Web’s Reach Binds N.S.A. and Silicon Valley Leaders | Hacker News Reader

Web’s Reach Binds N.S.A. and Silicon Valley Leaders

nytimes.com

79 pointstippytop17 comments

This is now beginning to damage the entire silicon valley brand.

This article makes me feel ashamed of Silicon Valley.

Give me a break. The foundation of the valley was military dollars for the silicon industry and research labs, plus aerospace. It's always been part of our DNA.

Yes, the web has become a world of its own and just like the physical world the NSA, CIA and intelligence agencies from all over the world will find a way to get intelligence. People complained in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc and a way to gather intelligence was found both legal and illegal. This is not a Silicon Valley thing,this is the race to be the most effective at gathering intelligence in this new world. This is why China, Russia and so on are so involved in hacking and other activities. Look at history, the US will not allow themselves to be left behind in this arms race, there are so many other strategic battles being fought besides terrorism that having an edge on intelligence in the virtual world is something that most of the power countries are gunning for.

Why would you only be ashamed now? The Silicon Valley's always been more greed than idealism; if anything, the idealism just makes the greed ever more rotten.

"Do no evil" ended up giving Google the power to do _more_ evil than it otherwise might've managed.

I do think there have been some internal struggles in the Valley, though I agree that the idealists have never really been in charge of the companies.

A simplified factional map might involve the "techies", the "suits", and the "apolitical pragmatists", with various shifting alliances between them. The early internet, for example, seems to have been largely dominated by ideologically pro-openness techies, working in a period where their bosses didn't interfere much. It's interesting to read Jon Postel's public emails, for example, and imagine if anyone in a similar position could fulfill his role with the same integrity today.

It's marketing, friend, nothing personal. Just trying to make some money. You know. It's the 'murican way! No principles, just winning and money.

The thought that your tax dollars are going to pay for some bloated overpriced inefficient software solution is unpleasant. For example, according to Binney and co. ThinThread was small, fast, efficient and cost-effective, but some outside contractors with connections inside the agency had other ideas. Where the NSA decision-makers are personally invested in these contractors, similar to how Carlyle Group with its politician clients owns most of Booz Allen, it's tempting to speculate on the motivations of the agency to go for the less efficient, less robust, more expensive solutions (more maintenance and support contracts... cha ching). But, who knows... it's all top secret.

It's like when people pointed out the financial ties between certain politicians and companies that produced expensive airport body scanners, which the government promptly purchased after the t`ism scare tactics had cast a spell over people making them accept that anything and everything was "necessary".

Of course, defense contracting is for rich white "welfare queens," by-and-large.

Think about how much cash has been funneled to the sorts of folks like those at HBGary. I wouldn't mind paying for my own oppression as much if the oppressors were at least competent.

"The only difference is that the N.S.A. does it for intelligence, and Silicon Valley does it to make money."

Nobody at the NSA would make any decision that would financially benefit them?

I really can't read that statement without being cynical. I will just leave it there..

Every competitive company is salivating at the idea of getting access to business plans, ideas, investments, etc from someone in the NSA about their competitors (corporate espionage - not directly mind you). How many people would it take to pay off to get access to some of this information? This is bad bad business and dangerous keeping this much info with no oversight really (well Congress and a couple people at the NSA if that is considered oversight -- a Congress that doesn't even have time to read bills anymore and apparently haven't read the 4th).

The only difference is that the N.S.A. does it for intelligence, and Silicon Valley does it to make money.

Boy, I wish it were that simple.

I'd love to see Google say that they will only respond to the N.S.A. in hard copy / paper.

I'd love to see Google say that they not have the data requested, because they simply do not collect it from users. If Google has it, NSA will get it. One way or another. Denials and "lawsuits" against the NSA written like press releases are useless.

That's why Google and Facebook are extremely dangerous, they hold unto every piece of info to try to squeeze a few more pennies from each user. Nice and ready for NSA to get it legally: “There is no indication that this order to Verizon was unique or novel. It is very likely that business records orders like this exist for every major American telecommunication company, meaning that, if you make calls in the United States, the NSA has those records. And this has been going on for at least 7 years, and probably longer,” http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/verizon-responds/

It's not realistic to think they will do that. But then, it might not be realistic to say that they can just send paper...

I'm puzzled why you think so. Google could offer customers the choice of paying for private communication and storage. It would be cheap enough to be practical. It would also be a direct way to solve the problem of trust.

>> It's not realistic to think they will do that.

I know, that's why I am moving away from Google. At least I'll make a little harder for NSA /FBI to figure out every damn thing I do online and offline (Android) 24/7.

>> But then, it might not be realistic to say that they can just send paper...

Like paying a $1 million fine in pennies? Sure, the first time. Then they have to explain it to a judge who might not think it was cute

Reply on news.ycombinator.com