Not just because of his characterisation of Snowden, but because he's clearly more annoyed at the economic cost of the revelations to Silicon Valley businesses than about the contents of the revelations, which says a lot about his world view.
I don't particularly respect Andreessen's position on this issue. But then, this isn't a huge surprise to me - he's espoused similar views on Hacker News before. It's been fairly obvious in his writings about Bitcoin, Carl Icahn, startups, etc. that he's out for his own bottom line, he defends his own self-interest, and if people are pissed off about that, oh well.
But you also have to admit that he's done a lot to bring technology to the masses, to educate prospective founders on what it's like to do a startup, and to make the current investment climate more founder-friendly. And he and his wife are two of biggest philanthropists in Silicon Valley.
I feel like most of the comments are from folks who put Andreessen up on a pedestal and only now just realized he's a flawed human being like the rest of us, with beliefs that we may not agree with. But that's par for the course; if you agree with everything that comes out of someone's mouth you have a cult, not a leader.
I guess fundraising with him is off :)
I took a venture capital class at Berkeley where I got to meet government groups from Russia, China, Poland (and a few others that escape me right now). They all shared a common goal of learning how Silicon Valley works so they can setup their own technology hubs in their home countries. Right now, Silicon Valley is a magnet for the best and the brightest in the world. Why wouldn't you be concerned that we're loosing that edge for no benefit?
You're telling me that, pre-snowden, you assumed that governments were inserting moles into open-standards processes and working to weaken ciphers ?
Or, pre-snowden, you assumed that they were intercepting cisco shipments to alter network gear ?
Or, pre-snowden, you assumed that on-chip crypto functions from Intel and VIA were intentionally flawed ?[1]
I mean, I think we all thought in terms of traffic intercept and the worst-case scenario of a "global observer" ... but I know I for one was very complacent about how protected my SSL and SSH traffic was.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/we-cannot-trust-inte...
Yes. The first conversation I had about this was in the 90s
>Or, pre-snowden, you assumed that they were intercepting cisco shipments to alter network gear ?
Yes. I know the TSA goes through my luggage when I fly, why wouldn't the NSA go through my mail? Intercepting physical communications/packages has literally been going on for thousands of years.
>Or, pre-snowden, you assumed that on-chip crypto functions from Intel and VIA were intentionally flawed ?
Hadn't thought of that but it's really not a revelation. We do know that when companies are contacted by the NSA, they are barred from even acknowledging that they were contacted. Again, the first conversation I had about the NSA inserting back doors into consumer technology was in the 90s. This is a novel approach but the general modus operandi is expected.
I think most people just don't appreciate what the NSA is. This is the organization that invented public key cryptography a decade before Ron Rivest and didn't publish the results. It wouldn't surprise me if they had made large advances in quantum cryptography that let them crack any cipher based on finite fields. I can imagine that all of this conventional spying is just a red herring to distract from much more insidious capabilities.
I can imagine their capabilities extend beyond computer networks to the power grid...
The point is that we funnel huge sums of money into an organization that hires the best and the brightest to spy on us. Why would you assume they aren't doing that well?
But, at the end of the day, I just look at the Snowden "revelations" as another Bengahzi or Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The political opposition will use it as a tool to further their interests but no one really cares. No domestic representative is going to cut funding to the NSA and no foreign government is going to act any differently when it comes to their security. They will get on the news and make a lot of noise as they use this as political cover to advance whatever ax they have to grind. But, I can't imagine them actually caring that the NSA spies on US citizens.
Thinking is different than knowing, no?
And, not everyone reads this stuff, so just because they don't have time to read all these books, etc they should not know?
Seems like such strange thinking.
Exactly. And everybody knowing is different than only a few people knowing. I read the books. Convincing people to be skeptical of the 'party line' was fruitless and frustrating. The gov't should have taken Thomas Drake and Bill Binney seriously.
I don't see that - he didn't bring up the economic/business angle, the reporter did.
But in his answer regarding the economics, that issue he describes as a big problem. Notice the word choices.