The only attack is a single phrase, referring to him as a "sociopathic billionaire". I don't think his status as a billionaire is questioned, so you must object to the use of the one word "sociopathic". Let's check the DSM-IV:
Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture"
Am I alone in liking Peter Thiel? None of what he's done, including the blood, seems particularly wrong to me. With the exception of supporting Trump. But I think he supports Trump because he feels influence on the man is underpriced considering his 20% chance of winning, rather than any love of his policies.
As far as I am aware he has never been diagnosed by a licensed psychologist. Indications of sociopathic tendencies are not evidence enough that he is a sociopath, diagnosis is.
Is describing someone as sociopathic really any different than saying that they have indications of sociopathic tendencies, though? If I describe someone as crepuscular based on when I see them active, it doesn't make them a short-eared owl.
I recall that Thiel wants to get blood transfusions from people younger than him to prolong his own life.
Many of the apparently absurd claims about Thiel are, well, absolutely true. Indeed, this particular one was linked directly to a news article about it.
Not every single time! Apple acquisitions generally don't even acknowledge that they've been acquired, let alone what that means for anyone or anything.
This is exactly what the NSA should be doing. Everyone (rightfully IMO) complains about overly broad data collection happening within the USA, but here (as with stuxnet) you have the exact opposite, a targeted foreign activity conducted with care and targeting. I know it's not for everyone (not least because not everyone is in the states, huh), and it could be considered a bad precedent, but it's not like Iran asked our permission before they launched their nuclear program, or other states are actually waiting on the US's example to have their own intelligence services do their jobs. If you hold that something like 9/11 should be prevented, and that (actual) WMD programs should be stalled, then it follows that this is a fine way to go about it.
You make a good point, but the part about Iran asking for our permission before starting the nuclear program doesn't really add much. Of course they didn't ask, just like the US didn't ask before starting our nuclear program. A nation state is an autonomous entity, and doesn't ask permission before making any action within its own borders.
The US, and any other nation state, will of course conduct covert operations, including spying on other nation states. I don't find anything inherently wrong or immoral about this, but I don't think anyone can act surprised or indignant if other nation states don't like being spied on or hacked. You don't gain the moral high ground by pointing out they didn't ask for our permission to build something in their own borders.
Yes, we spy on other nations, and we probably should; but the consequence of that is that other nations will trust you less when you are caught, and that is just the natural consequence of spying.
As a signatory to the NPT, which has been ratified by the United States and is therefore law, Iran is legally entitled to have a nuclear energy program.
It's not particularly easy to tell facilities for making enriched uranium (viable as fuel) from facilities making weapons-grade HEU.
Sure it is: anytime you enrich uranium beyond 5%, you're trying to make a bomb.
Iran was proudly announcing enriching over 60%, which is the highest amount anyone, anywhere, ever, needs to do (60% is for neutron-optimized research reactors).
Not to sound snarky but Saddam was boasting sitting on an arsenal of WMDs before the world found out there was zero truth to it. That's why UN inspections are used, however effectively, you just can't rely on Government propaganda to establish facts.
The NPT works the other way around. It is a bargain between the nuclear weapons powers and the non-weapon powers. Non-weapon powers get access to civilian nuclear technology and know-how in exchange for a promise (and safeguards) to not develop weapon systems. Additionally weapon powers agree to negotiate towards an end to all nuclear weapons (but in a very woolly, no real commitment kind of way).
Non signers get no access to any technology or know-how from signers but are free to act as they please. Israel, Pakistan and India all fall into this category. They can act as they please.
1. US law provides for ratified treaties to have the same force as federal law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause)
2. The US and Iran have both ratified the NPT
3. The NPT guarantees the rights of signatories to establish peaceful nuclear programs
4. It's therefore, in theory, illegal under US federal law (which of course, at least applies to US persons) to interfere with the establishment of a peaceful Iranian nuclear program.
The practice of course, differs greatly from the theory. This is because, as per usual, law is more about politics than law.
I am from germany and I hope most of americans don't have this point of view.
1. give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks? why should we? We've lost the keystone of freedom when we do this and they have already won.
2. Do you really think these extensive intelligences do stop terror? (maybe they do sometimes, but terrorists will find new ways)
3. IS and others are the result of the Iraq war which was a offensive war from the US justified by a lie (Sadam had no weapon of mass destruction). Do you still think that America is the world police? The reputation of the US has gone rapidly down in the last decade. For the most here in germany the US are not the good ones any more. Other countries have their own way of life. America has to accept that.
> "give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks?"
What level of freedom is lost here? We're NOT talking about mass surveillance generally but the targeted access described by the OP. It's the difference between the police parking a van outside a suspected gang hideout (hopefully after getting a warrant), and parking a van outside every home in America. Most Americans are OK with the former and NOT OK with the latter. And, IMHO, that's a valid trade-off to make in a democratic society.
You might object to a particular surveillance target (Merkel), which is understandable. But would you object to spying on Putin? I suspect even Germany (especially Germany) would be okay with the NSA conducting targeted surveillance of senior members of the Russian military with ties to Eastern Ukraine.
In an ideal world, there would be no surveillance or any surrender of liberty in any scenario. But the world is not ideal and compromises are made. Germany is not immune to this. Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. The challenge is not to reject all infringements of freedom wholesale but to identify where lines can be drawn between what can be tolerated and what must not.
They excluded a few countries and two usernames. Medium-level infection reached 18 countries.
I think it's foolish to defend alleged NSA operations when the NSA won't even acknowledge such operations.
If the government wants to have a debate about the rules of digital warfare (or a particular war), then let's. If they don't, then why should we defend their secret tactics? We have no idea what the motives and objectives are of these operations. And we have little knowledge about how they've affected people, innocent or otherwise.
Your casual analogy to parking vans outside homes seems reasonable. Until you consider what that actually means in our real life. For instance, vans outside homes has been a large part of the war on drugs which has imprisoned a staggering number of black youth. What do you think is the analogous fallout of this malware? Drone strikes? Defend those.
The notation that a debate on the rules of digital warfare will do anything is questionable.
Arms control limitations (SALT,START), the hague convention, etc, work because there are means of verifying countries adhere to what they agree on (and ostensibly punishing those who don't).
Given the difficulty of attributing cyber attacks (e.g. Sony), much less cyber espionage, there's little reason to think this is possible in this case. And that's just for direct action.
If we're talking about tactics and capabilities, it's impossible. How are you going to make sure there aren't 30 people somewhere writing malware for a government? You can't, at least absent far more invasive spying or some kind of DRM that makes writing malware illegal.
My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.
No one in this thread has said they support torture. This malware has nothing g to do with torture. What was the point of that fake argument? Supporting targeted malware is not supporting torture.
There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant.
The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.
If so, then it's hard to imagine how you could distinguish between those in such a way that labels the methods described in the article as dragnet surveillance, rather than non-dragnet.
When the state conducting torture and assassinations without due process of its own citizens is the one making the calls about who to round up or kill via metadata they are vis a vis.
> Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S.
Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.
Point is, the USA doesn't have any more slack left over. So yeah targeted surveillance that might otherwise considered fine and just if it were done by the "good guys" or even just a responsible party, is going to be met with a large amount of suspicion. And for good reason. These are powerful capabilities the USA doesn't even seem to be able to keep in check internally, who knows what it'll be used for (at the very least it'll show up in economic/corporate espionage, that's a certainty).
> Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.
This comparison really isn't apt or constructive. Not only has none of the top US leadership been indicted for war crimes in the ICC or by the UN, but the German state and quite a number of the German people knowingly participated in the extinction of at least 12 million people. Whether you think that the Iraq War was right or legal or not doesn't matter unless there is an indictment and conviction. In addition, the sum total of the crimes-- whatever they may be-- do not add up to total societal or national culpability.
There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld...
If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.
As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)
There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.
That really doesn't matter to my argument above, though, does it? Whether or not the world hates the guy doesn't make him a war criminal. And whether or not he's hated doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been an indictment, much less a conviction, outside of Malaysia.
To briefly comment on your alternate scenario it's important to point out that Victor's Justice is not the same as a War Crimes trial.
As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)
History PhD here and I can say with confidence that this isn't true. In the US there is and was an enormous amount of literature by former Confederates and neo-Confederates defending the antebellum American South and the American Civil War. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Second World War there was a large number of exculpatory memoirs by German generals. These more or less informed the historical literature in the aftermath of the Second World War for an entire generation.
Re-read the comment chain. Was not denying the existence of mass surveillance. But the comment at the top of this chain states that targeted malware (the subject of the OP) is distinct from mass surveillance. Which seems to be mostly true.
The difference between the NSA and German Intelligence is that the reach of NSA is larger than that of the BND. Other than that the BND also is not required to afford foreign nationals any privacy protections and is known to regularly intercept metadata in Germany. Unrestricted surveillance of foreign nationals is regulated in the G10-law, named after the article in the Grundgesetz it circumvents, but the BND has simply overreached its power and also collects data on German nationals. The control committees are also secret, just like the US FISA courts.
So before we get all high and mighty, we should probably clean up our own act here in Germany. Of course the G10 laws were dictated by the Military control committee, when they relinquished direct control in the 70s. For that reason it will be somewhat hard to simply change, especially because our interior ministers have had an unblemished record in support of more mass surveillance.
I think if you start with the assumption that it would be unacceptable for the US government to do nothing about protecting the American people from terrorist attack, the kinds of targeted cyber-espionage described in the article sound pretty reasonable.
They're better than launching entire wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, cost unfathomable amounts of money, and last for over a decade, without really achieving the objective of making the country safer.
They're better than torturing people.
They're better than mass surveillance of the entire population of the country - if not the world.
Of all the things the government could be and should be doing, spying on people that in high likelihood are a threat to the US sounds like the one I'm OK with them continuing. You have to admit, slowing down another country's nuclear weapons program with a computer virus is vastly preferable to pretty much any other option on the table - even including "peaceful" sanctions which end up having a human cost.
It's almost as if there's some mutually beneficial relationship going on between US and European intelligence and military agencies, and the anger of Europe's governments is mostly political sideshow...
The USA works very hard to radicalize anti american factions within a country. If the choices are US backed dictator, or religious nutjob, its not much of a hard choice.
I can understand feeling morally opposed to it, but a realist might tell you that it's important to spy on the German government simply because it's a powerful actor, even if it's an ally of the United States.
That realist would be a fool who takes the exasperated statements of politicians at face-value. Were any long term trade agreements threatened? Embargoed in a way where they actually did it, not just talked about it? Was military cooperation withdrawn, diplomatic ties severed?
Absolutely none of this happened. A lot of words happened. Mysteriously, for exactly as long as Snowden was in the news right up till Russia invaded the Ukraine.
It is unreasonable to do nothing to stop the loss of innocent lives.
However the war on terror is a media beat-up that sells papers, keeps eyes glued on tv's and serves to support the agenda of politicians who capitalise on the state of fear to get elected.
This is particularly evident in the United states- as a visitor there over the past several years the level of discourse on terrorism is completely out of keeping with the actual threat, or the level of fear in my own country (australia) despite our proximity on all cultural datapoints
how many terrorists in a cave have the sort of it infrastructure that require the equivalent of a Manhattan-project of cyber-espionage? (I mean, re-writing manufacturers hdd firmware?! Wow!)
> They're better than launching entire wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, cost unfathomable amounts of money, and last for over a decade, without really achieving the objective of making the country safer.
So is doing nothing at all.
> They're better than torturing people.
So is doing nothing at all.
> They're better than mass surveillance of the entire population of the country - if not the world.
So is doing nothing at all. We have three horrible solutions, and one that's just terrible. Maybe we should look for a good solution instead.
Most Americans are apathetic. Of those of us not apathetic, those opposed to the widespread espionage of the three letter agencies are in the minority.
It's been heartbreaking watching the American reputation decline worldwide while also watching the inverse rise of the amoral and unrepentant technocrat here in America. It's a Golden Age for technology and a Dark Age for culture.
Most Americans probably have no idea what the NSA is, even now. I'm sure most of my college friends who weren't computer science majors couldn't say what it was or what it did.
Soviet citizens probably knew more about what was going on than Americans do now.
Many Americans are uninformed and many are apathetic. But Thucydides said the same thing about Athenians. I don't believe it's as simple as blaming American citizens.
Americans get information about the world through substandard education, uninvestigated journalism and high-fructose entertainment. The reporting on American policy outside America is far better than the reporting on it inside the country. Yes, Americans inherit this government, but as long as America is a superpower, so does the rest of the world.
1. I don't think the scope of these efforts are based solely around terrorist activity. They are very wide-ranging in scale, and seem to be a natural extension of the USA's foreign policy. In an ideal world it would be nice if neighbours didn't spy on each other, but in the real world, everybody spies.
2. Yes, clearly they do, and also alter the course of some very dangerous activities a la Stuxnet and Iran's nuclear program. Just because it's possible to circumvent these measures, doesn't mean they shouldn't be use either. Firstly, you've made it more difficult for terrorists and other parties to communicate effectively, which is already a win. Secondly, they will of course be updating their methods as well. I doubt very much that what we're seeing here is the be all / end all of NSA's capability. This is implied in the article, where the group hands down certain exploits / technologies for actual implementation, but tends to keep things back. A blow, to be sure, but I doubt we've seen it all yet.
3. ISIS are not the result of the Iraq war. It's very important to understand that ISIS are simply the most recent manifestation of a fundamentalist Islamic sect known as Wahhabism [1]. As convenient as it is to blame them on simple cause and effect, the reality is, as always, far more complex. Essentially this is a group of ultra-fundamentalist muslims, who have for a long time been part of Saudi's political structure. What we are seeing now is a return to their radical roots, backed by disenfranchised and poorly educated muslims across the Middle East. These are people who were left out of the massive oil money influx during Saddam's regime, and are now fighting tooth and nail against any and all transgressors - muslim and Westerners alike.
If anything this makes a case for the NSA's activities, not against it. It's not the US's meddling that caused these issues (although it certainly hasn't helped); these are deeply ingrained philosophies in Middle Eastern culture. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a very good understanding of their power structure and where they're putting out feelers, than not.
So killing hundreds of thousands of civilians had no effect whatsoever in allowing extremism and hatred of the US to thrive? How about our arming of the Syrian rebels, do you also believe our policy of handing out weapons like they're candy did nothing in assisting warmongers to engage in war?
No, I don't believe that handing weapons to people turns them into fundamentalist terrorists, and I don't believe the Iraq war created a group whose modus operandi has been the same since the 1800's.
Take a look at the article I linked above; this form of religious extremism has been a powerful ally to those seeking political power in the Middle East for a long time. Saudi Arabia was built on the back of Wahhabism, which it then tried to subvert into a conservative institution to ensure its rule.
In short, these guys like to play with fire to further their ambitions, and ISIS is the latest explosion. If you reduce ISIS to 'this happened because we did this', then you're missing a whole lot of narrative, not to mention understanding of the situation.
Why do you think they're so well-funded, and well-organised? This is not the result of a corrupt war that decimated Iraq's population, it's an ambitious power play that appears to be getting out of hand (again).
Religious extremism, and in fact extremists of all kinds, always exist everywhere. What the USA has done has been to topple organized states or regimes that were able to keep some order and rule of the law in their territories, fuel hatred and desperation by killing hundreds of thousands of people, bombing the cities and destroying any form of economy, also with the aid of a decade long and ferocious embargo (the estimates put to a million the victims of the embargo, mostly children), and finally providing weapons and training to "rebels" to produce internal revolts to weaken the "enemies". A myopic and downright evil strategy that is now fully showing its obvious results.
It's not just terror. We've got Mr. Putin out there, who at best can be described as someone willing to pursue his own interests no matter the cost. So, should we have no capabilities to defend against him. Sorry to say, but since Europe spends so little as a percent of GDP on defense, it effectively outsources defense to us, while simultaneously making fun of us for our low spending on social programs. You cannot pretend there is no tradeoff here.
Putin is no hero, but Russia's response to a USA sponsered coup of a Democratic Ukraine is hardly surprising. God-honest Nazis run Ukraine, i'm not joking, NEO-NAZIs, that is the sort of people US policy planners are willing to support in their idiotic attempts to create failed state on the border of Russia. What do you think US response would be if China or Russia or Iran tried that same bullshit in Mexico?
> "Do you really think these extensive intelligences do stop terror?"
I was under the impression that stuxnet had a demonstrably negative impact on the capacity of the Iranian nuclear program to enrich uranium. Of course, there's a whole different argument on whether or not that's in support of "terror".
The problem is it undermines trust in American technology products in general. If the Snowden revelations were that the United States was bugging Iran, Libya and North Korea and monitoring all their communications, that would be one thing. However, we know now that EVERYONE is under surveillance. Therefore, how do we know they aren't doing this to everyone as well?
Fair enough - although with this set of revelations at least it's been credited at least to mail interdictions. I was responding in a limited matter to this project, this is an example of what I'm personally fine with them doing. Other people may very well have more trouble mentally compartmentalizing the broad range of activities that the NSA (and other digital espionage agencies within the US government) are up to. Many of which are clearly unconstitutional and should be (and appear to, in some cases) now being scaled back.
In any case, to answer the specific question, we can be pretty sure that our we're not infected with official US government 0day malware by the practical considerations - they go to pretty considerable lengths to keep the spread limited (per the reporting) because once Kaspersky or any other researcher gets their hands on it the utility of the toolsets goes away or becomes highly limited.
This malware isn't needed to infect every individual machine. This is just another tool in the long list of tools that the NSA has. Compromise the CA's and a few other key infrastructure machines, and now all our communications are laid as bare as plaintext. The fact that I'm not interesting enough for the NSA to target me individually does not mean that my communications are secure.
CAs are not magic decryption boxes. If you compromise a CA, you can generate a false certificate, but this certificate is non-repudiable: it is a sequence of bytes which you must present to the system you are attacking, and which is conclusive, independently-verifiable evidence that the CA has been compromised. While the NSA almost certainly could do something like this, they would run a very high risk of detection every time they did it.
Pretty much everyone is going to carry on plugging in US-sourced media just as they did before, and be happy and unconcerned about it.
To borrow from James Mickens [1] the vast majority of people's thread modelling falls into the 'NOT-MOSSAD' category. People with a 'MOSSAD' threat model should not have been inserting arbitrary removable media into their secure computers in the first place, so their habits don't need to change. Although obviously some people either incorrectly assessed their threats, and need to upgrade them, or were careless and need to be more careful...
This statement is the most upvoted piece of propaganda I've ever seen on Hacker News. I think the shills that Greenwald told us all about are all over HN too.
There's no point in praising anything the NSA does unless you are perfectly happy with them destroying security for the entire world and spying on everybody at all. The NSA has the power to blackmail politicians and run the country. They lied to congress. They are a completely rogue agency. And you praise them!
You need to pick your battles. Nobody is going to listen to your serious concerns about NSA overreach if you're freaking out any time the NSA does anything at all. If you hope to rein in the NSA, impose real oversight, and limit its power, you're going to have to start by acknowledging that "shut down all US intelligence agencies" is not a real policy proposal and not everyone who thinks the NSA has some legitimate role to play in US security is a paid government shill.
Yep, it is exactly the same rhetoric, word for word as used in other NSA-praising comments on HN. Posted by a 1-year old account that had exactly 1 comment in their history until today.
It's a shame HN doesn't auto-minimize the sub-comments once they get to a certain size and depth to make it easier to view other OPs. I often find that the first comment dominates the tone of the discussion about an article making it an easy target for astroturfing campaigns like this one.
To your point, I read the OP and thought to myself that it seemed very familiar, I then checked the details on the user account and feel reasonably confident in thinking that it is a targeted attack. It's just sad that it worked so well.
That's not exactly the same wording, and there are many expressions of the same sentiment in different words. Why insist on believing that this is some nefarious conspiracy rather than the simpler explanation that some - perhaps even many - people sincerely believe that it's acceptable for governments to perform espionage?
It's not propaganda, it's a reasonable observation about the NSA's duties, and it's not meant to tell the whole story. The conspiracy types need to tone down a bit so that a thought-out and nuanced discussion can take place. You're just ranting and throwing Alex Jones and Greenwald buzzwords around, disabling any real insight.
But the pro-government shills ARE here. That's not paranoia, that's fact, unless you think they'd target Reddit only for some reason, which makes no sense. So why can't we talk about them? If we don't face up to the reality of this kind of propaganda, we won't be able to have proper discussions about important topics like this one.
As the other responder to me pointed out, this account had ONE post to its name almost a year ago before the post I responded to today. I don't think they got their money's worth out of this one due to how easy it was to spot, but all the other ones upvoting it are earning their pay.
You think I am accusing him of being a shill because I don't agree with him? Have you seen his posting history? That's pretty much the definition of a shill who isn't trying very hard. Much more dangerous are the ones who actually make normal posts on stories throughout the year and only turn on the propaganda when the discussion turns to the NSA and government activities. Those ones you can't detect.
I don't understand why you're more upset with me for pointing out propaganda than the propaganda machine itself.
Because your evidence that yeahyeah is a shill is circumstantial at best, and sowing doubt by invoking an intangible enemy within whose only observable property is disagreement with some orthodoxy is itself blatant propagandism.
And even a cursory glance throughout this thread would reveal that it isn't exactly brimming over with warm and fuzzy feelings about the US, so I don't know what it is you're worried about. This pervasive shilling you claim is happening here doesn't seem to be working.
You may be right. You may very well be right. But you're not accomplishing anything except signaling to people that if they think too hard about certain points of view, then they're just being stooges. You can argue against it without stooping to the same tactics you're accusing others of.
I'm not attacking someone just because of his opinion, nor am I advocating that. I'm calling out a shill. Look at the facts. One post before today. A pro-NSA post that reads like rhetoric. This post is voted up to the very top comment of the discussion, DESPITE the lack of "warm and fuzzy feelings about the US". Now, in a conversation where the sentiment is so anti-NSA, why do you think this has so many upvotes? That's evidence of rigged voting. That he has failed to sway opinion here does not at all mean that he isn't a shill.
That's enough evidence to convict.
Look, here's an article where you can start reading about these kind of psyops: http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/02/26/reddit-shills-tried-... Discussion forums like this one need to be aware of this sort of thing going on. We have to talk about it. We have to try and point out people whose job it is to steer conversations to their liking. It is the right of a free people to associate and freely converse with their peers and make up their own minds free of malicious interference and cointelpro. If government agents actively manipulate public opinion in favor of them, and the public opinion is different from what it otherwise would be, then there is no democracy. That is wrong.
What can we do, when there's no proof? We can use our brains and examine the evidence. We can call out obvious shills to try and stem the tide. That is what I am advocating for. We should point out obvious shills so that discussions have more of a chance at reaching their natural conclusions. You seem to be advocating that we do nothing at all, and that is what I disagree with.
And here I just figured folks would think it was a throwaway account that somebody used to avoid having paranoid internet trolls dig into their online presence. Seemed like such a good cover, too.
>You seem to be advocating that we do nothing at all, and that is what I disagree with.
Not at all. I'm only suggesting that what you're doing is counterproductive.
> Now, in a conversation where the sentiment is so anti-NSA, why do you think this has so many upvotes? That's evidence of rigged voting.
It might be. But we don't actually know how HN's voting algorithm works (secret sauce), and we do know for a fact that the HN staff will manipulate vote gravity in order to make the content of a thread more accurately reflect 'quality'. So it's not exactly ironclad evidence of government vote rigging, when Hacker News is a black box which is rigged by design.
It's also not out of the realm of possibility that more people who agree with yeahyeah's point of view have upvoted him than people have upvoted other threads. And this is a long thread, so the effect of commenting and upvoting throughout may be cumulative. And some comments in other threads have been downvoted into near oblivion.
>If government agents actively manipulate public opinion in favor of them, and the public opinion is different from what it otherwise would be, then there is no democracy. That is wrong.
Actually, I would argue that is democracy working as intended. The government has the right to present its point of view and try to convince people to agree with it - that is literally how democracy is supposed to work. The government may be trying to 'actively manipulate public opinion in their favor,' but on a discussion forum, so is everyone else. That's the point of a forum, and it's especially true on HN, where die-hard capitalists and anarchists and everyone in between all fight for the intellectual high ground. The government doesn't actually have some kind of magic that makes people believe them, theirs is just one more voice in the herd.
>What can we do, when there's no proof? We can use our brains and examine the evidence. We can call out obvious shills to try and stem the tide.
I think a more effective countermeasure would be to examine the evidence of the arguments presented and call out lies when you encounter them. Attack the comment, not the commenter, particularly since you're never going to have more than suspicion and confirmation bias as evidence.
> It might be. But we don't actually know how HN's voting algorithm works (secret sauce), and we do know for a fact that the HN staff will manipulate vote gravity in order to make the content of a thread more accurately reflect 'quality'. So it's not exactly ironclad evidence of government vote rigging, when Hacker News is a black box which is rigged by design.
> It's also not out of the realm of possibility that more people who agree with yeahyeah's point of view have upvoted him than people have upvoted other threads. And this is a long thread, so the effect of commenting and upvoting throughout may be cumulative. And some comments in other threads have been downvoted into near oblivion.
So because there's no absolute proof, he's not a shill. How about deciding what's more likely? What is more likely: that this post was voted to the top despite lack of support in the thread, or that a circle of upvoters voted it up? Remember, it is a LOT easier to hit that upvote button than to make an actual contribution to the discussion, so you would expect to find that a ring of shills would operate in that fashion. One posts, as that takes actual thought and effort, and the rest upvote.
> Actually, I would argue that is democracy working as intended. The government has the right to present its point of view and try to convince people to agree with it - that is literally how democracy is supposed to work
If they want to convince people of their point of view, then why can't they do it legitimately?
Do you somehow think that this sort of behavior isn't subversive? That it doesn't work? And that makes it okay for the government to manipulate public opinion in this way?
It's okay. I can't believe you think that. There is one hell of a difference between presenting your own point of view and having thousands of fake people presenting the views that they are paid to.
> I think a more effective countermeasure would be to examine the evidence of the arguments presented and call out lies when you encounter them. Attack the comment, not the commenter, particularly since you're never going to have more than suspicion and confirmation bias as evidence.
No. Doing both is much more effective. Otherwise they control the first posts, they make a sense of a false consensus in their favour, and these things really can influence how people think. Don't believe me? Research it yourself.
I would much rather people make up their own minds instead of being tricked into thinking what the government wants them to. I still find it hard to believe that I live in a world where the latter is what actually happens.
>What is more likely: that this post was voted to the top despite lack of support in the thread, or that a circle of upvoters voted it up?
You're assuming those are the only two credible possibilities. This thread could also be at the top because of the cumulative lack of upvotes, or the weight of downvotes (which have been biased to count more compared to upvotes), in other threads. Or because of the effect of upvotes on individual posts, or its relative length compared to the others. I think it's too complex and opaque a system to read so definitively, particularly given the effort put into it by the staff to prevent exactly the sort of gaming you're talking about.
Although, yes, given those two scenarios specifically, the 'circle of upvoters' is the more plausible.
>If they want to convince people of their point of view, then why can't they do it legitimately?
That's the problem - what you're calling out as evidence of illegitimate actions could just as well be legitimate. Your evidence is that people apparently agree with and voted up yeahyeah, and that yeahyeah's account seemed insufficiently 'real'. Have you taken into account the possibility that people might actually agree with the post?
>Doing both is much more effective. Otherwise they control the first posts, they make a sense of a false consensus in their favour, and these things really can influence how people think. Don't believe me? Research it yourself.
But I have a hard time believing that people are that malleable, or that such a simple tactic could be so effective. Although there is perhaps a good argument to be made against karma-based systems being in any way meritocratic, 'consensus' on Hacker News doesn't really count for much.
Just for giggles, I'll let you reply to yourself on this one:
> You seem to think it's a good idea to summarily believe accusations with no evidence and no attempt to involve the legal system and convict someone in the court of public opinion just because somebody said something.
Me thinks you managed to derail the conversation to a much greater degree than yeahyeah ever could. Saying this as someone who likes voluntaryism but acknowledges that it might be an idealist view that is incompatible with many hidden variables of the real world, I acknowledge that three-letter agencies might have a place in this world. Yeahyeah just pointed this out. He didn't prevent you from creating good counterarguments. He made a very valid point, that unlike dragnet surveillance of snowden this revelation is more targeted, and invited you to a discussion of whether it has a right place in this world. You on the other had shat across the screen with tangential accusations. Me thinks you are the shill.
> There's no point in praising anything the NSA does unless you are perfectly happy with them destroying security for the entire world and spying on everybody at all.
That is a ridiculously absolutist statement. Do you really stand by this? It's not possible that some things the NSA does are good and beneficial, because other aspects of that organisation are questionable?
I'm sorry, but your entire post comes off as very partisan - and quoting Greenwald plays into this as well. Hell, I am left-leaning by nature, but I've had to unfollow him on twitter recently, as he portrays everything in the worst, most dramatic light possible. Don't get caught up on the hate train.
Any sort of praise or tacit approval for the NSA reduces people's anger towards them. Any reduction of anger towards them helps breed complacency. This is why they would make a post like this at all. People need to be mad at them in order to want change badly enough.
This is a big story about cyberespionage. It comes out of Kaspersky Labs, a Russian company and hardly a front for the NSA. It would be surprising if the story _didn't_ make the front page, and it would be surprising to me if in a forum which prides itself on serious discussion no one would make the comment that heads this thread.
That such a comment would be the most popular suggests nothing about psyops involvement unless you assume such an opinion doesn't exist in the theater in which the conversation takes place. The suggestion of such manipulation is useless without evidence, and is therefore not an actionable accusation. It assumes by default bad faith on the part of those who disagree with you and makes actual discussion difficult or impossible.
Furthermore, such an accusation is as much of a sideshow as any manipulation you're alleging.
If, rather than making wild assumptions, you made actual counter-arguments (as many are doing above), you might convince others of what you believe to be true, and you might bring those who once disagreed with you to join in the fight on your side.
Not right. If the US was peaceful, there wouldn't be much of an argument for developing nuclear weapons, but the US is the most aggressive nation in the world, and nuclear weapons are the only thing that give them pause. The actions of the US since the end of World War II - invading other nations at will, interfering in their internal affairs, starting secret wars - give legitimacy to nations who want to develop nuclear weapons for their own defense. Nuclear weapons bring safety from you.
As far as superpowers in history go, the United States post WWII is downright benevolent. The other contenders in recent memory being: the Soviet Union, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the French Empire, the Italian Empire, Austria-Hungary, and so on and so forth.
Once the United States starts claiming pieces of South America and Arabia as their sovereign territory you can start shouting about Iran's self defense. The United States is far from perfect, and all the criticisms you leveled are completely true. But be honest about the situation. The only thing that Iran's government is protecting by developing nuclear weapons is their own corrupt regime and their influence in the middle east.
Why run an overt colony system when you can achieve the same control by destabilizing existing governments?
The CIA is known for its activities in countries like, gee, Iran, where they overthrew the existing DEMOCRATICALLY elected government and installed a monarch instead.
Or see the case of Guatemala, where on the advice of businessmen the democratic government was overthrown on charges of 'communism' with lots of help from the US.
Yeah, iranians screwed up when they took US embassy hostages. It's a fact (too lazy to put references) that that embassy was actively messing with the iranian state (I would like to see how US would react if some foreign embassy did same intensity stuff in US) and that revolution was overthrowing corrupt dictator directly installed by UK & US. They should just politely kicked them out of country, and not giving US administration more cannon fodder.
Without those hostages situation, right now Iran might have been on par with Dubai/Abu Dhabi or similar. They have the richness in oil & gas. Been there backpacking last year, people are amazingly, no AMAZINGLY friendly and nice. One of best trips of my life. They have their issues, some rather big ones, but so does other places.
The CIA went into foreign countries and purposely destabilized them and started civil wars. It continues to this day: see the Arab Spring. The Soviet Union's actions were quite tame by comparison.
For every Soviet or Russian invasion, there's a corresponding US one that is just as bad: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the US interferes with the internal politics of many more nations to boot. See Pinochet in Chile, the Shah in Iran (although the British had a big part in that too). Russia threatens its immediate neighbors, yes. But at least they oppose the US. Think they are all bad? They keep Snowden safe and sound. The US threatens any nation in the world that doesn't fall into line. When they thought Snowden was on board an official government aircraft, they had their cronies in Europe force it down in violation of international law. Think that the European nations make their own decisions? Think again.
This is the threat that the US poses to the world, and most of the world is already under their control. Iran isn't, so they are threatened with war. They've been threatened with war since Bush's idiotic "Axis of Evil" speech. Since before that. You think they don't have the right to try to defend themselves? To prevent that? Nuclear weapons, in this world, bring freedom. See how North Korea has never been invaded. See how the US knows better than to engage Russia in outright conflict. Nations that have nuclear weapons can have actual independence.
With the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they are trying to force their laws onto the entire world, and that is just one of many such agreements. Canada is already a puppet state of the US. The current state of the world is that no nation can try to free themselves of US influence without getting an internal revolution or even an outright invasion, and that is a much bigger threat than Russia is, or China, or Iran, or anyone.
not that I don't agree with all you say but... having lived under outright occupation by vast amounts of russian forces (former czechoslovakia), seeing how lack of freedom of speech, travel and... well just lack of freedom, centrally planned everything and the rest of it screws up entire generation of people, I would still opt for US.
But that's the thing, that goes thought topics here too - US stepped down, and is continuing downwards, from "that hunky good friend of yours that you don't piss off and do what he says, and all is more than OK, otherwise he'll steal your lunch and breaks your leg" to simply lesser of all evils... BRAVO :(
As far as superpowers in history go, the United States post WWII is downright benevolent
I'm not sure the citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, D.R., Honduras, Panama, the Philippines, Vietnam, or any of the other sovereign nations the US has invaded, would agree with this statement.
Sorry, please remind me of when the US invaded Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, or Chile?
Our involvement in Vietnam was in fact, at the time, conducted with the full cooperation of a sovereign country, the Republic of South Vietnam. To be fair, US forces definitely did violate the sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia during that conflict.
I believe I understand your general point here, but can we at least get basic facts right when we have these discussions?
Just because the US doesn't invade by name, doesn't mean they aren't involved, often at a fundamental level. Look a Chile; Nixon gave the orders and supplied to weapons and CIA support behind the coup that brought Pinochet into power. 3,000 people were killed and 200,000 were exiled during his reign. The US has always tried to get its way by pulling strings behind the curtain, where public awareness is absent.
> The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.
Nowadays invasions aren't explicit like in colonial times (where every superpower raced to colonize as much as possible), but there is definitely covert "warfare" going on.
Thanks for asking! Argentina: 1890. Chile: 1891, plus direct support for the 1973 coup. Sorry about Paraguay and Brazil, US merely engineered and directly advised murderous corrupt dictatorships. Invasions however also include Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Regarding South Vietnam, does "full cooperation" include assassination of their president in 1963?
The examples you cited for Argentina and Chile were -- in both cases -- the US sending a landing party of Marines to defend the embassy grounds during political unrest. That's an "invasion"? OK....
Replace US with Russia and the comment still fits perfectly. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but there are others who are just as bad or worse, just on a much smaller scale
Not sure if you're just joking around, but nuclear weapons and material from Pakistan and Iran are likely to end up in the hands of terrorists sooner or later, either intentionally or unintentionally. The same is not the case for nuclear weapons controlled by France, US, UK, Germany, and Israel. So there is a huge difference.
Why would "nuclear weapons and material" from Pakistan and Iran "likely" end up in the hands of terrorists? What's so special about the other countries for which this is not the case?
That's a ridiculous argument. By that benchmark any country has a responsibility to stop any other country's nuclear program because it is a potential threat to the world.
I feel like you wanted to reductio ad absurdum with a conclusion I feel is not absurd... um. It is staggeringly dangerous for anyone to have the tools to end civilization, because sometimes we lose track of things, and unless you're a comic book villain, destroying all human life within a multi-mile radius is not a super useful tool in wartime or peacetime.
No, we helped the Pahlavi dynasty launch a nuclear program, whereas the Iranian Republic is now launching a nuclear program using what they've scavenged from that one.
You are conflating two different nations that happen to share a name and borders. The US trades technology with the Fourth Republic of Germany; The US did not with the Third Reich.
Wow, so naive. The Third Reich was established in 1933, WW2 started in 1939. It didn't have time to invent much or to build industry anew. 90% of the technology came from US - directly from US government or through companies like Standard Oil and Ford. Thousands of factories got sold on the cheap in the US after the Great Recession started and all the equipment moved to Germany. A process quite similar to the outsourcing of the last 25 years or so.
Yes IBM. But if you are considering reading this book I would suggest that it might be a waste of time, unless you are a true disbeliever or are doing research on the topic.
Mr Black is angry at IBM and does not try to hide it in his writing. He writes as if he is a prosecutor trying to convince a jury in court. Very frequently and repetitively, he describes the Holocaust and explains why what the reader just read proves that IBM or some of its executives are guilty of murder. I find it insulting to have these conclusions handed to me, even if I don't disagree with them. The repetition gets boring quickly.
You mean like how some in the U.S. said we shouldn't have to repay France for their help in the American Revolution because that was a gift from the French monarchy, but then the U.S. decided to enter WWI & WWII on their behalf after deciding it was a gift from the French people?
Part of the reason not to do that kind of stuff is that you don't know how long the regime you are helping will last. I think we are finally learning that lesson. These days it seems that the risk of arms falling into the wrong hands outweighs our desire to arm what we deem to be the "right" hands today. I am certain if the Syrian civil war happened in the 1980s, we would have been sending the "rebels" all sorts of missiles and gadgets that would have floated around the world for the next 30 years.
I agree; The US should not share any of it's technological innovations with other countries, and establish a strict isolationism policy. Since we didn't see the rise of Nazi Germany, we shouldn't have allowed the Weimar Republic to use our technology or traded with them.
/s
I'm not entirely certain how so few people here get that massive revolutions and changes in political power can change the playing field of what foreign aid and technological assistance we should give to other countries. Perhaps we should be like France, and sell tanks to the highest bidder regardless of international sanctions.
I think people are downvoting you because they're missing that by "technological innovations" you are referring to weapons. I don't care if we share MongoDB with Pakistan, but I'd prefer not to share the new railguns with anyone.
From an American perspective you might be right. But, as a Brazilian, I'd say this is the perfect reason why the rest of the world should stop buying technology from the U.S. You are not trustworthy.
Yes, I know that "everyone does it, get over" but it doesn't make you better or even acceptable.
As an American eho actually agrees with your comment wholeheartedly, I'd love to see a Brazilian Cisco, a German Microsoft, an Icelandic Bell Labs, and a Swiss Apple. Sadly it seems like the US does come up with a lot of tech that is worldwide dominant. Perhaps it has to do with the way the U.S. culture + government can, in some scenarios be conducive to startups, or perhaps it is luck over and over and over again. I highly doubt luck has anything whatsoever to do with it.
All of this being said, capitalism is a game played by multiple parties. If other countries were able to make things like mentioned above as good or preferably better and sell to. Global audience the whole world would be better off. I just wonder why so much tech used everywhere is made in America originally. DARPA has a huge part of what makes this happen I think and like it or not they are part of the security establishment who made things like the Internet.
Eh, take a look at the smartphone market outside the Anglosphere.
Most likely the OS will be developed by Google in America, the CPU by ARM in the UK, those chips will be customised and fabbed by Samsung in Korea, the screens created by LG/Sharp/Samsung again in Asia, the radio chips designed by Qualcomm (USA) but speaking GSM or an upgrade of it (European-developed) in factories using precision specialised devices created in Germany or Switzerland and then shipped around the world on ships owned by Maersk (in Denmark), piloted by seamen from India and the Phillipines.
The USA has done a great job of developing the world's dominant operating systems and cloud software stacks, which gets a lot of attention here at HN. But there's a heck of a lot more to tech than that.
If you hold that something like 9/11 should be prevented, and that (actual) WMD programs should be stalled
Except nothing like 9/11 was ever prevented by broad data collection.
And: There is no "terrorist threat" to begin with, unless you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
You are still more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by a terrorist. There's still plenty more and plenty more violent killing going on in Africa than in Middle East. But there's no oil and no convenient media narrative to be had from the former.
then it follows that this is a fine way to go about it
Essentially: "no more countries get nukes, those that have them should get rid of them at an unspecified point in the future but get to keep them for now". It is not an ideal solution, nor a particularly fair one, but much better for human survival than "everybody gets a nuke". Unfortunately, it would work better if powerful countries didn't threaten less powerful ones to the point that violating the NPT and getting nukes seems like the only rational response for preserving their own security. Which brings us to why the U.S. unilaterally launching attacks (cyber- or otherwise) against other countries runs counter to non-proliferation goals, whereas coordinated U.N. sanctions/incentives/inspections/interventions have at much better chance of working.
>The countries that have nuclear weapons, who do they ask to be allowed to keep them?
Well, the 5 official Nuclear Weapon States (with capital NWS) asked nicely with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is signed by just about anyone. Not that there ever was a chance of them just giving up their nuclear weapons, but they did ask and the world said yes.
(1) This does not actually look particularly targeted to me, but more like a shotgun approach. While Russia and China are the primary targets, there are also plenty of allied nations on that map. Unless, of course, you're trying to say that all non-US targets are fair game.
(2) The NSA targeting medical institutions (presumably hospitals) makes me particularly queasy, because what they are doing is not exactly passive listening, and when they screw something up there (like the router in Syria that they crashed), that could endanger human lives.
If the U.S. can do it, other entities can do it too.
I'd rather that the NSA were disclosing the vulnerabilities they discover to vendors, so they can be fixed.
Failing that, we rely on white hat researchers like those here (not to mention Snowden). They're doing really important, socially valuable, work. I wonder where they get their funding, we need a lot more of them. It's our job as software/hardware engineers to create secure software.
I definitely agree with the second part. It's always going to be a back and forth. As for non-US, well, I don't think we can claim a monopoly on espionage.
I really appreciate it when someone presents and argument that is from a differing point of view than mine, but is well stated and very convincing. Thank you for that.
That said, I'm not certain I agree. The part where they're intercepting mail of citizens without warrants, without much oversight, that scares me. It's one thing to be talented hackers trying to fight the good fight digitally rather than violently, but when we allow the government organizations to violate privacy to further unstated goals, we set a precedent that can be used as a basis to go further next time.
The NSA can do incredible things like this, but they need better oversight, a publicly stated set of rules that they must follow when they do their work.
I'd have to look back at the article, but I believe the mail interception took place during the Bush-era warrant-less wiretapping. The FISA courts were created to remedy the warrant-less part of that, though they don't really seem to have done much for the oversight concern that you mention.
By this I mean to suggest that such interdiction may not necessarily be truly warrant-less if performed today, even if it is still shady and lacking in accountability.
22% of world GDP, the world's largest & most effective military, the permanent seat on the UN security council, & the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
I agree we shouldn't go barging into other countries unilaterally, but are there really people that want to argue it's wrong for the US to use its power to stop other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons?
> but are there really people that want to argue it's wrong for the US to use its power to stop other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons?
Yes, when the USA shows favoritism.
A nation at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea has never signed the NPT, has nearly 300 warheads and in 1973 had some of those loaded on US-supplied F-4s about to launch the third-ever nuclear strike in history.
Am not sure the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in aggression and / or for political reasons has much clout in this area.
"we'll do what we want, you'll do as your told".
In some respects you're right, the leading war lords of the day do get to dictate to the lower players. Has always been the way, and probably always will. Doesn't make it right (or righteous) however those in power deem to "word" it.
As a former US Army soldier / veteran I would hesitate on calling us the largest military in the world. China's military positively dwarfs ours and believe it or not, North Korea has the most special forces of any military last I checked. That being said because we spend more yearly on defense than most countries have as gdp, we undoubtedly have one of the most effective militaries. I'd lump the NSA under the military term since they fall under the DoD and ultimately the Pentagon here.
1. The NSA uses all of these offensive information security technologies in mass surveillance as well as targeted attacks. See Belgacom.
2. The more concerning thing is their appropriation of civilian infrastructure and targeting of civilians using offensive attacks.
3. The vast offensive capabilities of the US government undermine their ability to be trusted in the development of improved defensive capabilities. Defensive research and product development funded by the US govt will produce systems that undermine offensive capabilities that are a key form of US hegemony.
this is horrible and devastates the American information technology industry because there is no chance that any foreign government is going to buy anything from the US that could be infiltrated by the NSA.
It's not though. Everyone hates the USA by now, and that's because they're spying on everyone (even allies), they think they can tell everyone what to do, else they use their military to intervene.
The USA is currently the world bully. For the military aggression, hopefully Americans will at some point realize that fighting the world can only end in tears - the USA is drained financially and simultaneously breeding new terrorists through the drone war which should be classified a war crime as there is no telling how many innocents have been killed.
Karma's a bitch, friends. This is how empires fall.
Really, the USA needs to re-evaluate its foreign policy. Spend half the military budget for 2015, that's $300Bn, on education and hospitals and bingo, you're once again the #1 nation in the world.
Then, instead of making war everywhere, make friends and trade partners and watch the money pour in, the soldiers stay home and stay alive. Fight terrorists with gestures of goodwill and they will go away all on their own - as opposed to killing random children in Pakistan, so their fathers, uncles, and other relatives may justifiably become new terrorists with a life-long grudge against the USA.
And tell the NSA to focus on defense - keep out the baddies, keep out the Chinese and Russian hackers, keep American businesses and business interests safe, stop others from hacking in the USA. But don't go out and listen to everyone's phone calls and hack allies, and enemies alike, and have secret laws like the Nazis did - because honestly, all that shit will get back to you eventually. Do something bad - somebody will find out. That's the new reality we live in, all facts will be discovered.
That Kaspersky was able to uncover the most sophisticated hacker group in the world is a case in point. The internet is the perfect paper trail, no matter how good you are.
The ostensibly noble, good goals that secret laws and secret operations supposedly lead up to never materialize. The ends that the means supposedly justify never arrive. So keep the means good, keep it clean. This whole idea that you must deceive, cheat, and betray in order to survive is a wrong idea, and it's proven again and again until the lesson is learned. Your choice when to learn it.
"... indicate that the NSA used Regin to infect the partly state-owned Belgian firm Belgacom." Do you like their targets? The FBI and CIA frequently target dissent as terrorism while the NSA frequently targets economic forums and large companies. And do you not care about the effects of hoarding (and purchasing) 0-days?
This comment reads very much like astroturfing. I hope the admins of HN take a look at who registered this account and who up-voted this comment to make it the current top comment in this thread. As mentioned by others, this account is nearly a year old with one silly comment before that.
Imagine Superman actually fighting criminals and keeping America safe.
Now imagine Superman sneaking laxative into criminals' sandwiches so they are slightly inconvenienced, but allowing them to continue to kill people in the long run.
The US government is Superman. But it is the second version, while it can and should be the first version.
---
We know who the enemies are. We know who funds and harbors terrorism. We need to take them out, not spy on them.
---
And no, I am not advocating Vietnam III (note: Iraq/Afghanistan was Vietnam II). That was a purely self-sacrificial program to bring "democracy" to people who didn't want it. I am advocating warfare in the classic sense: Destroy the enemy. I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.
> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.
That was a world war if I recall, and the US didn't even care about the Nazis, or Japan until they were forced to. "we" didn't stop the Nazis, the world stopped the Nazis, with our help.
Don't be so quick to call for World War III, because i'm not at all certain we would have more allies than enemies if we unilaterally decided to declare open war against the rest of the world, which is what it would amount to. Because the truth is, most of the world 'harbors' and 'funds' terrorism to some degree, including the US. And we've already proven to the rest of the world that we're willing to drag it into a war on false pretenses, so I doubt they would be eager to throw themselves into another one on our behalf. That political capital has already been spent.
Which is, of course, why we don't do what you suggest.
The US's unilateral declarations of war have caused a huge amount of tension, globally. To do what you propose would be a log breaking the back of many a diplomatic camel.
Contrary to your opinion, the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things. Take a look at what has happened to empires who over-stretched historically. Hint, it's not pretty and they're not around anymore.
> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.
How is this not an equivocation with WW2? I apologize if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it seems pretty obvious.
By "political capital" I was referring to a quote by George Bush, and the Bush doctrine in general. Mainly, that any goodwill we might have had to build a robust global coalition for anything has more or less been squandered by the debacle that was the adventure in Iraq, and the premise of the "axis of evil", and "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Because the states that harbor terrorism are not the civilizational or military equivalents of Nazi Germany or Japan. They are much closer to fruit flies.
A country that acts morally, in its own self-defense, does not need political capital. If nobody at all sides with the US, fine. But nobody is going to side against the US that matters in a just, morally correct war to stop state sponsors of terrorism.
Well, from the IRA to the Mujahadeen, it's largely been the folk with the most money to spend.
However most of them live in the USA, so perhaps a local criminal investigation would do to start with before breaking out the tanks on a jolly abroad.
I only make political comments on threads of conversation that are inherently political. In technical discussions, I make technical comments only. I take this commitment very seriously.
That doesn't even deserve a response, but against my better judgement...
I have 3448 karma and have been here for 2472 days, you have 20 karma and have been here for 64 days. You have no right to say something like that to me.
Also, since I mainly lose karma on any comment I make talking about politics, yet have a large net positive amount of karma, I am obviously not a troll.
Sorry, I was not attempting to intimidate. Anybody has the right to say they think you are trolling them and you have a right to refute them and try and show good intention.
Besides, someone who only trolls when it comes to politics would have the same points pattern and there is a very common sense of humour that is someone adopting a far more extreme version of whatever political persuasion they may chose to hold when thinking that they are mostly in the company of overly sensitive folk of an opposing political philosophy.
Personally I think that you are being sincere, but I can also see why people might think you are acting a part.
Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.
Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture"