Data intelligence complex is the real story(ft.com)
ft.com
Data intelligence complex is the real story
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a1dd626c-cf80-11e2-be7b-00144feab7de.html
13 comments
This reads like pro-Obama propaganda. Why does Obama want to decrease public concern about war? I'd say he doesn't want a public debate about it. He doesn't want a public debate about PRISM/NSA either.
Oh, but Obama says he welcomes the latter, even congratulates us for wanting to have one, "[...] it's a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate." (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/07/obama_on_n...). Who could possibly complain?
Heh, Richard "Wretchard" Fernandez points out in an essay (http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/07/all-we-are-sa...) that quotes Mead's essay that this total surveillance state puts a rather sinister cast on "Obamaphones".
"[...] he had no difficulty convincing his base ... that it could have free Obamaphones. He forgot to say there was one problem with those phones …."
"[...] he had no difficulty convincing his base ... that it could have free Obamaphones. He forgot to say there was one problem with those phones …."
Yeah, and before that was communists. I wonder what's next.
I'm curious what you believe about the Boston bombing and 9/11. Do you think the threat of Islamic terrorism is fabricated?
I'm also curious what you think about American communism. American communists were instrumental in getting the Soviet Union the Bomb, thereby bring the world to the brink of destruction. They also leaked information from the top levels of government during WWII, helping to deliver millions to the rule of Soviet tyranny. The domestic communist threat was very real. Sorry to quote myself, but: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843702
I'm also curious what you think about American communism. American communists were instrumental in getting the Soviet Union the Bomb, thereby bring the world to the brink of destruction. They also leaked information from the top levels of government during WWII, helping to deliver millions to the rule of Soviet tyranny. The domestic communist threat was very real. Sorry to quote myself, but: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843702
There will always be threats. That is not the problem. The problem is the Us vs Them attitude that causes overreaction to a relatively small number of deaths while larger dangers go unnoticed. You endure road accidents and gun deaths every day. Why do you think you can't endure Islamic terrorism?
You're ignoring that we spend a great deal of treasure and effort in minimizing road accidents and "gun deaths", and with quite a bit of success in both as measured in just that, especially when adjusted for population increase. We're spending so much ordinary people can't afford new cars (OK, there are environmental costs as well, and the $1,000? for a 5 mph bumper isn't for safety, really), and the current generation of the young is to an unprecedented degree avoiding them.
Therefore, why is our reaction to Islamic terrorism an out of line overreaction? I mean, any more than our vehicle safety one, or at least as that can be argued as an overreaction?
If, or more likely when, it gets to the point of nukes slagging our cities, I don't think the word "endure" will even vaguely apply. I would also hate to tell my friends who lost friends in 9/11 that that was something simply to be "endured", with obviously lots more to come.
Ask yourself if your desires are realistic. Would the American people allow such to pass? Would not a suppression of the reaction to attacks result in worse reactions when we finally do? It can be argued that our tolerance and "enduring" of al-Qaeda's attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Attacks) that killed over 300 prior to 9/11 allowed the latter to occur, with our resulting "overreaction".
Therefore, why is our reaction to Islamic terrorism an out of line overreaction? I mean, any more than our vehicle safety one, or at least as that can be argued as an overreaction?
If, or more likely when, it gets to the point of nukes slagging our cities, I don't think the word "endure" will even vaguely apply. I would also hate to tell my friends who lost friends in 9/11 that that was something simply to be "endured", with obviously lots more to come.
Ask yourself if your desires are realistic. Would the American people allow such to pass? Would not a suppression of the reaction to attacks result in worse reactions when we finally do? It can be argued that our tolerance and "enduring" of al-Qaeda's attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Attacks) that killed over 300 prior to 9/11 allowed the latter to occur, with our resulting "overreaction".
Do you have friends who lost friends in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? What do you tell them? The wars made us less safe. What do you tell your kids who have to pay for them?
Look, I'm not saying don't act. Sometimes military action is the best option. Just keep your eyes open. Sometimes invading countries that want to be left alone, or increased authoritarianism at home isn't the best idea.
Look, I'm not saying don't act. Sometimes military action is the best option. Just keep your eyes open. Sometimes invading countries that want to be left alone, or increased authoritarianism at home isn't the best idea.
Unlike the victims of al-Qaeda, the casualties of those two wars signed up for the risks. (I could have been one of them if eyesight hadn't kept me out of the military.)
We disagree on whether these wars "made us safer", and I'll also note the effort to quarantine Saddam (the no-fly zone et. al.) prior to the 2nd war wasn't cheap, in lives or treasure.
If the Taliban controlling Afghanistan at the time "wanted to be left alone", they could have delivered Osama and company to us as we demanded. To the extent they weren't complicit and supporting al-Qaeda, they violated Niven's Law 1b: "Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."
And I think the peoples of Iran and Kuwait would find it extremely curious to describe Iraq under Saddam as a country "that wanted to be left alone".
We disagree on whether these wars "made us safer", and I'll also note the effort to quarantine Saddam (the no-fly zone et. al.) prior to the 2nd war wasn't cheap, in lives or treasure.
If the Taliban controlling Afghanistan at the time "wanted to be left alone", they could have delivered Osama and company to us as we demanded. To the extent they weren't complicit and supporting al-Qaeda, they violated Niven's Law 1b: "Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man."
And I think the peoples of Iran and Kuwait would find it extremely curious to describe Iraq under Saddam as a country "that wanted to be left alone".
One could argue that the Russians getting the bomb meant that no nukes were used in the Korean war.
As for WWII it wasn't Russian spies that allows the USSR's land grab, it was combination of rubbish negotiation and political wrangling within the allies.
As for WWII it wasn't Russian spies that allows the USSR's land grab, it was combination of rubbish negotiation and political wrangling within the allies.
Is the site behind paywall? I don't want to register just to read one article.
Last time I checked it's a staged paywall. You get X articles for free without any action, X+Y articles if you register, there may be another "free" stage, and of course you can start paying and that may have more than one level.
They compete with The Wall Street Journal, which is famously about the only paper that made a success of on-line subscriptions a long time ago.
They compete with The Wall Street Journal, which is famously about the only paper that made a success of on-line subscriptions a long time ago.
FT apparently requires you to register to see your 8 free articles every 30 days. So you have to do something, not just nothing.
Any other sources on this story? The fact that the US spends $80 billion (overall?) on signals intelligence would not be particularly surprising.
Any other sources on this story? The fact that the US spends $80 billion (overall?) on signals intelligence would not be particularly surprising.
I guess they've changed their policy and I didn't notice because I registered a long time ago. Not a good idea, there should be no friction until you've tasted a bit of the fruit they're offering. Then again, such mechanisms tend to make it too easy to entirely circumvent the subscription system.
I closed the popup and the article still didn't appear, so I closed the tab and found something else to read.
It is and shouldn't be on HN.
There is a recurring argument that these sorts of paywalls are okay for submissions because you can run various circumvention techniques that remove them. Aside from the serious legal grey area there (it may fall under the realm of "hacking"), it is in effect stealing for those of us who abide by intellectual property rights.
Sites that implement paywalls understand that they eschew social news sites as a consequence. Abide by that understanding.
There is a recurring argument that these sorts of paywalls are okay for submissions because you can run various circumvention techniques that remove them. Aside from the serious legal grey area there (it may fall under the realm of "hacking"), it is in effect stealing for those of us who abide by intellectual property rights.
Sites that implement paywalls understand that they eschew social news sites as a consequence. Abide by that understanding.
A counterargument is that they have a registration wall that allows you to read a certain number of articles per month (currently 8 according to carbocation in another subthread of this thread). I find their content to be of sufficiently high quality I had no qualms about doing that some time ago.
Perhaps, though as a general rule HN bars any content that sits behind a login/registration, whether it's Facebook, Quora, etc.
It's not a written rule, at least not in http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I do agree it's a good guideline, then again the above says if such an article is the original source, it should be directly linked to....
I do agree it's a good guideline, then again the above says if such an article is the original source, it should be directly linked to....
www.bugmenot.com
The article is free if you click on it from google's search results. Here is a link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=data%20intelligence%2...
[deleted]
William Binney talks about the military-industrial complex in this video from the last HOPE conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqN59beaFMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqN59beaFMI
Well if you look it the other way, that's a good market to build a start-up for.
You have to admit, the US is doing a pretty good job with that $80 billion/yr.
I mean, what's the alternative? Spend $0 on secret data intelligence gathering? Of course not! I for one am happy to know that there are people on my side, looking for people who are not.
Furthermore, I can't seem to understand why people are so up-in-arms over US data gathering. I for one, have nothing to hide. Every crime I've committed online is so small, the NSA simply doesn't care. Obama said in his latest press conference, "We collect the meta data, not the data. We can see who is calling who, and if we need to listen to that call, we need to go before a judge."
I, a person of the people, am fine with the government spending this kind of money on secret data intelligence, because it keeps me safer. Period.
I mean, what's the alternative? Spend $0 on secret data intelligence gathering? Of course not! I for one am happy to know that there are people on my side, looking for people who are not.
Furthermore, I can't seem to understand why people are so up-in-arms over US data gathering. I for one, have nothing to hide. Every crime I've committed online is so small, the NSA simply doesn't care. Obama said in his latest press conference, "We collect the meta data, not the data. We can see who is calling who, and if we need to listen to that call, we need to go before a judge."
I, a person of the people, am fine with the government spending this kind of money on secret data intelligence, because it keeps me safer. Period.
The individual in me says "Wow, that's a lot of spying". Yet, the larger, money-hungry side of me says "what service/product could I develop to get a chunk of that $80 billion".
while the education budget is less then 70 billions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ed...
That's just at the federal level. Total is about $800 billion[1].
The US is regularly on top of the OECD for spending per student in school. The idea that it doesn't spend much on education is one of those bad memes that never goes away.
[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20...
The US is regularly on top of the OECD for spending per student in school. The idea that it doesn't spend much on education is one of those bad memes that never goes away.
[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20...
Patroits don't work cheap.
Maybe call it "nationalism" to avoid implanted emotional implications of the word.
Maybe I'll just wait a day or two for someone at the Pentagon to leak guidelines on how to provide constructive criticism of their budget.
Meanwhile enjoy this quote from Nicholas Negroponte - "Nationalism is the biggest disease on the planet. Nations have the wrong granularity. They’re too small to be global and too big to be local, and all they can think about is competing."
Meanwhile enjoy this quote from Nicholas Negroponte - "Nationalism is the biggest disease on the planet. Nations have the wrong granularity. They’re too small to be global and too big to be local, and all they can think about is competing."
[deleted]
We should use that money to drop bombs via drones 24/7. Eradicate them out of existence.
Errrm, and what, exactly, tells us who to "drop bombs" on?
This is exactly what terrorists want: the impact of a terrorist act is, in the end, measured in money much more than in lives.
They are not going to kill that many people in the end, what they want is to make people afraid and pervert all the freedom in a country. Because what they hate is our freedom, do not forget it.
EDIT: BTW, being wrong (if I am) is a cause for downvotes? Grow up, you people.
They are not going to kill that many people in the end, what they want is to make people afraid and pervert all the freedom in a country. Because what they hate is our freedom, do not forget it.
EDIT: BTW, being wrong (if I am) is a cause for downvotes? Grow up, you people.
The terrorists do not want to see the U.S. turn into a police state.
The terrorists do not hate our freedoms.
The terrorists -- and specifically I'm talking about al-Qaeda and related groups -- want "atrocities against Muslims" to end, they want support for Israel to end, they want U.S. presence in the Middle East to end.[1]
Terror sects aren't B-movie villains.
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatw...
The terrorists do not hate our freedoms.
The terrorists -- and specifically I'm talking about al-Qaeda and related groups -- want "atrocities against Muslims" to end, they want support for Israel to end, they want U.S. presence in the Middle East to end.[1]
Terror sects aren't B-movie villains.
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatw...
[deleted]
I probably explained myself badly.
What they want is to terrorize. Their success is measured in money.
Any economist will just point out that money is how most things are measured as regards human relations in a normal society.
What they want is to terrorize. Their success is measured in money.
Any economist will just point out that money is how most things are measured as regards human relations in a normal society.
No, their success is measured in how well they achieve their goals such as ridding an invader from land they consider sacred.
You know why they're pissed off, right?
Knowing our enemy is rather essential if we want to stop this war one day.
You know why they're pissed off, right?
Knowing our enemy is rather essential if we want to stop this war one day.
It's a little more complicated than that, as one of those "atrocities against Muslims" is the existence of Israel. Even if the US ended support for Israel, it's likely that Muslims would still bear animus towards the West due to Israel's pro-Western worldview.
Now, maybe if we started bombing Israel to demonstrate our sincerity...
Now, maybe if we started bombing Israel to demonstrate our sincerity...
Terrorist just want to commit their atrocities in peace, without anyone bothering them.
Even though you have a point in that all this massive expense (and more) is a win for terrorists, I don't think they "hate our freedom". If anything, they hate those that cause them pain (like every other human being). The US have playing chess with the rest of the world for decades and they're starting to pay the price. This is not a war that terrorists started because they hated anyone's freedom (why don't they target Canada, then?), but the absolutely only resource they have against a superpower that's trying to crush them (putting dictators in other countries, etc).
why don't they target Canada
They do[1], but I agree, not as often. I've felt for decades that we need to stop meddling in other country's affairs. Remember, we've been a target for decades, too. Hijackings and the first WTC bombing.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/world/americas/canada-terror-p...
They do[1], but I agree, not as often. I've felt for decades that we need to stop meddling in other country's affairs. Remember, we've been a target for decades, too. Hijackings and the first WTC bombing.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/world/americas/canada-terror-p...
I was with you right up to your last sentence. 'Our freedoms,' that's the number one cause of terrorism?
Yes: the freedom to say "I shall not comply with your exigencies just because you are powerful". This is what they hate. Because it prevents the fulfilment of their 'dreams'.
I live in Spain. I know something about terror, man. And what ETA despises is FREE people in the Basque Country, willing to say to them: get your shit out of my hands and my house.
Terrorist are cheap people, in that sense. B-series villains, really. They just hate people not complying with their wishes: i.e. 'free' people.
This is what each dictator hates most. And they are dictators: "I know what is right and shall put all means into play in order to obtain it".
I live in Spain. I know something about terror, man. And what ETA despises is FREE people in the Basque Country, willing to say to them: get your shit out of my hands and my house.
Terrorist are cheap people, in that sense. B-series villains, really. They just hate people not complying with their wishes: i.e. 'free' people.
This is what each dictator hates most. And they are dictators: "I know what is right and shall put all means into play in order to obtain it".
[deleted]
Key bits:
"From the day he took office, President Obama has sought to defuse the war and decrease public concern about it....
"It is in many ways an excellent strategy, but it has one serious flaw: it leaves the President terribly vulnerable if a significant terror strike should succeed....
[ Details the intelligence effort required. ]
"More than that, he has to be able to act. If terror is to be nipped in the bud, drones must fire down from the skies. If the al-Qaeda leadership is to remain stunned, scattered and incapable of large scale actions against the United States, houses in Waziristan must mysteriously blow up. American citizens making war against their homeland must die, even if that means they don’t get to hear their Miranda rights first.
"President Obama’s core war strategy depends on massive intelligence capabilities that were undreamed of twenty years ago. It depends on the substitution of drones for troops. PRISM and similar programs aren’t a ghastly misstep or an avoidable accident. They are the essence of Obama’s grand strategy: public peace and secret war. To cool down the public face of the war, he must intensify the secret struggle."