Well that explains it, thanks :(
891 karma · joined February 8, 2015
Of course companies tell you that there were victims of high sophisticated APT attacks, otherwise they would have to admit, they had been compromised by simple script-kiddy attacks.
Of course blaming victims doesn't help anyone. I want to emphasize here, that not only the companies are victims but also the users and customers, who mostly never received compensations after security failures.
If a function is very project-specific and has no purpose to being used independently it may be worth considering declaring it static, right?
(a) seems also a contradiction for me. In the one hand, your're saying they spy on people and are really good at it and in the other hand you say, you're surprised they were only collecting metadata. Is your definition of spying, that no content is collected? However the claim that the NSA is only collecting metadata is wrong. The PRISM program is one example that shows that not only metadata are affected. The latest non-Snowden revelations concerning French presidents clearly shows it's not only about collecting metadata. This is a direct disproof about your claim assuming that you are not deny the validity of the revelations. Are you denying the validity?
Regarding to (b): Isn't the NSA a foreign intelligence agency? So you assumed although it's a foreign intelligence agency that it is collecting domestic data+metadata?
What's the surprising part of (c)?
> E.g. there's far less concern about the fact that targeted drone strikes and special forces assassinations (which clearly cause people harm) seem to occur with far less oversight.
Sorry, don't get it.
> Don't assume I agree with all your assertions. So with some assertions do you agree?
> You certainly haven't proven anything. E.g. even if we accept that NSA spying on foreign leaders was harmful to them, how does it make the NSA evil? I simply argue that the NSA is basically well-intentioned.
You can't prove the intention of someone. But you can prove what someone does or did. I showed you that the NSA is not only involved in spying, but also involved in PSYOPS, which try to influence the public opinion. Again: One agency decides to spread misinformation to destroy reputation of people or to manipulate online discourse. Are such actions covered by your understanding of freedom and democracy?
> E.g. even if we accept that NSA spying on foreign leaders was harmful to them, how does it make the NSA evil?
I argued before it is affecting the integrity of the state. In my opinion (I'm no lawyer) it also violate the right of sovereignty of state. Breaking rights is bad. I think it's better to not using religious categories like good and evil, but rather of good or bad. Just because a person is a state leader, doesn't mean she has no right to freedom, which legitimates to surveil her. But this is no reason, that state leaders have to expect spying from other countries.
Since I'm not talking about spying on foreign leaders, but spying on nearly everyone it is bad because it destroy fundamental freedom and democratic rights of people. If you're not convinced of freedom and democracy there is no reason to discuss for you. In this case it would be well-intentioned for you if you're country is illegally attacking another country, just because you're country is telling you it is a defensive measure and in the interest of the country.
Just for the case, that you understand me wrong: Believing in freedom and democracy does not mean inevitably that you do not know there are rogues out there who give a fuck about laws, freedom and democracy.
> I simply argue that the NSA is basically well-intentioned. What do you mean by "basically"? Are there cases where the NSA is not well-intentioned for you?
> Um, they spy on people. And they're really, really good at it. If you think we shouldn't spy on people then that's fascinating, but don't pretend you don't understand this simple point.
Firstly, I don't know what your problem is on perceiving that there are other operations, which haven not something to do with spying such as PSYOPS. Or are PSYOPS also spy-operations for you? Secondly, spying is not an answer to the question. Spying is a mean. What's the end of this mean? Fighting terrorists?
> And they're really, really good at it. At least they were not good at preventing leaks.
> If you think we shouldn't spy on people then that's fascinating, but don't pretend you don't understand this simple point. Great that you're fascinated and you know the truth of a simple point. Tell me more about your "simple point".
Maybe I am all wrong. Maybe the NSA is an exceptional secret-service, which differs from the SIGINT-departments of services like the Stasi, Mossad or Sowjet/Russian agencies, which weren't/aren't well-intentioned. The revelations showed me the opposite. Maybe you can explain why you are convinced that the NSA is well-intentioned and why it's not naive to believe it? I'm open for knowledge.
Secondly I want to tackle your straw man arguments. I think almost no one is doubting, that (in general) all governments spy and Russia is more transparent or less invasive than the U.S.
Besides that I want to tackle your thought, that no one should have been surprised by Snowden revelations. Surely some details should have surprised people. Of course everybody knew that secret services are spying and compromise infrastructures in the Internet. The surprising part in my opinion is the _extent_ and we have more or less detailed evidence. We are not talking the fact that a secret agency is spying, hacking, disrupting or not, but about the quality (and quantity) in which ways and by which means the agency is working. Not only that, we are also talking about factual goals of such agencies and weather this whole thing makes sense regarding the cost and benefits.
In my opinion you relativizing the actions of the NSA, by saying: "Hey everyone is doing the same!". Just because all secret services are spying (doing the same in an abstract way) doesn't mean there are few agencies which are actually exceptional in gathering intelligence. I'm talking about quality and quantity again.
The NSA is one of the most powerful secret services. That's a fact. It has probably the biggest budget, the most employees and the most resources in contrast to the vast majority of other secret services.
So it's not about margins, whether cell phone metadata should be held by the provider or the government. This is just a distraction from more important questions like what's the point of such organization and do we really need it to spent billions of dollars for... For what actually?
Last but not least: Is this really your argument, that the publishing of Snowden-docs, which enlightened the people (which should be the real souvereign), damaged US interests? What's your point? That the people should have been remained dumb about the actions of their agencies, which are actually legitimated by their power?
Is it possible to build a language, which would reduce the number of false assumptions?
"Indeed, can you nominate anyone who has actually been harmed by NSA surveillance?"
In the end we are all harmed by NSA surveillance or surveillance by other secret services, because we have to waste or life time to protect our rights.
Concrete individual example are the German chancellor and French presidents. The people of the Country are indirectly affected by such operations because it attacks the integrity of the state.
But I emphasize that we should not look on the people on the top of the state but on the common population. We are the victims of spying. Using the Internet is for most people a tool to develop their personality. If your process of developing your personality is under enduring surveillance (and you know it), it is no free development of your personality. And we have a right to develop our personality freely.
Besides indivdual effect surveillance has social effects like the chilling effect, which is subverting freedom.
It's not only about surveillance but also about other operations like PSYOPS, which has the aim to manipulate the public. Of course it's bullshit to think it is well-intentioned because there is no legitimate reason to take such influence on the public opinion.
Here are information about PSYOPS programs: http://boingboing.net/2014/02/25/nsa-and-gchqs-dirty-trickin...
We are also indirectly harmed because they are attacking protests groups which we support.
What do you want to tell? That the NSA doesn't kill anybody? Asides from the fact, that NSA's collected data is used for killing people without court proceedings: Why should rogue powers kill people if they can reach their goals with other (harmful) means?
I want a desktop UI for with APIs for all of the flight websites that can download data in bulk and apply my preferences, filters, searches etc client-side.