
Many of the NSA’s Loudest Defenders Have Financial Ties to NSA Contractors - rl3
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/12/intelligence-industry-cash-flows-media-echo-chamber-defending-nsa-surveillance/
======
heapcity
Pres. Eisenhower gives dire warning: 'We must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether saught or unsaught by the Military Industrial
Complex' (Jan. 17, 1961)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY)

~~~
jobu
Most people view the term "Military Industrial Complex" from the view of the
primary definition of complex - "consisting of many different and connected
parts".

It seems however, that Eisenhower intended that phrase to use the
psychoanalytic definition of complex - "a related group of emotionally
significant ideas that are completely or partly repressed and that cause
psychic conflict leading to abnormal mental states or behavior". More of a
dysfunctional mental state of the nation than an actual physical interaction.

~~~
klenwell
It seems to me the two complexes reinforce one another. Something akin to
Sinclair's observation: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his job depends on not understanding it."

But that is in interesting point that you make. I had never considered it from
that angle before. Works either way for me. And even better together.
Eisenhower: America's Derrida.

------
rtpg
The problem with most of these examples is that all of these "NSA contractors"
are just giant multi-billion dollar revenue companies. I'm sure MSFT is an NSA
contractor on one level, but most people would find it weird to classify
Microsoft as "A NSA contractor".

This is just a consequence of powerful people happening to have a lot of money
to invest and thus becoming board members for companies in domains in which
they have expertise (policy).

~~~
us0r
SAIC, CSC, CACI, Booz, Leidos? These are multi-billion dollar government
welfare recipients.

~~~
MadManE
Is corporate welfare somehow worse than individual welfare? I gather from the
tone of your comment that you think it is, but this being the internet, tone
is easy to confuse.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
Individual welfare at least supports the more vulnerable and less well-off
elements of our society. Large defense contractors have revenues in the
billions of dollars, high level managers are likely millionaires, and they
employ an entire army of upper-middle class workers.

The defense sector is mostly about providing welfare to the already rich and
privileged.

~~~
MadManE
Ok, but let's take it to a different industry. Are corporate farmers more or
less deserving of government money than individuals?

Also, I'm not convinced that individual welfare accomplishes what you think it
does. I don't think that just supporting the "more vulnerable ... elements of
our society" is good at all. If we want to improve anything, they need to
advance in society instead of merely being supported in it.

~~~
fineman
The "corporate" or the "farmer" part. One is a corporation, the other is a
person working for and/or owning the corporation. Once you realize that
corporate farmer isn't some magical combination the question is uninteresting.
But, for the record - the farmer is an individual and is just as deserving
(however much that is) as anyone else regardless of his profession. But we
don't owe him _that_ livelihood and aren't under and obligation to support his
enterprises in that area.

As to "advance in society", it's pretty easy for (most of) us to take a two-
day course in some flavor of the week and have a piece of paper that helps to
do so. For someone working a subsistence job it's not so trivial. Many people
may waste it but it only has to help create a few productive taxpayers to be a
net win to all of us.

------
cies
How again is "lobbying" different from "legalized corruption"? [serious]

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
Lobbying isn't an inherently dirty thing. It started (and largely remains) a
way for people with knowledge of a field outside the politician's bailiwick to
inform them of pros/cons to an issue they may not be aware of.

Corruption has indeed seeped into the process, but I would prefer experts in a
field (on both sides) to inform politicians than have them be clueless on the
issues in question. The EFF, the ACLU? Lobbyists. Good lobbyists, but
lobbyists nonetheless.

~~~
lostcolony
The problem is the process is innately corrupt though. If we wanted an
uncorrupted process, we would set aside tax money to pay researchers in the
field grants solely to study and advise, with laws preventing them from taking
subsidies and the like elsewhere. Perhaps with a process to allocate existing
researchers to new issues. Corporation feels that we need more spying on our
citizens because it makes them profitable? They could raise that issue, an
existent researcher could look into it; but the continued funding of that
researcher is not tied to their findings or results in any way.

As it is, the side with the most money gets the most lobbying, and that's not
even considering the negative effect of campaign donations and the like.

~~~
shit_parade2
Lobbying is an inheritly tricky problem because you want to allow everyone to
exercise free speech, if suddenly only government funded researchers are
allowed to make comments on policy you no longer can participate in democratic
governance.

The problem is governents have way too much control over nearly every facet of
the economy and it is much cheaper and easier to buy a senator and get some
new regulations passed than it is to build a successful product or service
that everyday people want to opt in for.

When you mandate decisions, you tend to get bad and corrupt decisions that
benefit the few over the many.

~~~
fineman
It's not the issue of the speech in lobbying, it's that lobbying in politics
means gifts of money.

I can "lobby" a police officer not to give me a ticket, but when I offer him a
$20 all of a sudden he'll call it a bribe and slap the cuffs on me. (Despite
my explanations that money is speech, and thus protected...)

------
pointernil
As an European I often wonder, how do people in the US cope with this level of
corporate driven politics... I have the impression in Europe this kind of
connections do exists but are seen as a serious problem and actively worked
against in the legislation and even with this those connection are increasing
and "growing" in weight on politics.

I have the impression what Europe is trying to work against is the normal
modus operandi in US politics.

Are Europe and the US approaching some kind of middle point in the level of
inter-connectivity of corporations and politics: Europe reaching it from the
lower levels and the US by reaching it from higher levels?

It is really absurd how since the 60s resp. 70s after the nations coped more
or less with the devastation of the 2 World Wars, politics has been reduced
essentially to economic interests and agendas AND in the process gave it self
up to the economic agents: large corporations which are defining politics. Are
economics, money, corporations over-represented in politics?

~~~
andrewmutz
If I understand the article correctly, the people they are talking about don't
hold public office. They are private citizens who are pro-NSA and who have
corporate ties to the NSA, and are speaking publicly.

So I don't think this article is an example of politicians having corporate
motivations, but rather talking heads on TV having corporate motivation.

------
bradleyjg
I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years,
at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog.

He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written,
but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to
be playing a cynical PR game.

Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely
should.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I was thinking something similar, which is that I felt the article was
implying that if these people _didn 't_ have a financial connection to the NSA
their opinions would be different, and I don't think that is the case.

Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually
took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative.

So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that
hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians
who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their
opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving
them money[1].

So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to
people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find
that particularly noteworthy.

[1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all
that big a deal for them :-)

~~~
bradleyjg
>> That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a
compatible point of view?

I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is
the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government
contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative
positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely
disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen.

What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things
we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency
end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain
supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly.

As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the
salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that
low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government
employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector).
Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good
reason for it to have grown so large.

------
mmrasheed
I find recent NSA related craps utterly outdated, dull and juvenile. At this
point, distinction between news on NSA's secret projects and government's
public release of secret documents seems blurry and overlapping.

NSA has been working on quantum computing for decades. Recent success of both
Israel and NSA in harnessing quantum computing for practical purposes is well
known for at least couple of years. When quantum computing can blow off
present mathematical proof of concepts in security, why waste time talking
about decade old NSA technology? Why not discuss about the bleak future of
information security? Why not prepare for the coming years?

~~~
happyscrappy
>Why not discuss about the bleak future of information security? Why not
prepare for the coming years?

Because then you have to acknowledge that threats exist that are not the US
government, and that is not kosher because the goal is to reduce US power.

~~~
bob-2
> the goal is to reduce US power.

Better put: the goal is to reduce US abuse of power. Accountability is the
focus, not disarmament.

~~~
mineshaftgap
You are essentially arguing that other Western nations have no agency and are
forced to do the US's bidding.

------
at-fates-hands
The whole point of the article is completely irrelevant at this point.

The NSA already built their huge data center in the desert. They've been
scooping up data for years. They've been using methods to usurp wireless phone
security in order to snoop on what should be secure networks. There's
suspicions they've cracked TOR's encryption as well.

Alert the media, the people who support the NSA have financial ties to them.

Even with the recent court ruling, Pandora's box was opened decades ago, and I
see no palatable future where anybody is able to close it.

------
MadManE
This headline doesn't seem like it's actually news. Replace "NSA" with
literally anything else, and it still makes perfect sense.

People who have financial incentives to keep something around typically try to
do so.

~~~
spacemanmatt
In some cases, that's just fine. In others it is a perverse incentive we
should reconsider. Prisons, domestic spying, etc.

~~~
MadManE
Whether it's a good or bad thing is irrelevant. I agree that we should be
aware and try to deter some instances, but saying that having skin in the game
causes incentives seems like a weird conclusion to me. It should be obvious.

~~~
spacemanmatt
I don't think that's a weird conclusion at all. The companies have fiduciary
obligations to keep, after all.

------
ganeumann
I think the main point here is the one Todd Gitlin makes: "the onus for
disclosure ultimately lies with reporters and news programs, who should be
asking these experts to reveal potential conflicts of interest and to explain
the basis of their assertions about national security."

We all have a conflict of interest here (not least because since we are all
being spied on by our governments) but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't
valid. But the conflicts of interest need to be disclosed with the opinions so
the readers/viewers have a chance to weight the opinions presented.

~~~
sseveran
If you have ever watched CNBC or Bloomberg I am sure you have been whenever an
analyst talks about a stock a disclosure screen pops indicating whether the
analyst, their family or their firm have an financial stake in the company.

It would be interesting to see that especially for very senior former
government officials who often clock themselves in their former agencies and
not as board members of x,y, and z. There is certainly more credibility as
been former 4 star general than a board member of a government contractor.

Now having spent some time earlier in my life working around the DC
establishment I know that being a general is now basically a political
position even though it is accorded the same respect that generals garnered 70
years ago. So I just expect that former senior government officials are now
trading on their connections to government...since that is the most valuable
asset to have. And this goes for everything, not just the military and
intelligence agencies. When there is as much money as there is in Washington
being connected to the people who hand it out is extremely valuable.

------
javajosh
Yes, HSA advocates are secretly biased, and unlike politicians and their
campaign ads, their bias is covert.

But that's not the story we need reported on, because this story is preaching
to the choir.

The _real_ story is understanding the American public's malleability in the
face of advertising/punditry in general. There is a real story analyzing in-
depth (and with open-minded sympathy) why real believers in the practice
believe that it is actually truly the right thing to do.

I suspect that the public won't understand what's at risk until the IRS starts
using NSA collected data to conduct (automated, universal) audits.

------
dublinclontarf
If I support the NSA can I get some of that money?

------
fiatjaf
This shouldn't be news. Everyone should know it from the beggining.

Show me some government program that doesn't have corruption involved.

------
happyscrappy
>Baker at one point told intelligence committee lawmakers that The Intercept’s
Glenn Greenwald was simply on a campaign to “cause the greatest possible
diplomatic damage to the United States and its intelligence capabilities.”

The problem with liars is that sometimes they tell the truth.

