NSA chief slams "transparency culture," compares Snowden to Boston Bombers | Hacker News Reader

NSA chief slams "transparency culture," compares Snowden to Boston Bombers

dailydot.com

16 pointsBootvis9 comments

All of the spying didn't stop the Boston bombings, so I find the excuse of "terrorism" to be flimsy, at best, and the citation of the "3rd party doctrine" fails to consider that when we, as Americans, post letters through the USPS, we have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" as pertains to our personal correspondence. Our correspondences, be they electronic, or otherwise, equate to "papers and effects," in that "papers and effects" were the communications media of the founding father's era.

That the present administration has chosen to continue these unconstitutional practices when we are obviously not happy about it is more in keeping with Communist China, and NOT what we would expect from "the Land of the Free."

I'd argue that a tiny, if vocal minority is obviously not happy about it. And therein lies the problem.

As much as the character assassination we're seeing is real, I suspect that people like Hayden are starting to capitalize on the possibility that Snowden is killed and does real damage. He can then turn 'round and say "I told you so!"

I find it very weird that revealing what everybody thought was very likely ( nsa spying on communications ) is such an absolute threat to the nation.

Diplomatically it could probably force the US to be a little more careful before telling others what to do based on morality ( although i suppose that private talks between governements are much more pragmatic).

All in all i see it more like a marketing issue damaging the "USA brand".

Title is misleading. This is Former head of NSA Michael Hayden who had the foresight after his career in civil service to join Michael Chertoff's group.

A former title and a uniform does not make one wise is somehow more important to the conversation at hand.

It's interesting that the spying and the Bostom bombings are mentioned in one breath. How come all that spying did not identify the bombers before the attack?

With the current foreign policies terrorist attacks are as inevitable as car accidents (albeit far less dangerous).

We accepted car accidents (I do not see a war on driving). And since foreign policy remains largely unchanged it seems we have accepted terrorism as well.

The terrorists have achieved their goal anyway. They instilled fear in the US populous, and set us all on a path to willingly give away our liberties.

We should look at Norway, which kept its cool after the 2011 attacks; that is strong, confident reaction. Ours is one of cowardice; with lemmings like Hayden repeating the party line ad nauseum.

> How come all that spying did not identify the bombers before the attack?

Because the current measures aren't sufficient, obviously. We need more power and more tools to monitor everything all the time to prevent tragedies like this in the future. This "transparency culture" and the outmoded laws that tie our hands (when people are watching) are anti-American and cost American lives.

(Yes, I am being sardonic.)

The way he phrases the question of Islamic Fundementalism becoming a threat to National Security really irks me.

They want us to be transparent.

They just don't want to be transparent themselves.

Curious, name a specific instance when transparency caused more harm then good?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com