Comment by Eupolemos

Comment by Eupolemos 5 days ago

22 replies

Because Snowden, agree with him or not, showed us that reality blew away our imagination.

It may feel normal now, but back then, serious people, professionals, told us that the claims just were not possible.

Until we learned that they were.

heavyset_go 5 days ago

Until that moment, the general sentiment about the government and the internet is that they are too incompetent to do anything about it, companies like Microsoft/Apple/Google/Snapchat are actually secure so lax data/opsec is okay, etc.

Meanwhile, the whole time, communications and tech companies were working hand in hand with the government siphoning up any and all data they could to successfully implement their LifeLog[1] pipe dream.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog

  • kcplate 5 days ago

    > Until that moment, the general sentiment about the government and the internet is that they are too incompetent to do anything about it

    In 2008 I worked with a retired NSA guy who had retired from the agency 5 years prior. He refused to have a cellphone. He refused to have a home ISP. Did not have cable tv, Just OTA. He would only use the internet as needed for the work we were doing and would not use it for anything else (news, etc). He eventually moved to the mountains to live off grid. He left the agency ten years before Snowden disclosed anything.

    An example like that in my life and here I sit making comments on the internet.

    • ifwinterco 5 days ago

      I question the wisdom of that path though. Like yes the government can probably read a lot of your stuff easily, and all of it if they really want to. But why does that mean you have to live like a medieval hermit in a hut in the mountains?

      I have opinions but at the end of the day I'd rather live within the system with everything it has to offer me, even knowing how fake a lot of it is. Living in remote huts is just not that interesting

      • kakacik 4 days ago

        Maybe he wanted that regardless (remote hut life), and this was just a final push for change. I can see myself, under different circumstances (no family) to enjoy such life and hardships (and simplicity) it brings, at least for some time.

        If NSA employs primarily some high functioning people on spectrum or similar types, which often don't work well in societies with tons of strangers, then moving off is also not the worst idea if one has enough skills and good equipment to not make it into constant hellish survival.

        • kcplate 4 days ago

          > Maybe he wanted that regardless (remote hut life), and this was just a final push for change

          Perhaps. Like I said in the other comment, his motivations for that living choice may have been unrelated to his government work, but it did fit a pattern of choices. I am pretty sure his other choices of specific technology avoidance was related to his government work. No specific conversation but other colleagues and I noticed comments (mainly about cellular and internet avoidance) over the time we worked together in the vein of “I just don’t think it’s a good idea”.

      • kcplate 4 days ago

        I can’t speak to his reasoning and he made no explanation as to why he chose that living choice path to me, but I just view it as another choice he made to disconnect. Circumstantially with the rest, it would not surprise me if it was related to his time with the government, but it could be unrelated in motive, but related in result.

    • bradlys 5 days ago

      Sounds like a guy who doesn’t enjoy the internet or cellphones. Shit, my grandparents never owned a computer, paid for internet, had cable tv, etc.

      Are they suspicious of the government? No, just poor and uninterested.

  • somenameforme 5 days ago

    That was not the sentiment, at least not in my experience. There was a far more pervasive and effective argument - if somebody believed that the government is spying on you in everything and everywhere then they're simply crazy, a weirdo, a conspiracy theorist. Think about something like the X-Files and the portrayal of the Lone Gunmen [1] hacking group. Three borderline nutso, socially incompetent, and weird unemployed guys living together and driving around in a scooby-doo van. That was more in line with the typical sentiment.

    People don't want to be seen as crazy or on the fringes so it creates a far greater chilling effect than claims that e.g. the government is too incompetent to do something which could lead to casual debate and discussion. Same thing with the event that is the namesake of that group. The argument quickly shifted from viability to simply trying to negatively frame anybody who might even discuss such things.

    [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen

    • heavyset_go 4 days ago

      The sentiment you're speaking of was definitely there, my response is more about how people felt about the government and, say, cybercrime.

      At least from what I recall, law enforcement were portrayed as bumbling idiots when it came to computers and anything internet-related.

      Same thing with legislators and regulators, with the "series of tubes" meme capturing the sentiment pretty well.

      When it came to spying, yeah you were (and still are to an extent) considered to be insane if you think the government was spying on you or anyone you know, let alone everyone.

  • jatora 5 days ago

    dont worry lifelog was cancelled in 2004 according to that wiki. Phew!

    • anonym29 5 days ago

      The very same day Mark Zuckerberg's "The Facebook" launched. A total coincidence, with zero evidence that the two are related in any way whatsoever ;)

jjtheblunt 5 days ago

> Snowden, agree with him or not, showed us that reality blew away our imagination.

pretty much everything Snowden released had been documented (with NSA / CIA approval) in the early 80s in James Bamford's book The Puzzle Palace.

the irony of snowden is that the audience ten years ago mostly had not read the book, so echo chambers of shock form about what was re-confirming decades old capabilities, being misused at the time however.

ocdtrekkie 5 days ago

Considering the US military has historically had capabilities a decade ahead of what people publicly knew about, anyone who said it just wasn't possible probably wasn't a serious professional.

[removed] 5 days ago
[deleted]
XorNot 5 days ago

Which claims? HN around that time was taking anything and everything and declaring it conclusively proved everything else.

I honestly have no god damn clue what was actually revealed by the Snowden documents - people just say "they revealed things".

  • fao_ 5 days ago

    Why are you asking here, versus going to Google and reading the original article from The Guardian? Or the numerous Wikipedia links that are on this page?

    • XorNot 5 days ago

      Because saying "experts said things were impossible and then Snowden" could mean literally anything. Which experts, what things?

      Like I said: I've read a ton of stuff, and apparently what people are sure they read is very different to what I read.

      • browningstreet 5 days ago

        You can read about PRISM, Upstream, FAIRVIEW, STORMBREW, NSA Section 215 (PATRIOT Act) in a lot of places. But essentially they collected all call records and tapped the Internet backbone and stored as much traffic as they could. It’s not all automatic but it’s overly streamlined given the promises of court orders. Which were rubber stamped.

  • sgentle 5 days ago

    You know how it's considered a kind of low-effort disrespect to answer someone's question by pasting back a response from an LLM? I think equivalently if you ask a question where the best response is what you'd get from an LLM, then you're the one showing a disrespectful lack of effort. It's kind of the 2026 version of LMGTFY.

    If you still want a copy-paste response to your question, just let me know – I'm happy to help!