Comment by Canada | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Canada | Hacker News Reader

> "I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is lawful and appropriate and necessary," Mr. Carter told students and faculty at Stanford.

Right, because what they're doing in the cyber domain isn't lawful. Naturally they'll fix that retroactively.

> He urged the next generation of software pioneers and entrepreneurs to take a break from developing killer apps and consider a tour of service fending off Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers...

Yeah, exploitation of vulnerability isn't partisan or nationalistic. While narrowly possible, it isn't really practical to fend off Chinese hackers without also fending off American ones, and vise versa.

> ...even as he acknowledged that the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, "showed there was a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing."

I can't help but picture these hacks that shill for the administration like cheaters who've been caught trying to talk their way out of it.

"Baby, I know I said I was visiting my grandma last night, and while I admit that leaked photograph of me kissing and groping my former lover is authentic, I swear to you it's not like that! The kiss had to be collected in case it was needed in the future but it's not cheating because I wasn't feeling into it at the time. You've got to understand there's a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing. I lied to keep you safe! Think of the greater good baby!!"

> ...even as he acknowledged that the documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden, the former intelligence contractor, "showed there was a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing."

That one boggles my mind. On 2013, Mar 12, Clapper lied to congress about NSA spying. The purpose of a lie is so that people perceive something different from reality. So they achieved their goal, they're just sorry they got caught.

Baby it was just the most truthful answer I could tell you. I mean, I'm sorry, I should have been more careful in my statement. I acknowledge that. But I must stress, that I did not wittingly make out and fondle. What I did was not, in any way, targeted at our relationship. My eyes were closed, and I was merely doing my duty to feel up our enemies. There is just no other technical way to go about it. And I resent the implication of wrongdoing in the unfair way you questioned me about the situation.

Now, you know I love you. I would never do anything behind your back. That's why all of your friends were fully briefed on this encounter. And they all agreed that it was necessary and appropriate. Well, almost everyone. I vow to bring the perpetrator who leaked the photo to justice! And so in light of this, we can have an important debate about who else I deny I have slept with, who else you have proof I sleep with and what other sexual acts I must do with them in order to safeguard our relationship.

But let's not forget what's important. We need to work together to build a framework for a process where I continue to see others I'm attracted to, particularly the Russian and Chinese ones, in a way that respects privacy, by preventing you from finding out, but with proper oversight that is transparent, accountable, and consistent with my unwavering support for monogamy. After all, the security of our relationship depends on it.

I am a bit creeped out at how well you are at spin..

Most people are forgetting the rest of the story: On 2013, March 13th, Clapper sent a private letter to congress, getting their agreement that what he said was the "least untruthful" thing he could have said.

and got away with lying to congress.

Everyone should learn from Clapper's example, when they're in front of a judge, court, or other tribunal.

But as classified information he's legally not allowed to share it publicly as part of testimony or otherwise. We don't actually know what he said in private to correct to those congressmen and women who are authorized to know this information. (i.e. The intelligence oversight committee.)

If the problem was the classified nature of the answer, the proper answer would have been something like "The law prvents me from addressing classified topics in public", not "No... not wittingly". Given that it was congress doing the asking, they would have had any number of ways they could have addressed that concern including giving him immunity or cleared the chamber so he was only addressing congress. Also, as Clapper was given the questions beforehand, he had ample opportunity to bring this up beforehand.

But that's not how this works. By saying that he can't disclose, he's disclosing the existence of the program. It's entirely possible that the program's existence was classified. The NSA's existence was classified for many years and I believe the "Groom Lake Facility" (aka Area 51) might still be. Everyone knows it exists, but the government won't admit it.

He can't address it beforehand if the admission of its existence is classified. By addressing it beforehand and saying "you can't ask me this question" he indicates its existence.

I don't think our government is quite cognizant of the post-national undercurrent that is especially prevalent in the tech industry even if that community insists on clustering in specific places. I get a sense that especially in DC and the status quo industries, there is a feeling that we still live in some post-WWII or Cold War fervent nationalistic society. It seems to me that everyone that knows, can do, or is aware has separated themselves from those notions of central nation state.

I don't know if we are permanently moving past the Westphalian nations state, but there does seem to be quite a fluctuation going on. Due to our own government's actions and serious, deep breaches of trust, our own government is becoming a threat to a whole sector of society and the economy.

I thin the question is how the government will react if it gets nothing but the cold shoulder that it should due to its own behaviors. Will it change its ways and learn how to deal with a new reality, a new world; or will it lash out and take an aggressive approach to infiltrate, disrupt, sabotage, and co-opt the tech community and graduates for its deceptive and rather nefarious antiquated and rather fascist intentions? I think history projects that the latter is far more likely than the former without significant civic intervention, but we will see.

I agree that a lot of people are picking up on the post-national trend, and I think that it's a good thing for sure. The less tribalism we have, the more we can cooperate for the public good.

I'd say that the government isn't aware of the postnationalist movement because it's really quite a small group of people overall, and there aren't really any actionable goals or organizational structures that these people have rallied around. If there were post-nationalist groups getting into political advocacy etc, I assume we'd see a strong pushback and propaganda-based reiteration of the good old "American Values" to rile up the proliteriat.

In general, the government doesn't like getting the cold shoulder, and treats its behaviors as always justified. I'd put my money on aggression. After all, they already have JTRIG groups whose purpose is to infiltrate and disrupt political groups.

Post-nationalist may be a bit of a strong term, or an overstatement, but I think you're on the right track.

People are more connected to each other across the world than before. The government is not the only body with multinational links and multinational information coming is as part of everyday life. The 'othering' of people in other countries no longer so prominent. We care a little less about our own country compared to the wider world.

And yes, the government has totally, thoroughly earned our distrust and disrespect in this field. Almost any new security work assumes not just hackers as its threat model, but pervasive network monitoring and compromised service-providers at every level.

New security systems, created by freedom-minded individuals - not terrorists, not criminals - actually count the government as a direct threat.

This is quite a big thing...

> "showed there was a difference in view between what we were doing and what people perceived us as doing."

This is pretty much the EXACT thing that is the problem. Let's be clear and unified on this topic: this is NOT a difference of "perception". This is a fundamental question of whether we're going to live in a democratic republic or not.

This is the core problem in security in general, and government programs like this make it worse. They will dump money into the security business, and security companies that do business with the government will have incentives to believe the lie that they can build both surveillance and security that people can trust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com