Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

"the agency is targeting anyone who is interested in online privacy" - not so surprising, is it. I wonder what other similar criteria there are for being considered an "extremist"? No Facebook or other social networking accounts? Uses Linux? Makes certain types of comments online that support privacy (like this one)? ... It's really unsettling.

On the other hand, now that this is out, I think the NSA will suddenly have a ton more "extremists" to look at.

View on HN

> NSA will suddenly have a ton more "extremists" to look at.

Let's say that in NSA's dictionary, extremist means "Anyone with even a small potential to alter the course of society, the economy, or technology."

Those people, plus a comfortable margin, might be 5% of the population. The NSA probably has the resources to examine all the electronic communications and do high-quality transcription of verbal communications of that 5%.

Even trying to make that targeting more selective would be, in the NSA's worldview "counterproductive."

I'm always curious to hear people talk about "alter the course of society" or "change culture" or whatever, what they think that means. What does the NSA think is the "course" of things? Because ultimately, I see it as a tautology: the course is whatever it is, it is whatever the aggregate of its constituents make it. So please, tell us NSA, what prescience do you have to know what it should and shouldn't be?

To the NSA, the course of society is what the government wants.

Consider this. NSA are the ones who are providing intelligence reports to the different parts of the government. They very likely employ a number of psychologist and sociologists. (I can not verify this, it's just a morbid hunch.)

What is there to prevent them from biasing (or slanting) the intelligence so that they continously keep nudging the perceptions of those reading the reports? The names for this are numerous; thought influence, advertising, even brain washing in extreme cases.

Or in other words - for the NSA, the course of society may well be what they can make the government want.

More likely it means, anyone who isn't an employee of the NSA.

They don't need to transcribe. So-called "metadata" is what you'd be analyzing even if you had transcripts.

So now they can legally do targeted investigations of even more people, or was that the FBI who needed their victims to fulfil one of a set of specific criteria? (Such as being n social steps from another victim.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com