If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   NSA: We only spy on everyone to protect the US from terrorists. Lastest NSA Leak: And also to steal corporate secrets that will help us economically. Because, you know... terrorism 'n stuff   (techdirt.com) divider line 60
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

4716 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2013 at 12:34 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 11:25:58 AM
FTFA:
Or, you know, it could provide US companies with insights about which were the best lots in the forthcoming auction of seabed areas for oil exploration, or about highly-specialized deep-sea oil extraction technology, in which Petrobas is a world leader. After all, why wouldn't the NSA drop some useful hints about such things to US companies as a way of justifying its huge budget?

So where is the smoking gun on this one?

The NSA is spying on foreign countries and companies?  Well, that's their farkin' *JOB*.

But if you've got evidence that they were slipping information to US businesses, well, that doesn't sound like the NSA.  The NSA doesn't like to report *ANYTHING* to *ANYBODY* outside of its own organization.  There is a reason why the NSA was known as "Never Say Anything".

This "revelation", unlike the previous ones about domestic spying, don't really bother me, because the only thing that would bother me, giving unfair economic advantage to private entities, isn't shown here.
 
2013-09-10 11:33:35 AM

dittybopper: This "revelation", unlike the previous ones about domestic spying, don't really bother me, because the only thing that would bother me, giving unfair economic advantage to private entities, isn't shown here.


Yep. A little bit of proof would be nice, otherwise its "it COULD be this, so... here's an article. What, no, don't be silly, there's no proof."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-10 11:41:11 AM

LasersHurt: Yep. A little bit of proof would be nice, otherwise its "it COULD be this, so... here's an article. What, no, don't be silly, there's no proof."


Considering that many other countries are into economic espionage, I doubt that it's wrong.
 
2013-09-10 11:42:42 AM

vpb: LasersHurt: Yep. A little bit of proof would be nice, otherwise its "it COULD be this, so... here's an article. What, no, don't be silly, there's no proof."

Considering that many other countries are into economic espionage, I doubt that it's wrong.


Doubt whatever you want, but, you know, get some proof or realize that your doubts are pointless.
 
2013-09-10 12:03:49 PM
I just assumed from the start that the NSA was stealing pay data for later use by insiders.
 
2013-09-10 12:07:12 PM
You know, the article could have saved me a lot of time by just making the headline "Is the NSA slipping information it gathers to US oil companies?" because I know the rules about questions in headlines.
 
2013-09-10 12:38:54 PM
At this point, a good trial and a strong rope is about all we need to fix this whole dog and "pwny" show.
 
2013-09-10 12:41:52 PM

vpb: LasersHurt: Yep. A little bit of proof would be nice, otherwise its "it COULD be this, so... here's an article. What, no, don't be silly, there's no proof."

Considering that many other countries are into economic espionage, I doubt that it's wrong.


its hard to seperate corporate espionage and espionage these days, especially where china is concerned. since the major chinese firms are owned by the government (and often specificaly by the military) the use of chinese military units to gather information for chinese business is common. The NSA (or other security organizations) should be actively working to protect US companies from attacks by foreign governments.
 
2013-09-10 12:43:49 PM
Pretty much just assume the worst case scenario when it comes to our government.  It doesn't matter which party is in charge, they're all corrupt.
 
2013-09-10 12:55:39 PM
Yes, it's a Brazilian company and speculation at most, but I am still waiting for one of the US tech giants to pull Bush Doctrine on the NSA and level them, in a realistic manner.
 
2013-09-10 12:57:47 PM
Just like the TSA, when they said their job is to "protect" airports, the next thing you know, they're at train stations, subway stops and bus stations to justify their bloated budget.
 
2013-09-10 12:58:23 PM
Statement by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper on Allegations of Economic Espionage

We collect this information for many important reasons: for one, it could provide the United States and our allies early warning of international financial crises which could negatively impact the global economy.

When are we going to get the warning?
 
2013-09-10 01:03:31 PM
And of course, NSA doesn't take orders from certain high ranking politicos like senators and congressmen, who just so happen to own certain company stocks, and just so happen to need info on foreign (or, *gasp*, DOMESTIC) rival companies re. latest research that might devalue their own holdings etc etc etc
 
2013-09-10 01:05:04 PM
This article makes a good point, and one that should save the US billions in costs.

As long as a foreign entity identifies itself as a *legit* business, the NSA should simply take that at face value and move along.
 
2013-09-10 01:09:20 PM

dittybopper: This "revelation", unlike the previous ones about domestic spying, don't really bother me, because the only thing that would bother me, giving unfair economic advantage to private entities, isn't shown here.


The NSA absolutely does give unfair advantage to private entities.  Unfortunately, they're all in other countries.  That's the logical consequence of those countries' inability to trust the US's IT infrastructure. What kind of moron does a foreign company's CIO have to be to store data anywhere within reach of the US "intelligence" community?

Or put more simply: when's the last time these assholes actually told you the truth about anything?
 
2013-09-10 01:10:04 PM

gopher321: And of course, NSA doesn't take orders from certain high ranking politicos like senators and congressmen, who just so happen to own certain company stocks, and just so happen to need info on foreign (or, *gasp*, DOMESTIC) rival companies re. latest research that might devalue their own holdings etc etc etc


To make the assertion that a politician can simply request, and receive detailed research information about any company at will, is tinfoil-hatted paranoia.

What is your position on fluoridated water and HAARP?
 
2013-09-10 01:10:12 PM

Man On Pink Corner: dittybopper: This "revelation", unlike the previous ones about domestic spying, don't really bother me, because the only thing that would bother me, giving unfair economic advantage to private entities, isn't shown here.

The NSA absolutely does give unfair advantage to private entities.  Unfortunately, they're all in other countries.  That's the logical consequence of those countries' inability to trust the US's IT infrastructure. What kind of moron does a foreign company's CIO have to be to store data anywhere within reach of the US "intelligence" community?

Or put more simply: when's the last time these assholes actually told you the truth about anything?


All the time, you just ignore it because of confirmation bias?
 
2013-09-10 01:13:13 PM

LasersHurt: All the time, you just ignore it because of confirmation bias?


(Shrug) The burden of proof is on the people who lie for a living.
 
2013-09-10 01:14:41 PM

Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: All the time, you just ignore it because of confirmation bias?

(Shrug) The burden of proof is on the people who lie for a living.


Is it? I mean I get where you're coming from, but with that logic you can assert anything you want and say it's on them to disprove it.
 
2013-09-10 01:20:23 PM

dittybopper: FTFA:
Or, you know, it could provide US companies with insights about which were the best lots in the forthcoming auction of seabed areas for oil exploration, or about highly-specialized deep-sea oil extraction technology, in which Petrobas is a world leader. After all, why wouldn't the NSA drop some useful hints about such things to US companies as a way of justifying its huge budget?

So where is the smoking gun on this one?

The NSA is spying on foreign countries and companies?  Well, that's their farkin' *JOB*.

But if you've got evidence that they were slipping information to US businesses, well, that doesn't sound like the NSA.  The NSA doesn't like to report *ANYTHING* to *ANYBODY* outside of its own organization.  There is a reason why the NSA was known as "Never Say Anything".

This "revelation", unlike the previous ones about domestic spying, don't really bother me, because the only thing that would bother me, giving unfair economic advantage to private entities, isn't shown here.


something something "ANYTHING* to *ANYBODY*  YOU.
Remember-
www.wlwt.com

Quiet money always wins

oh and NSA?  Means No. Such. Agency. - for true - read it on the inner webs

Have we learned nothing from Nixon, Agnew, DeLay, North, Taft, Regan, (They're just the heavy hitters.)
If you can imagine it, you're six months behind.  I would just about believe anything about anyone in politics.
 
2013-09-10 01:22:58 PM

LasersHurt: Is it? I mean I get where you're coming from, but with that logic you can assert anything you want and say it's on them to disprove it.


Yeah, it turns out that's the problem with lying.  People eventually stop believing you.
 
2013-09-10 01:24:02 PM

Marcintosh: Have we learned nothing from Nixon, Agnew, DeLay, North, Taft, Regan, (They're just the heavy hitters.)


Give it up, I don't think anyone here is young enough to remember those guys.

Certainly nobody in power remembers J. Edgar Hoover, or these shenanigans would have come to a screeching halt long before now.
 
2013-09-10 01:24:24 PM

Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: Is it? I mean I get where you're coming from, but with that logic you can assert anything you want and say it's on them to disprove it.

Yeah, it turns out that's the problem with lying.  People eventually stop believing you.


Right, but again, you can't just make stuff up and assume it's true until they say otherwise.
 
2013-09-10 01:24:55 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Give it up, I don't think anyone here is young enough to remember those guys.


er, old enough.
 
2013-09-10 01:27:58 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Man On Pink Corner: Give it up, I don't think anyone here is young enough to remember those guys.

er, old enough.


Taft?  No.  All the others?  Yes.
 
2013-09-10 01:30:27 PM

LasersHurt: Right, but again, you can't just make stuff up and assume it's true until they say otherwise.


The problem is, when government gains the ability to do something, they are likely to do it.  This isn't supposition or speculation or tinfoil-hattery, it's just simple history.  If, in the name of fighting the latest War On $ABSTRACT_CONCEPT, we grant ourselves the capability to gather economic intel on behalf of private interests, then we've divided the world into two classes: those who have access to that intel, and those who don't.  This is a problem if you believe that a level playing field is a goal worth striving for.

Basically, everybody else will assume that if we have this capacity, we will use it.  That's not an unreasonable fear... is it?
 
2013-09-10 01:33:05 PM

Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: Right, but again, you can't just make stuff up and assume it's true until they say otherwise.

The problem is, when government gains the ability to do something, they are likely to do it.  This isn't supposition or speculation or tinfoil-hattery, it's just simple history.  If, in the name of fighting the latest War On $ABSTRACT_CONCEPT, we grant ourselves the capability to gather economic intel on behalf of private interests, then we've divided the world into two classes: those who have access to that intel, and those who don't.  This is a problem if you believe that a level playing field is a goal worth striving for.

Basically, everybody else will assume that if we have this capacity, we will use it.  That's not an unreasonable fear... is it?


Fearing it, no. Assuming it's true without evidence, yes. That's all I'm saying. Informed caution is healthy, using the past to make snap decisions is not.
 
2013-09-10 01:33:06 PM
i.imgur.com
/Obvious sarcasm
 
2013-09-10 01:34:46 PM

LasersHurt: Fearing it, no. Assuming it's true without evidence, yes. That's all I'm saying. Informed caution is healthy, using the past to make snap decisions is not.


But assuming it's not true is not "caution," informed or otherwise.

Once again, when's the last time they told you the truth?
 
2013-09-10 01:36:50 PM

Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: Fearing it, no. Assuming it's true without evidence, yes. That's all I'm saying. Informed caution is healthy, using the past to make snap decisions is not.

But assuming it's not true is not "caution," informed or otherwise.

Once again, when's the last time they told you the truth?


The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time. Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).
 
2013-09-10 01:39:00 PM

dittybopper: The NSA is spying on foreign countries and companies?  Well, that's their farkin' *JOB*.


This.

Are they pulling a China and shipping that information to American companies (to the extent that any large multinational company can qualify as American these days)?  Because, if they are, then that's BS.  (And the key words in that sentence are "IF" and "THEN")

But spying on companies (especially the state-owned ones that are functionally arms of foreign governments) as part of their mission to know what foreign nations are up to?  Yeah, that's their job.  Not going to rag them for it.

/Will rag them for DEA integration as well as forgetting the 2nd half of their mission, which is to provide secure communications to Americans, but not this.
//Unless they trigger the IF.
 
2013-09-10 01:40:04 PM

LasersHurt: And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).


You have a few billon dollars to invest, and very few certainties to rely on.  What's your assumption?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time.

No, the subject at hand is limited to the so-called 'security' agencies.

Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

Have you been in a cave in Mongolia for the last six months?
 
2013-09-10 01:41:01 PM

Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).

You have a few billon dollars to invest, and very few certainties to rely on.  What's your assumption?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time.

No, the subject at hand is limited to the so-called 'security' agencies.

Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

Have you been in a cave in Mongolia for the last six months?


You're really drifting to justify your "guilty until proven innocent" mentality here.
 
2013-09-10 01:59:01 PM
WIthout reading the article, I'm just gonna guess we have more baseless accusations and the thread will contain people falsely putting the burden of proof on the government to prove their wild, factless accusations to be false.

*Checks article and thread*

Yep and yep.

Just to clarify for the learning disabled - collecting information on companies is not the same as exploiting the information for US company gain.

Much of fighting terrorism is following the money, which will always be funnelled through corporations.
 
2013-09-10 02:40:58 PM
You honestly would think the usual retards would have stopped trying to pretend Snowden didn't leak the NSA's own documents by now, but no.

They are still trying to pretend it never happened, or that the NSA's own documents are all lies, or something.

Retards gotta 'tard.
 
2013-09-10 03:13:51 PM

Weaver95: I just assumed from the start that the NSA was stealing pay data for later use by insiders.


This.
 
2013-09-10 03:23:41 PM

LasersHurt: Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).

You have a few billon dollars to invest, and very few certainties to rely on.  What's your assumption?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time.

No, the subject at hand is limited to the so-called 'security' agencies.

Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

Have you been in a cave in Mongolia for the last six months?

You're really drifting to justify your "guilty until proven innocent" mentality here.


rly? the whole nsa thing doesn't come to mind and is considered "really drifting"  to counter your point about how honest the gov't is?

copy that
 
2013-09-10 03:28:30 PM

inner ted: LasersHurt: Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).

You have a few billon dollars to invest, and very few certainties to rely on.  What's your assumption?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time.

No, the subject at hand is limited to the so-called 'security' agencies.

Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

Have you been in a cave in Mongolia for the last six months?

You're really drifting to justify your "guilty until proven innocent" mentality here.

rly? the whole nsa thing doesn't come to mind and is considered "really drifting"  to counter your point about how honest the gov't is?

copy that


My point is not that the government is necessarily honest, it's that assuming things are true without evidence is bad. This has not changed, even in the light of recent news.

I've expressed this pretty clearly here.
 
2013-09-10 03:41:40 PM

LasersHurt: inner ted: LasersHurt: Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).

You have a few billon dollars to invest, and very few certainties to rely on.  What's your assumption?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time.

No, the subject at hand is limited to the so-called 'security' agencies.

Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

Have you been in a cave in Mongolia for the last six months?

You're really drifting to justify your "guilty until proven innocent" mentality here.

rly? the whole nsa thing doesn't come to mind and is considered "really drifting"  to counter your point about how honest the gov't is?

copy that

My point is not that the government is necessarily honest, it's that assuming things are true without evidence is bad. This has not changed, even in the light of recent news.

I've expressed this pretty clearly here.


you also expressed an amount of trust in the government that I and others don't agree with & used what is understood to be a pretty common knowledge event (the whole nsa thing) to illustrate your misplaced trust.

granted, no citation was provided, but since it's common knowledge does it need to be?
 
2013-09-10 03:43:01 PM

LasersHurt: My point is not that the government is necessarily honest, it's that assuming things are true without evidence is bad


Exactly.  Such as, "Man on Pink Corner is a terrorism suspect, and needs to be monitored."  That's untrue.  Assuming it without evidence was bad, not to mention stupidly ineffective.
 
2013-09-10 03:44:09 PM

inner ted: you also expressed an amount of trust in the government


You're reading in to my statements.
 
2013-09-10 03:48:53 PM
You need to ask yourselves, libs, if giving up your privacy is worth the safety it provides.
 
2013-09-10 03:50:08 PM

kortex: You need to ask yourselves, libs, if giving up your privacy is worth the safety it provides.


... why "libs"?
 
2013-09-10 04:02:56 PM

LasersHurt: Man On Pink Corner: LasersHurt: Fearing it, no. Assuming it's true without evidence, yes. That's all I'm saying. Informed caution is healthy, using the past to make snap decisions is not.

But assuming it's not true is not "caution," informed or otherwise.

Once again, when's the last time they told you the truth?

The government? All the time. Seriously, all the time. Most things they say are true. It's only in certain areas where it's not, and most of the time it's not so much lying as omission.

And nobody is assuming it's necessarily false, just that there is no evidence to suggest that it is true (that they are giving this info to companies).


LasersHurt: inner ted: you also expressed an amount of trust in the government

You're reading in to my statements.

  you're reading my statements

ftfy
 
2013-09-10 04:07:42 PM

inner ted: ftfy


Most things the government says ARE true. They say a lot of mundane stuff.

Again, if you want to assume literally everything forever is a lie, go ahead, but if there's no proof then your belief is bereft of value.

LasersHurt: My point is not that the government is necessarily honest, it's that assuming things are true without evidence is bad. This has not changed, even in the light of recent news.

 
2013-09-10 04:26:50 PM

LasersHurt: inner ted: ftfy

Most things the government says ARE true. They say a lot of mundane stuff.

Again, if you want to assume literally everything forever is a lie, go ahead, but if there's no proof then your belief is bereft of value.

LasersHurt: My point is not that the government is necessarily honest, it's that assuming things are true without evidence is bad. This has not changed, even in the light of recent news.


you keep swinging wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, as it suits your perspective.

i'm not saying that 'literally everything forever is a lie'  nor have i advocated that anyone do that, but i understand it somehow makes your argument stronger by thinking so.

by their own admission & by the light being cast on them by others, the nsa has given up any right to be trusted.  as for the rest of the government - I take them with a grain of salt

also: simply quoting yourself does not make your argument stronger.
 
2013-09-10 04:31:23 PM

inner ted: you keep swinging wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, as it suits your perspective.


I have literally only tried to make a single point in this thread. Just the one. I have been very consistent on that point. Your insistence that I am trying to do otherwise is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

It does not MATTER what the NSA has done recently. It's still wrong to assume something is true without evidence.
 
2013-09-10 05:01:16 PM
LasersHurt: inner ted: you keep swinging wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, as it suits your perspective.

I have literally only tried to make a single point in this thread. Just the one. I have been very consistent on that point. Your insistence that I am trying to do otherwise is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

It does not MATTER what the NSA has done recently. wrong - it matters a great deal that our own government admits to such activities or has been shown by others. It's still wrong to assume something is true without evidence.

you keep saying how you need evidence of wrong doing but use statements like:

Most things the government says ARE true. They say a lot of mundane stuff. - piles of evidence there

Again, if you want to assume literally everything forever is a lie, go ahead - completely making shiat up

so please, tell me again about all this evidence.
 
2013-09-10 05:17:02 PM

inner ted: It's still wrong to assume something is true without evidence.

 
2013-09-10 05:21:00 PM

tlchwi02: The NSA (or other security organizations) should be actively working to protect US companies from attacks by foreign governments.


The flaw with this approach is that there aren't really any US companies anymore. Theyve ALL off-shored their manufacturing (and profits) to china, mexico, india, whatever.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report