Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for pointing out the testimony from NSA Director Michael Hayden, in which he talks about how the NSA worked pre-9/11 and post. And, as Bruce pointed out "...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks. I'd be very surprised if this "interview" is anything but a very well-crafted propoganda campaign. Take everything he says with a large spoon of salt. Regardless of what they say about liberty, these people are not elected, so they have no incentive to protect your rights. Treat them as the enemy, and be ready to defend yourself when they come to haul you away for thoughtcrimes.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Counting on the government for saftey is like counting on them to spend your tax dollars wisely.
I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.
Lets /. the government now, I'm sure that's a felony...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Write to your senators. Write to your representative. Hell, write to your governors and state legislatures, just make it clear that you're not in favour of further restrictions on our rights.
Senators can be found here:
U.S. Senate Home
Representatives can be found here:
Representative Member Directory
If you do this, you have some form of say in our government, or at least a chance at influence. Don't waste it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
With millions of cargo shipments coming in and thousands of planes in the air daily there's no way to secure it. The plans we've come up with seem similar to Microsoft's plans for 'Security'... i.e. The US governement seems to be securing their position rather than securing the people. I'd rather live in fear of terrorism than fear of the US government, something that's becoming more fearful everyday.
put the what in the where?
1 Eliminate civil liberties making security
:)
2
3 FREEDOM!
[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
This is not good enough. Because liberty is a more abstract concept than security, people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ... until their liberty is eroded to the extent that it causes them problems, by which time it is too late to go back.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Governments all around the world have been using the horrible events of September 11th to take away the rights guaranteed their citizens. It is not true, though, that giving up our rights actually makes us more secure.
Every time someone looks at the United States and wrongly believes that we live under a despotic and evil government, the world becomes a bit more dangerous for Americans. The sort of person who thinks that the United States is a horrible place is far more likely to be supportive to the insanity of radical-Islamist terrorism.
On the other hand, every time someone looks to the United States and envies our elections, our freedoms, our optimism, that is a victory in the war on terrorism. And with enough victories like that, I think that the world can truly become a safer place.
... on Tuesday.
Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.
Be careful what you wish for, USACITIZEN.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Amen!
The concept of "Homeland Security" was invented 215 years ago with the 2nd amendment to our Constitution.
--- witty signature
Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.
Isolationism will bring even less security. We begin to ignore what other countries are doing etc.... They have a larger excuse for their hatred and a larger window of opportunity to plan things unnnoticed.
This is like saying that we need to draw the line between electricity use and pollution. Wrong. We need to innovate. The answer to a security issue isn't to take away freedoms to make it easier on us; the answer is to use more advanced methods to maintain privacy and liberty AND enhance security.
While the question is phrased that way -- liberty vs safety -- it's the only question we can answer. If we say: liberty is inviolate, now how else do we protect people? Then that question may be answered instead.
This not only applies to issues pertaining to the west's battle with Islamism, but also applies to all of the socialist safety nets governments feel they must create for us.
And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers. (Read Chocolate)
There are so many physical risks and dangers in this world and we'll never be able to crush, legislate and/or sue them out of existence.
I personally think Michael Hayden stated the issue he faces, and we all face, extremely clearly, and thereby did us all a favor. I also think Benjamin Franklin drew the line where it needs to be drawn -- do not sacrifice essential liberty at all, and especially not for temporary safety.
The task we face is to determine which liberties are essential. I'd start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power.
I'd also point to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as important. We must not carelessly and capriciously deny due process to those whom we suspect. Historically, when we have, we've done no good -- for the others or ourselves. (Remember the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?)
Does anyone see anything important I've missed?
Catherine
Draw the line between liberty and safety where it was on September 10, 2001.
It was not lack of security infrastructure that "allowed" the 9/11 attack. We had the infrastructure in place.
The hostile conspiracy had been testing the vigilance (or lack thereof) of the airport security screenings to _measure_ their complacency.
The hostile conspiracy was using techniques to keep their plans secret that would still work even if the present levels of internet monitoring and envelope steaming had been in place.
We have not really gained security. Observe that the perpetrator of the Anthrax letters still hasn't been identified, much less caught. Observe that the 2nd worst attack on U.S. territory, in OK City, was perpetrated by a U.S. citizen who used a rented panel truck. Safety still is just as illusory as it was before 9/11.
What has changed is that we've sacrificed liberty (or had it sacrificed for us) to create the image of security, without any real gains in security. Heavens, even Ashcroft admitted that U.S. agression abroad would probably increase our risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Security is not the objective. Control is the objective.
Draw the line between security and safety where it was before. We'd spent 35 years of hard civil liberties work to keep the words "national security" from being carte blanche for the abuse of our civil rights. Now we've got to regain that progress all over again. We _will_ regain it, even if it takes another 35 years to relearn the lessons.
Give me liberty or give me death. That seems pretty straight forward to me. If I have to die because I have freedom, so be it. I'm not gonna give it away, just so I can be "safe" and comfortably numb. That's where my line is drawn.
"I then gave the NSA workforce a challenge: We were going to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again."
This could be interpreted a number of ways, but it seems as though he realizes the biggest threat to civil liberties comes from scared citizens.
Actually, I think a lot of people are mad *because* we intervene too much. We do political jiggering in the Middle East (keeping non-Democratic governments in power in the process) just so we can have oil.
This is a very common American mindset,"If we are not isolationists, then we must be interventionists". We need to realize that their is more than a right and a left there is a middle ground. As someone who lived in foreign countries I will tell you that yes intervention was scorned but aid was not. Aid can influence when it is not forced to, Also, there are other forms of involvement. Were we "just minding our business" by not attending any of the major environmental treaties of late? Would the world have seen us as "intervening too much" to sign on in Tokyo? We need to take a role in stewardship of the international environment (seas, polar landscapes etc....) and stop only influencing what directly influences Wall Street. That is really partly what your point was, I just wanted to add mine to it.
Why does the NSA have to ask for a line between safety and liberty? Why can't we have both
The NSA isn't asking you to choose one or the other. It is asking how much liberty do you wish to sacrifice in order to gain how much safety.
And contrary to the rest of your post, there is *always* that tradeoff in the real world.
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
Wait... it makes it easier to do their job, so it is bad policework? That doesn't follow.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through.
Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect. And in terms of a more general profile, where you don't exactly know the suspect, it still makes sense. Not racially profiling is like making a spam filter that ignores certain words because it is politically incorrect to do so.
In other words, it is a dumb strategy from a law enforcement viewpoint.
If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
This is utter balderdash. Civil liberties in general impede law inforcement. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to enforce civil liberties against law enforcement, because they would have no desire or need to violate them.
The important issue, which at least the head of the NSA understands (unlike some posters here) is which civil liberties does one reduce (not eliminate) in trade for what sort of protection. This is a valid question. In fact, it is the fundamental question of all government: what freedoms do you take from your citizens in trade for what benefits do you give them?
After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties. This is something that those who favor big government should keep in mind. It isn't only safety that people trade for liberty; they are also all to willing to trade economic freedoms (typically the economic freedoms of others) for their own economic gain (or the economic gain of others).
Government is necessary in the real world. Government only works by removing liberties. The US government is contrained in its removal of liberties by a constitution, although the interpretation of that constitution is a matter of constant controversy.
Therefore the only interesting issue is how much the government can and should infringe on liberties. Anything else ignores reality.
The only good weather is bad weather.
We, in the US, live in a climate of fear that has been nurtured by our government and the media for a very long time. We have ignored many of the problems in nations throughout the world and focused on being the toughest MF'er on the block. As king of the heap, we have to protect our position. In order to do that we have to justify it to the American people by daily demonstrating the need for that protection--that everyone is out to get us. It becomes a catch-22 situation. The need for security and the means of ensuring that security creates an ever increasing need for more security. Of course, ultimately, our rights must suffer.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The writing of this post makes me seriously wonder whether this is a troll. Something about that last sentence sounds like words from a Miss America candidate's mouth. Nonetheless, assuming you're serious, I would argue just the opposite of your position.
One of the main reasons people in other countries hate America is that we preach democracy, but export anything but to the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, is not a democracy. Rather, it's a monarchy propped up by the US government and its dependency on oil. Wouldn't you be pissed if one of your country's stronger allies had a democratic government but handed over billions of dollars a year to your government that threw you in jail for even mentioning how nice democracy might be.
For other examples of the US supporting (if not outright creating) non-democratic regimes, see Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Much of Central and South America and probably numerous others I'm forgetting right now.
In addition, I would argue that one of the primary purposes of last year's attack was to bring the choas that exists in so many parts of the world to the US's front door, if even temporarily. Remember that bin Laden is a strong crusader for palestinian rights and has stated his anger that America regularly ignores the choas and bloodshed of the region. He wanted the American people and politicians to feel the same sense of uncertainty and overwhelming dread that citizens of Palestine face on a constant basis.
You don't have to forgive or excuse to understand terrorism, but you have to understand it to defeat, defuse, undermine or otherwise declare "victory" in the war on terrorism.
It says something about how the rest of the world is mostly OK, and much of our world sadly is not.
You mean you were able to LEAVE those places?
You don't know how good you've got it if you think even the worst parts of the USA have got the worldwide crown for "crappy living sitation." No, we're not perfect--but there are some FAR worse places in the world to live.
Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals.
No, you don't. I hate to beat the sniper drum because people are making such a big deal out of it, but it is true that the snipers were observed near the scene of several of the shootings by the police, but not noticed because the police were on the lookout for white separatists, and black muslims don't fit that profile.
Had no such profiling been done and they had instead simply compared license plates or people, they may have caught on to them earlier. Or maybe not, but clearly having the contrary profile in that case did not make their job any easier.
-Alison
I find this remark very interesting, because a great American once said this:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
Evil is the money of root.
Of course the citizens don't know what the NSA is up to. If we knew, so would Bin Laden, Hussein, Prince Saud, and anyone else who is interested in thwarting those efforts.
The hardest part for most people to understand about intelligence is how fragile it is. SIGINT can provide amazingly detailed information about our adversaries, but it can be denied so much more easily and cheaply than it can be gained.
Illegitimi non carborundum
You only missed your fourth amendment right to not have your home torn apart in a search whenever someone in power decides that it's time to put you back in line.
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Or your seventh and eighth amendment rights.
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
h t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
myowntrueself wrote:
.. "
> Oh wait, that sniper is most likely to be a
> fellow American using their constitutionally
> protected right to be a gun nut.
Sorry, but the Constitution does not protect breaking court orders. The elder sniper was barred from playing with guns at the time he and his "partner" went on their multi-state murder spree. It seems his previous hobby was kidnapping his kids.
As with DRM and so much else, gun control laws only control honest, law-abiding citizens. Evil people don't bother with restrictions on what they can purchase, they just steal whatever they want.
Face it, no amount of regulation is going to make us all safe and secure, because this is not a safe and secure world. The only real security is the kind the heroes of Flight 93 bought with their lives: by confronting and stopping evil men even though they were just ordinary people riding an airplane. Their example has done a lot of good, as it has been the ordinary people on the airplanes, not the endless barrage of airport security, that has stopped further threats, like the Shoe Bomber.
Such evils can and have been defeated. But it has not been by casting liberty to the wind, ruining happiness, or destroying our future.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.