Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Salaries and pensions are no joke either. I was reading about how recruitment works. It seems they have a relationship with many CS and Math professors who recommend bright students directly to NSA headhunters. I imagine working on some of the problems they do can be very exciting. Not everyone feels this need to publish publicly.

I find it hard to believe there's any sort of recruitment shortage. The NSA does today what it did 5, 10, 15, etc years ago. People interviewing for those positions know exactly what they're getting into then the same way they know what they're getting into today. The whole "OMGZ SPYING ON MY MAY-MAYS" sells on here on reddit, but apparantly lots of people don't take that view and instead see sigint as a legitimate need, like having a standing military with nuclear weapons or intervening into foreign countries. Arguably, good sigint means less conflicts and more wins. Hitler's Germany was damaged greatly by sigint hero Alan Turing. Funny how we celebrate Turing, but a modern Turing today would be vilified instantly. The world, if anything, is much more dangerous today than in the 30s considering how many nations have nuclear weapons. Honestly, if I had the choice I'd rather work there than find new ways to deliver annoying click-bait ads at a place like Facebook or get kids hooked on some milquetoast WoW-clone.

The Chinese, Iranian, and Russian sigint guys aren't taking some moral stand either. They're just getting their assess to work the same way we do.

> Funny how we celebrate Turing, but a modern Turing today would be vilified instantly.

For that comparison to work, we would need a modern Third Reich or World War as well. Tapping into European email in 201x is hardly the same as spying on the Nazis.

You mean such as ISIS/ISIL, Al Quada et al?

Merkel is ISIS? I am Al-Qaeda? And everyone I write with who is a US citizen can be monitored, too?

Well that seems very much up for debate by the powers that are the U.S. Government... if you're not an American you're a potential terrorist; if however, you are an American, you're a potential terrorist too. So they're just gonna record everything and if you float, you're a witch and they'll burn you at the stake and if you drown then you were innocent and... sucks to be you; Oh wait, that was something else...

The point of omnipresent surveillance is to be proactive and prevent threats before they arise. There is no way to measure its success. If you oppose it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.

I have this banana in my ear...

Threats to what?

> There is no way to measure its success.

Convenient

> If you oppose it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.

If you support it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.

If success can't be measured then there is no success.

Unlike you, I don't believe success, or really anything, is necessary to justify the existence of the NSA or what they do. Realistically, that boat sailed the first time necessary and proper was invoked.

How considerate. As if the legal system matters at all to the existence of the NSA. Wikimedia's case notwithstanding, it's abundantly clear the spy agencies can only be peacefully resisted with privacy enhancing technology. It's obvious why they've been degrading public cryptographic standards and pushing for back doors.

It's abundantly clear that they can't, for exactly the reasons you mention.

The Stasi controlled every aspect of life in East Germany, including the postal service and communications industry. In the US, FOIA documents reveal a history of domestic political spying on civil-rights leaders such as MLK, and on a wide variety of legitimate organizations.

Throughout history, suspicionless surveillance has been carried out by mafioso to oppress and control.

Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different". The assertion fails.

The Nazis could use your arguments word for word on dissenters of the Gestapo.

>Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different".

Where did I do that?

> but a modern Turing today would be vilified instantly.

Depends, is a modern Turing a champion of reading all domestic communications?

No, but his team was also on the receiving end of policies like only using Enigma data for certain events. He knew of attacks that were probably avoidable that led to significant casualties. We can play the moral card all day here.

There's a world of difference between systematically eradicating privacy rights across the globe and withholding potentially life saving information because revealing it would risk exposing your source and thus your ability to do more good in the future.

If there is one thing that has become abundantly clear from this thread it is that for some people morality is a really tough subject.

To Godwin this thread decisively:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-...

If domestic communications are all encrypted, then indirectly, yes.

We celebrate Turing because he contributed a lot to a fairly noble cause.

Spying on the rest of the world that you're not currently at war with is not such a cause, it's a travesty, an insult and has the net negative effect of fracturing the world further and reducing the amount of goodwill between NATO allies.

Please do not soil Turing's legacy by trying to conflate the two.

I'm not sure the world is a much more dangerous place than it was in the 1930s, at ground level that's just another appeal to fear, the general consensus seems to be that the world is getting safer rather than the opposite. Unless you live above a bunch of oil in the ground.

The US Military is not just another employer.

The US Military and associated intelligence branches have crafted heros, but also committed atrocities against our own men and women in uniform. That used to be the line they didn't cross.

You can give an enlisted man syphilis and see what happens. You can even overtly target black enlisted men and see what happens.

But you do the same kind of experiment with the civilian population and you are straight fucked.

I guess if we're obliterating that line, then sure, what's the difference? You're either cop or little people.

...committed atrocities against our own men and women in uniform. That used to be the line they didn't cross.

A long history of human experimentation in the United States says otherwise. Service members have been used as guinea pigs for over a century.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, that's what I intended to convey.

In the public sector we mostly consider employment solely based on its benefits because under US law there is only so much bad shit that your employer is allowed to cause you to endure.

Employment with the US Military or associated intelligence services MUST be considered with the stark fact in mind that a core tenant of your employment is signing over your life. Not to die nobly for just causes. Simply to give over your life for nearly any purpose deemed fit by your superiors.

What fool would take that bargain?

Did you remember to factor in the lure of free healthcare in America pre-ACA? ;)

The Chinese, Iranians, and Russians take a similarly proactive stance on political assassinations. Should we emulate them on this front as well?

Wait, we're now purposely conflating murder with packet sniffing? Oh ok.

I am with you; however that packet sniffing leads to something on the other end, usually involving a weapon of some sort.

Doesn't all sigint? We do sigint for a reason.

Anwar al-Alwaki suggests you check your tenses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com