Why I don't hate the NSA

[Recon]

Why I don't hate the NSA

According to Edward Snowden, the NSA is spying on us. Right now, they could be reading what I’m typing, listening to the clickity-clack of keys via my smartphone, which is sitting on the desk, and even taking pictures of me with my webcam. It’s a terrible invasion of privacy, to be sure, but I’m not sure I really mind. Here’s why: there can’t possibly be enough people in the NSA to personally monitor all of my communications. In short, they have better things to do, like follow terrorists around, and so in my opinion it seems likely that nothing other than a computer bank will ever see my data. Given how preoccupied the NSA is with security, and the fact that all of my fellow hackers are unwilling to mess with the proverbial bull lest they get the proverbial horns, I feel like any data the NSA has on me is likely to end its life there, sitting on some blast-proof and armed-guard-protected server deep beneath the Arizona desert. It couldn’t be safer, and as long as the NSA isn’t using it against me, I couldn’t really care less. In fact, I would rather they have data on me that proves I’m not a terrorist than that they fail to have data on someone else who is. It may not be ethical for them to tap my data, but it keeps me safe, and really, I have nothing to hide – especially not from a computer. Even if I did have things I didn’t want the NSA to see, I would be a fool to not encrypt them.

Furthermore, it seems foolish to suppose that the NSA is going to come after me for anything less than treason or terrorism. That’s their job. They’re not interested in the fact that I still watch Barbie movies with my little sister. Furthermore, unless I’m a spy, and my guilt seems indisputable, I’m confident that I’ll get a fair trial in this country. If I disappeared, people would notice. Lots of people. And that’s the last thing the NSA wants. So really, there’s nothing they can do to me without losing face and potentially spawning an investigation into how they got their supposedly “incriminating” data without a search warrant. No, it is in the NSA’s best interest to leave me alone, and most probably you as well. They’d be foolish to do otherwise.

Given that the NSA has no reason to move against me unless I’m a terrorist that they can disappear without a major news event, I feel pretty safe, and safer for the fact that they are stopping terrorists with all that data. In fact, I even feel like I might want to thank them for it. If they ever change their attitude and start bullying Americans around, then it might be time to start asking questions. But so long as all they do is catch terrorists and sit on massive reams of data, what harm are they really doing? If no human being even ever sees my data, and the NSA protects it with guns and dogs and rocket launchers, what do I have to fear? This is America, after all, and not some Soviet dictatorship like Russia or North Korea. The freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and sheer impossibility of running a “secret police” operation with any degree of success make me confidant that the NSA is going nowhere with my data. In short, none of us has anything to fear.

P.S.: As one who shares the hacker mindset, I know this paper may be off-putting to many of you. I’m not arguing that what the NSA does is right or even justified (though those arguments can certainly be made and I am more than willing to listen), but rather that there is nothing to be afraid of. The government has more to lose by coming after any given individual than they could possibly stand to gain, and those in power will understand that. I encourage anyone with a counter-argument to stand up and give it; I’m always open to being proven wrong or incomplete in my analysis. Thanks for being a great community, EZ, and let the flaming commence.

P.P.S.: No, the NSA did not coerce me into writing this, nor did they pay me to do so. I have no connection whatsoever to the NSA. I just thought I'd get that out of the way before someone went and asked.

[rasenove]

I see your logic but I wouldn't agree with all of your statements. Having sensitive information out there is not safe. Such information can be used against you in many ways. Yes, NSA has better things to do than look into personal info of individuals but what makes you think EVERY employee in NSA is loyal enough to not sell out info to terrorists and such? As for their super duper secure database, nothing is foolproof. It's just a matter of time some one(s) steal all that data and sell for cash.
(I could explain better but tapping on a small screen is painful)
In short: I respect your decisions but I don't trust anyone with my information and nither should anyone including you. It's not a matter of privacy, but saifty.

[Recon]

You make a very good point about the possibility of corrupt employees. It doesn't actually sound that far from reality that someone might be paid a hefty sum to look up information about a specific individual. Corporate espionage, anyone?

That's part of the reason I posted here. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say, because I knew you would all think of things I didn't when I was writing this.

[Pak_Track]

Boy, this will be an interesting thread.
Here's my opinion:
Nobody has any right to your data, under any circumstances. Say, you've got an illegal gun, but you don't use it. It's still an illegal gun. And if the NSA is only targeting so called, 'terrorists' then I see no reason for them them to collect everybody's data. The mere legality of them being able to access and control your devices is wrong, and should be understood as such.

btw, shouldn't this be in General Discussion?

[vezzy]

You're missing the point. The bulk data collection isn't about some schmuck flirting on Facebook. They're not tracking down terrorists either, that's bullshit. The reason for harvesting huge amounts of data like this, is to use it retroactively. You can smear political opponents, obtain vital economic intelligence (including trade secrets), aid domestic and crush foreign corporations, make predictions about societal behaviors at large through sentimental analysis, blackmail anyone you please and maintain information hegemony.

Go read up on the FBI under the administration of J. Edgar Hoover to see what happens in situations like these. Although, this is far, far worse than anything Hoover was ever capable of.

Are you honestly so blind that you do not realize the potential of full information awareness? This is the closest thing to omniscience there is. You do not want a government to be omniscient.

[karsa]

Granted, them taking everyone information is wrong and unlawful, but you must realize the fact it cannot and will not be used against you unless you are a terrorist.

So you acknowledge that they're breaking the law and you know it's wrong, but that's ok because... what? Do you think you have a say in the NSA's definition of a terrorist? That term has become pretty flexible in the last decade or so.

...they are able to record you and obtain your information without permission, but they require a warrant to actually access your files. No judge is going to grant a warrant unless the NSA can provide sufficient proof that there may be terroristic activities planned or happening.

Nothing that can't be fixed with a few threats and blackmails. Which they HAVE done in the past.

Besides, as long as you aren't getting involved in any actions like that or doing anything illegal enough to make the NSA start looking, you have nothing to worry about.

Have you ever found yourself facing legal charges? Interrogated by the authorities? Those people are trained to get the most out of you, and 'anything you say can and will be used against you' is a pretty powerful tool. I suggest you read about interrogation techniques to get a feel of how quickly they can build a case against you.

[PsychoRebellious]

If they are watching me through my webcam then I feel sorry for them. Goodness knows what horrible scenes their eyes must have witnessed

[soulei1990]

I am sorry to say it like this, but what you say is BULLSHIT .
Allow me to explain why.
First and foremost, it is against the LAW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States. You see the irony in a governmental entity for security not respecting the law.
I will not go on and on about the moral and philosophical issues at hand with their practices.
I would add, I will point you to the Patriot ACT, (and while we are at it all the ACTs signed after 9/11 mostly by the bush government) that allows them under different simple conditions (a easy as "suspected" of terrorism, threat to the nation, ...) to arrest you for an unlimited time without any right (no layer, no call, no nothing).
So an innocent curious person that lets say talks on a forum just like this one  and happens to respond to a fellow hacker he never saw about a grey area subject, could be arrested and then well you can imagine.
Most importantly, what you are saying in the end is that, well because they are not actually targeting you, you somewhat don't feel concerned of the fact that they are doing something wrong.
I am sorry but i can't agree. I am for another continent, i don't plan on become an enemy to any state, yet i can't accept laxism and abuse of zeal. This is how all dictators rose to power, this is how empires fell.

[lucid]

I can't stand the ever popular argument: "I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear." First of all, everyone has something to hide. Second, even if you don't have something to hide, in an increasingly control-oriented civilization, something you think you are entitled to(such as your opinion, or your freedom of speech), can very suddenly become something you need to hide.

By the way, has the NSA ever caught a terrorist?

Allowing one singular organization to have all of your information because, "They aren't going to do anything with it", is kind of like allowing one country to have all of the worlds nukes, for the same reason. Really? They're just collecting all this information on you to keep you safe? Please. What do you think happens when a powerful organization of this magnitude has enough information to make predictions on human behaviors as a whole? To literally know what we are thinking and what we will do next, and how we would respond to a given situation? I'm not talking about person to person. That's the problem, no one is seeing the big picture. Sure, the NSA cannot predict my next move as an individual. They don't know specifically what me as a person is thinking. However, on a large scale they most certainly can. We're like a fucking anthill to them. As vezzy said, no one should be omniscient. Can you honestly tell me that power in the hands of one organization or government has ever lead to anything good? It's dangerous, and you should most definitely be scared.

In fact, I even feel like I might want to thank them for it.

Ugh, this statement is appalling. You've learned to love your chains. Or perhaps, you've learned to not see them. The ingenuity of a government such as this comes from the fact that it may be the first one in history to achieve totalitarianism, without anyone even noticing.

[Recon]

Vezzy,

I hear what you're saying, and it makes a lot of sense. I find myself torn between two conflicting views of the NSA: one in which it is composed of ordinary people like you and me whose only fault is that they went too far in the pursuit of terrorism suspects and became so focused on the objective that the legality of the means became secondary to it and accepted as such (i.e., "blinded by the cause" or "wrong things for the right reasons"), and a second in which the NSA is controlled by power players higher up who use it primarily for their own competitive gain and to ensure that they remain in power (i.e., controlled by "silhouetted figures" found in spy movies). I hear you arguing the latter case.

The truth is, I think both views have merit. I think it entirely possible that there are good people in the NSA - people who devote their lives to keeping America safer by their actions. I think in many ways the NSA can be said to contain some of the best people on the planet. Whether or not such "shadow figures" exist in the upper echelons of the organization, I believe that most of the NSA's employees are genuinely convinced that they are serving the greater good. As Ed Snowden put it, a lot of his colleagues were shocked by the documents and evidence he showed them. I think this is evidence that the organization itself is not pervaded by widespread corruption, and as Snowden says, we should not automatically demonize the NSA. There are real threats out there, and these people believe they are protecting us from them. In fact, they very well might be. I really don't know.

In order for a body composed of mostly honest people to go so wrong, I think there has to be a deception at some point. I think these people may have been deceiving themselves into thinking that the end justified the means, and without proper oversight, that group mentality is all to easy to fall into. The cause is greater than this, greater than that, more important than privacy, above the restrictions that apply to other causes because it is a worthy one. I think this is a natural mistake, and one we can and should forgive. What I am unsure about is whether there are power players at the top.

I freely acknowledge that many politicians are corrupt, whether they realize it or not (and I get the sense that a "somewhat" corrupt politician can think of himself as honest, or at least "mostly honest" or "honest enough" to be a good person, and gradually begin a slide down a slippery slope of increasing "white lies" until the lies become neither small nor harmless). I also acknowledge that many of these people are well aware that what they are doing is illegal, and probably also that it is wrong, but many of them will be plagued by guilt. It is the ones who are aware of their crimes and who feel no guilt about their deceit and manipulative control of the power structure who truly scare me. People like Putin, for instance, who are clearly corrupt and do not even sometimes try to hide it. I worry about such people, and more so I worry about people who are equally as corrupt and far less public about their power - the so-called "shadow figures" present in spy movies. I wonder if such people exist, have to conclude that they probably do, and then begin to worry about what they might do with all this data. As I do so, I start to believe my initial post was a bit naively optimistic, and I thank you for correcting my thinking. But I also encourage you to remember that we are set in opposition to the man, not his naively deceived underlings, otherwise mature and responsible as they may be. I quote the Lord of the Rings: "but they were all of them deceived..."

Anyway, let me know your thoughts. I love hearing what you guys think.

Lucid,

I hear what you are saying, friend. Please read my response to Vezzy if you have the time; if you don't, merely know that I acknowledged my own naivete. That's why I come here. You guys keep me honest and tell me when I've managed to stick my head up my ass in glorious Full HD.

I would argue now (having changed my position after reading yours and Vezzy's arguments) that the only thing protecting us from the NSA and the people who control it is the fact that at the moment we are insignificant to them - not worth their attention. I think the best thing we can do to try and change that threat to us is to make sure the people inside the system who are not corrupt, and merely deceived, are aware of the deception and working to change it. We need more people like Ed Snowden to wake up to the threat and try to put the brakes on. The problem is, though, I worry that the plots of the rich and powerful may be insidious, and easily reformulated to work around the threat of public perception. If we reform the NSA, I worry that they will find other ways of making their presence felt.

Everyone else,

I suppose that in a nutshell I should revise my earlier statements to reflect a different sentiment you have helped me to appreciate:
I am not afraid of the NSA; I am afraid of the people who control them.

Staff note: God damn triple posting, r u srs!?

[Pak_Track]

One more thing, the Taliban don't really use technology to communicate over long distances. They use letters. Much less risky. So, in a nutshell, the NSA isn't really targeting people who come under their definition of terrorists.

[proxx]

Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist

Now everyone:

Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist

Let me see..
Wikipedia: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror)

So that doesn't even mean anything.
Then how is it I keep hearing that silly word over and over again.
Perhaps those who say it might classify as such.
Spread fear, take control and let the crowd believe they are rescued.
Its fucking genius and bloody damn transparent.
Yet 'we' dig it as an excuse.
Interesting world.

[Recon]

One more thing, the Taliban don't really use technology to communicate over long distances. They use letters. Much less risky. So, in a nutshell, the NSA isn't really targeting people who come under their definition of terrorists.

That's actually a really good point.

[craterlord]

If the fact that they are collecting data that can wrongly be used to incriminate you doesn't scare you, then the total lack of transparency should. There is no way for us to know how this information is being used, but if the government feels as though they need to hide how this data is used from us, we can safely assume that their actions are at the very least controversial, if not completely wrong. And with any controversial action, we should have had our say, but that seems to be asking for too much these days. Our republic is a mere illusion until we are willing to fight for it, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Also, I want to point out that just because you believe you don't have anything to hide, doesn't mean that someone else who can make a huge difference in your life doesn't. Case in point, Martin Luther King Jr, who despite his efforts for peace and equality, was seen as a threat by the FBI. He was believed to be under communist influence, which eventually prompted the FBI to blackmail King by anonymously sending this letter (http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/king-like-all-frauds-your-end-is.html) along with a tape that had the potential to discredit King.
source: http://mlkkpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/

Now, suppose that this blackmail was made possible with information gathered by the NSA, and as a result of that information, King decided to commit suicide. Suppose that without King's efforts, segregation would still exist. So yes, government surveillance has the potential to affect people who have nothing to hide, and it is your problem.

But this also serves as a good example of how a government without any corrupt officials, that intends only the best for the people it governs, can still ultimately harm them. The FBI could have genuinely believed that the country would have been better off without King, and they would have been acting in good intentions when blackmailing him. But it doesn't matter whether or not you are acting in good intentions, because even then you could be making a bad decision. It's for this reason that it's important for us to know what the government is doing. If we don't, who the hell knows what their idea of "what is best for the country" is. The NSA is no exception.

Of course I acknowledge that it's not realistic for a government to disclose everything it does, but this is not one of those cases.

[Uriah]

Also keep in mind that some of the NSA's tactics actually make us less secure. Planting backdoors and secret exploits into extremely important code is more stupid than i ever would have thought possible.

Also, the NSA is a United States organization, meaning that it should abide by the United States constitution. But much of what it was doing was extremely questionable, unconstitutional, and unnecessarily hidden from public knowledge. Even if you agree with the spying, perhaps we should have at least known about it or had the decision? And other countries have sovereign rights as well. Why should the US force it's skewed philosophy on privacy on the rest of the world?