LLWM

So it's also in Google's interest because it encourages users to allow themselves to be tracked.

I would. Doing that without any follow-up erodes your credibility. And the US is not going to go to war with China.

Well, obviously, since you don't do so. You rationalize it as bad.

If you just don't like it, then whatever. There are no consequences. The problem arises when you try to outlaw things other people are doing because you personally believe they are wrong. If I'm RMS and I believe proprietary software is wrong, sure. I can be my crazy self and advocate free software. Shutting down Microsoft for paying employees to do "wrong things" that are perfectly legal is where the line is crossed, and that's essentially what people are saying about the NSA.

It's abundantly clear that they can't, for exactly the reasons you mention.

Why would I have something like that?

That's shockingly uncreative of you. You don't even need to come up with your own ideas if that's too hard for you, just watch some dumb 90s scifi.

Do you include yourself in that, or are you not a people?

What's the difference? He fled the country anyway.

>Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different".

Where did I do that?

Wow, someone who actually takes the UDHR seriously. I didn't think people like that actually existed.

It's a bit hard to tell who the "we" is referring to there, but if you mean that privacy advocates are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I wholeheartedly agree. If you mean that government classification programs are trying to stave off meaningful progress, I don't think it's an intentional effort, just a natural consequence of being run by a large committee of competing interests.

I don't see your point. Most large projects require the combined effort of many people, especially if you want to be confident in their quality and get them shipped on time, as I'm sure the NSA does. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Or did you just want to have fun by calling people enablers because they do something you disagree with?

As for your views on privacy, I don't expect that most people can change their fundamental beliefs like what constitutes a human right. Especially not as the result of anonymous internet comments. As always, progress depends on people with outdated views dying out naturally.

How is it leading me anywhere? If anything, it's probably my belief in the obsolescence of privacy that makes it easier for me to appreciate what the NSA is capable of, rather than the other way around.

I don't really see the appeal, but maybe I don't have the perspective to appreciate the skill that goes into dissolving human bodies properly. I still wouldn't call someone crazy if they did.

That was my intention. Thank you for noticing.

I'm sure people of the future will find all kinds of ethical flaws in the way we live today. After all, 500 years ago, slavery was normal and accepted. Personally, I'd bet that our mistreatment of computer programs and robots will be considered so obscene that nothing else we do will even register.

Unlike you, I don't believe success, or really anything, is necessary to justify the existence of the NSA or what they do. Realistically, that boat sailed the first time necessary and proper was invoked.

They would probably also say that smoking is bad for your health.

If you are aware of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to respond by talking about how you believe the leaks were actually genuine data.

I don't expect that we will see the truth be declassified here. As I recall, they usually wait until 50 years after everyone involved is dead.

It's not meant as an insult. I'm just riffing off of your own comment that

>On average they'll be very intelligent and working harder than their counterparts in industry for less money.

I don't doubt that it's genuine. But a deliberately selected subset of true information can still be misleading.

As someone who feels the same way, I don't understand how someone who cares about technology can dismiss that point of view so casually. Every single developer I know can at least admit that the NSA's malware is technically impressive.

It may go against your ethics, but that's a problem you will have to resolve within yourself. Even if you think it's unethical, you don't have the right to prevent other people from marrying same-sex partners or eating beef. The same goes for working for oil companies, weapons manufacturers, or the NSA.

A lot of people hold personal opinions that aren't obligated to follow what courts decide. Not to invoke Chewbacca's law, but do you think OJ was innocent?

I'd say a lot of the things that have become known since then, like Regin or the ANT exploit catalog, have only intensified that image.

Ethics is subjective. We've already seen the same thing happen with people deciding non-free software is unethical.

You've described exactly why it's not surprising. People join the mafia and equivalent organizations all the time.

If domestic communications are all encrypted, then indirectly, yes.

The point of omnipresent surveillance is to be proactive and prevent threats before they arise. There is no way to measure its success. If you oppose it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.

It is, by his own admission, heavily curated. Both in what he exfiltrated and what selections from that have actually been published.