Slashdot Mirror


Spy Industry Leaders Befuddled Over 'Deep Cynicism' of American Public

New submitter autonomous_reader writes: Ars Technica has a story on this week's Intelligence & National Security Summit, where CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey had a lot to say about the resistance of the American public to government cyber spying and anti-encryption efforts. Blaming resistance on "people who are trying to undermine" the intelligence mission of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, John Brennan explained it was all a "misunderstanding." Comey explained that "venom and deep cynicism" prevented rational debate of his campaign for cryptographic backdoors.

41 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mr Fox feels misunderstood and would like to continue guarding the hen house.

    1. Re:In other news by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, he's right - I'm very cynical of the federal government, but the problem isn't me, it's that he feigns ignorance over how that could possibly be.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:In other news by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." --George Bernard Shaw

    3. Re:In other news by nucrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because our Cold War Propaganda built a world of allies and didn't do anything like prop up lousy dictators like Castro, Hussein, and the rest of the bunch. Our Anti-Communist policies set back the world in so many ways, yet kept the U.S. sheltered. Along came the Information Age and ended much of that seclusion. We are now seeing the rest of the world for what it is: Pissed at us for decades of mindless meddling.

      --
      Place something witty here
    4. Re:In other news by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mindless meddling? Hardly. The meddling was cynically ruthless.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:In other news by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, shut down inbound communications by watching your citizens more closely and jailing people for repeating things they find to contain truth? I'm not sure that's how you win the hearts and minds of people upset over spying and censorship.

    6. Re:In other news by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The dictators above are not our monkeys and not our circus, but by using the ostensible moral hand, US business profits by condemnation, isolation, and sanctions against these and others. They're the ones paying Washington the non-tax, campaign-funding and lobbying revenues.

      Foreign policy is for no moral gain, rather, profit. Make no allusions to the contrary: this is not about morality or democracy, this is about control and manipulation. Hue and cry otherwise is to play to the flag-wavers, and low IQ.

      Somehow, these agencies believe they've been given carte blanche, and they have not. They react to assertions that they don't have carte blanche in really rough and startling ways.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No need to post as AC, cold fjord. We all know you are a treasonous traitor, anyway.

      those are the people keeping US residents' schools unexploded and your eyes unpopped.

      Wow. Talk about propaganda.

      Before the CIA's founding:
      * Revolutionary War
      * War of 1812
      * Mexican War
      * Civil War
      * Indian Wars
      * Spanish-American War
      * WW1
      * WW2

      8 wins, 0 losses if you count Indian Wars as one.

      Since the CIA's founding:
      * Korea
      * Vietnam
      * Iraq
      * Somalia
      * Yugoslavia
      * Afghanistan
      * Libya

      0 wins, 7 losses.

        The fact is that the US was 8-0 in war before the CIA was founded, and 0-7 since. It is a security risk we cannot afford.

    8. Re:In other news by rwven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, this is pretty much it. There's a LOT of cynicism but it's well deserved. The Federal gov't has proven to all of us that they are not to be trusted. Trust is EARNED not inherent. If you violate the trust someone has in you, it may never return, or at best it's going to take a lot of time and work.

    9. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a traditional division of labor in the US intelligence community. The NSA gathers the information, the CIA acts on it and fucks it up, and the FBI arrests innocent citizens.

    10. Re:In other news by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I once had a boss that was fond of the espression 'you cant unring that bell'.

      before the recent (last few years) whistleblower events, you'd be called a tinfoil hatter if you dared suggest that online comms were not safe or that the big agencies are not bulk surveiling us.

      now, you won't automatically be called a tinfoil hatter. we get it, as a whole, at least a sizeable portion of the population gets it.

      its out in the open now. but there is still no real discussion about it. are we, as a people (as a species!) ready and willing to live our lives under spotlights, having no say in the matter? should we just accept that YOU have decided this for us and it was all done in secret, slowly, over the decades? its true that it was in secret over the decades, but should we accept what we can now, finally, talk about?

      we have to have the discussion and really understand the long term and short term cost/benefit of this before we plunge ourselves, officially, into a surveillance state.

      but we should have a say in this! that's what is being denied and attacked and drowned-out. we are being denied the ability to actually affect the laws and rules and this defines what kind of world we end up living in!

      to deny us this choice is to wage war on your own people. pretty much, it is. you enslave if you cannot get a concensus. are you afraid to bring this into discussion and see/hear our views? (answer, of course they don't want to hear it. they KNOW how we'd vote, if we were given real say in this matter).

      look, either you discuss this with us or we work around it. and by that, I mean we run our own layers of tunneling and encryption and this is a war you cannot win.

      and so, let me use that phrase again. encryption is already 'out there' and you can't un-ring that bell, no matter how hard you try.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re: In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it was, and is. Unfortunately, the majority of the American public know nothing of this. They are truly ignorant of what's been done in their name for decades now.

      That's why they fall for garbage like terrorists hating us 'for our freedom', whatever that means.

  2. Misunderstanding by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You see, we thought that the Constitution doesn't apply to us. Why can't anyone understand that we're the good guys?!?"

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. Don't want you to read my personal stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is personal, is not yours. Not allowed. Like you're not allowed to rape my girlfriend even if you say its for national security.
    Not yours, never was, hands off.

  4. The government we didn't elect ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is concerned that we don't trust them, and don't really want them keeping tabs on us? I mean that would never happen! Next thing you'll tell me people are throwing tea in the ocean to protest their unelected government! Insanity!

    1. Re:The government we didn't elect ... by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government we didn't elect

      What? Obama was elected with a fairly good majority, and re-elected. He's in charge of everything we're talking about here - it's entirely within the executive branch of the government, and he is in charge of that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:The government we didn't elect ... by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He isnt talking about obama, dumbass

      Yes he is, he's just too dumb to realize he is. "The government," when it comes to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc., is the executive branch of the government. It is run by the Chief Executive. That is Obama today and for the last six years. He politically appoints the directors of every one of those agencies, and they report to him. Of course you know that, and you're just trying to deflect.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Well, that doesn't sound moderately sinister by MattGWU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I don't think we've really tried to find answers yet because no one in the private sector has been properly incentivized."

    They haven't been properly motivated. We'll help them come around to our way of thinking.

    --
    "These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
    1. Re:Well, that doesn't sound moderately sinister by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mostly via waterboarding or threatening their tax breaks and the like.

      The government and the "intelligence" communities are more like the Mafia than actually protectors of the American People and the Constitution.

  6. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He sees it perfectly clearly when he states, "because of people who are trying to undermine" the mission of the NSA, CIA, FBI and other agencies. This is because their mission is to protect the Government, not the people.

    1. Re:Nonsense. by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Knowledge is power." Every government understands that. In the USA, so many businesses also know it, that most of the population knows it. PLUS, just about everyone in the USA is also told, "Power corrupts", and how important it is for citizens to be aware of what government officials are doing. There need be no cynicism in simple logic!

      Now, if the government could prove it has a way to possess knowledge without becoming corrupted by the power it represents, the situation might be different. Good luck with that!

    2. Re:Nonsense. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't "deep cynicism". This is the Founding Fathers' hard-won experience in freeing themselves from oppression.

      The King, George III, used all kinds of tricks to keep opposition down. Warrantless searches, "general warrants", allowing them to root around your house and papers until they find something they can tag you with, which would be applied to uppity folks. Outlawing of speech. Outlawing or restriction of presses, the literal mechanical method of mass producing speech for distribution, a backdoor method of censorship. Using one particular popular denomination of one particular religion to stir outrage and knock down other opponents through religious laws.

      These a d dozens of other concepts are not freaking cynicism!

      Attention NSA leaders and politicians: You are constructing a panopticon (go look it up) that is literally more powerful than that which was cynically portrayed in "1984". With no mechanical methods to prevent, or even track its abuse, you cannot guarantes that the 1 out of 1000 agent who is a G. Gordon Liddy type won't abuse the spying to report on political opposition to his patron.

      "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face...forever." Ancient Rome and Greece, 1930s Germany, these are democracies that handed over emergency power and The People never got it back.

      The Founding Fathers knew the only way to guarantee (as far as such is possible) this cannot happen is to simply blanket forbid these powers to government. Now you want Eye in the Sky crap, too?

      Yes I am sure you all fancy yourselves The Untouchables, but it's not you We, with our Founding Fathers hats, are worried about. It is those who would abuse these marvelous tools for dictatorship.

      Do you think Putin, to whom you are selling Eye in the Sky to, won't abuse it to track opposition?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Nonsense. by Falconnan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      100% correct, but even this essentially misses the point of purely logical opposition to this plan, which is this: Any backdoor, without exception, will necessarily be a means by which bad actors may break encryption. This vulnerability will exist with any backdoor. Put another way, if our intelligence community can crack a code, so can anyone else. Additionally, it is not that we don't trust any one official with such power per se, it is that once that power is given there is no way to know who would wield it in the future, or to what purpose. These two points in my mind cannot be overcome, and thus while the debate may continue, I do not see a favorable end to the position advocating encryption bypasses. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable in a free society.

  7. Undermining the "intelligence mission"? by ilsaloving · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll tell you who is undermining it. It's the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and Homeland Security. They have already demonstrated, unequivocally, that they will happily fuck over every last man, woman and child, not just in the US, but around the entire planet, if they could get away with it. The list of abuses is already long, and at no point have they shown any interest in stopping.

    The fact that they are accusing unknown people "trying to undermine" them, and that these people are "fueled by their adversaries" just tells you how completely and utterly out to lunch these dimwits are.

    They don't seem to understand that, the tighter they squeeze their fist, the more that squeezes out from between their fingers.

    1. Re:Undermining the "intelligence mission"? by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would put that differently: The tighter they squeeze their fist, the more they look exactly like the enemies they're supposedly trying to protect us from.

  8. We have a lying demagogue for President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have as President a lying demagogue who ran against "warrantless wiretaps" and "unconstitutional acts" whilst a candidate, but once in office went far beyond what his predecessor did.

    Even Bush II didn't have "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens.

    Why would us peons be cynical?

  9. Trust the J. Edgar Hoovers of Tomorrow? by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI engaged in a massive amount of illegal wiretapping. It was MASSIVE. It was also quite illegal--and completely unpunished. This was organized violation of civil rights--a plain crime.

    The FBI engaged in massive surveillance of student demonstrators, including infiltrating student protest movements. This wasn't for suspicion of crime--this was for intelligence. That was plain wrong.

    The FBI burgled--there is no other word for it--the office of Daniel Ellsberg and others. That is wrong.

    Then there was FBI Director L. Patrick Gray and the Nixon coverup.

    AND THEY ASK US WHY WE DON'T TRUST THEM NOT TO VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

    Oh, come on now...

  10. Pay attention - this gap has huge cost/value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm married. When I say the same things over and over in the same conversation - it is because I'm not being heard. When my wife does the same it is because she is not being heard.

    If leaders of spy agencies are stunningly disconnected from the will of the American people - they cannot serve their best interests.
    If the American people are stunningly disconnected from the best/brightest in counter-intelligence, they cannot maintain fundamentals of security.

    Any politician who can COMMUNICATE across that divide, will make good hay. Carly, this is your thing. Donald, it isn't your thing. Hillary - don't pay someone else to do this.

    The fact that the divide as big as this exists - shows the kind of severe damage that modern partisan politics leads to. So if we do nothing, there is a cyber-9/11 on the menu, right?

  11. Bloody hell .... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Holy fuck, seriously?

    So the spies and fascists who have been ignoring the Constitution and demanding technology can be less secure so they can fumble around like idiots claiming to make us more secure .. spying on Congress and lying about it ... coming up with the form of perjury known as "parallel construction" (which is perjury because it's intended to lie about if they had legally obtained information or probable cause, and to deny the opportunity to see the evidence) ...

    Suddenly these fucking clowns are feeling all misunderstood and don't understand why there is hostility?

    I'm sorry, this is Chairman Fucking Mao talking about counter-revolutionary elements who must be purged ... "Blaming resistance on "people who are trying to undermine" the intelligence mission" is code for "all those pinko commies who expect us to respect fucking civil liberties".

    Every asshole fascist claims to be a patriot. They're still asshole fascists.

    Yeah, right ... tell us another fucking lie.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  12. Re:Fuck these assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Get up,' said O'Brien. 'Come here.'

    Winston stood opposite him. O'Brien took Winston's shoulders between his
    strong hands and looked at him closely.

    'You have had thoughts of deceiving me,' he said. 'That was stupid.
    Stand up straighter. Look me in the face.'

    He paused, and went on in a gentler tone:

    'You are improving. Intellectually there is very little wrong with you.
    It is only emotionally that you have failed to make progress. Tell me,
    Winston--and remember, no lies: you know that I am always able to detect
    a lie--tell me, what are your true feelings towards Big Brother?'

    'I hate him.'

    'You hate him. Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step.
    You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love
    him.'
    He released Winston with a little push towards the guards.

    'Room 101,' he said.

  13. Re:One hopes by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that they are caught up in their own bullshit that they have forgotten how ''the man in the street'' thinks. Ie - they don't get out enough. They think that we all forget their 'little lies' and really believe that they are acting in our best interests. They talk mainly to each other, if you don't talk up the reality of the persistent threat to fellow NSA/.... people - then will you be looked on with suspicion or passed over for promotion ? The corporate 'yes' men will always tell their bosses what they think the bosses want to hear - many a large company has gone bankrupt or empire been overrun because of that.

    I do believe that many of them are honourable people, but their viewpoint has become so skewed by the corporate culture that they have lost touch with reality; not that much different from those embedded in a religious community who end up thinking that the myths are true.

    It is always possible that they are right and I am wrong - but I don't think so.

  14. This is a change for the better by bbasgen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think what we are seeing here is progress, albeit slow and with a long road ahead. Their stated purpose of having a dialogue is, in itself, an important and positive step forward. Comey's remark on skepticism being fair, but cynicism being problematic, is reasoned and nuanced. I think this is a good sign that the intelligence community is starting to grapple with the need for open discussion, and is making a case towards that end.

    1. Re:This is a change for the better by Steve+B · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Baloney. Comey isn't being "reasoned and nuanced"; he's engaging in rhetorical bafflegab to pretend to be reasoned and nuanced. His definitions of "skepticism" and "cynicism" are, respectively, "tut-tutting and letting me go back to doing things the way I want" and "actually making my start complying with the Constitution".

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  15. Not New by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The United States was founded and structured around a deep cynicism towards government. I'm surprised members of the intelligence community haven't picked up a history book before.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  16. Re:One hopes by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know ... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.

    Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.

    A bunch of people who sincerely believe in all the crap they do ... those people are dangerous, unhinged, and will simply do anything they feel they need to.

    You can't have a free society protected by thugs who ignore the basic tenets of that free society. It just doesn't work. And they can't protect freedoms by taking them away.

    At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life ... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  17. Re:One hopes by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > I do believe that many of them are honourable people, but their viewpoint has become so skewed

    You know, in a way, I do too; its just, I can't imagine how that could matter less when we know the road to hell is most easily paved with the best of intentions.

    It doesn't matter how good they intend to be, or how honorable they are. What they are building, as a technological capability, is too powerful of a weapon to trust anyone with. Actions taken in secret audited in secret, regulated in secret.....

    Once the gun is built, it is a matter of the will of the user where it is pointed. The only thing you can be sure of is, the owner will someday change. Policies will change.

    Just imagine what happens if we wind back the clock to my parents 20s. What if, after the very first protest, police could identify the names and home addresses of all the social hub people in the community. What would our world look like today if every gay rights protest or every anti war protest just saw a string of quiet arrests for "drugs" or traffic stops that "got violent" and removed the very people who glued others together....

    Who really looks at history and thinks this sort of power is safe to leave in the hands of those in power? When has any sort of power to silence opposition NOT been abused?

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  18. Neither one understands encryption by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    John Brennan was a career CIA analyst, focussing on the Middle East. James Comey was trained as a lawyer, and has been a law clerk, lawyer, and prosecuting attorney.

    Neither one is qualified to participate in this discussion - they don't know enough about how encryption works. They need to step aside and let their technical "underlings" speak for them, if they really want to engage in a meaningful dialogue on this topic.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  19. Re:One hopes by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know ... you should be far more terrified of people who think they're doing the right thing, and fervently believe in all the crap they say.

    Those people? Those fucking people are scary motherfuckers who will do anything if they can justify it to themselves. And if they can avoid getting caught, they'll do even more.

    Yup. Sounds just like anonymous and many other hacktivist types.

    At this point, they can either try to protect your lives, or your way of life ... but what they've been doing is incompatible with both.

    Yup. Just like when your nice country home becomes part of the busier growing suburbs. All the sudden you have to give up the freedom of never locking your front door and leaving your keys conveniently in the car. Why? Because there are malicious asshats in the world. Sometimes entire sub-cultures of them, some of which are deadly violent.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. He is the problem, not us. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In that same article he claimed:

    These people "may be fueled by our adversaries"

    When you claim that your political enemies are being 'fueled' by enemies of the state, YOU are the one that is exhibiting "venom and deep cynicism", not your enemies.

    The basic problem is that our intelligence enemies have paranoia as a primary job requirement. If you want to protect a country, you must assume the worst and think of the worst so that you can take steps to prevent it. But that does not mean your worst scenarios are true, or even likely. You have to recognize that because it is your job to assume the worst, it is totally reasonable for you to go way too far, and that government MUST reign in the intelligence group from doing so.

    Because if your Espionage agency does not intentionally go too far, then they have failed to do their job. Similarly, if your government bows down to the Espionage people, that means the government has failed to do THEIR job.

    In the ideal situation, working in Espionage should constantly complain about how the government won't let them take all the necessary steps to protect the people - while realizing that this is a GOOD thing.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  21. Accountable? I think not. by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA: Rogers said, "I don't think we have fundamentally destroyed the public's trust. Some feel that way, but we are accountable to the citizens of the nation, and the nation is counting on us. The nation needs the insights we generate and our computer expertise."

    No, you're not accountable to the citizens of the nation, Mr. Rogers. If you were, many of you would be in jail right now. Was James Clapper "held accountable" for the felony crime of lying to Congress?

    Once you understand that you're not above the law, and once you truly become accountable to those you ostensibly "serve", then the cynicism will die down. Until then, you're continuing to reinforce that cynicism on your own by your actions, your attempts to hide them, and your willingness to lie about them. You have no one else to blame for it other than yourself.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  22. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not "People who don't trust the people are surprised that the people doesn't trust them either."

    Trust is a two way street.