
Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists - exit
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/cyberscare_ex_nsa_chief_calls_transparency_groups_hackers_next_terrorists/singleton/
======
kshatrea
People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such
being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied
about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government
by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no
longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it,
will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. The
word "terrorist" is only the latest in a long string.

tl;dr government != country.

~~~
weland
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and
> those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy
> as that is only obvious.

A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people
who elected them.

Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on
their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image
of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who
invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-
driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't
just spring out from the ground.

Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to
radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of
the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one
made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will
eval to false.

~~~
rst
I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's
massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama. By 2012, it was clear
he wasn't following through, but the other candidate on offer would almost
certainly have been, on balance, a whole lot worse --- and a bad choice is
still a choice.

When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and
when do you think I had an opportunity to change that through the ballot box?

~~~
betterunix
"I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's
massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama"

Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was
saying at the time?

"the other candidate"

Which other candidate? Here are some of the people who were running in the
2008 election:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008)

You had a lot of choices then. You also had a lot of choices in 2012:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012)

~~~
rhizome
_Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was
saying at the time?_

You mean, like, his voting record in Congress?

------
brudgers
_" who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years."_

This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the
data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for
the data collection was tracking Muslims.

The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and
homophobes are in positions of power.

~~~
threeseed
Can we all please just take a deep breath and stop with the hyperbole.

The US government is not planning to commit genocide against gay people or
whatever ridiculous premise you're insinuating.

~~~
MisterWebz
First they came for the terrorists, then they came after the drug dealers...

You're right though, it is a ridiculous premise. There's no profit to be made
from genocide.

~~~
dreen
> There's no profit to be made from genocide.

You should take a look at companies contracted by 3rd Reich government to run
german concentration camps. They made A LOT of money.

------
scrrr
So expressing support for Snowden is suggested to be a sign I might be a
threat to a country. Way to accelerate the self-censorship (and the subsequent
censorship of thought) that this whole surveillance disaster creates.

~~~
rainsford
I don't know exactly who Hayden was talking about, but various people on the
Internet have done a lot more than "express support". Calls for "revolution"
and "rioting in the streets" seem to pop up in comments on these stories on a
pretty regular basis on various sites. But there have also been suggestions of
more specific action, including shooting FISA court judges and others and one
guy on Reddit speculating about blowing up parts of the power grid.

Now I'm sure most of that is pointless Internet talk. But it certainly goes
way beyond expressions of support or discussion of changing policy or laws
through democratic means.

~~~
perlpimp
All over it has been established that per-se democracy does not exist anymore.
Meaning that wealthy and powerful have more democracy allotted to them than to
the rest. Actually what is seems is that government is putting screws real
tight on the lid because if whole FIAT dollar thing fails - there will be no
more democracy and only Militarized police and thorough monitoring of the
people will stop an extraordinary event such as Civil war or revolution from
happening.

~~~
bhashkarsharma
Reminds me of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others".

------
nohuck13
Original Guardian article here:
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-
direct...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/06/nsa-director-
cyber-terrorism-snowden?CMP=twt_gu)

Interesting quote further down where he begs the question, Betteridge's-law-
of-headlines-style:

Hayden: "But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks
who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global
web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic
between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest,
but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and
scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."

~~~
tootie
Yeah, the Salon article is thinly veiled editorial. It extrapolates quite a
bit from what Hayden actually said which was pretty reasonable. He is not
saying hackers=terrorists, but rather some hackers may turn to terrorism-style
attacks and he is probably correct.

~~~
nohuck13
Yup. Though Hayden is engaged in politicking. Salon is engaged in politicking
while reporting on Hayden's politicking.

When I'm feeling extra rational, I really dislike this, even when I agree with
views like Salon's. It's bad if we fight dumb politicking with more dumb
politicking from the other direction.

------
jimparkins
We live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. This sounds like
an old transcript saying that if you disagree with the government / military
you must instantly be a communist. Feels like we are only a step away from
public service announcements on how to spot if your child is a terrorist
because they spend a lot of time on their computer.

~~~
northwest
> We live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

But now, we have storage and much faster circulation of information. Which
means we can track these "mistakes", dig them up easily whenever they're about
to be repeated and discuss them again (better yet, "fork" the old discussion
and adapt it to the current issue).

Maybe somebody should build the perfect tool to do just this. (I feel it
doesn't exist yet, but the need is now clearly here.)

EDIT: I tried to hint at that (in this case regarding surveillance only) here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152935](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152935)

------
nicholassmith
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Which side of
the argument you're stood on.

It's completely ridiculous in many ways, but it's often been the case that
people who are passionate activists willing to stand up against perceived
injustices are viewed as a menace. It just means that they now think hackers
are a serious threat.

~~~
duaneb
I'm more worried about who they will label as hackers. Probably everyone on
Hacker News, for instance.

------
w_t_payne
Michael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is
an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed.

So, here is my response:-

There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his
analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the
culture that prevails in the corridors of power.

It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not
fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications
technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new
communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture,
religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common
cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles.

It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should
feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that
it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations
that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation
State.

To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of
the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their
shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to
which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in
terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions.

So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests
and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a
distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than
one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and
identifiable physical threat.

As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and
reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive
biases.

Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups
seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in
terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units,
and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on.

Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat
posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political
mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly
what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary
battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former
department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf
on which he feels most comfortable.

This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and
provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He
ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up
hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of
divide-and-conquer.

So, we have two threads in his speculation:-

The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of
scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of
the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and
consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his
foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making
demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This
contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a
collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming,
others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.

~~~
rst
Dismissive sneers at the opposition aren't an attempt to provoke or engage
debate. They're an attempt to sideline it, and effectively shut it down.

~~~
w_t_payne
Then I have been doing the wrong thing too....

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I think you are entirely correct and that you have delineated the deep
structure of the scenario we find ourselves in.

Are you familiar with the work of Ken Wilber who, standing on the shoulders of
giants, popularised the ideas of Developmental Psychology that support your
claim?

Hayden uses language in a specific way that indicates the centre of gravity of
his consciousness is located in a very Conventional / Conformist / Concrete-
operational place. He speaks in terms of heroic status, power, glory, rage,
revenge; take what you need, power over others, force. The downside to all of
this is anxiety, depression, phobias, bullying, terrorism etc etc.

This stage of development sees anything that isn't at the same stage as a
threat, and tends to respond to everything with escalating violence / force /
arrest.

It is the nature of this stage of psychological development to create threats
where none exist, because it defines itself in terms of what occurs when those
threats are push against.

Ultimately, what we most pressingly need is to work out how to move the world
through this developmental stage before we manage to work ourselves in to some
really atrocious place.

Each new development in technology represents a new development in
consciousness, it brings with it new ways to connect and create together as a
nation of people ever so less fixed to any one geographical area. I've seen
Earth from space, didn't see any boarders. As well as all new and terrifying
ways to annihilate ourselves.

Perceived through the framework of Developmental Psychology, as it was
progressed by the above authors, and with an eye to the greater historical
context this is all occurring in, it's all very predictable.

The "competing view", as you put it, that sees the world as a "collection of
ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others
dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical" is located at a
stage of psychological development that is a full four stages above the one
Hayden is speaking from.

To further support this refer to the works of Ken Wilber, particularly
Integral Psychology it's end notes and references. Also, Jane Loevinger, Susan
Cook-Greuter, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Abraham Maslow.

Edit: grammar

~~~
w_t_payne
I am afraid that I am almost entirely ignorant of psychological literature,
and I shall seek to remedy my deficiency in the directions that you have
mentioned, with my grateful thanks for your suggestions.

~~~
quantumpotato_
Excellent starting point: [http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-
Evolution-Edi...](http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-Evolution-
Edition/dp/1570627444)

~~~
w_t_payne
Gawd. Looks utterly ghastly....

~~~
quantumpotato_
You can give it a shot at [0]. I think it's well thought out written theory of
how psychology develops. The core of their theory divides evolution of
"holons" (simultaneous parts&wholes) on 2 axies: internal vs outer processes
and individual vs society

Problems arise when a node stretches too far in a particular direction, or
fuses to tightly with its current "holon" level and refuses to synthesize its
axis to evolve.

I encourage you to read the first chapter or two before making a value
judgement on the book.

------
laumars
Greywolf Borealis in the Salon comments section put it better than I ever
could:

 _> Hackers may be the terrorists of the future, but the real terrorist of
today is the NSA. They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on
United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. That is pretty
scary._

------
InclinedPlane
McCarthy again.

Here's the thing about McCarthy, Communists were fucking everywhere. I don't
mean ideological communists, I mean Soviet secret agents. They were in every
level of government. They helped funnel the most secret of information to the
USSR.

And that's not all, the Soviets were erecting a police state to control
hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. They had a tremendous
military force with millions of soldiers. They were cranking out more tanks
than had ever been in any war in history. And bombers. And they had nuclear
weapons and the means to deliver them to US cities in short order.

But none of that justified Senator McCarthy's abuses of power and violations
of the rights of American citizens.

Here we are now faced with the threat of terrorism. Or to be more broad about
it, the threat of jihadist radical Islamist fundamentalists (both in al qaeda
and elsewhere). We know that these forces pose a serious threat to the US,
just as the Soviets did. But is this danger on the same scale as the Cold War?
Not even close. Does it justify abrogation of our cherished liberty and
privacy? Never.

~~~
duaneb
I frankly don't believe for an instance "terrorists" pose any substantial
threat to the US. Even 911 is chump change on the scale of how much terror our
own government had brought down on foreigners, and the idea that they used
3000 dead to justify a seize of power is just disgusting.

------
wtvanhest
Look, I'm not comfortable with the NSA program but...

This is the second Salon article in 2 days that is way over sensationalized. I
get that this is interesting to people on HN, but I think we could wait for
better articles to upvote.

~~~
duaneb
The interesting parts are quoted anyway.

------
lifeisstillgood
I feel there is a fundamental mismatch of what constitutes a matter of
national security.

All (?) nation states have a right to prevent their own destruction, but I
think the triggers that set off the immune system reaction are important - I,
and I think a lot of HN, would say there is a minimum level of expected harm
before a matter is consider national security level - lets say for arguments
sake a loss of 2% GDP or 1,000 dead. And the motivation of the persons is
irrelevant - so the banking crisis of 2008 would be considered a national
security matter by me, but two maniacs hacking a soldier to death on the
streets of the UK would not (a crime yes, murder, yes, possibly politically
motivated yes - but not a matter that threatens our nationstate)

However Hayden seems to be the reverse - there is no minimum level of harm
(one life is too many, one defaced website is too much) but the political
motivations of the people is important - so his views in the banking crisis
and murders on the street seem reversed.

Maybe it is a useful viewpoint

------
baseten
>"twentysomethings who haven’t talked to the opposite sex in >five or six
years"

Has he SEEN Snowden's former girlfriend? This trope should be retired based on
that point alone.

------
viraptor
Sometimes I wish that "Little brother" was a completely made up story. But
lately many parts of it read like a script for what's happening at the moment.
What is published by news lately makes me wonder what would happen the next
time some big event in the US happens... the first "conspiracy theory" will be
- NSA/FBI/... organised it (wouldn't be hard, people were given "support"
before so that they can be arrested - just skip the arrest part) to prove more
monitoring and control is needed. And could anyone really disagree at that
point?

Some of that was already seen after the news about closing the embassies.
There were many comments saying it's only a show, put on to "prove" that there
really is a danger of something happening.

------
rdl
As long as we are going to try to be provocative: Hayden is responsible for
most of the technical and policy changes at NSA (and presumably the same at
CIA) which "caused" both Snowden and Manning, or at least turned then from
minor discontents to 1) motivated leakers 2) with the means to leak massive
amounts.

I personally support Snowden, but think Manning was indiscriminate and
motivated mainly by personal issues, using public interest as a fig leaf.

Were I to hang Manning for treason, there would be a gallows to the left for
Hayden. Arguably being much more senior and invested in the system, and
presumed to be trustworthy and competent, his crimes were worse, even if less
direct.

------
dbond
witches -> communists -> terrorists -> hackers...

~~~
alan_cx
You forgot file sharers, drugs and pedophiles. All of which have been since
been said to fund the terrorism.

Which in the case of drugs, IIRC, is true. Didn't the CIA use cocaine
trafficking to fund some black type ops?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Didn't the CIA use cocaine trafficking to fund some black type ops?

Yes, and if the number of bankers recently convicted of widely exposed and
very large money laundering operations (Wachovia, HSBC, etc) is any
indication, they continue to do so. See also:

# Air America

# The Iran Contra affair.

# Mena Arkansas (CIA investigated itself and found no wrongdoing)

# BCCI (CIA money laundering)

# The Politics of Heroin - McCoy (book with lots of source citations)

# Crop spraying in Central America[1], (the policy efforts have directly[2]
and indirectly[3] increases cocaine production, yet they continue.)

# Etc. etc. ad nauseam

[1] With bullet-resistant crop-dusters! (look for "Air Tractor")
[http://www.economist.com/node/17647585](http://www.economist.com/node/17647585)

[2] Search for "Roundup Ready Cocaine"

[3] By killing subsistence farmers' food crops, incentivizing the cultivation
of higher profit crops like coca.

------
Adam503
Michael Hayden was NSA director from 1999 to 2005. Michael Hayden literally
was being paid a big salary to stop 9/11 from happening. How'd that go for
him? Not so good.

Look at ALL THE TOOLS we now know the NSA Director really had at his disposal
to prevent a foreign terrorist from hitting the US on 9/11\. Micheal Hayden
name's should down in along side infamous names like the Admiral who commanded
the Pacific Fleet the day of Pearl Harbor.

Michael Hayden is the textbook definition of "the man who can't find his ass
with two hands and an assmap." Hayden's picture should appear next to it in
Famous Quotation books.

------
tmzt
What will they do about the person or persons who disclosed the provenance of
the information leading to the closing of multiple designated sites in
countries in MENA?

Should we not protect the sources and methods involved in obtaining
communications (not chatter, but actual intelligence) of such high valued
targets as the head of the group we are most interested in, and a local
organization with similar goals and growing scale?

I assume that whoever this person was is on the run, or at least not speaking
from an official podium or floor of an illustrious deliberative body, right?

------
ohwp
This is a great argument against people who "got nothing to hide".

If the government suddenly decides you are a terrorist you will understand
privacy is a good thing.

~~~
bostik
There was a very good article on that subject in Chronicle two years ago.
([http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-
if/127...](http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/))

IIRC Bruce Schneier has made an excellent point too: "nothing to hide" becomes
destructive the moment those in power get to decide what is the current
definition of "illegal" or "dangerous". Just find all occurrences and shows of
support of the $new_threat in the available personal histories and persecute
at will.

In other words, it's _never_ the right approach.

------
mcphilip
For a glimpse at one possible future of U.S. democracy, I highly recommend
this longform nonfiction article about Turkey [1]. It goes into detail about
"...the resistance of what is commonly referred to as derin devlet, the 'deep
state.'" Later on: "The deep state, historians say, has functioned as a kind
of shadow government, disseminating propaganda to whip up public fear or
destabilizing civilian governments not to its liking."

The indifference with which our intelligence apparatus treats foreigners could
easily be (or already has?) turned on U.S. citizens if a similar "deep state"
narrative develops in the U.S. All it would take are a couple loosely linked
plots successfully pulled off by American citizens to construct a narrative
(i.e. rationale) for turning the full forces of the intelligence apparatus
onto all U.S. citizens.

[1][http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all)

------
DanielBMarkham
The thing is, Hayden has a point. Geesh, never thought I'd be saying that!

Terrorism is an act of _politics_ , not warfare. It's the use of stealth to
deliberately attack civilian targets _in order to affect political change_.
(My working definition only). The goal of terrorism isn't dead people, and you
don't weigh a terrorist campaign by how many bodies it creates. Terrorism is
all about striking fear into the heart of the population in order to get them
to _vote_ or behave differently. That's why the tactic of terrorism is so
effective against modern democracies. With the help of mass media, a few crazy
people can inflict fear on millions.

So sure, in response to the United States' government implementing draconian
surveillance technology, some 20-somethings that live in their parent's
basement and have no life (notice how quickly the stereotypes come?) will
strike out stealthily in order to inflict fear on the population, to be
noticed.

But what he's missing is what military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan have
learned: you don't put out fires by dumping gasoline on them. In other words,
the asshole that approved of this idiotic idea to store everything possible
and then search later is the last person in the world you want defending it.
He's gone off the reservation and somebody should shut him up before he makes
things worse.

If the establishment starts circling the wagons on this issue, and it looks
like that's what is happening, it's going to drive a wedge between the people
and the government. This is not a good thing for them to be doing, terrorist
threat or not.

All these political and agency leaders are betting that the next time there's
a terrorist attack -- and there will be -- that anybody who supported killing
this program will be rounded up and laughed at. I'm not so sure about that. I
wouldn't bet on it.

~~~
duaneb
Terrorism has not been used in any well-defined way for years and is a
demagoguery technique. The government has been throwing fuel on the "let's
exploit our ability to terrify our citizens" since 9/11.

------
miguelrochefort
The next major "terrorist" movement will come from transparency groups, but
not for the reasons you think. Actually, most of you would probably be against
such groups.

Instead of focusing on government transparency, they will seek total
transparency. They will track everything, everywhere. They will collect
information about you and me. They will install cameras and trackers
everywhere (in a decentralised fashion). They will link your online profiles
together. They will make your address and phone number public.

The next major "terrorist" movement will force societal transparency. They
won't be personally motivated. They will do it for the well-being of society
as a whole. Privacy is evil, and we should get rid of it before it's too late.
Information should flow freely, and it will.

I predict that transparency will be forced upon us all, not just the
government. But most of you can't see it.

------
cpursley
Lesson? Don't pose a threat or appear to threaten the _' legitimacy'_ of the
mafia, er, state.

------
hathaway
I hate this type of pointless rhetoric. Politics of fear.

------
kstop
I can't help but wonder if he's maybe exaggerating the security of .mil.

------
mistercow
>“They may want to come after the US government, but frankly, you know, the
dot-mil stuff is about the hardest target in the United States,” Hayden said

Is he trying to get .mil sites targeted? Does he understand psychology at all?

~~~
mcguire
Does he understand security at all? "Hardest target"?

This is not a smart man.

------
Link-
In other words: "In the name of the People, we demand more power."

------
mindcrime
_People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be
afraid of their people_.

As true today as ever... And unfortunately for us, at the moment, the balance
is way to far in favor of "the people are scared of their government". People
like Snowden and Manning risk moving the balance the other way, so of course
high-ranking government official types will spazz out over this stuff.
Transparency is anathema to corruption and abuse of power.

------
bowlofpetunias
This is the next move. Criminalizing the opposition not because of their
actions, but simply because they are the opposition. And it's not a response
to Snowden, it has been decades in the making by slowly making everything that
could potentially pose a threat a criminal offense.

It's only a matter of time before the question will be asked: _" Are you now
or have you ever been a hacker?"_

------
nohuck13
Completely off topic to otherwise excellent discussion, but funny how
"nihilists" were the first thing he flagged up.

I can't think of nihilists without thinking of The Big Lebowski.
[http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/81096/nihilists.j...](http://assets.sbnation.com/imported_assets/81096/nihilists.jpg)

------
darkarmani
I find this quote highly offensive:

"Who for them are the World Trade Centers?"

Thousands of people died and many others thought they barely cheated death.
It's insulting to compare that with the dangers of these "hackers."

Is there a Godwin's law of the NSA now that involves the WTC?

------
ethanazir
Respect my authorty!

------
rittme
and if you're a hacker outside US soil you should start watching out for the
drones...

~~~
alan_cx
How high is your confidence in the word "outside"?

~~~
w_t_payne
What happens when they photocopy the confidence-of-not-being-american tables
with a Xerox copier?

------
skue
So Hayden is playing bad cop, while Alexander plays god cop?

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

------
northwest
It's a very clever recruiting strategy. ;-)

~~~
Ygg2
For what? Witchunters?

------
runn1ng
...aaaand to Guantanamo you go.

------
ianstallings
Must be fundraising time. _Yawns_.

------
LekkoscPiwa
yesterday Muslims, today hackers, tomorrow 82 year old nuns will be called
terrorists!

~~~
pvnick
I assume you're talking about this:
[https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7](https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7)

------
AsymetricCom
How long do I have to use this site before I get downvote?

~~~
unimpressive
It comes at 500 karma. You'll have to wait a while. And if you mean the
article, then you'll never get downvote. There is no downvoting articles. Only
flagging.

~~~
aluhut
Oh I thought it was removed completly. I understood that but this 500 points-
rule souds like an invitation to karma whoring...

I'll return to my silent existence now.

~~~
x3c
Karma-whoring will be counterproductive if the community doesn't
solicit/reward such behaviour. And this attitude of the community has more or
less thwarted karma-whoring till now. We'll see how this works out in future.

~~~
aluhut
Really? How do you realise it is carma whoring on such a high niveau portal? I
see many comments stating the obvious getting their upvotes, not contributing
anything useful to a topic. It is still carma whoring, just on a high niveau.
This is what such a system creates and it forces you to scroll more to find
the really useful comment. I know it works, I did it too ;)

Removing the system completly while integrating a clever report-system would
have been more useful here imho.

