People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government.
A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. The word "terrorist" is only the latest in a long string.
>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it
I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course).
Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious.
A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them.
Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground.
Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.
Completely off-topic but I've this a few times now in different places. I'll come to the end of what I'm reading and there'll be a tl;dr at the frickin' _end_ of it! Isn't it supposed to be right up front so that if I am incredibly lazy and trusting I can just slurp the tl;dr and move on? When placed at the end is its meaning changed to something like "to summarize" or "in summation" ???
"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years."
This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims.
The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
The FBI used to track homosexuals because they were suspected communists. This is my fear with these programs exactly.
I don't expect the current government to round up homosexuals or hackers, but here's the thing. Let's say we have a big economic depression, and a politically extremist party gets into office. Now we've got a complete database for them to dig through to purge their idea of "undesirables".
Think that's insane? Did you know that they put Kevin Mitnick in solitary confinement because they thought he was a Russian spy, and that he could whistle nuclear missile commands into a computer? Yes, your government is -that- fucking stupid.
We're making the machines of scary future government, all they'll have to do is turn the key. Let's destroy this data and this program before it gets really out of control.
Wow. Huge reading comprehension fail on your part. That sentence was obviously referring to socially inept heterosexual men, the stereotypical "neckbeards". Get over your homophobia hysteria already.
If you are a homosexual it is not about killing you from NSA/CIA perspective. It is rather a way to blackmail you to report on your friends if you are involved in hacktivism, OWS, devoted Muslim, etc. If they know your secrets they own you. They might not need you now, but they may in 5-10-15 years. They'll knock your door and tell you: you are married have 3 kids and are gay. If you don't want your family to find out here is what you do. That's why they need it brother. Because google knows more about us than probably anybody else in the world. To know and store this data regarding all Americans. There is no better deal in the world if you are the nsa/cia.
So expressing support for Snowden is suggested to be a sign I might be a threat to a country. Way to accelerate the self-censorship (and the subsequent censorship of thought) that this whole surveillance disaster creates.
I don't know exactly who Hayden was talking about, but various people on the Internet have done a lot more than "express support". Calls for "revolution" and "rioting in the streets" seem to pop up in comments on these stories on a pretty regular basis on various sites. But there have also been suggestions of more specific action, including shooting FISA court judges and others and one guy on Reddit speculating about blowing up parts of the power grid.
Now I'm sure most of that is pointless Internet talk. But it certainly goes way beyond expressions of support or discussion of changing policy or laws through democratic means.
Interesting quote further down where he begs the question, Betteridge's-law-of-headlines-style:
Hayden: "But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest, but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."
Yeah, the Salon article is thinly veiled editorial. It extrapolates quite a bit from what Hayden actually said which was pretty reasonable. He is not saying hackers=terrorists, but rather some hackers may turn to terrorism-style attacks and he is probably correct.
We live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. This sounds like an old transcript saying that if you disagree with the government / military you must instantly be a communist. Feels like we are only a step away from public service announcements on how to spot if your child is a terrorist because they spend a lot of time on their computer.
> We live in a world doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
But now, we have storage and much faster circulation of information. Which means we can track these "mistakes", dig them up easily whenever they're about to be repeated and discuss them again (better yet, "fork" the old discussion and adapt it to the current issue).
Maybe somebody should build the perfect tool to do just this. (I feel it doesn't exist yet, but the need is now clearly here.)
What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Which side of the argument you're stood on.
It's completely ridiculous in many ways, but it's often been the case that people who are passionate activists willing to stand up against perceived injustices are viewed as a menace. It just means that they now think hackers are a serious threat.
Michael Hayden is being provocative -- attempting to provoke debate. This is an excellent, laudable act, and should be warmly welcomed.
So, here is my response:-
There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power.
It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture, religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles.
It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation State.
To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions.
So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and identifiable physical threat.
As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive biases.
Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units, and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on.
Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf on which he feels most comfortable.
This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
So, we have two threads in his speculation:-
The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.
>This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
I don't understand. In one breath, you're saying such a provocative statement is welcome and even "laudable," but in the next, you're saying it's dangerous.
> although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling
Also, when one is truly "being provocative," you're not allowed to use their statements as evidence to their opinions.
Can we just call a spade a spade and allow his xenophobic, terrified speculations to reflect him, a vestige of the boomer plight that's systematically eating away at the core of this nation?
Greywolf Borealis in the Salon comments section put it better than I ever could:
> Hackers may be the terrorists of the future, but the real terrorist of today is the NSA. They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. That is pretty scary.
Here's the thing about McCarthy, Communists were fucking everywhere. I don't mean ideological communists, I mean Soviet secret agents. They were in every level of government. They helped funnel the most secret of information to the USSR.
And that's not all, the Soviets were erecting a police state to control hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. They had a tremendous military force with millions of soldiers. They were cranking out more tanks than had ever been in any war in history. And bombers. And they had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to US cities in short order.
But none of that justified Senator McCarthy's abuses of power and violations of the rights of American citizens.
Here we are now faced with the threat of terrorism. Or to be more broad about it, the threat of jihadist radical Islamist fundamentalists (both in al qaeda and elsewhere). We know that these forces pose a serious threat to the US, just as the Soviets did. But is this danger on the same scale as the Cold War? Not even close. Does it justify abrogation of our cherished liberty and privacy? Never.
I frankly don't believe for an instance "terrorists" pose any substantial threat to the US. Even 911 is chump change on the scale of how much terror our own government had brought down on foreigners, and the idea that they used 3000 dead to justify a seize of power is just disgusting.
Look, I'm not comfortable with the NSA program but...
This is the second Salon article in 2 days that is way over sensationalized. I get that this is interesting to people on HN, but I think we could wait for better articles to upvote.
I feel there is a fundamental mismatch of what constitutes a matter of national security.
All (?) nation states have a right to prevent their own destruction, but I think the triggers that set off the immune system reaction are important - I, and I think a lot of HN, would say there is a minimum level of expected harm before a matter is consider national security level - lets say for arguments sake a loss of 2% GDP or 1,000 dead. And the motivation of the persons is irrelevant - so the banking crisis of 2008 would be considered a national security matter by me, but two maniacs hacking a soldier to death on the streets of the UK would not (a crime yes, murder, yes, possibly politically motivated yes - but not a matter that threatens our nationstate)
However Hayden seems to be the reverse - there is no minimum level of harm (one life is too many, one defaced website is too much) but the political motivations of the people is important - so his views in the banking crisis and murders on the street seem reversed.
Sometimes I wish that "Little brother" was a completely made up story. But lately many parts of it read like a script for what's happening at the moment. What is published by news lately makes me wonder what would happen the next time some big event in the US happens... the first "conspiracy theory" will be - NSA/FBI/... organised it (wouldn't be hard, people were given "support" before so that they can be arrested - just skip the arrest part) to prove more monitoring and control is needed. And could anyone really disagree at that point?
Some of that was already seen after the news about closing the embassies. There were many comments saying it's only a show, put on to "prove" that there really is a danger of something happening.
As long as we are going to try to be provocative: Hayden is responsible for most of the technical and policy changes at NSA (and presumably the same at CIA) which "caused" both Snowden and Manning, or at least turned then from minor discontents to 1) motivated leakers 2) with the means to leak massive amounts.
I personally support Snowden, but think Manning was indiscriminate and motivated mainly by personal issues, using public interest as a fig leaf.
Were I to hang Manning for treason, there would be a gallows to the left for Hayden. Arguably being much more senior and invested in the system, and presumed to be trustworthy and competent, his crimes were worse, even if less direct.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Michael Hayden was NSA director from 1999 to 2005. Michael Hayden literally was being paid a big salary to stop 9/11 from happening. How'd that go for him? Not so good.
Look at ALL THE TOOLS we now know the NSA Director really had at his disposal to prevent a foreign terrorist from hitting the US on 9/11. Micheal Hayden name's should down in along side infamous names like the Admiral who commanded the Pacific Fleet the day of Pearl Harbor.
Michael Hayden is the textbook definition of "the man who can't find his ass with two hands and an assmap." Hayden's picture should appear next to it in Famous Quotation books.
What will they do about the person or persons who disclosed the provenance of the information leading to the closing of multiple designated sites in countries in MENA?
Should we not protect the sources and methods involved in obtaining communications (not chatter, but actual intelligence) of such high valued targets as the head of the group we are most interested in, and a local organization with similar goals and growing scale?
I assume that whoever this person was is on the run, or at least not speaking from an official podium or floor of an illustrious deliberative body, right?
IIRC Bruce Schneier has made an excellent point too: "nothing to hide" becomes destructive the moment those in power get to decide what is the current definition of "illegal" or "dangerous". Just find all occurrences and shows of support of the $new_threat in the available personal histories and persecute at will.
For a glimpse at one possible future of U.S. democracy, I highly recommend this longform nonfiction article about Turkey [1]. It goes into detail about "...the resistance of what is commonly referred to as derin devlet, the 'deep state.'" Later on: "The deep state, historians say, has functioned as a kind of shadow government, disseminating propaganda to whip up public fear or destabilizing civilian governments not to its liking."
The indifference with which our intelligence apparatus treats foreigners could easily be (or already has?) turned on U.S. citizens if a similar "deep state" narrative develops in the U.S. All it would take are a couple loosely linked plots successfully pulled off by American citizens to construct a narrative (i.e. rationale) for turning the full forces of the intelligence apparatus onto all U.S. citizens.
The thing is, Hayden has a point. Geesh, never thought I'd be saying that!
Terrorism is an act of politics, not warfare. It's the use of stealth to deliberately attack civilian targets in order to affect political change. (My working definition only). The goal of terrorism isn't dead people, and you don't weigh a terrorist campaign by how many bodies it creates. Terrorism is all about striking fear into the heart of the population in order to get them to vote or behave differently. That's why the tactic of terrorism is so effective against modern democracies. With the help of mass media, a few crazy people can inflict fear on millions.
So sure, in response to the United States' government implementing draconian surveillance technology, some 20-somethings that live in their parent's basement and have no life (notice how quickly the stereotypes come?) will strike out stealthily in order to inflict fear on the population, to be noticed.
But what he's missing is what military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned: you don't put out fires by dumping gasoline on them. In other words, the asshole that approved of this idiotic idea to store everything possible and then search later is the last person in the world you want defending it. He's gone off the reservation and somebody should shut him up before he makes things worse.
If the establishment starts circling the wagons on this issue, and it looks like that's what is happening, it's going to drive a wedge between the people and the government. This is not a good thing for them to be doing, terrorist threat or not.
All these political and agency leaders are betting that the next time there's a terrorist attack -- and there will be -- that anybody who supported killing this program will be rounded up and laughed at. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't bet on it.
Terrorism has not been used in any well-defined way for years and is a demagoguery technique. The government has been throwing fuel on the "let's exploit our ability to terrify our citizens" since 9/11.
[+] [-] kshatrea|12 years ago|reply
tl;dr government != country.
[+] [-] digitalengineer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onebaddude|12 years ago|reply
I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course).
Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.
[+] [-] weland|12 years ago|reply
A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them.
Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground.
Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.
[+] [-] igravious|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|12 years ago|reply
This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims.
The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.
[+] [-] kyledrake|12 years ago|reply
I don't expect the current government to round up homosexuals or hackers, but here's the thing. Let's say we have a big economic depression, and a politically extremist party gets into office. Now we've got a complete database for them to dig through to purge their idea of "undesirables".
Think that's insane? Did you know that they put Kevin Mitnick in solitary confinement because they thought he was a Russian spy, and that he could whistle nuclear missile commands into a computer? Yes, your government is -that- fucking stupid.
We're making the machines of scary future government, all they'll have to do is turn the key. Let's destroy this data and this program before it gets really out of control.
[+] [-] stablepeak|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retro_gamer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|12 years ago|reply
The US government is not planning to commit genocide against gay people or whatever ridiculous premise you're insinuating.
[+] [-] LekkoscPiwa|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrrr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rainsford|12 years ago|reply
Now I'm sure most of that is pointless Internet talk. But it certainly goes way beyond expressions of support or discussion of changing policy or laws through democratic means.
[+] [-] nohuck13|12 years ago|reply
Interesting quote further down where he begs the question, Betteridge's-law-of-headlines-style:
Hayden: "But certainly Mr Snowden has created quite a stir among those folks who are very committed to transparency and global transparency and the global web, kind of ungoverned and free. And I don't know that there's a logic between trying to [punish] America or American institutions for his arrest, but I hold out the possibility. I can sit here and imagine circumstances and scenarios, but they're nothing more than imaginative."
[+] [-] tootie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimparkins|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] northwest|12 years ago|reply
But now, we have storage and much faster circulation of information. Which means we can track these "mistakes", dig them up easily whenever they're about to be repeated and discuss them again (better yet, "fork" the old discussion and adapt it to the current issue).
Maybe somebody should build the perfect tool to do just this. (I feel it doesn't exist yet, but the need is now clearly here.)
EDIT: I tried to hint at that (in this case regarding surveillance only) here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152935
[+] [-] JonnieCache|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TsiCClawOfLight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicholassmith|12 years ago|reply
It's completely ridiculous in many ways, but it's often been the case that people who are passionate activists willing to stand up against perceived injustices are viewed as a menace. It just means that they now think hackers are a serious threat.
[+] [-] duaneb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w_t_payne|12 years ago|reply
So, here is my response:-
There is an element of truth to what Michael Hayden is saying, although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling, and reveals a lot about the culture that prevails in the corridors of power.
It is true that the internet is creating communities and groups that do not fit into the old hierarchies of power and control. New communications technologies forge new arenas of discourse; they bring together new communities and interest groups, largely unconstrained by geography, culture, religion or (increasingly) language. These groups are beginning to find common cause, recognize their political power, and flex their (political) muscles.
It is natural and proper that those who benefit from the status-quo should feel nervous. This technological watershed (and the movement of movements that it has triggered) does indeed pose an existential threat to many organisations that predicate their existence on the primacy and sovereignty of the Nation State.
To labor the point: Notions of sovereignty and the plenipotentiary power of the state are weakened and undermined when individuals discover that their shared humanity cuts across international boundaries, and that the "tribe" to which they pledge allegiance is neither best defined nor best constrained in terms of militarily defensible contiguous geographical regions.
So, political and economic elites that are strongly aligned with the interests and primacy of the nation state really do face an existential threat, albeit a distributed, generally non-violent, tides-of-history type threat, rather than one that is focused around a particular "enemy" posing a specific and identifiable physical threat.
As I mentioned previously, Hayden's response to this threat is telling, and reveals much about his (and the Agency's) predispositions and cognitive biases.
Firstly, he thinks immediately of a physical threat - of hostile groups seeking revenge. He sees the world in terms of "friends" and "enemies", in terms of coherent and organised groups that can be treated as atomic units, and imbued with anthropomorphic characteristics: "anger", "revenge" and so on.
Secondly, he seeks to (at the same time) elevate and exaggerate the threat posed by this (notional) group, to make it relevant to the political mainstream, by speculating about attacks on civilian infrastructure - exactly what he would have needed to do during the inevitable internecine budgetary battles that he would have fought during his tenure with the NSA. As a former department head, this is necessarily his area of expertise, and the home turf on which he feels most comfortable.
This second aspect is particularly dangerous in that he seeks to incite and provoke the very threat that he spends so much effort warning us about. He ruthlessly exploits our tribalistic, pack-animal ancestry, conjuring up hostile groups where none exist; engineering conflict in a callous game of divide-and-conquer.
So, we have two threads in his speculation:-
The latter thread being part of a persistent and habitual strategy of scaremongering and conflict creation -- the better to secure a bigger slice of the budgetary pie for "the boys", is rather more transparent (and consequentially less interesting) than the former - the expectation that his foes will always form coherent and organised groups, capable of "making demands", and of acting in a manner amenable to anthropomorphic analysis. This contrasts rather well with one competing view -- that sees the world as a collection of ad-hoc networks of ideas and social mechanisms, some forming, others dissolving -- clearly structured, but not at all hierarchical.
[+] [-] rst|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dclowd9901|12 years ago|reply
I don't understand. In one breath, you're saying such a provocative statement is welcome and even "laudable," but in the next, you're saying it's dangerous.
> although his analysis of the situation is enormously telling
Also, when one is truly "being provocative," you're not allowed to use their statements as evidence to their opinions.
Can we just call a spade a spade and allow his xenophobic, terrified speculations to reflect him, a vestige of the boomer plight that's systematically eating away at the core of this nation?
[+] [-] laumars|12 years ago|reply
> Hackers may be the terrorists of the future, but the real terrorist of today is the NSA. They are employing the same tools used by hackers to spy on United States citizens without probable cause or warrant. That is pretty scary.
[+] [-] mr_spothawk|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|12 years ago|reply
Here's the thing about McCarthy, Communists were fucking everywhere. I don't mean ideological communists, I mean Soviet secret agents. They were in every level of government. They helped funnel the most secret of information to the USSR.
And that's not all, the Soviets were erecting a police state to control hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. They had a tremendous military force with millions of soldiers. They were cranking out more tanks than had ever been in any war in history. And bombers. And they had nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to US cities in short order.
But none of that justified Senator McCarthy's abuses of power and violations of the rights of American citizens.
Here we are now faced with the threat of terrorism. Or to be more broad about it, the threat of jihadist radical Islamist fundamentalists (both in al qaeda and elsewhere). We know that these forces pose a serious threat to the US, just as the Soviets did. But is this danger on the same scale as the Cold War? Not even close. Does it justify abrogation of our cherished liberty and privacy? Never.
[+] [-] duaneb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtvanhest|12 years ago|reply
This is the second Salon article in 2 days that is way over sensationalized. I get that this is interesting to people on HN, but I think we could wait for better articles to upvote.
[+] [-] duaneb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|12 years ago|reply
All (?) nation states have a right to prevent their own destruction, but I think the triggers that set off the immune system reaction are important - I, and I think a lot of HN, would say there is a minimum level of expected harm before a matter is consider national security level - lets say for arguments sake a loss of 2% GDP or 1,000 dead. And the motivation of the persons is irrelevant - so the banking crisis of 2008 would be considered a national security matter by me, but two maniacs hacking a soldier to death on the streets of the UK would not (a crime yes, murder, yes, possibly politically motivated yes - but not a matter that threatens our nationstate)
However Hayden seems to be the reverse - there is no minimum level of harm (one life is too many, one defaced website is too much) but the political motivations of the people is important - so his views in the banking crisis and murders on the street seem reversed.
Maybe it is a useful viewpoint
[+] [-] baseten|12 years ago|reply
Has he SEEN Snowden's former girlfriend? This trope should be retired based on that point alone.
[+] [-] viraptor|12 years ago|reply
Some of that was already seen after the news about closing the embassies. There were many comments saying it's only a show, put on to "prove" that there really is a danger of something happening.
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
I personally support Snowden, but think Manning was indiscriminate and motivated mainly by personal issues, using public interest as a fig leaf.
Were I to hang Manning for treason, there would be a gallows to the left for Hayden. Arguably being much more senior and invested in the system, and presumed to be trustworthy and competent, his crimes were worse, even if less direct.
[+] [-] dbond|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
Which in the case of drugs, IIRC, is true. Didn't the CIA use cocaine trafficking to fund some black type ops?
[+] [-] tmister|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edgarallenbro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Adam503|12 years ago|reply
Look at ALL THE TOOLS we now know the NSA Director really had at his disposal to prevent a foreign terrorist from hitting the US on 9/11. Micheal Hayden name's should down in along side infamous names like the Admiral who commanded the Pacific Fleet the day of Pearl Harbor.
Michael Hayden is the textbook definition of "the man who can't find his ass with two hands and an assmap." Hayden's picture should appear next to it in Famous Quotation books.
[+] [-] tmzt|12 years ago|reply
Should we not protect the sources and methods involved in obtaining communications (not chatter, but actual intelligence) of such high valued targets as the head of the group we are most interested in, and a local organization with similar goals and growing scale?
I assume that whoever this person was is on the run, or at least not speaking from an official podium or floor of an illustrious deliberative body, right?
[+] [-] ohwp|12 years ago|reply
If the government suddenly decides you are a terrorist you will understand privacy is a good thing.
[+] [-] bostik|12 years ago|reply
IIRC Bruce Schneier has made an excellent point too: "nothing to hide" becomes destructive the moment those in power get to decide what is the current definition of "illegal" or "dangerous". Just find all occurrences and shows of support of the $new_threat in the available personal histories and persecute at will.
In other words, it's never the right approach.
[+] [-] mcphilip|12 years ago|reply
The indifference with which our intelligence apparatus treats foreigners could easily be (or already has?) turned on U.S. citizens if a similar "deep state" narrative develops in the U.S. All it would take are a couple loosely linked plots successfully pulled off by American citizens to construct a narrative (i.e. rationale) for turning the full forces of the intelligence apparatus onto all U.S. citizens.
[1]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/12/120312fa_fact_...
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
Terrorism is an act of politics, not warfare. It's the use of stealth to deliberately attack civilian targets in order to affect political change. (My working definition only). The goal of terrorism isn't dead people, and you don't weigh a terrorist campaign by how many bodies it creates. Terrorism is all about striking fear into the heart of the population in order to get them to vote or behave differently. That's why the tactic of terrorism is so effective against modern democracies. With the help of mass media, a few crazy people can inflict fear on millions.
So sure, in response to the United States' government implementing draconian surveillance technology, some 20-somethings that live in their parent's basement and have no life (notice how quickly the stereotypes come?) will strike out stealthily in order to inflict fear on the population, to be noticed.
But what he's missing is what military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned: you don't put out fires by dumping gasoline on them. In other words, the asshole that approved of this idiotic idea to store everything possible and then search later is the last person in the world you want defending it. He's gone off the reservation and somebody should shut him up before he makes things worse.
If the establishment starts circling the wagons on this issue, and it looks like that's what is happening, it's going to drive a wedge between the people and the government. This is not a good thing for them to be doing, terrorist threat or not.
All these political and agency leaders are betting that the next time there's a terrorist attack -- and there will be -- that anybody who supported killing this program will be rounded up and laughed at. I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't bet on it.
[+] [-] duaneb|12 years ago|reply