
He Was a Hacker for the NSA and He Was Willing to Talk. I Was Willing to Listen - prostoalex
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/28/he-was-a-hacker-for-the-nsa-and-he-was-willing-to-talk-i-was-willing-to-listen/
======
batbomb
This is garbage. There is easily enough information to uniquely identify him
(lamb of god, religious convictions, recently left the NSA, social media),
which calls into question the entire premise of the article.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Those details seemed to be highlighted almost, which means Id assume the
journalist made them up to anonymise the hacker.

------
ryanmarsh
There's enough personally identifying information given for the lamb that,
assuming it's not a smoke screen, he'd be easy to dox.

My instincts tell me this was a PR/recruitment piece (or a hoax) and the
journalist fell right into it.

~~~
ryanlol
> assuming it's not a smoke screen, he'd be easy to dox.

So what? Just because he doesn't want his name in the article doesn't mean
he's scared to death about his name coming out.

------
Spooky23
Apparently the author wasn't willing to write about what he heard. Pretty low
content ratio here.

------
robocat
This article smells like the journalist has been tricked.

~~~
drawnwren
I agree. The interviewee sounds more like a script kiddie with a very powerful
script than anyone of note at the NSA.

~~~
anf
What qualifies someone to be "of note"?

~~~
drawnwren
In the context of my comment, I meant someone deeply involved in the technical
implementation of collection techniques or strategy. The interviewee comes
across as someone who is skilled at a small process but doesn't seem to be the
person who discovered the exploit or did a significant part of the creative
thinking involved in the exploit.

~~~
anf
For the purposes of an article like this, I don't think technical prowess
would be very useful. He's providing an opinion informed by speaking with a
variety of people with clearance speaking freely about their work. That's
pretty rare in its own right.

~~~
drawnwren
While you are correct, my intent was to serve as a counterpoint to statements
like this in the article, "He identified himself and his highly trained
colleagues at the NSA as a breed apart — a superior breed, much in the way
that soldiers look down on weekend paintballers. Perhaps this shouldn’t be
altogether surprising, because arrogance is one of the unfortunate hallmarks
of the male-dominated hacker culture."

------
sverige
The problem with spies of any stripe is that you can never know if they're
lying. Le Carre's books do the best job of communicating this depressing fact,
I think.

So if you can't know whether they're lying, any information they provide is
just noise ultimately, because you'll very rarely (like never) beat them at
their game; and if you do, they'll change the game.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Do you mean Spies or Officers?

------
simbalion
No matter what he might think he feels, he is not amongst his 'brethren' at
def con.

I thought the reference to the film 'good will hunting' was appropriate,
because the subject of the article is a sell-out.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
That's a big ask and very subjective POV

~~~
simbalion
Subjective? I disagree. From everything I know of the hacker scene, working
for the NSA to invade people's privacy for Uncle Sam is not good karma.

------
systematical
Not much substance in this article...

------
vonnik
I didn't find this piece particularly illuminating, frankly.

------
alexandercrohde
Not too much new in this piece.

I wonder why the interviewee is so confident that the world will always be a
place of conflict. I can think of no rational, or no necessary, reason why
multiple conflicting powers should exist based on the lines on a map.

Perhaps it's for the same reason he is religious (i.e. he's just wrong
sometimes, like every human).

~~~
gnaritas
> I wonder why the interviewee is so confident that the world will always be a
> place of conflict.

It always has been.

> I can think of no rational, or no necessary, reason why multiple conflicting
> powers should exist based on the lines on a map.

You mean other than the fact that it's always been that way? These are just
tribes on a larger scale, humans are tribal, we fight, it's in our nature.

~~~
woodman
> ...we fight, it's in our nature.

Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"? Do you feel the same way
about slavery which, until relatively recently, was the natural order of
things?

~~~
gnaritas
Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported.
Saying something is in our nature doesn't justify it, it's merely an
explanation why something still is. As long as resources are scarce, man will
fight, that is the way of things.

~~~
woodman
> Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported.

That misses the point, but I can pin the example down if that helps: ...
publicly supporting slavery, until relatively recently, was the natural order
of things. The point is that saying "something is in our nature" doesn't
justify it or explain it - because everything everybody has ever done or will
do is something in our nature.

> As long as resources are scarce, man will fight...

This is better than the nature angle, but not by much - as pretty much
anything (including adherents to a religion) can be called "resources". We
just need to crack the whole post-scarcity thing... kind of a silver lining.

~~~
gnaritas
> saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it

It doesn't justify it, never claimed it did, but it most certainly does
explain it.

~~~
woodman
I understand your position, but I guess I've failed to communicate mine
effectively - because you don't seem to understand me when I've said in two
different ways that your nature argument is tautological.

~~~
gnaritas
Ok, better to just say that, but I still don't agree.

> Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"?

Of course we do, much of culture isn't in our nature, but is learned. Advanced
mathmatics isn't in our nature, it is learned. "in our nature" essentially
means because it's human, and that isn't tautological imho. The OP could think
of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason,
this is not tautological.

~~~
woodman
Yeah we definitely aren't going to see eye to eye on this, because we don't
even agree on what it is to be human. Whereas I include the direct
consequences for biological imperatives in the definition, "Advanced
mathmatics" is a direct and logical consequence of curiosity and the capacity
for relatively high level cognition, you seem to restrict the definition to
only include the biological imperatives... which leaves me to wonder at how
you differentiate the species from the rest of the animals.

> The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human
> nature is a reason, this is not tautological.

That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because
it is human nature to fight over land. You can substitute one or both
instances of "land" with "scarce resource" if you like, but it is still a
tautology - because land is a resource that is scarce :)

~~~
gnaritas
Your definition of human nature includes anything humans do as natural which
is a completely useless definition of natural. Natural, to have any real
meaning, means not man made; mans culture is man made, our religions are man
made, these things are not natural in that sense and that's the only
meaningful use of that word in this context.

Advanced mathmatics are not natural, they are a development of culture, our
brains are in no way optimized for it and learning to do it often requires
letting go of common sense. We're so bad at it that stupid machines are a
bazillion times faster at it. Maths is not in our nature, it is a product of
cultural evolution that could easily be lost should the wrong people die and
could be reinvented with entirely different braches the next go around if at
all.

When someone is talking about human nature, we're talking about those
behaviors that always naturally emerge in individual human development like
language, aggression, mating habits, etc, not things that may or may not
happen like the development of science or math which are artifacts of
particular cultures, not of humans in general.

> which leaves me to wonder at how you differentiate the species from the rest
> of the animals.

Why do I need to differentiate them, we're animals like any other, we do some
things far better than other animals and many things far worse than animals,
none of our abilities are unique in the animal kingdom, they're only unique in
the level at which we can perform them, animals think, humans think better;
we're only special when we choose to judge by things we ourselves are good at
and we rig the contest by setting ourselves as the bar on something we happen
to be good at and that's no different than a dolphin judging themselves
superior to us because we're terrible in water and can't echo locate. It's
hubris, nothing more.

> That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because
> it is human nature to fight over land.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think you're rephrasing is a strawman, and now
we're beating a dead horse.

~~~
woodman
> ...includes anything humans do as natural which is a completely useless
> definition of natural.

Useless for your purposes, where you are comparing things of the same kind -
you use behavior for that, not nature. Nature is used for comparing things of
a different kind, like humans vs sea slugs. Also, nature is not the same word
as natural...

> ...always naturally emerge in individual human development like language...

How is that any different from "Advanced mathmatics"? No known humans have had
a written language but no numbering system, and speculation about the earliest
humans without a written language is just that, speculation.

> Why do I need to differentiate them...

So that you can quantify, classify, compare, understand, intelligently
discuss, etc.

> I think you're rephrasing is a strawman...

Eh, it conveyed the exact same meaning - it just more clearly demonstrated the
logical flaw.

> ...and now we're beating a dead horse.

Maybe, but I will say that your last post communicated your thoughts on the
matter very clearly - I never would have known otherwise that we disagree on
about five other fundamental concepts.

~~~
gnaritas
> you use behavior for that, not nature.

I'll use whatever I choose to use when I'm making my point. You don't get to
define my choice of differentiation.

> Also, nature is not the same word as natural...

That's just absurdly pedantic and a ridiculous point; I defined what I meant,
take it or leave it but don't be obtuse.

> How is that any different from "Advanced mathmatics"? No known humans have
> had a written language but no numbering system, and speculation about the
> earliest humans without a written language is just that, speculation.

I think I was more than clear, naturally emerge in _individual_ human
development; i.e. all humans naturally develop it as part of their normal
life-cycle. Language for example, this is vastly different than advanced
mathematics which may not ever emerge until certain levels of culture are
accomplished. Mathematics are not a natural part of the development of the
individual human lifecycle.

> So that you can quantify, classify, compare, understand, intelligently
> discuss, etc.

Which can all be accomplished without said differentiation, so no, try again.

> Eh, it conveyed the exact same meaning - it just more clearly demonstrated
> the logical flaw.

No, it didn't.

