All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding.
For crying out loud, if you're going to use historical examples, at least get it right damn it. You're _trying_ to cite project COINTELPRO as a reason to fear the government, sure, whatever. Get the names right, get the agencies right, and get your history right before you post!
Else you would look pretty damn ignorant to those who know history and understand politics. You do know at least the different agencies that the US Government law enforcement / intelligence community are composed of, right?
Anyway, FBI keeps files on Americans, because that is their damn job! NSA cannot, and not only are they legally not allowed to, they do not have the infrastructure to actually keep individual tabs on Americans. The FBI is in charge of the fingerprint database. The FBI is in charge of the genetic database. The FBI _authorized_ the domestic surveillance FISA court order (Read the leaked documents from Snowden himself: FBI approval is on the papers for a reason).
What all of the anti-NSA sentiment fails to address is the actual truth of the matter. The NSA is the only intelligence agency with its shit together, and provides the most actionable intelligence to decision makers. That being said, their collection strategy is determined by policy makers (in Washington) based off of what policy makers deem are the most important priorities. This means that the cycle works like this:
1. Policy makers determine what are their priorities pertaining to foreign policy, national security, etc.
2. *Policy makers provide that list of priorities to the NSA.
3. The NSA returns with what is needed in order to fill those priorities such as budgets and policy changes.
4. Policy makers take that information and weigh the cost/benefit of changing current policy, allotting more funding, etc.
5. NSA sends reports on collection, which policy makers have access to.
6. Policy makers take that information and provide feedback as to the helpfulness of it, who it was briefed to (as in, how high it was briefed), and what direction they are more interested in seeing reporting go.
The NSA is a well-greased cog in a malformed machine. Don't blame the NSA for performing the duties they've been directed to do -- blame the politicians directing them to do it.
In closing, the whole fact that public policy is shifting from all of the backlash is kind of heartening in that it shows the public does have a say in the process. I can't speak to the things in the news, but I will say that collecting on a US person is the fastest way to get fired in the NSA. That's probably why I find it so ironic for all the people deriding NSA now, and NSA having to take the "neither confirm nor deny" stance.
I can understand a lot of your comments in this thread, but not this one. The only reason the public has the chance to influence this process is due to leaked information. There is not an official system of checks and balances of which the general public may play a part.
I don't believe in the veracity of the leaked documents detailing PRISM. As I'm not in there anymore, this is not a confirmation of anything, just personal belief (speculation). I, for one, have seen one too many shit powerpoints floating around NSANet written by some military E-6 trying to explain some difficult concept to a group of E-5's. What do they do? Generalize and over-simplify. Just because it has classification markings doesn't make it official -- when I emailed friends to say "Hey, you want to get lunch today?", sometimes it was marked as top secret because I forgot to change it.
A sysadmin is a job that has little to no understanding of operating concepts, architecture, and program scope. It's someone you go to when you accidentally lock yourself out of your account and need to change your password. It's a Tier-1 technician who sees a green box in a network diagram go red, and start making phone calls to people who are actually capable of a root-cause-analysis (tier-3 technicians). So, a sysadmin swoops up a bunch of powerpoints knowing nothing about the operational details of the programs they seem to be describing, and posts them for people to read and make their own conclusions using only those powerpoints as a source of information. That whole way of starting a public discussion is flawed, because the information contained therein is so utterly questionable to me. Regardless of that, I'm glad that online privacy (which is something I strongly believe in) is finally being publicly discussed, which is why I said that.
That was then and this is now. Budget wars aside, all those co-operate constantly anyway.
>The reason why NSA failed to "help" the Boston Bombing attacks for instance, is because the Boston Bombers were American People.
Or, far more possible, because they are incompetent and/or that kind of surveillance doesn't work for those cases.
>All this hub-bub about domestic surveillance, and people don't even get the right _AGENCY_ who is authorized to target Americans. The amount of ignorance on Hacker News is outstanding.
Perhaps you have been living under a rock and haven't heard that this "autorizations" amount to squat, that Americans' communications are regularly and massively surveilled, and that there are tons of BS ways to sidestep those "rules".
It's like talking to a 7-year old: "But daddy could never lie or do bad stuff".
So you don't have a historic example? Your ignorance is amazing.
Its about damn time someone started calling people out on this crap, and I'm starting with you. YOU DON'T KNOW what you're talking about. So shut the $%## up, and do some basic history research.
Listen, I could demolish my own argument in one second. I've only partially reported the facts in my post, and I'm not telling the complete story. There is a big history in the 70s, and anyone who has studied the Church Committee, COINTELPRO, Nixon Administration, and FISA courts should know where I'm going with this. Its basic 1970s history, and the NSA was all wrapped up in that controversy from years ago.
Right now, you are making up bull$* based on ignorance. You use weasel words, "what if" scenarios, and suppositions to "support" your opinion. On the other hand, there are some _FACTS_ that we can discuss, but only if you can prove to me that you aren't a dumb, ignorant sheep of the masses.
EDIT: Here's a hint. What is St. Patrick known for?
Why did you fucking ask for one? I've got tons of historic examples -- from US and from all other the world. I'm not some kool aid drinker that thinks things are different in the US. It amazes me when people are so naive (and politically infatilized) as to think those kind of barriers matter or that they respect the law regarding US citizens. That's probably why people are amazed time and again, like goldfish, when this kind of shit re-emerges in the news.
>There is a big history in the 70s, and anyone who has studied the Church Committee, COINTELPRO, Nixon Administration, and FISA courts should know where I'm going with this. Its basic 1970s history, and the NSA was all wrapped up in that controversy from years ago.
Basic 70s history if you're an American (and even then, most can not tell Belgium on the map). I've read about all this cases time and again. Didn't bother to check if NSA was involved (rather than CIA) because I could not give less fucks. When it comes to this, those are the same kind of agencies, working from the same side and for the same purposes and using the same practices. The pendantic distinction you made between them would only interest a bureacraut.
You're talking about policies that you don't understand, and you're talking about power structures that you don't have any interest in learning about. You are proud of your ignorance, and instead of responding to my challenge with facts and history, you respond with unsubstantiated opinions.
This conversation will go nowhere until you decide to wake up, do some research, and actually form an argument. I've started this conversation on facts, and I intend to keep it on facts. If you're not interested in conversing about the realities of this subject, you might as well give it up against me.
That's the law. We've already established that they don't care much for that.
>2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers.
That's because they are uninteresting. Why do you assume everyone would be as uninteresting as you?
How about the interesting people, people that would be going forward what MLK was in the past, for example? How about whistleblowers, investigative journalists, people active in politics, people working on high end tech, etc?