SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two articles have been received regarding the NSA and its activities:
NSA chief knew of Snowden file destruction by Guardian in UK
Surprising absolutely no one, the Guardian reports that Keith Alexander was fully briefed and supportive of the GCHQ's plan to destroy Snowden-related computers at the Guardian's offices in London.
The revelation that Alexander and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were advised on the Guardian's destruction of several hard disks and laptops contrasts markedly with public White House statements that distanced the US from the decision.
White House and NSA emails obtained by Associated Press under freedom of information legislation demonstrate how pleased Alexander and his colleagues were with the developments. At times the correspondence takes a celebratory tone, with one official describing the anticipated destruction as "good news".
A Compromise with the NSA
"The NSA wants to know everything we do? Fine, but only if We the People see everything the NSA does. The real problem with the current mass surveillance is asymmetry."
Now we all know that the NSA is not going to open its doors and reveal its secrets - that would be foolhardy in the extreme and seriously endanger the US and its citizens. And despite the sincerely-held views of many of our members and others elsewhere, from the outside there doesn't appear to be anything like a groundswell of dissent in the US regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA's activities.
However, perhaps by being a little more open it might begin to win back the trust of those who currently doubt that the NSA is working in their interests. What would it take for you to be convinced that the NSA was under control and acting in the best interests of every US citizen, and not just the interests of a small number who appear to use it to cling to power? What amount of spying on allies and partners would be acceptable while remembering that each time such activity is discovered it weakens the trust of the ally and can have serious repercussions for US business? Would clearly stating which terrorist plots had been thwarted by intelligence gathered, in part at least, by the NSA be enough? Or have we already passed the point of no return?
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Sunday July 13 2014, @01:45AM
The problem is that the VAST majority of the people working for the NSA are people of integrity, and really do have our best interests at heart. I've grown up and lived in central Maryland all my life. I actually grew up with every intention to go work for them at some point (obviously, that desire evaporated after I started to understand them). Particularly these days working in government infosec, I have lots of personal friends who have worked and do work at the NSA. (Although thanks to Mr. Snowden, we know that some are a bit snarky with their PowerPoint slides...) Nearly all of them are fine, upstanding, trustworthy people. That's not the problem.
The problem is that it creates a system that attracts untrustworthy people. Absolute power attracts the corrupt and corruptible. History has taught us that giving such sweeping authority and power to unchecked agencies DOES eventually lead to abuse. And this is the point that I try to raise to my NSA friends: It's not you I'm worried about. It's J. Edgar Hoover. It's the one-off abuses against political dissidents. It's the chilling effect. It's analogous to leaving a loaded gun unsupervised on your dresser.
It's funny how many of them actually understand and agree with me. But I guess that's not the kind of dissent that's welcome inside the walls of Fort Meade.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:27AM
How is being instrumental in the creation of a panopticon over the people of the United States in any way part of their best interests?! "I was only following orders," was not good enough to get Adolf Eichmann off the hook, and it shouldn't be good enough for them.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @02:42AM
> The problem is that it creates a system that attracts untrustworthy people.
That is part of the problem, but it is far from the only problem. It isn't even necessarily the main problem.
There is a saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Absolute power doesn't just attract the corrupt - it lets simple ignorance crush the powerless.
There is an example that every american should be aware of, its called "the white man's burden" [wikipedia.org] which, summed up, is that the people in charge know what's best. Its a doctrine rooted in good intentions but history has shown the results are generally destructive because being in charge actually breeds ignorance about the lives of the people who are not in charge. And that is why concentration of power is dangerous even in the hands of the most well intentioned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:15AM
they took an oath to defend the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. by subverting the constitution or even simply standing idly by while its being undermined, they are breaking that oath; at worst, they are the domestic enemies that they're supposed to be defending the constitution from. clearly their word means nothing and they have zero integrity. their intentions dont matter; remember the saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and also that the ends do not justify the means.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday July 14 2014, @12:03AM
What you and the sibling posts are missing is that I was not defending the NSA nor its constituent employees and contractors. What I am saying is that, in their minds, they are doing what's right, and they are (generally) trustworthy people who are acting in good faith. Misguided, perhaps, but good faith nonetheless.
You must understand your adversary as well or better than they understand themselves. Understand the motivation; understand the rationalization. Understanding the problem well is the best way to go about fixing it.