are pale in comparison to the real players in the social engineering field.

I bet Michael Hastings had something to say about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com