I thought it was clear that I was referring to their nominal mission as an intelligence organization, rather than the political ends to which they are put. I'm not suggesting they're my friends or that they are desirable, and my repeated reminders that I don't endorse this should have made that clear. Without going into details, I have first hand experience of being on the wrong end of state scrutiny, I hope more than you ever will.

I'm trying to analyse this problem by looking at it in purely rationalist terms and assuming that people I disagree with are going to pursue their collective interest whether or not I approve. I rely heavily on the selectorate theory model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and in more depth in The Logic of Political Survival. I try to discuss this in analytical rather than agitating language on HN because the mods complain when I get too political. I hope that makes my commentary easier to understand.

Please stop trying to tell me about stuff I already know and tell me how you would work on the problem of the general public easily being stampeded into backing repressive policies. That's what I need actual help with, and I need something a lot more actionable than 'let's educate everyone and teach them to think critically' because that's a generational problem and one that is not going to just work automatically. You can contact me via gmail if you'd prefer, or other channels including personally.