'60 Minutes': NSA Good, Snowden Bad(thewire.com)
thewire.com
'60 Minutes': NSA Good, Snowden Bad
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-bad/356174/
6 comments
Most if not all western media outlets have become little more than propaganda machines. There was a piece written about it recently by a Pentagon reporter, who basically tried to couch the fact that they hero-worship government and especially military officials in pseudo-intellectual excuses.
I'll try to find the link for you.
edit: Not the one I was thinking of but still à propos: http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-why-do-mainstream-jo...
I'll try to find the link for you.
edit: Not the one I was thinking of but still à propos: http://www.alternet.org/glenn-greenwald-why-do-mainstream-jo...
[deleted]
Why would he compromise his own independence or why would the NSA compromise it? Himself: I believe you have your answer in your first line. NSA: they're running out of (credible) journalists who believe them (even NYT said recently they've stopped taking what the NSA says for granted), so they're desperate and acting sloppy because of it.
I would rather put this in the term of
With or Without Integrity.
I am an American Citizen and I am proud to be one.
Can we stop with this good vs bad comparison. See this paper for reference to the integrity I'm talking about: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1511274
What NSA doing is OUT OF integrity with their mission statements and values of this country. Snowden however seemed to acted with integrity. More research is needed.
Here is NSA's dedication to our nation:
NSA/CSS employees are Americans first, last, and always. We treasure the U.S. Constitution and the rights it secures for all the people. Each employee takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Where shall we go from here, other than calling something good vs bad?
With or Without Integrity.
I am an American Citizen and I am proud to be one.
Can we stop with this good vs bad comparison. See this paper for reference to the integrity I'm talking about: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1511274
What NSA doing is OUT OF integrity with their mission statements and values of this country. Snowden however seemed to acted with integrity. More research is needed.
Here is NSA's dedication to our nation:
NSA/CSS employees are Americans first, last, and always. We treasure the U.S. Constitution and the rights it secures for all the people. Each employee takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Where shall we go from here, other than calling something good vs bad?
> What NSA doing is OUT OF integrity with their mission statements and values of this country.
How can you trust that there are no nefarious forces at work here on the NSA's part, when 1) there are many clear and obvious incentives for them to exist, and 2) everything about the NSA and what it does is kept a secret?
How can you trust that there are no nefarious forces at work here on the NSA's part, when 1) there are many clear and obvious incentives for them to exist, and 2) everything about the NSA and what it does is kept a secret?
I don't trust them now days.
Many man and woman of NSA truly think they are doing good for their country.
I also don't think by calling each other names like nefarious is going to help the situation.
It that time they acted the way the world occurred (showed up ) must seemed appropriated for that action. I don not think they they are sitting around the table and talk about how to be evil.
I think we should grant amnesty much like what they did in South Africa for people who are working for US government and know they are doing something not in alignment with their and the countryøs values.
Many man and woman of NSA truly think they are doing good for their country.
I also don't think by calling each other names like nefarious is going to help the situation.
It that time they acted the way the world occurred (showed up ) must seemed appropriated for that action. I don not think they they are sitting around the table and talk about how to be evil.
I think we should grant amnesty much like what they did in South Africa for people who are working for US government and know they are doing something not in alignment with their and the countryøs values.
Systems and institutions can be evil even if every single human involved in them are upstanding citizens of good conscience. I think the general consensus of critics is that most NSA employees are decent human beings who (misguidedly) believe in their mission.
http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-...
http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-...
Misguided in thinking that a large nation state needs a signals intelligence capability? They aren't the SS.
The NSA has overreached because after 9/11 congress demanded that they start overreaching. The AUMF was sweeping in its breadth.
They will have to be reigned in...but the idea that what they are doing is "evil"... if we aren't going to hold people accountable for torture it doesn't make sense to call privacy invasion "evil".
The NSA has overreached because after 9/11 congress demanded that they start overreaching. The AUMF was sweeping in its breadth.
They will have to be reigned in...but the idea that what they are doing is "evil"... if we aren't going to hold people accountable for torture it doesn't make sense to call privacy invasion "evil".
sorry someone stole my laptop, post on this computer is a pain. One last thing.
DO NOT walk away with the notion that
With Integrity = Good
With Out Integrity = Bad
Consider that Integrity is just there or not, and when it is there it provide a foundation for workability that's all.
"It ain't no big deal."
In this case, one organization is just out of it. :-) It is like a statement "the moon is round". Either good or bad.
DO NOT walk away with the notion that
With Integrity = Good
With Out Integrity = Bad
Consider that Integrity is just there or not, and when it is there it provide a foundation for workability that's all.
"It ain't no big deal."
In this case, one organization is just out of it. :-) It is like a statement "the moon is round". Either good or bad.
[deleted]
On one of the "chaining" screen of the NSA system, it looks like they are using a graph database for analysis :)
I imagine a large amount of their work involves manipulating massive graphs (people, computers, networks). Wouldn't be surprised if they have their own proprietary graph database optimized for billions or more of nodes/edges.
Look, existing media outlets are incapable of certain kinds of criticism. Its as unlikely that 60 minutes would take a anti-NSA stance as it would be to take an anti-Army stance. Establishment players are just that...im not even a 100% Snowden backer... but expecting anti-establishment journalism form the definition of the establishment is just going to give you indigestion.
Look up the Pentagon Papers and Woodward and Bernstein (and Rathergate, though that criticism was erroneous) for examples of established media sharply and consequentially criticizing the US government.
The media /are/ capable of it, and they /used/ to do it.
The media /are/ capable of it, and they /used/ to do it.
[deleted]
Full disclosure: I once worked in the office of the director of National Intelligence, where I saw firsthand how secretly the NSA operates.
Because as long as you tell us up front about your huge conflict of interest, it's totally fine that you have one, right?
I can understand if the NSA required questions to be pre-screened, and even that Alexander was allowed to ask "for 'time outs' before he answers certain questions." But why so openly compromise the independence of the interviewer?