Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors
firstlook.org
firstlook.org
It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the psychoanalytic definition of complex - "a related group of emotionally significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior". More of a dysfunctional mental state of the nation than an actual physical interaction.
But that is in interesting point that you make. I had never considered it from that angle before. Works either way for me. And even better together. Eisenhower: America's Derrida.
No, he did not. [1]
While that's certainly an interesting thought as well as a unique angle, nothing I can find suggests that it was his intent.
Moreover, the usage of the term in context of the speech itself is evidence enough:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." [2]
Eisenhower clearly used the term as if it were a concrete entity, not as an abstract reference to a psychiatric state.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com...
[2] http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents...
This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which they have expertise (policy).
It should be like taxes - companies should hate the burden, and try to avoid it, but in the end do what it takes because society has said that it's necessary. companies should certainly not receive transfer payments from the public in exchange for spying on them. I mean think about it, this means you are LITERALLY paying taxes, to be transferred over to a company and returned to shareholders of a company, where that company has received the transfer... so that it can operate a special level of secrecy... in order not to tell you... that they are spying on you. Which you paid for. I mean I get that you're covering the cost of the equipment, but this is about EXTRA payment.
I mean that is a level of absurdity that is beyond the pale. It is like handing a waitress a tip and saying, "this is for not telling me that you were spying on me." I mean, regardless of whether this creates a puzzled or a guilty look on her face, it is a pretty absurd transfer payment!! "Wait, what...you're paying me extra...NOT to tell you...that I'm spying on you?" - "Yep!! In my book, that's how you earn the big profit." Pretty absurd. You don't give companies profit for these programs. It's some burden they do out of civil responsibility and legal obligation, if at all.
It's also why a for-profit police force is a pretty bad idea. Some things are best left to a minimal government mandate, and not these artificial market forces.
Plus, to complete the analogy with our subject (which I mention explicitly) the police would have to be for-profit, which would be a terrible idea. But to answer your question, yes, it would absurd for criminals to vote in for-profit police that they choose to finance, and have shoot at them for profit.
The difference is that the public aren't criminals, and are protected by minimum sane levels of black-box surveillance for their protection, which they pay for via taxes. It's not supposed to be some profit-making activity. it's not "against" the public. the public aren't criminals.
The issue is that the FBI and DEA (with help from NSA) do treat the public as criminals. We've all done something wrong, or are going to very shortly, and they're gathering lots of information on all of us to ensure they can find that wrongdoing.
I think that's the issue. We, the public, are treated as criminals in all of these snooping programs. We didn't get to vote on it, the FBI and NSA went rogue, creating "secret" laws via secret courts that justify all the assumptions of criminality. We didn't get to choose.
A clearer example than the server / tip is jury duty. It's not profitable for almost anyone with a job but for the most part we are forced to participate.
So in the analogy, the companies that are spying for the NSA are like the people participating in jury duty - and (if we agree that there is a social good toward having the black box of intelligence available under extraordinary circumstances) should be "forced" to (or compensated extremely minimally for it), like jury duty.
Being paid a windfall profit to do so would be as though people went out of their way to participate in jury duty, for personal profit. Obviously that would be a horrendous set of incentives for society. (i.e. creating legal cases just so people can participate in jury duty.)
having it be a chore and "forced" on people (by the social contract) and to a minimal extent, is much better.
(this is just assuming there is some social good to having this stuff be available at all, under extraordinary circumstances.)
Hehe, as though these things just happen to go hand-in-hand.
I think America has gone too far with its "political correctness". This is why these days media people can't even say that politicians are lying anymore. They have to say words such as "misinterpreting the truth" or "made an error", and why people like Clapper or other law enforcement agents get away with committing "errors", as opposed to calling them what they really are - crimes.
The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and privileged.
Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.
As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a net win to all of us.
And, the people who do fall through the cracks of a rough transition can be taken care of by the humanitarian personal welfare service.
Corporations are much more to become total crooks - spending the last bailout money to hire lobbyists to bribe you to give them more. Imagine the outcry if welfare recipients were encouraged to tip...
It seems that the most powerful tool most people have in their debate toolbox is "you have a financial interest in X, so your opinion on X must be invalid". But this is a logical fallacy.
It's incorrect dismiss a study on the Widget industry just because it was performed by scientists from Widgets-R-Us. Who else is going to do the study? Who has more understanding of widgets than those very scientists? And in particular, why should we believe that the study done by Widgets-R-Evil is somehow more pure and worthy of consideration?
Widgets-R-Us has a strong financial incentive to make their Widgets study as advantageous to them as possible. Widgets-R-Evil has a strong incentive to blast Widgets-R-Us's study as invalid and make their own study as negative as possible, since their reason for existence (assumedly) is convincing people that Widgets are evil.
The truth is A) usually without a direct incentive of its own and B) usually somewhere in the middle.
We don't live in a perfect boolean world, and "you have a financial interest on X" is a completely valid reason to dismiss everything you have to say about X.
And what's even more valid is the rationale implied at this article, that since only people with financial interest on X are defending it, it follows that X is bad and you should be against it.
Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but lobbyists nonetheless.
This is the real issue here -- by making it financially beneficial to peddle rhetoric that reduces the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people, we are selling out.
We're morally bankrupt in every sense.
Only fools argue that "lobbying should be outlawed because it's bribery" because they lack the foresight to realize that such levers are necessary for a healthy political process, but it is more foolish to delude yourself into thinking that it's beneficial to peddle garbage legislative proposals.
Trust, but verify. We're trusting lobbyists but not verifying whether that trust is warranted.
It's unacceptable that there are any levers on our politicians other than our votes - they're our employees after all.
For what it's worth, if you're going to lobby I'd rather you lobby all of "us" (commercials, etc) to sway the popular vote than being able to concentrate on only our elected representatives.
As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.
The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service that everyday people want to opt in for.
When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that benefit the few over the many.
I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a $20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)
Just because someone works for the government does not make them free from political influence. [0]
I'm not happy with our current system, but I'm also dismayed by all the people who think it has a simple solution.
[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-08/florid...
Lobbying on Net Neutrality, done by a bunch of technology workers passionate about the issue is fine. Lobbying on Net Neutrality by professional lobbyists (selling their rolodex) and corporate lawyers, who donate, wine/dine, hire nephews, host fundraisers, etc is not.
It's pretty clear which version people are talking about when they complain about lobbying. (Hint: less to do with reddit, more to do with K Street) And professional lobbying is pretty much inherently corrupt.
Necessary to counter bad lobbyist. :)
Lobbying: you have more money == you have more influence. Sounds very undemocratic to me.
> I would prefer experts in a field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the issues in question.
But to have them paid for? If civilians press on their representatives, in their own "free" time, this is the only "lobbying" that I consider "honest".
Lobbies kill democracies. You think, for instance, the US would be in so heavily invested in going to war without military corps spending on lobbying?
I think lobbies are bad. In my country (NL) a lobbyist can walk closer to politicians (like a journalist) then a civilian is allowed to. This is too much.
It has become a bigger corruption issue as attaining office has become more expensive, lobbyists are a money funnel.
Politics is power, money is power, the two will invariably be linked. It's human nature. Very, very few people are "uncorruptable". Usually, it's just a matter of "how much".
The way to fight this isn't by trying to enforce more unenforceable laws or to make new rules/regulations. It's much simpler than that - voter education.
The problem lies squarely with the voters. Time and time again we elect these people to represent us. They didn't usurp power through a military coup. And our only legal recourse of punishing this behavior is to simply not elect them.
Making lobbying illegal will not make the problem go away - it just won't be in the open.
If voters actually voted, you'd see a lot less corruption - politicians want to stay politicians, after all.
Do you think that the small portion of people who vote today care about corruption less than all those who don't vote? Or maybe they're just not as well informed as those who don't vote? Maybe it's something else?
How about applying "Fool me once" to politicians in general?
Let's say you vote for the first time in your life, and whoever you voted for breaks all his campaign promises and calmly shafts the general populace to his own benefit.
Now you won't be fooled by politicians again?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
When there's a dictatorship, no one is surprised when the dictator is bribed. In a democracy, you can't just walk into the president's office and drop a bag of money on his desk, but you can lobby the shit out of him.
Either way, you get to bribe someone who's in a position to hand out favours. That's just how political power works.
Note: I don't think that all lobbying is unethical or contrary to public opinion. I do think that a good majority of it is untested and inorganic. It's monied interests preserving monied interests.
If achieving policy based on majority opinions was actually the end game of lobbyists, why would they need to exist in the first place? Majority opinions would elect majority abiding politicians who would enact majority policies. Where's the step that necessitates lobbyists?
[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gramm-Leach-Blile...
Lobbying in, say, the UK isn't legalized corruption.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/world/europe/with-campaign...
> LONDON — There is no political advertising on television or radio in Britain. Fund-raising and spending are strictly limited. Tight elections can turn on a relative handful of votes in a small number of competitive parliamentary constituencies.
If you don't need to buy broadcast ads for 6 figures during campaign season, there is alot less power in the hands of a lobbyist.
1 on 1 conversations with industry, media, union reps, etc. is part of doing business in a democracy. Mass broadcasts to sway public opinion isn't required.
> In the United Kingdom the Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising on television or radio; parties are instead allocated broadcast slots (usually around five minutes long) free of charge on broadcast channels using a formula set by Parliament
Even if legal and ethical definitions of "lobbying" exists, they exist only in the minds of knowledgeable minorities and not in the broad public.
This btw. would as well help to highlight the benefits of serious, legal and non-corrupt services formerly known as "lobbying" ;)
a much more serious concern is the issue of nearly limitless campaign spending through PACs. I feel like this is the real face of corruption in the American system right now, to a far greater extent that the existence of professional lobbyists.
I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal modus operandi in US politics.
Are Europe and the US approaching some kind of middle point in the level of inter-connectivity of corporations and politics: Europe reaching it from the lower levels and the US by reaching it from higher levels?
It is really absurd how since the 60s resp. 70s after the nations coped more or less with the devastation of the 2 World Wars, politics has been reduced essentially to economic interests and agendas AND in the process gave it self up to the economic agents: large corporations which are defining politics. Are economics, money, corporations over-represented in politics?
So I don't think this article is an example of politicians having corporate motivations, but rather talking heads on TV having corporate motivation.
He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written, but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to be playing a cynical PR game.
Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely should.
Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative.
So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving them money[1].
So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find that particularly noteworthy.
[1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all that big a deal for them :-)
I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen.
What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly.
As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector). Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good reason for it to have grown so large.
NSA has been working on quantum computing for decades. Recent success of both Israel and NSA in harnessing quantum computing for practical purposes is well known for at least couple of years. When quantum computing can blow off present mathematical proof of concepts in security, why waste time talking about decade old NSA technology? Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not prepare for the coming years?
Because then you have to acknowledge that threats exist that are not the US government, and that is not kosher because the goal is to reduce US power.
Better put: the goal is to reduce US abuse of power. Accountability is the focus, not disarmament.
The NSA already built their huge data center in the desert. They've been scooping up data for years. They've been using methods to usurp wireless phone security in order to snoop on what should be secure networks. There's suspicions they've cracked TOR's encryption as well.
Alert the media, the people who support the NSA have financial ties to them.
Even with the recent court ruling, Pandora's box was opened decades ago, and I see no palatable future where anybody is able to close it.
People who have financial incentives to keep something around typically try to do so.
We all have a conflict of interest here (not least because since we are all being spied on by our governments) but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't valid. But the conflicts of interest need to be disclosed with the opinions so the readers/viewers have a chance to weight the opinions presented.
It would be interesting to see that especially for very senior former government officials who often clock themselves in their former agencies and not as board members of x,y, and z. There is certainly more credibility as been former 4 star general than a board member of a government contractor.
Now having spent some time earlier in my life working around the DC establishment I know that being a general is now basically a political position even though it is accorded the same respect that generals garnered 70 years ago. So I just expect that former senior government officials are now trading on their connections to government...since that is the most valuable asset to have. And this goes for everything, not just the military and intelligence agencies. When there is as much money as there is in Washington being connected to the people who hand it out is extremely valuable.
But that's not the story we need reported on, because this story is preaching to the choir.
The real story is understanding the American public's malleability in the face of advertising/punditry in general. There is a real story analyzing in-depth (and with open-minded sympathy) why real believers in the practice believe that it is actually truly the right thing to do.
I suspect that the public won't understand what's at risk until the IRS starts using NSA collected data to conduct (automated, universal) audits.
Show me some government program that doesn't have corruption involved.
The problem with liars is that sometimes they tell the truth.