Source
r/samharris•
jhchawk

General Hayden in #72 is incredibly disingenuous. Not lying, necessarily, but telling half-truths designed to persuade.

General Hayden spends the majority of this podcast massaging the truth in an effort to paint US intelligence services as benevolent entities in the fight against evil.

  • What Snowden revealed was legal and known to government committees at the time.

True, and also completely missing the point. They were legal, but ethically wrong, and (I would argue) exploiting loopholes drilled through the intent of the 4th amendment.

I don't completely agree with the amount of information revealed, or the methods used. I do believe in the principles Snowden was protecting.

  • He admits that the 215 program was dragnet collection of US communications metadata, but tries to claim it was no big deal.

It's only metadata, they can't access the actual data of your calls/text/emails. What's the harm? Anyone with a technical understanding of the systems knows this is straight-up bullshit.

Metadata is more valuable than data. With it, someone knows your contacts, your habits, where you spend time, who you talk to, the entirety of your public and private life cross-referenced with everyone else. You don't need data to know a husband is cheating if you can see the late night texts and calls to a single number, followed by trips to the same cell tower area as the other phone.

Metadata allows an organization like the NSA to build dynamic societal information networks which can (and have been!) abused by the very human operators at its helm.

The general made some interesting points in between the bullshit, but the ratio is very low.

Posted Apr 18, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC · edited

5334
thundergolfer•

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, “nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure.” Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing.

Hayden probably believes everything he says, like the "it wasn't illegal" stuff, because people don't get to his position presenting a risk that you might break ranks like Snowden did and step outside the Overton Window.

Overall this podcast was the same stuff you hear everyday from retired NSA directors and MSNBC morning news anchors. It's not insightful, informative, and only very superficially reassuring to the US public.

23
Hxfhjkl•

Well it's informative for those that did not know the difference between agencies and how they work. Not insightful, but at least somewhat informative.

11
thundergolfer•

Granted, but I meant informative in the sense that we couldn't have gotten this insight from a wikipedia page. It's cool that Harris gets a retired ex-NSA chief on, and unfortunate that they had their time restricted, but Hayden gave no impression that he was going to exit from the safe-lane.

5
ExigencyTonglen•

What about the point Hayden made about Greenwald choosing not only to leak information regarding things like internal US surveillance operations, but also information about how they conducted surveillance on other countries. What was the point of that. Kinda made me hate Greenwald even more.

1
thundergolfer•

You might want to at least research that claim. Just for starters, isn't it possible that this surveillance was of friendly countries who perhaps have the right to not want to be spied on?

Hayden says there's an "expectation" that it's done, but that doesn't make it OK. Countries don't have to just lay down and take it. US Journalists don't have to restrict their work to that which affects people within one land-border.

US intelligence is everywhere and affects everyone, and we all want to know what's up.

9
fleurhaarye•

Exactly. As a non us citizen of the world I would want to know and be aware of being spied upon and or regarded as not having rights to any privacy

2
zscan•

The general made some interesting points in between the bullshit, but the ratio is very low.

The problem is, that Heyden has no incentive whatsoever to say anything that even remotely resembles the truth. First of all, he is required by law to not spill secrets. Not only that, he is required to lie when it comes to that. Of course he wouldn't say, that anything he did was illegal. That might even be true technically. Just like is was "legal" to basically define Guantanamo as being on another planet or as it was "legal" to torture, because "enhanced interrogation techniques" aren't torture.

I'm not in any conspiracy camp. I'm sure Hayden, the agencies and the government are acting in what they believe is in the best interest of the US. They aren't evil. However, they are probably often -let's say- hyper-patriots, willing to trade your privacy for security. Because they know what's best for you, better than you know it yourself. And how can you know, when it's all secret?

This podcast was a complete waste of time. I'm actually angry, that Sam promotes this kind of bullshit on his podcast. If Sam is either unwilling or unable to ask hard questions and his guest either unwilling or unable to answer them, then what is the point? This podcast was Fox News level infotainment. Anybody can do this kind of interview with Hayden and quite frankly, most journalists would have done a better job. General Hayden, you just said our democracy would be impossible without the NSA. Can you elaborate on that? General Hayden, what kind of important information do we get by spying on our allies? General, if everyone knows that we spy on them, can this information be used to trick us, too? General Hayden, at what point is the NSA allowed to read my emails? Do you read my emails, because I frequently call muslims and ex-muslims overseas? Why is it ok, to read all emails of non-US-citizens worldwide? How do you know if tonyxxxstark95 @ gmail.com belongs to an US citizen or not?

One can certainly have a discussion about privacy vs. security, about the usefullness of intelligence agencies in the 21st century or about government transparency. You just can't have that discussion with someone that biased.

10
meatpony•

Yeah I agree with everything you said on here. Sam really let me down on this one. I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and let him explain his reasoning. But seriously. What a crap episode.

10
Parasingularity•

How one viewed Hayden's comments all depends on where you draw your own personal line between the benefits of privacy vs. security, as well as your beliefs about the motivations of the people who work within our intelligence services.

I agree with Hayden on most points. I believe the normalcy/status quo cognitive bias comes into play for many when it comes to the CIA/NSA/FBI, as the thing about the security and intelligence services is this: if they do their job extremely well, then nothing happens. That is, there are no repeats of 9/11, no blown up hotels or elementary schools, no water supplies poisoned. This leads many to undervalue the huge benefits of the tiny theoretical amount of personal privacy sacrificed to realize such benefits.

9
jhchawkOP•

How one feels about this interview depends on personal beliefs, but I have to disagree with you on both points.

In talking about Hayden's explanation of metadata collection, I make no claims about his or my own personal feelings on the matter. My point is he factually misrepresented the capabilities of metadata collection.

In a perfect world, you would be correct in your second paragraph. In the real world, the CIA (by Hayden's own admission) routinely gets in bed with individuals and organizations engaged in illegal/immoral acts. These means are justified by the end, keeping America safe, but it doesn't always work that way. The DEA and FBI illegally use warrantless NSA data and parallel construction techniques to build cases. Humans working in the NSA with access to these data have accessed it for their own personal gain.

tiny theoretical amount of personal privacy sacrificed

This isn't a good description of the current state of surveillance in the US. There is nothing tiny, nor theoretical, about the personal privacy that has been sacrificed in the 16 years since 9/11.

13
Parasingularity•

Hayden may have understated or at least failed to fully explore the potential uses of metadata collection. However, collecting and using metadata even in the ways that you described is not necessarily unethical, depending on how such techniques are used and to what end. If you can demonstrate that the NSA and CIA use metadata analysis more for personal gain and corrupt arbitrary violation of the privacy of innocent persons rather than for identifying and neutralizing terrorist and other criminal threats, then you would have a potent argument. I am not convinced that the evidence of practical misuse of such data outweighs the benefits.

With regard to the CIA getting 'in bed' with illegal/immoral organizations and individuals, this is only done to gather necessary human intelligence in the interest of US security; how else would you imagine the CIA pursuing their mission?

As someone who is old enough to vividly remember 9/11 and the thought processes that followed that event, I am continually astounded that there has not been another similar attack on US soil since then. At that time, nearly everyone would've estimated a very high probability of another such attack occurring within 5 years. I suspect the fact that it has not happened is largely the result of the work of our intelligence agencies, not for lack of effort on the part of terrorist groups.

In the end, such discussions always come down to how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security. Few would argue that individual privacy is an absolute ethical right, for if so then we might as well disband our intelligence agencies, so we argue over where the line should be. As Hayden mentioned, that line is probably fluid depending on the circumstances. Currently I think the line has moved a bit too far in the privacy direction in the opinion of many who support the acts of people like Snowden, with the normalcy/status quo cognitive bias playing a role.

2
jhchawkOP•

Regarding the CIA working with unsavory elements-- I agree it is a necessary and critical component of our national security.

As you say, the debate is where we draw the line. I don't think that line should be very fluid, and it specifically should not be fluid in the direct aftermath of a 9/11 type event. Mass-hysteria and nationalism is not an environment where critical thinking shines. We must have these conversations before anything happens, and stick to our decisions, otherwise every terrorist attack will continue to push the line towards total autocratic security.

You think the line has moved too far in the privacy direction? That's interesting, because in my view it has been moving steadily in the opposite direction towards security. What's your opinion on data encryption?

4
fakedSkill•

Thanks for posting this. I totally agree and I was personally quite shocked that Sam didn't ask some challenging questions, especially with the ethics in mind. 'Everything that Snowden leaked was completely legal' I almost fell of my chair at that point, when Sam didn't push a tiny bit. It almost sounded like a prescripted and paid interview.

6
LondonCallingYou•

Sam is slightly more authoritarian than we might think, judging by his statements about privacy in the past.

3
thundergolfer•

I think it's fair to say he is a bit of a statist as well. He gives the US more of a pass on this stuff than he would other nations.

2
jpdefillippo•

If you found General Hayden on Sam Harris' podcast of interest, you might want to check out his interview at The Art of Charm -- they went in depth on some of what was discussed here.

https://theartofcharm.com/523/

3
JHarbinger•

Thanks for sharing this. Was a great show and he really opened up about some of this stuff.

2
mulezscript•
  • What Snowden revealed was legal and known to government committees at the time.

True, and also completely missing the point. They were legal, but ethically wrong, and (I would argue) exploiting loopholes drilled through the intent of the 4th amendment.

It comes down to whether​ you believe the government has enough checks and balances and oversight to make sure they are working both legally and ethically. Or is there a conspiracy.

Metadata is more valuable than data.

I don't​ think this is always true, it depends on the context. Moreover actual data can be much worse for one's privacy. For example having metadata is enough to know you are accessing porn and for how long. Actual data tells what type of porn. I bet there are better examples for this...

2
jhchawkOP•

Considering that the surveillance Snowden uncovered was created in secret, conducted in secret, overseen by secret courts, and portions of it were ruled illegal once that secrecy was lifted, I would argue that the current incarnation of our intelligence agencies do not have enough oversight.

In the context of dragnet collection of US citizen's communications, metadata is still much more valuable (this may change as storage gets cheaper, technology changes, and AI analysis of written/spoken language matures). Storing and analyzing the data produced by 300M people is extremely expensive both financially and computationally. Metadata is much easier to handle, and generates insight into relationships and lifestyles that data does not.

3
mulezscript•

I don't think you should be surprised the NSA does stuff in secret. That's kind of the way they have to work, and it gives security a huge advantage when terrorists have no idea what the capabilities are.

Metadata is easier to store and use because it's less data. But that doesn't mean actual data isn't more valuable, just that it's harder to handle.

1
jhchawkOP•

I'm not surprised, nor do I think everything should be in the open. You stated the issue comes down to whether I believe our government has sufficient checks and balances, and I answered why I think it doesn't.

Data serves a different purpose than metadata. In targeted surveillance I imagine both are crucial, with the content of data as well as GPS location/relationship metadata informing decisions. Scaling that to the context of mass surveillance means that ease of storage, analysis, and use are critical features.

1
tummler1•

Considering that the surveillance Snowden uncovered was created in secret, conducted in secret, overseen by secret courts

You don't think Congress was exercising oversight over these programs?

1
jhchawkOP•

To a certain extent, although Ron Wyden of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee first heard about these programs along with the rest of public when the stories broke in 2005 and 2006. He is quoted in 2013, after the Snowden leaks: "lawmakers were being misled by intelligence officials about their activities."

Alan Grayson, US Congressman, writes in 2013:

Despite being a member of Congress possessing security clearance, I've learned far more about government spying on me and my fellow citizens from reading media reports than I have from "intelligence" briefings.

5
xFoeHammer•

Metadata is more valuable than data. With it, someone knows your contacts, your habits, where you spend time, who you talk to, the entirety of your public and private life cross-referenced with everyone else. You don't need data to know a husband is cheating if you can see the late night texts and calls to a single number, followed by trips to the same cell tower area as the other phone.

But I'm having trouble seeing what kind of harm that kind of data could possibly bring me.

Metadata allows an organization like the NSA to build dynamic societal information networks which can (and have been!) abused by the very human operators at its helm.

Link? What kind of abuse?

2
jhchawkOP•

what kind of harm that kind of data could possibly bring me.

Would you agree that free speech is important, even if you have nothing to say? Privacy is important, even if you have nothing to hide.

Some more concrete examples here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters.

What kind of abuse?

The systems can be perfect, but they are maintained, run, and accessed by humans. Many of the cases of NSA analyst abuse were not detected at all, the offending employee confessed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-23/nsa-analysts-intentionally-abused-spying-powers-multiple-times

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo

3
XorFish•

But I'm having trouble seeing what kind of harm that kind of data could possibly bring me.

Have you listened to #71?

2
JDogBernie2020•

I remember him on Maher's show making subtle apologetics for keeping Guantanamo Bay. Made me cringe.

2
freedomforever11•

I'm fine with people who want agencies like the CIA or NSA, but I wish they would care a little more about the Constitution. Holding faithfully to laws is vital, and justifying clearly illegal actions of government will end up working against you when it really matters. NSA actions were a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. I couldn't give a shit whether Congress knew about what the NSA was doing (which I don't think many did).

2
tummler1•

What Snowden revealed was legal and known to government committees at the time.

The surveillance programs revealed by Snowden were also known, or perhaps more precisely information about the programs was easily accessible, by the general public years before he revealed the information. 60 Minutes ran a story on ECHELON in 2000:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdm78zcv8o

1
jhchawkOP•

Information on some of these programs, ECHELON included, was available to the public at that time.

Many of the warrantless domestic surveillance programs were not public. Although rumors flew within the industry, it took a whistleblower in 2006 to reveal the upstream dragnet collection of purely domestic communications traffic, using beam-splitters within AT&T facilities [1] [2].

3
tummler1•

Yes, which also predates Snowden.

I appreciate my views on Snowden are in the minority, but I have always found the information he leaked to be underwhelming to the extreme in light of what was already public knowledge.

4
skillDOTbuild•

Like consultants, all of these intelligence bureaucrats speak in coded language designed to blow up their importance and hide meaning. They're like weasels. Especially John Brennan.

Sam loves these types. No government is too big for Sam. If he was raised in China, Sam would be out there defending all institutions of the regime—however large. At least until Chairman 特朗普 took over or they said something wrong about Islam. Then he might peep up.

To go off on a tangential rant, when was the last time we heard Sam speak up about the number of Americans (especially new immigrants) on Medicaid? Instead, we hear him questioning the practice of enforcing immigration laws in the first place. (Which is super odd to me as someone who has lived outside of my own country for most of my life with full knowledge that if I don't follow visa laws in whatever particular country I'm in, I'll rightfully get kicked the fuck out and even banned.)

Then Sam claims Syrian women and children are the most valuable people we could want to import into America. Come again? How so? Because they'll cost a shitload of money and somehow turn into Sarah Haider or Ayaan? Because there are so many American immigrants like them. Or is it because we have a deficit of uneducated low-skilled serf laborers?

The American budget is unlimited and the economy is magic. This is what Sam thinks of government. He should try running his own household the same way and see how that works out!

1
freedomforever11•

Instead, we hear him questioning the practice of enforcing immigration laws in the first place.

Did he really do this?

I have found his Middle Eastern immigration policy - or at least as much as he will actually lay out - incredibly frustrating. You are correct. Ayaan and Sarah Haider are special people. Their brilliance should not encourage you to import Muslims in the hopes of turning them into atheists. While this problem of Islam exists, I want the US to be like Norway or Russia or China. Restrict immigration from countries with backward cultures. Don't endanger what we have built in the West.

1
fleurhaarye•

I get sams personal beef with Glenn but I still hate the way sam talks disparagingly about Chomsky. I'm completely ok with him arguing with chomskys or Glenn's reasoning, but dissing them is not only disrespectful of a worthy adversary, it shows disrespect of the reasoning which even though faulty at times definitely is Sth to be reckoned with.

1