> Anyone who defends the NSA on the grounds that it only targets those who are worthy of targeting needs to convince me that another COINTELPRO will never happen. I would actually welcome such an argument, since it would make me feel a whole lot better about this.
You raise a very good point. I don't think there are many in the IC who would have a problem with more (and better) oversight...it helps them feel more legitimacy in what they're doing. All that being said, assume that there will be another COINTELPRO or similar. It sucks, but to be perfectly honest with you, you aren't important enough to convince one way or the other about it or about approving of the various collection programs the NSA is running. If half of the comments here are to be taken at face value, almost nobody on HN knows enough about the issues involved to be consulted or for their opinion to be considered. I'll draw a parallel here to the outcry over technology centered court cases or software patents, an opinion often given here is that engineers or software experts should be involved in deciding those cases because the layman doesn't know enough about it to have an informed opinion. It's just as true with IC issues. What's troubling is that oversight is via Congress, who until the last election were likely laypeople themselves. So the expertise to properly evaluate, oversee and monitor what's going on simply isn't there.
sedev: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911078
> This reads like it was penned by someone who's never heard of the Stanford Prison experiment or Milgram's research...
You bring up good points. One of the issues with the IC is one of internal monitoring (as we're all now seeing). Who watches the watchers? There's notionally a number of very serious laws, or committees and counter-X professionals who are supposed to be doing this, but to be honest. Once you're cleared and stuck on a project, there's really very little day-to-day oversight of any kind. I personally would welcome a higher level of scrutiny, but I think the equation of "spend manpower watching watchers" vs. "spend manpower looking for bad guys out in the world" has, and will continue to, balance on the later.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911091
> If you'd never heard of parallel construction before today, that seems to powerfully undermine your credibility.
He only worked there for two years on a single program. I challenge anybody here who works for any organization larger than 3 people to have perfect knowledge of every single thing their organization is doing. Unless you work on the bits that interface with the LE community you'd probably never have had opportunity to know anything about it. I bet he also doesn't know the details of companies the NSA contracts to do their plumbing or handle their trash.
EthanHeilman: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910896
> The NSA has a history of sharing intelligence with LE, to state that the NSA is not a LE agency is extremely misleading, if not an outright lie.
I don't think you understand what a LE entity is, the powers and limitations that LE organizations operate under or how they differ from IC organizations. Saying the NSA is LE because they cooperate with LE is like saying the Department of Agriculture or Labor is an LE agency because they sometimes have to cooperate with LE.
jjoonathan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910922
> 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...
This is true, and it's particularly vexing to work in the IC and have senior officials asking you to participate in outright illegal activities. It doesn't happen often, but I've seen both people ruin their careers saying no and those that want to keep their job and say yes. It's usually under the auspices of "helping out to stop bad things", and it's very hard to say no when activities are couched that way...despite very many of the people on here talking publicly about their very righteous and moral high ground, placed in the same position, the vast majority of HN users would want to stop bad things from happening even if it meant crossing the line a bit here or there. Because, honestly, if you choice is help stop innocents from getting killed vs. sit on your hands because of some futzy law someplace that ties your hands, most of us would feel like we'd rather take the immediate action to stop the bad guys. "Mission Expediency" is the word of the day when it comes to these matters.
mtgentry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910911
> No offense to OP, but this reads like propaganda to me.
I can confirm that this represents the mindset of most of the people I've worked with in the IC. It does take a certain kind of personality to sign-up and go through all the hassles involved with getting employed in the IC and that self-selection seems to attract a certain kind of personality type.
> But I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of concerted effort by the NSA to encourage a dialogue with hackers on platforms like HN.
There really isn't, other than to not discuss classified information. Keeping track of what's classified and not when you spend near a third of your life and half of your waking hours dealing with only classified things is complex enough that most people just don't engage with the "unclean" public.
jurjenh: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911235
> What I'd be more interested in is how much this issue is being discussed internally. If these discussions are allowed, or even surreptitiously encouraged, then I'd take that as a possible internal propaganda push, subtle as it may be.
Discussions about these issues, in the way that they're being discussed here, are not terribly common. The milieu of working in the IC just doesn't lend itself to these kinds of topics, in these kinds of ways, as focuses of conversation. Mostly what's discussed is the lines you aren't supposed to cross and the penalties for crossing them. But more often then not, casual conversation is about anything other than IC topics. After a hard day of spying, you really want to just engage in something else.
Bizarrely, discussing Snowden might be tricky inside of the IC because you might discuss something that was leaked that you technically don't have a need-to-know for. So specific cases like this are not often serious topics of conversation.
(continued next comment)