A sixteen-year veteran of the NSA talks about warrantless wiretapping, Snowden, and stifling bureaucracy, and shares tips on how to protect your identity and personal data
Really interesting episode which provided good balance I thought. As someone who has worked tangentially to some pretty robust InfoSec teams, it was interesting to hear tales of what can happen when the walls are down. I’ve certainly had an unguarded EC2 box leveraged for bitcoin mining within hours despite it effectively being on the darkweb.
As sceptical as I am of people in the governments motives, it was interesting to hear from someone who could be deemed “in the know” or also “on tilt after being constructively dismissed” describe the US government as low risk compared to private companies, and why that is the case (spoiler: $$$). I’ve long thought that big companies own the government rather than the other way around, but now we’re talking tech and socials it seems much easier to control the conversation and subvert process than it ever was.
I'd propose that the relationship between big companies and government is a two-way street, in which corporate influence is exerted to gain favourable regulation that sets up barriers to entry and reduces competition, while governments tend to like the efficiency of regulating a smaller number of larger companies rather than a larger number of small businesses.
Interesting interview Mike and you asked some good questions but to me Jeremy sounded like someone who had benefitted if not been groomed by the establishment, good on whistleblowing yes but someone who opines citizens are "Basically safe from the government" really?
Also "Corporate America bigger threat than Gov America" - aren't they the SAME flippin' thing? 😆
From speaking with Jeremy, I have to say that I found his belief that in the main the NSA is working in the interests of the country and not functioning as an oppressive tool to be understandable. My feeling is that the possibility of the intrusion is the problem, before such a capability is used or abused, but that's my own bar, not an objective measure. Since he worked there and experienced it first hand, I'm happy to defer to him on how he gauged the intent and outcomes of the agency's activities. I try not to assume the worst of people.
I also try to keep perspective on the tussle between corporate activities and government oversight. The US has many issues, and in a lot of ways the private sector runs rampant, but it's not a cut-and-dried situation just yet, in my opinion.
You do seem to have a very balanced perspective Mike (that's why I enjoy your content). To me he sounded like a person who voluntarily joined and stayed enjoying the benefits of the system that gave him a sense of worth if not status. He seemed very confident and quite pleased with himself too, he has obviously carved out a new career (just like many a successful ‘retired’ politician). How likely was it that he would he do a 'Snowden' by telling you things that he knows he maybe shouldn't? Was a good listen though.
Anyway the profit motive and the US gov seem to go hand in hand, at least from the perspective of someone who hasn't had to swear allegiance to its flag (me) - globally those strategically placed 170+ US military bases are quite interested in securing the stuff that it needs to be profitable, sorry I mean ‘Democratic’.
Thank you, Baz. I appreciate your view, and to an extent I share your cynicism.
Years ago I interviewed someone who worked with Ecuador's government under Rafael Correa and she told me that if you overlaid a map of US military bases in South America with oil fields, it would be almost an exact match. I'd posit that what China has been up to in Myanmar and Africa hasn't been much different. Real-politik is definitely a thing, and, as you imply, it would be naïve to pretend it wasn't. I just don't think the US is unique in that regard. Perhaps they're uniquely bad at hiding it?
As for Jeremy, my impression was that he made it clear he wanted strong whistleblower protections in place, and proper avenues open to dissidents, to prevent the NSA from closing ranks or discrediting or punishing a leaker. As he mentioned, he had to run his book past the NSA three times to get the content approved because of his previous security clearance, and he did that in part to have a lot of what he wanted to share with the public pre-approved by them. I'd propose that playing the game and wanting the rules to be fair isn't the same as liking it.
Call me naive but isn’t wealth maintained in a hostile ‘egalitarian’ environment by violence in all its forms? America by dint of having the best most advanced weapons systems of its time was able to maintain its ‘greatness’. The NSA being basically a lobe of the DOD’s brain.
Really interesting episode which provided good balance I thought. As someone who has worked tangentially to some pretty robust InfoSec teams, it was interesting to hear tales of what can happen when the walls are down. I’ve certainly had an unguarded EC2 box leveraged for bitcoin mining within hours despite it effectively being on the darkweb.
As sceptical as I am of people in the governments motives, it was interesting to hear from someone who could be deemed “in the know” or also “on tilt after being constructively dismissed” describe the US government as low risk compared to private companies, and why that is the case (spoiler: $$$). I’ve long thought that big companies own the government rather than the other way around, but now we’re talking tech and socials it seems much easier to control the conversation and subvert process than it ever was.
Thanks for listening, Adam.
I'd propose that the relationship between big companies and government is a two-way street, in which corporate influence is exerted to gain favourable regulation that sets up barriers to entry and reduces competition, while governments tend to like the efficiency of regulating a smaller number of larger companies rather than a larger number of small businesses.
Interesting interview Mike and you asked some good questions but to me Jeremy sounded like someone who had benefitted if not been groomed by the establishment, good on whistleblowing yes but someone who opines citizens are "Basically safe from the government" really?
Also "Corporate America bigger threat than Gov America" - aren't they the SAME flippin' thing? 😆
Thank you for listening, Baz.
From speaking with Jeremy, I have to say that I found his belief that in the main the NSA is working in the interests of the country and not functioning as an oppressive tool to be understandable. My feeling is that the possibility of the intrusion is the problem, before such a capability is used or abused, but that's my own bar, not an objective measure. Since he worked there and experienced it first hand, I'm happy to defer to him on how he gauged the intent and outcomes of the agency's activities. I try not to assume the worst of people.
I also try to keep perspective on the tussle between corporate activities and government oversight. The US has many issues, and in a lot of ways the private sector runs rampant, but it's not a cut-and-dried situation just yet, in my opinion.
You do seem to have a very balanced perspective Mike (that's why I enjoy your content). To me he sounded like a person who voluntarily joined and stayed enjoying the benefits of the system that gave him a sense of worth if not status. He seemed very confident and quite pleased with himself too, he has obviously carved out a new career (just like many a successful ‘retired’ politician). How likely was it that he would he do a 'Snowden' by telling you things that he knows he maybe shouldn't? Was a good listen though.
Anyway the profit motive and the US gov seem to go hand in hand, at least from the perspective of someone who hasn't had to swear allegiance to its flag (me) - globally those strategically placed 170+ US military bases are quite interested in securing the stuff that it needs to be profitable, sorry I mean ‘Democratic’.
(*removes tongue from cheek)
Thank you, Baz. I appreciate your view, and to an extent I share your cynicism.
Years ago I interviewed someone who worked with Ecuador's government under Rafael Correa and she told me that if you overlaid a map of US military bases in South America with oil fields, it would be almost an exact match. I'd posit that what China has been up to in Myanmar and Africa hasn't been much different. Real-politik is definitely a thing, and, as you imply, it would be naïve to pretend it wasn't. I just don't think the US is unique in that regard. Perhaps they're uniquely bad at hiding it?
As for Jeremy, my impression was that he made it clear he wanted strong whistleblower protections in place, and proper avenues open to dissidents, to prevent the NSA from closing ranks or discrediting or punishing a leaker. As he mentioned, he had to run his book past the NSA three times to get the content approved because of his previous security clearance, and he did that in part to have a lot of what he wanted to share with the public pre-approved by them. I'd propose that playing the game and wanting the rules to be fair isn't the same as liking it.
Strong whistleblower protections but not too strong 😉
Call me naive but isn’t wealth maintained in a hostile ‘egalitarian’ environment by violence in all its forms? America by dint of having the best most advanced weapons systems of its time was able to maintain its ‘greatness’. The NSA being basically a lobe of the DOD’s brain.