Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjoonathan | Hacker News Reader

On one hand, I completely buy his assertions about China's pervasive hacking attempts/successes and that the NSA is our best tool for stopping them.

On the other hand, you're right on the money about parallel construction. In my book, that's the one thing that sent the NSA "over the line." It's good to hear that many NSA employees take the police/military distinction seriously, but we know for a fact that some higher-ups don't and he didn't mention the most egregious case of this, not even once. Also, he invoked the "it only happened if they get caught" assumption while commenting on the frequency of abuses, which is highly suspicious.

View on HN

Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it.

You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught.

If you'd never heard of parallel construction before today, that seems to powerfully undermine your credibility. Why should we take you more seriously than someone who says "I was a secretary at the NSA for years and I never heard of anything bad happening, therefore nothing bad happened"?

"I was in the Computer Network Operations Development Program, and my office was S32X: Signals Intelligence Directorate (S) > Data Acquisition (S3) > Tailored Access Operations (S32) > Special Tactics and Techniques (S32X)."

I think it is reasonable to say that he is slightly more informed to speak on these issues than a secretary.

It's really not surprising he hasn't heard of parallel reconstruction, considering:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200

Also, there's no need to be so hostile. It's simply his point of view, and by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture.

To quote the very post of his that you're replying to:

"You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught."

He's hardly saying nothing bad ever happened, or that all abuses are known for that matter.

> by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture.

How is that different from "he lacks credibility" ?

Credibility and scope are two different things. His claims can have limited scope and still be credible. I don't see any reason to doubt his character.

> I don't see any reason to doubt his character

His character is secondary to his veracity.

> His claims can have limited scope and still be credible.

His claims were about the NSA. That is the scope over which we all agree he is not a credible source on.

Come on, "left hand isn't aware what the right is doing" isn't just plausible, it's standard practice at any organization larger than a dozen or so people.

He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison).

I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.

> Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it.

Seriously? Have you - as far as the NSA's activities goes - been living under a rock?

... oh.

Have you heard of COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO and the Church Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee ?

Quiz, where did the FISA court come from?

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10262007/profile2.html

How can you defend a program in a public way like this without having the most basic understanding of what we know about it? Parallel construction is one of the basic story lines that has come out of the Snowden leaks.

They painted fascism with an American flag, and you ran it up the pole.

In a way its' embarrassing for the NSA to get a defence that is written by such a rube. But at the same time, the general public doesn't seem to be concerned, so perhaps it was unnecessary in the first place.

I could be wrong, but I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in your statement. I think you are slowly coming to realize that your actions were wrong; that you do need to defend them. The bad news is that you you fucked up, and you owe the Americans you pretend to care about an apology.

> Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it.

You should have heard of it. It was brought up the last time you posted your blog post to HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6882823

Reply on news.ycombinator.com