Hacker News Reader

Comment by diminoten | Hacker News Reader

There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think.

There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this.

People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. They may not have the best guidance from the government, but there are people who do believe they're doing the best they can.

Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place? Why can't there just be people who actually agree with some/most of what the NSA has done, based on the laws that govern it?

View on HN

> Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place?

Regardless of how you feel about it, there is a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place - it's a well documented NSA activity. Whether it accounts for specific comments is impossible to say, but it does exist. Why then is it so absurd to think that it may be in play?

Why is it absurd? Because there's no evidence of it taking place. It's the same reason we don't believe in unicorns.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...

EDIT: Added firstlook url per reply, originally pointed to https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...

...not really sure I see a substantial difference between the 2 articles, but there you go.

Why link to the blogspam and not the firstlook.org article it's sourced from?

Oh right, because it doesn't support what you're saying. Got it.

Are you saying that GCHQ don't do it?

Or that GCHQ does do it, but because they're GCHQ and not NSA that it's irrelevant?

Because now you have evidence that GCHQ does it you should allow the possibility that NSA does it. The reason you don't have evidence that NSA does it might be because NSA is a secret organistion.

So Snowden decided to leak the GCHQ presentation, but chose not to show any of the evidence he had that the NSA does it?

Snowden did not gather everything. Maybe he just missed it? Or maybe GCHQ does it but NSA doesn't? We know that other bits of the US government have different levels of online presence so I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the idea that NSA has people that disrupt online conversation about NSA.

I for one try to only accuse folks of doing things I actually have evidence of them doing, and I know this sounds crazy, but there's currently no evidence the NSA is on HN astroturfing comments, so maybe we shouldn't pretend like we know things we don't.

I for one try to only accuse folks of doing things I actually have evidence of them doing

That's not true.

You don't see a substantial difference between GHCQ and CIA?

Interesting.

People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely.

I don't buy the Col. Jessup rationalization at all, and I think it's simpleminded. The threats these people are defending against are ones created by their own actions, and the actions of the governments they act on behalf. Regular citizens of whatever country are affected by these activities but they don't get a voice in how or whether the "nasty job" (and it's precursors) are in their interest.

So in other words, if the US just left everyone alone, there would be zero threats to the US? Everyone acts rationally, and once you remove all rational reasons to attack the US, folks will simply stop doing it?

Right.

Of course not, and that's a highly uncharitable reading bordering on bad faith.

1) the current state of affairs does not remove threats, because the agencies are starting trouble, too;

2) the people are the ones who have to live with the effects of something, in the US a result of a democratic system where the agencies may prioritize their own imaginations over citizens' actual lives, where the agencies may have perverse incentives.

Just to be clear, is there any form of this conversation where you admit to being anything except absolutely correct on all points you're attempting to make?

I get the feeling you're one of those folks who won't accept anything except what you've already concluded.

Well you don't have to be rude about it.

I think your attitude deserves the response I gave, if not something much harsher. You kill intellectual debate.

As a casual reader of the NSA/GCHQ/Snowden threads on HM I have mentally check-marked nearly every comment of yours within this thread as a different form of documented tactic of subversion used by forum plants.

You sling personal insults, you point out trivial errors and falsehoods in statements by others which have nothing to do with the given point, you attempt to diminish reputations, and whatever other tactics available at the particular avenue in order to derail the original point/argument, while pushing pro US government talking points and stereotypical 'save-the-children' rhetoric.

I don't know who you are, but I have recently begun ignoring your posts, attempting to derive wisdom only from the replies directed towards your usually greyed/dead comments, but I hope that people who read my reply to you will take the chance to read your past comments and attempt to pick up on any potential biases before considering your opinion on things.

And even if I am completely wrong about your stake in this game, the hostility that you inject into these discussions is uncalled for, and adds nothing but scorn and hurt feelings, quelling the debate and discussion of the topics at hand; what I believe is your very objective.

Although I was late to read it, this comment is at least as bad as the one I chastised in this thread.

It's fine for users to neutrally remind each other when they're breaking the HN guidelines. But it's not ok to insinuate evil motives, let alone that another user is a "forum plant". Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

Please don't make comments like this or be personally rude on Hacker News. Even when you're sure you're right, it harms the site for everyone. That's why it's against the rules:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

What? Come on, I wasn't being rude, I was making a point. The nature of the responses on this topic, particularly on Hacker News are completely aggressive and kill any intellectual exploration or useful conversation.

I can't voice an opinion on this website that doesn't mesh with the popular opinion on this specific topic without being severely marginalized, mocked, and even ridiculed -- I think pointing that out should be allowed.

To be fair to him, you accused him of saying something he didn't.

No, I didn't, I rephrased what he wrote in terms that more obviously illustrate the absurdity of the argument he's making.

Some times when you rephrase an argument, it becomes a different argument.

Some times when this happens, we call it a strawman argument.

No, we call it a strawman if it's not an accurate equivalent. If it's accurate, it's not a strawman, such as in this situation.

Your reply had literally no connection to any of the words in my post except, presumably, in your imagination. Can you lay out its accuracy for us? Obviously we're curious how you made the jumps in logic you did, and it appears you left some words out.

"There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think.

There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this."

You and I are not the ones defining the reasons of and what NSA are interested in. You might think there are no reasons, but NSA may have a totally different view. For an organization that for real wants to capture ALL communication on this planet, waste of resources may seem like a minor issue.

Thanks to Snowden, we do know that NSA and GCHQ are actively doing astroturfing.

Without overstate the importance of HN, this is one place where a lot of technical talent hangs out. Talent that also talks, informs and educates others. If one want to moderate criticism from people that others listen to and rely on for information about security, privacy, HN would probably be a good place to focus on.

I agree that it's best to assume earnestness in opinions, I disagree with your opening. There absolutely is a reason for the NSA to give a fuck what you or I think. They are an intelligence and security agency, operating covertly with plausible deniability is what they do. More importantly, there are laws trying to be passed that can strengthen or weaken their funding and power. Making people at home feel that the agency needs to keep up the good work is not a waste of funds to that end.

They just got caught with their pants down spying on the American people. If they don't try to take hold of the narrative they might see themselves at the shit end of the political stick.

There is no political stick for them to be on, because every decision-maker in the US government knows how important the NSA is.

Where's your evidence for that? The hearings in congress I think have shown that there are doubts from decision-makers.

The lack of traction any of those movements get, and the general disconnect that every. single. congressperson. has when it comes to cyber security.

Also almost half of the House tried to pass a bill to cut NSA's funding in 2013.

Unimportant, because they neither provide useful intel nor prevent terror attacks. Or very important, because they have lots of blackmail material?

How would you know if they provide useful intel or prevent terror attacks?

Do you have an actual answer to that question? Because it seems like a bad plan to spend trillions of dollars on something if you can't even show that it works.

Show to who? You?

If by "me" you mean "the voters" then yes of course. What was that Russian proverb Ronald Regan was always so found of? Trust but verify? The verify part is very, very important.

Blind trust with no accountability is totally insane. There has to come a point, during the lives of the people who have to be held accountable for what they've done, that what they've done comes to light. Or how do you propose we hold them to account?

You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs.

This isn't about you, or me, or any individual, that's not how this country works. Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.

> You pick representatives, and they are shown the effectiveness of programs, because they are the ones who vote for the programs.

They aren't always given the information either. Recall Diane Feinstein being quite displeased about being lied to recently. And we still have to elect "them" on the basis of something. By what process is a corrupt politician supposed to be held accountable if the fact of their corruption is a government secret?

> Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.

How do you propose to ensure that only the "absolutely necessary" things are occurring?

If you know about it, it's not secret, so you're in a losing position of being unable to come up with an example of corruption the public doesn't know about.

Don't be silly. All of the corruption we know about now is an example of corruption the public didn't know about before it was published. The problem is we need to learn about it while there is still time to do something about it. We can't stop it if we only learn about it after it has already happened.

The problem with corruption is that we don't know about it soon enough?

Got it.

Which NSA activities have been necessary for you to sleep in safety?

And as to the 'nasty unappealing job', what has led you to believe that is a common perspective among those who work there? The project detailings that have been released often seem downright giddy.

>There is absolutely no reason for the NSA to give a flying fuck about what you or I think.

True. But that's not what this is about. What the NSA care about is what resources he has, which they would want to use for their own purposes - this is why they monitor such individuals as work at major ISP's. Its not about thought - its about action. What actions can they perform if they gain access to this persons electronic life - in the case of sysadmins for major ISP's, there is much to be gained from infiltration, exploitation, and subterfuge.

What are you afraid of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com