No need to consider the arguments made by people who don't agree entirely with a particular point of view, or even discuss it at all. They're obviously just shills.
Edit: Much of the 'pro NSA' comments I see here seem merely to suggest that not everything the NSA does is evil, and not every disclosure is necessarily useful. As often happens in threads like these, any such comments are dismissed as the work of astroturfing or shills.
To imply that disagreement with any narrative presented by the Guardian and Spiegel Online must make one an agent with ulterior motives, is precisely the kind of propagandist trolling any forum which cares about truth should avoid.
Yes, the NSA has a covert program to attempt to influence online messageboard and social media accounts. No, this program does not account for every even remotely 'pro-NSA' opinion one might find online. And even if it did, judge them on their own merits and move on, because you really can't tell. It's all just text in a box.
Seeing spooks everywhere doesn't make you free, it just makes you paranoid.
The other side of the debate has its own poorly reasoned comments. I haven't noticed many on this article yet, but they should arrive soon.
I doubt such comments are written by people with NSA connections, but their sudden appearance is odd. The only other subject that produces so many strongly opinionated, poor-quality comments is systemd.
And there are a lot of people on the job market who can do those things very well. It's something American schools have been teaching for decades. In my high school there was this thing called a forensics club. "What's forensics? Isn't that like crime stuff?" I asked. It was explained to me that they learn how to debate issues, like free speech on school grounds. "Well obviously we want free speech." "Actually", my friend says, "I'm going to be arguing against it." "You don't support free speech?" I ask. "I do. But I was assigned to the against side." I thought it sounded stupid. Now I get it. It was cognitive dissonance as a vocational lesson.
So it's the people who sound unusually well-informed that I most suspect of astroturfing. Except I assume they also practice how to make what they write not sound rehearsed.
If I were an NSA shill I'd just mention something about Snowden harming the US or Snowden being a spy. It's a controversial and dumb argument so it's going to get a decent amount of replies. It also doesn't take much effort. You'd derail the conversation, and informative comments would be drowned out by a bunch of people arguing whether Snowden is a hero or traitor.
Derailing a conversation works well because they will have a large number of responses prepared that talk about, using your example, Snowden being a traitor. So once they've wedged the issue their spam can become the dominant voice. If the discussion had drifted to an area they weren't prepared for, say the historical precedents for whistleblowers of government misdeeds, they probably don't have as much material for that.
My point is I assume astroturfed material would not be written off-the-cuff but meticulously edited ahead of time to give the desired impression. And near the top of that list must be the requirement that it not look like an obvious shill.
I wonder how effective it would be if agents were able to control both sides of the debate, even? A more sophisticated shill would give the appearance of supporting the opposition but will subtly help draw attention to the propaganda. A living straw man, as it were. Not unlike the way SWAT police will pretend to be violent protesters to goad troublemakers into doing something they can be arrested for.
The term is agent provocateur, I presume
Actually changing someone's mind through argument is almost impossible. On the internet I'd say it is impossible. So don't change minds, just make the people who disagree with you feel like the whole world is against them when actually they're in the majority.
While a post where this type of rhetoric is only part of a larger argument is harder to categorize, there have been a lot of posts here and elsewhere that seem to bring up stale talking points (and little else), that distract threads from more important topics.
This is a tactic that Scientology was famous for, and it seem other groups have started using it as well. None of this is proof, of course; I merely suggest being extra vigilant about off-topic distractions and attempts to create division and unnecessary argument.
It's politics, and politics hits people in the lizard brain and short-circuits their ability to think rationally.
This subject seems to be a trigger for people to try to outdo each other to come off as cynical and in the know as possible about things which by definition almost no one knows much about.
People make broad statements about how evil and nigh-omnipotent the NSA is, and how deeply they've infiltrated every facet of human life
...is not the reverse case also true? We find ourselves discussing a condition where a lot of information is unknown, on both sides, but nobody upbraids the intelligence communities for exhibiting the same tendencies in the same breath that they castigate those people analyzing the situation with incomplete information.
There is ignorance, conclusions based on assumptions and a desire to know more on all sides of the argument. It's the nature of the beast, and if criticism is going to be levelled in this context, it should be pointed at those who withold the transparency required for understanding.
Arguably, secrecy exists for a good reason sometimes. But when you begin to treat the rest of the legal system, the government whose job it is to oversee you, and the public as enemies and keep everything as secret as possible, you really give people little to suspect anything but the worst.
I mean, here we are with what appears to be the biggest and most complex global data gathering correlation system in history - possibly a technological achievement to rival the web itself - and two terrorists who posted anti-American rhetoric on their Twitter accounts managed to bomb the Boston Marathon despite having been under surveillance at one point, and the Russians more or less tell us outright to watch these guys. They weren't exactly hiding behind 7 proxies so what the hell are we even doing?
How to interpret the cognitive dissonance in that? Maybe the system isn't as comprehensive as it appears? Maybe bureaucracy got in the way? Maybe the pieces just didn't come together in time? Is there even a Panopticon or not? Who knows.
General Hayden and Glenn Greenwald are given fair time to discuss the issue and to give rebuttals to each other.
Its much more informative then trying to parse HN comments to form an opinion about state surveillance. It also forces you to consider the views of people who don't agree with you.
I personally enjoyed watching Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) square off against Chris Inglis (former NSA Deputy Director) at the Brookings Institute last year[2] - both sides had good arguments. For that matter, Benjamin Wittes (the guy moderating the debate) has had some good interviews on his blog[3] and podcast[4] as well - you don't see many outlets that will have James Comey (FBI director) one week followed by Chris Soghoian (ACLU) the next week.
[1] http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surv...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E
I think it's worth reminding fellow readers that this sort of manipulation happens, and likely on HN.
What evidence is there that it's likely, other than paranoia?
It seems to me as if the purpose of bringing it up is to warn people that any opinion they encounter of a certain kind can't be trusted, because it's probably part of a coordinated campaign of government manipulation. That's a couple of steps away from calling it thoughtcrime.
The hard part is guessing what portion. 10 percent? 30 percent? What's the time-graph? Is it 50% of initial comments, tapering off to just us Real Folk to dither around with the wondering phase of the conversation? The important thing is to assume that you're often witnessing a deceit in some capacity, in most any important conversation.
Needless to say, all this is pretty fucked up.
EDIT: Changed percentages, because I honestly don't know what's reasonable :/
Invite only is awesome, but open forums are important too.
Reddit had a similar problem with truthers taking over discourse at the beginning, luckily it went away. Perhaps because there was a popular parody account mocking them all the time (something like 9_11_was_an_inside_job), and that account retired in time when it's job was done.
There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this.
People do exist (I am one of them) who think the NSA is doing a nasty job that isn't very appealing, but is absolutely necessary for me to be able to sleep in my bed at night safely. They may not have the best guidance from the government, but there are people who do believe they're doing the best they can.
Why must there be a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place? Why can't there just be people who actually agree with some/most of what the NSA has done, based on the laws that govern it?
Regardless of how you feel about it, there is a conspiratorial astroturfing campaign taking place - it's a well documented NSA activity. Whether it accounts for specific comments is impossible to say, but it does exist. Why then is it so absurd to think that it may be in play?
EDIT: Added firstlook url per reply, originally pointed to https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...
...not really sure I see a substantial difference between the 2 articles, but there you go.
Oh right, because it doesn't support what you're saying. Got it.
Or that GCHQ does do it, but because they're GCHQ and not NSA that it's irrelevant?
Because now you have evidence that GCHQ does it you should allow the possibility that NSA does it. The reason you don't have evidence that NSA does it might be because NSA is a secret organistion.
That's not true.
Interesting.
I don't buy the Col. Jessup rationalization at all, and I think it's simpleminded. The threats these people are defending against are ones created by their own actions, and the actions of the governments they act on behalf. Regular citizens of whatever country are affected by these activities but they don't get a voice in how or whether the "nasty job" (and it's precursors) are in their interest.
Right.
1) the current state of affairs does not remove threats, because the agencies are starting trouble, too;
2) the people are the ones who have to live with the effects of something, in the US a result of a democratic system where the agencies may prioritize their own imaginations over citizens' actual lives, where the agencies may have perverse incentives.
I get the feeling you're one of those folks who won't accept anything except what you've already concluded.
Some times when this happens, we call it a strawman argument.
You sling personal insults, you point out trivial errors and falsehoods in statements by others which have nothing to do with the given point, you attempt to diminish reputations, and whatever other tactics available at the particular avenue in order to derail the original point/argument, while pushing pro US government talking points and stereotypical 'save-the-children' rhetoric.
I don't know who you are, but I have recently begun ignoring your posts, attempting to derive wisdom only from the replies directed towards your usually greyed/dead comments, but I hope that people who read my reply to you will take the chance to read your past comments and attempt to pick up on any potential biases before considering your opinion on things.
And even if I am completely wrong about your stake in this game, the hostility that you inject into these discussions is uncalled for, and adds nothing but scorn and hurt feelings, quelling the debate and discussion of the topics at hand; what I believe is your very objective.
It's fine for users to neutrally remind each other when they're breaking the HN guidelines. But it's not ok to insinuate evil motives, let alone that another user is a "forum plant". Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
I can't voice an opinion on this website that doesn't mesh with the popular opinion on this specific topic without being severely marginalized, mocked, and even ridiculed -- I think pointing that out should be allowed.
There just isn't, and it'd be a waste of resources to even attempt something like this."
You and I are not the ones defining the reasons of and what NSA are interested in. You might think there are no reasons, but NSA may have a totally different view. For an organization that for real wants to capture ALL communication on this planet, waste of resources may seem like a minor issue.
Thanks to Snowden, we do know that NSA and GCHQ are actively doing astroturfing.
Without overstate the importance of HN, this is one place where a lot of technical talent hangs out. Talent that also talks, informs and educates others. If one want to moderate criticism from people that others listen to and rely on for information about security, privacy, HN would probably be a good place to focus on.
They just got caught with their pants down spying on the American people. If they don't try to take hold of the narrative they might see themselves at the shit end of the political stick.
Blind trust with no accountability is totally insane. There has to come a point, during the lives of the people who have to be held accountable for what they've done, that what they've done comes to light. Or how do you propose we hold them to account?
This isn't about you, or me, or any individual, that's not how this country works. Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.
They aren't always given the information either. Recall Diane Feinstein being quite displeased about being lied to recently. And we still have to elect "them" on the basis of something. By what process is a corrupt politician supposed to be held accountable if the fact of their corruption is a government secret?
> Some things that are not very popular are absolutely necessary nonetheless.
How do you propose to ensure that only the "absolutely necessary" things are occurring?
Got it.
And as to the 'nasty unappealing job', what has led you to believe that is a common perspective among those who work there? The project detailings that have been released often seem downright giddy.
True. But that's not what this is about. What the NSA care about is what resources he has, which they would want to use for their own purposes - this is why they monitor such individuals as work at major ISP's. Its not about thought - its about action. What actions can they perform if they gain access to this persons electronic life - in the case of sysadmins for major ISP's, there is much to be gained from infiltration, exploitation, and subterfuge.
Edit: I should add that my suspicion came from noticing that the vast majority of the comments when this was first posted seemed aligned in favor of the NSA's mission.
It wasn't the presence of pro-NSA comments that was interesting but rather that these opinions were the overwhelming majority. This is, of course, how astroturfing becomes effective, it is not the rhetoric that is important but the cognitive bias imparted by the facade of so many people falling to one side of an issue.
This is of course, only a suspicion, but it seemed worth noting.