
Hackers to NSA chief: Read the Constitution - ferdo
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57596420-83/hackers-to-nsa-chief-read-the-constitution/
======
ferdo
Personally, I'm sick and tired of "OMG! SHARIA LAW!" being used as the excuse
to spy on all of us. The same demagoguery was used by the Nazis (using Jewish
law) as the basis for their depredations.

> "Why do so many countries want to attack us?" the person asked.

> The general replied that America stands in the way of them reaching their
> objective, which is to force everybody to comply with sharia law.

> "They want to attack us because we're bombing them!" shouted another person,
> to much chuckling from the audience.

And General Alexander should get a costume that doesn't make him look like one
of the Love Boat crew.

~~~
jmduke
_And General Alexander should get a costume that doesn 't make him look like
one of the Love Boat crew._

Cheap ad hominems only detract from the actual arguments to be made. Ad
hominems that focus on an individual's clothing are especially weak, given the
average attire of a programmer.

~~~
jivatmanx
Alexander could have worn business or business casual attire to this event,
but he chose wear official military garb to a non-military event in order to
cloak his arguments with official authority.

As I've argued elsewhere, the amount of political authority "Emperor
Alexander" has managed to accumulate, and the unquestioning treatment he has
received in congress and elsewhere, are signs of weakening in the republican
system.

~~~
PublicEnemy111
I don't think it was to cloak his arguments with official authority. I think
what he was trying to do is use the blackhat conference as an open forum
between the technology experts/hackers and the government. He had to have
balls to wear that uniform in front of thousands of outraged people. I may not
agree with what the NSA is doing, but you have to respect the man for talking
at that conference especially in that uniform.

------
northwest
> "Why do so many countries want to attack us?" the person asked.

That's the 1 uncomfortable question that is at the center of the whole mess.

It's literally the vicious circle. The problem is, there are people who have
an enormous financial interest in keeping this going.

To understand what I mean, look at the scale of the budget that's being
distributed (both the absolute and the relative values):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

------
WestCoastJustin
This was heavily discussed yesterday [1], where tptacek had a great comment
[2], which is well worth a read. Anyone interested in watching the talk can
head over to Youtube [3].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6135833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6135833)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6136338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6136338)

[3]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvVIZ4OyGnQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvVIZ4OyGnQ)

------
pseingatl
Scary the naivete of a U.S. general who would make such a comment about
shari'a. If he really believes such nonsense our defense strategy against Al-
Qaeda will be similarly uninformed. The scary thing is that these beliefs are
probably widely held amongst high-level U.S. military leaders. If you were to
ask them what shari'a law is, they wouldn't have the slightest idea.

------
diminoten
We have to stop pretending like there is literally zero difference between
passive data collection and actively spying on someone.

We also have to stop pretending like being investigated is the same as being
found guilty.

All this "read the Constitution" talk begs the initial question - what kind of
risk are we okay with accepting when we ask for our privacy? Or to flip the
question around, what are we getting in return for giving up our privacy, and
is it worth it?

Frankly, we don't know right now, because no one's telling us (and being
honest about it). I just want more information and less PR spin...

~~~
aa0
If the difference between passive spying and active spying is 'WHERE ssn='XXX-
XX-XXXX', I don't think your 'difference' argument holds any water.

~~~
diminoten
Why not? One makes no effort to identify each individual unless probable cause
presents itself, and the other is when probable cause already exists and a
warrant is granted.

It's watching a place vs. watching a person. How is that not "different"?

~~~
aa0
It's not watching a place, it's watching a platform/utility with fine-grained
categorization and structure of information.

I'd compare it to holding the ebola plague in a research facility without
publicly providing the safety measures that we put in place to protect the
virus from getting out. Do you know how many scientists would be up in arms?

The only difference here is that we are dealing with computers which are
usually publicly connected no matter what..and if the government has this
information, who says hackers aren't going to be able to steal parts of the DB
or query it? The very act of having this info, categorized, is just
ghastly..and Orwellian.

~~~
diminoten
Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written, and I don't have time to address
everything, but I'll give you a short list:

* You're begging the question by asserting it's the Ebola virus. The question is whether or not it's dangerous and by calling it a deadly virus you're asserting it is as a given. Logical fallacy.

* I'd like to know where you got the information that the collected surveillance data is fully processed, even being used in its entirety, or that it's "fine grained". If you have information that hasn't yet been released, I recommend you be careful. See what happened to Snowden?

* What do you mean "computers which are usually publicly connected no matter what"? Are you saying that when a computer is connected to a router, the data it transmits is public information?

* What would hackers do with my location data, exactly? The fundamental problem that privacy solves is that the government would use your private data to cause you legal trouble. Hackers have no such luxury, and while they could steal your money or identity, that's a constant risk for the government, anyway. We already trust the US government with _tons_ of our personal information, and yes, it could get hacked. It does get hacked, and yet somehow we're still here.

* 1984 is fiction. It does not, in any way, shape, or form have any influence or predictive powers on the future outcome of events. It's a good story, but it's as useful as Harry Potter is at telling us how our society is going to transform.

~~~
aa0
Lots of stuff wrong with what you've written:

* I made an analogy, of course it isn't a virus - it's information that would have the possibility to wreak havoc if in the wrong hands.

* Nothing has happened to Snowden yet other than being made an enemy of the state. The fact that he is alive is somewhat of a testament to how much he _hasn 't_ released.

* Nothing of the sort, don't twist my words. Computers are notoriously hard to localize when connected to any network at all, local included. The CIA hacked the firmware of Iranian centrifuges through a massive widespread worm on _all_ computers that were later connected to the nuclear facilities network. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet))

* Your location data is a tiny bit of the information that is stored. Phone records, internet usage by downloads and web sites visited, text messages, etc.. are all being logged by the NSA.

* It's a work of excessive circumstance, it serves to show an extreme -- give you what would result once steps cross bounds, and don't recede.

------
tsax
This is hilarious! The Constitution? Paper constitutions aren't worth the
paper they are printed on. They are an Americanism. Before the American paper
Constitution, constitutions were exactly what the word signified - the
structure of a ruling system. And a Constitution always becomes a small-c
constitution even apart from the amendment process. Notice the actual result
of the New Deal legislation. The rise the administrative state. Agencies that
make, execute and judge on rules. Legislative bills that are shells for
bureaucrats to fill (Dodd-Frank, PPACA, etc). NONE of these things are
authorized by the "Constitution." Please note that I haven't opined on whether
I think this development is positive or negative. I do think that is a
secondary matter to the importance that smart people such as the HN audience
_understand_ the real structure (small-c constitution) of America is only
tenuously related to the big-C Constitution.

Okay downvote away gentlemen!

~~~
krapp
Technically, I believe it's parchment, not paper.

------
pat2014
Instead of calls to "Read the Constitution", what we really need are calls to
"Enforce the Constitution" !!

------
bvitrano
The government and the NSA are still run by Americans. Which means that those
Americans are still at fault for breaking the constitution and feeling above
the law.

There are many Americans that are still selling their souls to the NSA in
order to provide for their families. More programmers are replacing Snowden
and more are still being hired. Why? Because government is buying away our
freedoms through greedy Americans and corporations. If you want to cut down
the NSA spying, the recipe is very simple: stop taking the money and talent
from the government. If your employer is constantly submitting RFPs to the
government, quit. If you get excited that your company has any "big contracts"
with the government, quit.

Take away the talent and end the greed for the easy government money. The
choice is, as it always has been, our choice.

~~~
argumentum
There is an even better choice. Take the job (and money) but hack the system
so it no longer works (but still appears to).

------
ape4
USA, where people are afraid to heckle.

~~~
kbar13
Please explain how it's at all useful to heckle?

Heckling is probably the lowest form of displaying your disagreements with the
person doing the talk.

~~~
ferdo
Heckling is one of the oldest forms of political dissent. If one can't handle
heckling, one shouldn't be a politician or any kind of public figure.

~~~
kbar13
That doesn't make it acceptable / useful as per my question.

~~~
ferdo
It's very useful. We're still talking about it.

------
drunkenmasta
So much Grandstanding in the media makes me roll my eyes after a while.

------
teeja
I think it was probably instructive for the hackers to analyze the General
attempting to do social-engineering.

------
eshvk
I may not agree with the guy but I am impressed by him. He had the balls to go
on stage in front of a crowd of people who could be aggressive, and presented
his case. Not sure how well it was, since I wasn't there. However, that takes
courage.

~~~
adammil
A group of hackers is not physically intimidating in the slightest, so what's
to admire? I would have admired him if he had apologized and resigned.

~~~
splawn
Not to mention that if you are head of the worlds most powerful intelligence
agency, how much does courage even have to come into play?

------
coldcode
"They elected me to lead not to read" \- Rainier Wolfcastle

------
kbar13
heckling at a speech with hilariously irrelevant quips isn't really conducive
to anything, no matter if you agree with how the NSA does things or not.

