Comment by ccvannorman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ccvannorman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The reason it's a big deal is because as more power accumulates in the hands on the "adults in the room", the more likely those adults are to become creepy, overbearing assholes -- There are many examples, the most prominent one in my mind being that the FBI/Hoover tried to convince MLK to kill himself, fully backed by the government.

As the NSA et al get more [unchecked] power it will become more corrupt, isn't this like, the law of nature?

People say "This is exactly what I want the NSA to do -- foreign espionage, just like always" -- Sure, there's past precedent for this being a good idea.

How far are you willing to take this? How much power should one [or small group] employee at the NSA have?

Right now, Right this very minute, I bet if [Employee X] wanted you silenced, it would happen, and no one would bat an eye. Is that the world you want to live in? What road are we taking?

No, we shouldn't stop all foreign espionage [anytime soon].

No, I don't want Employee X doing queries on oil activists for the purposes of muffling them.

My solution? Take them to court, and establish clear oversights. This is what keeps getting said.

EDIT: CIA changed to FBI/Hoover

Yes, power corrupts, and the US government is exceptionally powerful and exceptionally corrupt. The NSA is included in this, of course.

We already know the NSA's power has been extensively abused with "SEXINT" (stealing people's private photos for personal enjoyment and likely blackmail), JTRIG (discrediting people not accused or suspected of any crime), PRISM (monitoring every communication via to/from data and other private data), not to mention others.

None of these things relate to foreign espionage or generalized signals intelligence. Snowden said it himself: the NSA is only about SIGINT in their press releases. Really, their purpose is social control and consolidation of power. Their spying does not stop at members of the public or foreign publics; whistleblower Russ Tice said long before Snowden that the NSA had a tap on Barack Obama as early as 2004.

Nice to see someone else remember what Russ Tice said. He wasn't even a Senator yet when Russ said the papers came across his desk. That means that they are targeting any potential political candidate of any note.

I would just like to remind everyone that surveillance is about control, not security. Some may claim it's security through control, but that's not the social contract I was taught to understand my country worked under.

> whistleblower Russ Tice said [...] that the NSA had a tap on Barack Obama as early as 2004.

Source: https://youtu.be/d6m1XbWOfVk?t=2m45s

They went after General Patreus, Justice Alito and Senator Barack Obama [3:25].

> Yes, power corrupts, and the US government is exceptionally powerful and exceptionally corrupt.

So if someone, say Europe, became more powerful than the US they would be extremely corrupt. Where does that tautology leave us?

Small correction, it was J. Edgar Hoover's FBI that tried to get MLK to commit suicide (not the CIA);

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/what-an-uncensore...

They have an immense amount of power to crush anyone regardless of whether it is interest of the United States or not. Their methods are so clandestine and underhanded that they are almost to fight against. Given what we know about the discriminatory practices of public servants who operate in the public's eye do we really believe that giving the intelligence communities this amount of power that they wouldn't abuse this power and operate descriptively against ethnic and political minorities? They are essentially robbing the public blind right now and sacrificing our national security so they can have more power domestically.

> My solution? Take them to court, and establish clear oversights. This is what keeps getting said.

I agree, but there's no proof that the Equations Group/TAO were conducting operations without oversight, so I fail to see why this is a big deal. The fact that the oversight that DOES exist consists of rubber-stamping is the fault of either ineffective overseers or unscrupulous intelligence officers. It has no bearing on the people writing the exploits.

Those are absolutely real issues, but they don't apply to this case in any apparent way. I'm all for Intelligence reform but railing against the evils of the NSA when discussing a highly effective portion of its legitimate purpose just muddies the waters of the debate.

This is partly speculation, but from everything I've read, the NSA appears to take its regulatory compliance a lot more seriously than the contractors that serve it do.

I'm not saying contractors are hives of abuse or anything, just that if there is abuse, it seems far more likely to happen there.

I'd also say the more senior the position, government or not, the more likely they are to be able to get away with it.

Most worrisome are the well-connected people who sit at the intersection of state and corporate power. For example, former intelligence officials who frequent the revolving door and take high-level executive positions at major contractors. These are people you wouldn't want to cross.

Others have commented that evidence of Mallory's wrong doings would not be permitted in trial. Assuming this is true, court won't work.

Another thing I've gleaned is that Mallory spends incredible amounts of money to undermine the stability and security of our internet & hardware. We cannot compete with them on that level; we don't have the means to stabilize as quickly as they destabilize.

I actually want to know if anyone has any ideas about what to do in this reality. What do you do when constructive and legal means both fail? Seems like Mallory can get away with anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com