The dangers of our new normal...

[Deranged Rhino]

There's that word again: design. The troubles with design are either: it's a bad design, or, its a reasonable design, but executed poorly.

 

Frankly, I would gladly volunteer, and I already have clearance, to serve on a board to review NSA architecture. Just pay my travel expenses. Let's face it: a lawyer, a politician, or an admiral are all amateurs. Amateurs can be fooled easily. I cannot. Unfortunately, lawyers, politicians and flag-officer military are the people both in charge of the design and also serving as oversight of it. This is intolerable. The "decision-makers" are incapable of making proper decisions, themselves, and definitely rely on mercenary IT people to "help" them.

 

Why is this a problem? As a consulting group leader, if I plant your ass on a gig that bills $X00/hour, you damn well better be recommending things that keep you there. Or, if it is your permanent job to advise Senator X, you're about giving him whatever IT details he needs to suit his plans. Either agenda will cause tainted advice 100% of the time.

 

Even if you play it straight up, there's always a step in between the knowledge and the decision. And, that's the root cause of your "system design working as intended", quite valid objection. How do we know it is? Designed...by whom? Whose intentions are we actually serving? What if sound IT advice is actively being filtered by either the ideology, personal agenda, or plain stupidity of the advisee?

 

I think it would be smart to get a few real, independent, IT people involved. Libertarians especially. This way neither main party can influence them. I don't want to see the data, because I don't need to see it. All I need to see is the code/data model/integtration end points. Then, I can tell you "good" or "bad", without compromising anything or anybody. Hell we could use our own PPP rating scales, in 4 dimensions(security, success, intrusion(on liberty), and of course cost) with 3.5 being equivalent of a pH of 0.

I'm all for more transparency of design and purpose. But you're approaching this as a system designed to fight terror (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), my contention along with many others is that bulk collection was not implemented to fight terrorism, despite claims to the contrary by the fear mongers of politics. Its true purpose is the control and suppression of American citizens should the need arise.

Edited May 26, 2015 by GreggyT

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm all for more transparency of design and purpose. But you're approaching this as a system designed to fight terror (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), my contention along with many others is that bulk collection was not implemented to fight terrorism, despite claims to the contrary by the fear mongers of politics. Its true purpose is control and suppression of American citizens should the need arise.

Until I see evidence of that, I have no reason to doubt the stated intention. But, that in and of itself is a problem: how do we see the evidence?

 

In any event, you are speculating about its true purpose. Come on, you know you are. You have no idea what it does, and even if they showed you every last line of code, every table, and every web service, you still wouldn't know. You don't know it's "true purpose" and neither do any of the babbling idiots who don't know enough...to know that I left something out of my "list of things they showed you" last sentence. See?

 

Why F about? Show somebody like me the architecture and they will tell you its purpose point blank. Code doesn't lie. Neither does a properly executed system test, with the oplogs and audits turned on, and fully operational, thank you. (I wonder if they would try that?)

Edited May 26, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Until I see evidence of that, I have no reason to doubt the stated intention.

 

The evidence is all there for you to see. We can (and have) debate whether or not bulk-collection is an effective tool in predicting and stopping terrorist attacks, we can get into the technical details of the programs from the leaked documents themselves, or the testimony of Snowden, Binney, or any of the other sources with first hand knowledge of the systems. That will inevitably lead back to debating those folks' credibility and motives.

 

But it's a side show. This isn't about fighting terror, it never has been about fighting terror. It's always been about control.

[Azalin]

so i can mark you down as against police profiling? cops should be just as likely to do searches on little old ladies as ex cons?

 

You can wait until we discuss police profiling if you want to know about that. We're talking about your penchant for mischaracterizing people who hold differing opinions than yours, and the intellectual dishonesty in doing so.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

The evidence is all there for you to see. We can (and have) debate whether or not bulk-collection is an effective tool in predicting and stopping terrorist attacks, we can get into the technical details of the programs from the leaked documents themselves, or the testimony of Snowden, Binney, or any of the other sources with first hand knowledge of the systems. That will inevitably lead back to debating those folks' credibility and motives.

 

But it's a side show. This isn't about fighting terror, it never has been about fighting terror. It's always been about control.

Dude, I know the gigs Snowden has had. His whole resume is out there for you to see. The trouble is, again, you don't know what you are looking at. He's a low-level dude, period. He has as much chance of understanding the overall design of the system as you do. First hand knowledge? The guy wasn't in those meetings, and never has been on any project.

 

Look, on big corporate, never mind secret, projects we don't roll out our entire architecture and approach to all of our own people, certainly not to contract programmers, and we often keep things from client staff we don't trust. People steal, quit, and work for the competition every day, all the time. Non-competes are so useless nobody serious even bothers anymore. So, there is no way in hell given Snowden's position, that he had much first hand knowledge, if any, beyond his own small part. Especially not on a secret project where everything is annoyingly compartmentalized beyond all reason. I know this, because I've managed one of these projects. You have to have meetings, about meetings, which in turn will determine what you say in other meetings.

 

There is no debate on credibility to be had. I'm telling you as an expert, with direct experience: the guy's position on the project means, unless somebody else gave him their high-level access, he didn't have the big picture == access to the full architecture, and certainly not access to the full DBMS or the complete DB schemas when he split.

 

Without those things, he can't make a claim to KNOW what the system does. There is no debating this.

 

I am telling you: unless you get qualified eyes onto the actual architecture(or, the new word for the same old thing: "ecosystem"), you will NEVER KNOW what it actually does.

[birdog1960]

if you haven't seen it watch the snowden movie. you should before you judge him and his motives. he knows plenty. and he's a genius. you don't get to where he did so quickly if you're not. you can see the gears working in the movie and they are not ordinary gears in any way. if you can't appreciate that genius then you've likely never been around it. and motives? i'm guessing exile to russia, away from his girlfriend, was never a great aspiration

 

 

Social sciences are now science? Do you get a diploma from the same school that confers a BS degree in sanitation engineering?

i'll bet in the world of finance in which you live, you run into more than a few ba's with economics degrees from some prestigious liberal arts school and later mba's from another. and i'll bet on the income measure of success, many do pretty well. does that make it science? well,no. but it likely validates the degree in your eyes.

Edited May 26, 2015 by birdog1960

[IDBillzFan]

you don't get to where he did so quickly if you're not.

 

Any argument that rising quickly to a respected position is proof that you're really smart went straight to hell the day Barry was sworn in as president. He got there very fast, and I think we can all agree he ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Which is why he spends so much time trying to be the shiniest.

Edited May 26, 2015 by LABillzFan

[OCinBuffalo]

if you haven't seen it watch the snowden movie. you should before you judge him and his motives. he knows plenty. and he's a genius. you don't get to where he did so quickly if you're not. you can see the gears working in the movie and they are not ordinary gears in any way. if you can't appreciate that genius then you've likely never been around it. and motives? i'm guessing exile to russia, away from his girlfriend, was never a great aspiration

Snowden appears in every way to be what I call a "4-star corporal". Lots of talk, knows enough to sound like he's the real thing, and has an incredible talent for hindsight, but, when it comes time to deliver, when they are on the spot to make the right call/come up with the killer approach that saves the day? They got nothing.

 

So Snowden grabbed whatever he could get and runs. So the F what, low-level IT people do that every day.

 

It STILL doesn't mean he had access to the entire system, which STILL means there's no way he can KNOW how it works, entirely.

 

Talk all you want, when you get done? Snowden is low-level, period, which means he never had the big picture(unless again, if he had an accomplice with high level access). That is undeniable.

[GG]

i'll bet in the world of finance in which you live, you run into more than a few ba's with economics degrees from some prestigious liberal arts school and later mba's from another. and i'll bet on the income measure of success, many do pretty well. does that make it science? well,no. but it likely validates the degree in your eyes.

What in the world does this have to do with classifying social sciences as a true science? Edited May 27, 2015 by GG

[Tiberius]

 

The evidence is all there for you to see. We can (and have) debate whether or not bulk-collection is an effective tool in predicting and stopping terrorist attacks, we can get into the technical details of the programs from the leaked documents themselves, or the testimony of Snowden, Binney, or any of the other sources with first hand knowledge of the systems. That will inevitably lead back to debating those folks' credibility and motives.

 

But it's a side show. This isn't about fighting terror, it never has been about fighting terror. It's always been about control.

Control of who by who? What are you talking about? Thats a pretty bold assertion by you, what do you mean?

[Deranged Rhino]

Control of who by who? What are you talking about? Thats a pretty bold assertion by you, what do you mean?

 

There are 35 pages of links, discussion, and information from which you can find the answer yourself.

[Tiberius]

 

There are 35 pages of links, discussion, and information from which you can find the answer yourself.

That's what I figured. Just answer, you said it. What control, who's control?

[Deranged Rhino]

That's what I figured. Just answer, you said it. What control, who's control?

 

What you figured? I thought you knew my position on this issue and already deemed it "weak"? Why do you need me to explain a position you already know and understand fully?

[DC Tom]

Control of who by who? What are you talking about? Thats a pretty bold assertion by you, what do you mean?

 

Give me your SSN and date of birth, and I'll show you.

[Tiberius]

 

What you figured? I thought you knew my position on this issue and already deemed it "weak"? Why do you need me to explain a position you already know and understand fully?

I figured you would not explain, and I'm right. If you have been all over the control issue why bring it up again?

 

You brought it up, now why is this about control. I don't remember you saying this was passed to control us, just saying it had the potential for abuse. But I'm interested in how this was and is about controlling something.

 

Let's here it.

 

Give me your SSN and date of birth, and I'll show you.

yawn

[Deranged Rhino]

I figured you would not explain, and I'm right. If you have been all over the control issue why bring it up again?

 

You brought it up, now why is this about control. I don't remember you saying this was passed to control us, just saying it had the potential for abuse. But I'm interested in how this was and is about controlling something.

 

Let's here it.

 

 

The deadline is June 1st. It's currently May 27th. For someone who understands my position as well as you claim, you don't seem to know any of the details of it. If you want to know my thoughts on the issue, there are 35 pages to read with sources, videos and plenty of information on this topic from all sides. Certainly you can put it all together for yourself. After all, you've already passed judgment on my position on this issue, clearly a great intellect such as yourself would never pass judgement on something without fully understanding it first, correct?

 

Here it? Where it?

[Tiberius]

 

The deadline is June 1st. It's currently May 27th. For someone who understands my position as well as you claim, you don't seem to know any of the details of it. If you want to know my thoughts on the issue, there are 35 pages to read with sources, videos and plenty of information on this topic from all sides. Certainly you can put it all together for yourself. After all, you've already passed judgment on my position on this issue, clearly a great intellect such as yourself would never pass judgement on something without fully understanding it first, correct?

 

Here it? Where it?

But what and who is trying to be controlled and for what reason? Again, I don't recall you saying this was a direct attempt at control. Now you are. You changed your argument.

 

You said it, now explain it. You JUST said it. If you said it AFTER 35 pages there must be a reason to bring it up. Can you please explain your postion on who is trying to control who?

[Deranged Rhino]

But what and who is trying to be controlled and for what reason? Again, I don't recall you saying this was a direct attempt at control. Now you are. You changed your argument.

 

You said it, now explain it. You JUST said it. If you said it AFTER 35 pages there must be a reason to bring it up. Can you please explain your postion on who is trying to control who?

 

Of course you don't recall me saying this, you have the cognitive abilities of a brain damaged chimp who's fallen out of the tree one too many times. If you truly believe what I said is something new to my position, then you haven't understood anything about my position from the start. You know, the position you declared "weak" and then refused (over and over) to summarize exactly what you think my position is.

 

We can go around and around here, but if you want to participate in the conversation, you have to actually listen to what's being said and not just invent your own version of events.

[Tiberius]

 

Of course you don't recall me saying this, you have the cognitive abilities of a brain damaged chimp who's fallen out of the tree one too many times. If you truly believe what I said is something new to my position, then you haven't understood anything about my position from the start. You know, the position you declared "weak" and then refused (over and over) to summarize exactly what you think my position is.

 

We can go around and around here, but if you want to participate in the conversation, you have to actually listen to what's being said and not just invent your own version of events.

Falling back on insults. Figures. Mr lets have a conversation ends up throwing insults. Figures.

 

What control? Who is controlling who? You say look it up, then when I go back and prove you wrong you complain I go back and look at old issues. Gees!

 

Who is controlling who?

[Deranged Rhino]

Falling back on insults. Figures. Mr lets have a conversation ends up throwing insults. Figures.

 

What control? Who is controlling who? You say look it up, then when I go back and prove you wrong you complain I go back and look at old issues. Gees!

 

Who is controlling who?

 

I asked you (very nicely) multiple times to summarize my position (on top of defining privacy, its role in a democratic society, and how it's threatened by this type of invasion). You did none of those things. Instead you dodged, used Tom's definition for privacy (after spending pages arguing against it), then used a direct response to your call for a worst case scenario as a summary of my position thinking of it as proof you're correct when all it did was prove how poorly you function in adult conversations. The insults also began with you, but I disagree I'm hurling insults. I'm hurling facts. The fact is you don't understand this topic, you've dodged every effort to get you to summarize your position (in the hopes of having an actual conversation), my position, or anyone else's position -- all the while you're hurling out declarative statements and insults. And so far you've demonstrated less cognitive ability than a brain damaged chimp. These are facts until you prove otherwise.

 

If you want to know what I mean by control or where I stand on this topic, read these 35 pages, their sources and attached links, and you may -- just may -- understand what is being discussed by others in this thread. Once you show you have a real interest in this topic, and not just hurling insults, we can have a conversation about it.