

My Dinner With NSA Director Keith Alexander - sinak
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/22/my-dinner-with-general-alexander

======
mrt0mat0
I liked the article, but the part i found most interesting was the comment.

 _I just want to point out a flaw in your individual count calculation.
Although normal person would have just 40 contacts you forget that some of us
call very common number and that lets NSA to connect even more people that
19mil. Even I never met this article author, we are probably connected in less
than 3 hops :). If I called Verizon support and author called Verizon support,
we are connected. And if some suspect called Verizon support, our phone call
history is in that “corporate store” where NSA can query any way they want :).
You are absolutely right – evil is in details…_

so this is a huge loophole. i think every one i know and people i don't have
called verizon or comcast. so if someone that is a foreigner makes a call to
verizon or comcast, i am now able to be collected on? welcome to the party
everyone. i'm in a terrorist bin at the NSA.

EDIT: also, i was just thinking: if i want to track someone and all i have is
the phone number, why can't i just have someone i know that's overseas call
them once? they are now able to be tracked. isn't that a flaw to the system?
there is no way this kind of power can be contained.

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Are you using a pay as you go mobile? Under that definition, everyone that
'tops up' is connected.

~~~
epoxyhockey
I also receive _free text messages_ from my provider (Edit: e.g. the texts
that say 'thank you for paying your bill'). Does that mean that I'm connected
to every subscriber on the network that also receives these free texts?

~~~
eliasmacpherson
I didn't think of that, I suppose it would by the same standard. They aren't
really 'free' but they are offers and information and so on, about 25% of my
inbox is from them.

~~~
3825
Or if you text 40404 to tweet? This is really ridiculous. In my opinion, no
sane person would sign off on it if they knew these details.

------
mikegagnon
I think the author's most important point is that she sees the NSA Director as
a "good man," even though she considers his activities to be criminal and a
threat to democracy.

I agree with her.

I think it is important to realize that authorities aren't necessarily
caricatures of evil like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. I don't believe Gen.
Keith Alexander is conspiring to undercut democracy. I believe he is earnest
but misguided. And I believe the present institution rewards and promotes
those who are earnest and misguided. I believe it is simply an emergent
phenomenon.

Of course there exist evil people who will intentionally abuse their power for
selfish gain. I do not believe though that blatant evil is the dominant force
in the world. I think the most common case is that there are just people in
power who are trying to do something "good," yet they share different values
and concerns than their opponents.

How could someone be "good" yet conduct mass surveillance? (1) The belief that
terrorism represents a grave threat, (2) the belief that mass surveillance is
the best way to combat terrorism, and (3) the belief that their implementation
of mass surveillance doesn't represent a significant threat to civil
liberties.

This is important to consider when you oppose someone's actions and policies.
It won't be productive to assume your opponent is evil. Rather, it will be
better to have an honest intellectual discussion and debate about your values
and the pragmatic dangers of secrecy and mass surveillance.

~~~
joezydeco
This one line

 _" The General seemed convinced that if only I knew what he knew, I would
agree with him."_

Makes me think back to that Daniel Ellsberg article where he's briefing
Kissinger for the first time about having access to the whole of the USA's
intelligence banks:

 _" First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by
having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second,
almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked
about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for
years without having known of the existence of all this information, which
presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their
decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish
for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials
and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know
about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that
secret from you so well."_

[1] [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-
ellsber...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-
limitations-knowledge)

~~~
brandonbloom
> if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him

So then tell me what you know that I don't.

Oh, you're also convinced that it's best if I don't know? Well then you'll
forgive me if I maintain some healthy skepticism.

~~~
mikegagnon
Exactly. I believe Gen. Keith Alexander (and the others who espouse that idea)
have been seduced into believing in benevolent dictatorship.

That's not how democracy works though. Fundamentally, democracy is premised on
mistrust in authority (hence voting citizens, checks and balances, the bill of
rights, etc.) In a democracy, the citizens aren't expected to blindly trust
the authorities. The citizens must be informed, the citizens must make their
own judgements, and then they will vote for legislators and executives who
share their platforms.

I believe the government's stance is "but if we debate these issues publicly,
it will tip our hand to the terrorists, which would defeat the whole purpose
of mass surveillance in the first place." That's a legitimate concern.

However, my stance is that in a democracy not every form of law enforcement
and secret surveillance is possible. If a law or policy only succeeds if it is
kept secret from the citizens, then that law or policy is incompatible with
democracy. Only that which can be publicly debated can be made law.

The key in debating these issues is that opponents and advocates need to
discuss and debate the issues without assuming each other are evil. And
everyone must maintain an open mind. Because otherwise, we will never find
ways to overcome our differences and address the root issues (differing values
and concerns).

------
jnbiche
The stunning thing to me is that Gen. Alexander clearly sees this at least
partially as a left/right issue, or at least that was his game at this dinner.
In fact, most of the left-leaning people I know, with the exception of the
civil libertarian leftist, have been averting their eyes from the whole
surveillance issue now that Obama is in office. The left and right are hand-
in-hand together in this. The only people opposing it are the civil
libertarians on the left and the libertarians on the right, both with equal
conviction.

So the fact that he attributes her concern to being "to the left of Sen.
Wyden" is very interesting and tell me a lot about his worldview. And yet so
many Democrat leftist have been defending this program (or at least ignoring
it) and going after Greenwald with an energy unseen from the right. Some
thinking Democrats may be finally waking up to the threat this poses to our
democracy, regardless of who is now in office, but the majority of them still
are standing behind Obama (see recent vote on defunding the NSA surveilance
program).

~~~
zachrose
Similarly, I'm surprised that I haven't heard about much overlap between 2nd
Amendment groups and those concerned about NSA surveillance. What's the use is
your stockpile of assault rifles if all your communications are tapped?

~~~
presidentender
I am a state-level leader in a firearms education group that the SPLC
characterizes as a militia. Every individual instructor I've worked with has
spoken out against this overreach.

~~~
dragonwriter
The organization you identify later in the thread (Project Appleseed) does not
appear to be on any list of militias, "patriot groups", or hate groups
published by the SPLC that I can find [2].

The closest evidence thing I can find to anyone from the SPLC identifying
Project Appleseed as a militia is a 2010 New York Times article [1] about
Project Appleseed in which the article (not the SPLC) spends some time
discussing Appleseed in the context of militia and Tea Party movements, and
someone from the SPLC -- not labeling Appleseed a militia -- is quoted
referring to the possibility that someone from an extremist group would come
_to_ Appleseed and learn to be a sniper in a paragraph about that being a
threat _to_ (not _from_ ) Appleseed.

I do find lots of links to that article on right-wing, pro-gun blogs pointing
to this article referring to it being the NY Times and/or SPLC and/or the Jews
supposedly behind either or both of those organizations targetting Appleseed,
but I don't see any evidence that the SPLC has actually labelled Appleseed a
militia.

[1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01Appleseed-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01Appleseed-t.html?pagewanted=all)

[2] Particularly, its not on this list of Patriot groups (of which militias
are subset): [http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-
report/br...](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-
report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-
states)

~~~
presidentender
I stand corrected. My information came secondhand from a Border Patrol agent,
who asserted that we were part of a list he'd seen, and from conversation with
some of those folks who are posting on the forums you mentioned. I should've
sourced it myself before speaking, and I apologize for my failure to do so.

My point was not to impugn the SPLC specifically, but rather to indicate that
a group that draws some criticism for its firearms association includes a
whole lot of people who are very angry about NSA surveillance.

------
davidp
Gen. Alexander, Obama, Bush, Feinstein, all these people's arguments basically
boil down to "trust us." I always want to ask those people this question:
Sure, maybe you're a trustworthy, good man. What mechanism is in place to
guarantee that the next person is? And the next one? And the person after
that?

Without an external mechanism -- as external as the courts are to the Justice
Department -- we're putting our trust in men and not in laws. This nation's
foundation is the rule of law, not the rule of men. "Trust us" only works when
there's another trusted adversary overseeing the trusted, who are themselves
subject to scrutiny.

~~~
anologwintermut
It's a very good question and should be the focus of criticizing the NSA's
programs unless we have evidence that what they did was malicious (blackmail,
etc).

But I don't think they mean that when they say trust us. They typically mean:
trust us, if you knew the threats we face and the fact that this is effective,
you'd think the risks were worth it too. In addition they mean trust us not to
abuse that power, but that is the smaller point.

In fact, I suspect they'd argue the risk for abuse is outweighed by the
consequences of terrorism(a statement I'd disagree with), even if you aren't
sure they are honest.

~~~
davidp
> they'd argue the risk for abuse is outweighed by the consequences of
> terrorism( I statement I'd disagree with)

Precisely, and I agree with your disagreement there. They tout "zero deaths
from terrorism" as though that were the primary objective. It isn't. I'd
rather die in a terrorist attack while living free than live in fear of the
state.

------
crummy
"I think Gen. Alexander believes that history is made by great individuals
standing against evil."

I wonder how many people think Edward Snowden would fit this description!

------
waterlion
This thing about hastily stating how much you love your country seems bizarre.
I don't know if it's a uniquely American thing but to British ears it always
seems odd. It seems like a constant struggle to reassure patriotism in a way
that suggests that the 'battle' for liberty and freedom of expression is lost,
in the same way that self-censorship does (is it a McCarthyist hang-over?).

~~~
mattezell
This is just my opinion - purely conjecture based on my own experiences.. As
someone who has done the very thing that you are questioning, I know that the
following have somewhat been a motivation for me...

It is a very common tactic in interpersonal political debate/discussion in the
U.S. for one side to discredit another's opinion by quickly painting their
sentiments as "anti-American" or "anti-patriotic" \- I've generally seen this
tactic put into play by our right-leaning conservatives.

I think that the 'disclaimer' of stating that you are in fact a patriot is
often merely an attempt to derail the oft-used "SEE - YOU'RE A FREAKING
LIBERAL COMMUNIST WHO HATES PUPPIES, KITTENS AND AMERICA! YOUR OPINIONS ARE
NOW INVALID!"

As sad as it is to say, political debates in the U.S. are rarely about what's
ultimately right or wrong... It's a contest and it's about winning... Not for
everyone, mind you - I'd far rather lose a debate than defend an incorrect
point - but for a lot of people, it's about yelling louder and forcing the
other to concede.

Case in point.. Years ago, I worked in a field that exposed me to A LOT of
military - active and retired... In a "friendly" discussion regarding
socialized healthcare with a person I admired and respected, I stated that I
was 'ok with paying more taxes if it helped fix our healthcare system'. He
quickly became heated, immediately turned aggressive - yelling something to
the effect of "YOU WOULD STEAL MY MONEY AND GIVE IT TO A [racial derogatory
term omitted?!"... He then proceeded to pull his knife off his belt and wave
it towards me in a threatening manner while continuing to rant about me being
a Nazi, before stabbing the knife into a counter and walking off in a huff as
he continued to cuss me out...

We are an interesting and odd mix here in the states...

~~~
brandonbloom
> stating that you are in fact a patriot is often merely an attempt to derail
> the oft-used ...

I actually quite welcome that poor tactic because it enables me to me to say:
"No. Really, I have absolutely no loyalty to America or any other country for
that matter. I'm loyal to humanity, and you should be too."

~~~
mattezell
I think that you've misunderstood me.

Generally, the "I'm a patriot" line is utilized by the left/liberal - who is
usually the more rights, humanitarian, privacy, social healthcare minded of
our two parties.. It's used to preemptively dismantle a favored attack
employed by "the right" \- who are our conservatives, which favor fewer social
services, lower taxes, security being valued over liberty/freedoms (generally,
they supported the Patriot Act and similar such things)...

Consider this contrived example, as it clearly isn't evident from my previous
anecdote...

Liberal: "It's our duty to ensure we don't do damage to human rights for a
little temporary security via overreaching surveillance programs..."

Conservative: "You're a freaking liberal nutjob who would bring harm to
America! YOU LOSE!"

Then...

Liberal: "I am a patriot and love 'Merica, but I feel that it's our duty to
ensure we don't do damage to human rights for a little temporary security via
overreaching surveillance programs..."

Conservative: "Ah. Well.. 'A patriot', you say? I can't argue with that..
[more 'civil' discussion may ensue]"

This has just been my experience.. The general 'caricatures' of our two main
political mindsets could be summarized as: Conservative - Religion over
Education, Christian Government, Guns, Moral Laws, Military, Exclusionary ("If
you don't like it, you can get the hell out of MY country!") Liberal -
Education over Religion, Separation of Church and state, More Restrictive Gun
Laws, Support of Social Services (healthcare), Higher Taxes, Diplomacy over
Military Aggression, Inclusionary ("While I may not see eye to eye with you,
there is room here for us all... That's what makes America great - we don't
have to be of the same faith or belief, yet we can both call this home...")

Again, these are the far ends of the spectrum.. These are stereotypes.. These
are broad generalizations made for the purpose of demonstration - I don't mean
to offend anyone who identifies with either side.

One final bit, using your rebuttal:

Person 1: "No. Really, I have absolutely no loyalty to America or any other
country for that matter. I'm loyal to humanity, and you should be too."

Person 2: [Whips out knife and waves at you aggressively] "You're a communist
puppy hating hippy! You lose! Get out of my country!"

------
analreceiver
I do think he is a bad guy and they're always the best at hiding their true
intentions. I also think you're naive, more so if you admit he lied to your
face.

------
mpyne
See, why can't all those who oppose the NSA be as well-meaning as Ms. Granick
here?

She makes a lot of great points and honestly I'd probably agree more with her
on this article than with Gen. Alexander.

------
rdl
I find it somewhat insulting that he pulled the "go to Pakistan" card, given
that we're generally arguing about domestic spying, not spying in specific
target countries.

