

They Know Much More Than You Think - danboarder
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/nsa-they-know-much-more-you-think/?pagination=false

======
uptown
If what we believe to be true is in-fact true regarding data collection -
isn't every future President compromised? Somewhere, in the massive archive of
phone calls and emails and financial transactions that make-up the digital
profile of their path from birth to the door of the White House is a lie, or a
half-truth, or something that doesn't quite mesh with the public persona they
represented in order to attain elected office. Somewhere in that archive is
something in their past that could be used against them in a way that would
render their Presidency impotent at the very least. Wouldn't those with access
to this information use that for their own gain? To show the newly elected
President what they know, and leverage him or her to make things happen in a
manner that benefits their objectives.

Now step down the ladder of power and authority. Couldn't the same methods be
used against Senators? Congressmen and women? Or maybe judges, mayors, police
chiefs? Stock Markets? Banks? CEOs? College admissions boards? The potential
targets are endless and infinite.

A brilliant quote from Sneakers:

"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and
hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"

The world where these things are possible scares the hell out of me - because
I fear that the amassing of this information will inevitably lead to its
abuse.

~~~
Sven7
Its recursive. What applies to everyone, applies to everyone within the
NSA/intelligence community too...as long as they stay staffed with people
atleast.

~~~
prostoalex
Don't think it's that recursive. If you run for office, and an embarassing
photo or phone call from the past is "leaked" anonymously to ruin your
chances, you cannot turn around and leak something on intelligence community.

~~~
Sven7
If such a system can control a future president, it can also control a future
head of the NSA, or whoever else works within the system going down the
foodchain, to the point where it becomes too much of a risk to its own
existence.

Basically, they are not immune from control, if they build a system that knows
everything about everything.

EDIT: And as for "you cannot turn around and leak something on theintelligence
community" you dont have too...future Snowdens and Mannings (who are growing
up, fed on all sorts of conspiracies on reddit and other fora) will.

~~~
etiam
> future Snowdens and Mannings (who are growing up, fed on all sorts of
> conspiracies on reddit and other fora) will.

The future equivalents of Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning could very well
be detected and put under control before they have a chance to blow the
whistle. It seems in the wake of the Snowden revelations that the NSA is
already considering making conformism to authority a more important criterion
to be hired, and if they were to use their collected information to profile
new hires they should have a really good idea about interests and
inclinations.

------
ArkyBeagle
"The value we are trading away, under the surveillance programs as presently
constituted, are quality of governance. This is not a debate about privacy. It
is a debate about corruption."

[http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html](http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4435.html)

Orwell himself could not have said it better.

------
w_t_payne
Perhaps it is coincidence, but a lot of recent policy changes seem to have the
effect of moving us towards authoritarianism.

It is worth bearing in mind that everything that us humans do, ultimately, is
driven by our biology: our natural instincts and our natural drives.

We are pack animals. The pack has alpha males and beta males. The alpha males
are driven to show their dominance of the beta males by reminding them of
their subservient status as frequently, as forcefully and as intrusively as
possible.

Authoritarianism is nothing more than the societal manifestation of that
natural drive. Us beta males (the general population) are having our noses
rubbed in the dirt by the alpha males (the authorities) so that they can feel
good about their own superiority.

We are just reverting to type - stupid, prideful apes that we are.

~~~
jka
Alpha humans I'm not so concerned about - every group has a few larger-than-
life personalities who will show off a little more, lead the pack, etc - I'm
not sure it's strictly fair to say that these individuals are always driven to
rub people's noses in things and trying to take authority. Some people make
good leaders and have empathy.

What I am worried about, and the criteria that fits your description more
neatly (in my opinion -- I'm not a psychologist) is sociopathic behaviour -
manipulative, deceptive, sans empathy, and in pursuit of power/dominance, but
often outwardly charming.

These people can do very well and reach very powerful positions - there are
statistics showing that density of sociopaths is higher amongst the population
of CEOs than amongst the general population for example. There's probably fair
reason to assume that many would love to have access to the kind of
information and power that spy agencies now possess.

Interestingly and controversially there has also been research into using 'big
data' to identify sociopathic tendencies. Would spy agencies use this, and
would they ever turn the glass on their own employees/leaders? I think the
answer is that they would, but they would easily be convinced that they need
powerful leaders to ensure the ongoing dominance of their countries on a
global scale.

[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-
psych...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/23/twitter-psychopaths)

PS: I felt compelled to reply because I think it's a little dangerous to
suggest that this is a purely natural result of human pack behaviour - it is
possible to spot and call out sociopathic behaviour if it can be identified,
and so I don't personally think this trend towards authoritarianism is natural
or unstoppable.

~~~
w_t_payne
"Natural" neither implies good nor inevitable -- but it is a behavioural
attractor that we gravitate towards unless we take particular care. Perhaps
the term "Alpha male" was inappropriate - maybe "sociopath" might have been
better - either way, despite the smoke-screen of rationality, I suspect that
many of the laws and regulations in our society today exist in the form that
they do primarily to make us subjects aware of our subjugation, and to "keep
us in our place".

How else do you explain the DMV?

------
pstuart
So what can we do to change this?

~~~
snitko
Maybe you can vote better next time. Because, after all, voting is a real
thing, it can change things. At least, I heard Obama said this.

~~~
hdevalence
Voting isn't the be-all and end-all of the political process.

If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4
years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed.

If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than
the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton
of hard work.

~~~
pstuart
The comment was a snarky dismissal of the political process and Obama as well.
There are some truths to it but doesn't add to the conversation.

I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption,
because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit
on some server unencrypted.

It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having _everybody_ care that this
is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have
nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered.

Edit: replying to fotbr below

Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That
would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a
different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you
don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.

~~~
fotbr
It was a snarky dismissal, yes, but I think it points out something quite
valuable that a lot of people overlook -- Obama's election message was that
voting matters, that it effects change, and that he was different, etc. He has
utterly and completely failed to live up to that message. Which is fine, he
was a politician trying to get elected and that's the way the system works --
anyone who honestly believes ANYTHING a politician says during a campaign (or
any other time, for that matter) needs their head examined.

Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted
communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only
the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key
(or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the
recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any
steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third
parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your
message security, being betrayed.

As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you
have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely
cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a
surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to
successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than
anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size,
or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to
require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down.

I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions
for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by
any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and
more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or
even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way
anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the
structure keeps rotting.

~~~
brokenmusic
I completely agree with you on not accepting the violent way of changing
things and on the fact the system has gone too far to be changed through
instituted processes.

One non-violent way of changing things I see is to use Bitcoin for saving and
transactions as much as possible, because I don't feed the system with my tax
money and confiscation through inflation. It's not perfect, but to me it's far
superior to anything we have so far.

Look at it this way. If a thief on the street approaches you and tries to rob
you, you have three ways: 1) beg him to not rob you (wouldn't work) 2) fight
(would work, but you can get hurt) and 3) pretend you don't have any money (in
which case he might as well decide to not bother with you if you can convince
him you really don't have it).

------
danso
With all the stories that have come out post-Snowden, I'll admit that many of
the details or revelations have kind of become noise to me (it doesn't help
that the subject matter is prone to technical interpretation). But James
Bamford's take on it is one of the clearest, contextualized explanations of
the situation...I personally think that Bamford should be thought of in the
same pantheon of great government reporters as Bob Woodward and Seymour
Hersh...he researched and wrote the very first book on the NSA, starting out
by reading through the NSA staff newsletters that he stumbled upon and working
his way methodically through the organization. A real inspiration for how
accountability journalism can be done even when the subject is the NSA and you
don't have a Snowden.

------
coldcode
Also the likelihood of a future president using this information to further
their political connections is pretty high. If you can destroy members of the
other party using all this information you will have to or they will. This
will lead to much more inter-party fighting to become the holder of the data
first.

