"One big change impacting surveillance was clear: Prior to September 11, the U.S. had what could reasonably be called a “wall” separating foreign surveillance for national security purposes done by the NSA from domestic surveillance for law enforcement purposes done by the FBI."

It turns out that the above statement is not entirely correct. I was aware of this rule at the time (early 90's), and was very surprised to find that it had been routinely violated for at least a decade. Unlike Snowden, I kept this to myself because I had signed (many) NDAs with the US Government.

▲

dylan604 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Unlike Snowden, I kept this to myself because I had signed (many) NDAs with the US Government.

You say this like you are proud of it. Admittedly, I cannot say what I would do in that situation as I've never been in that situation, but I'd hope I'd have the fortitude to speak up on it. Having employees/contractors doing tasks that are illegal just because they came from the higher ups is no different than soldiers refusing illegal orders. Quitting would be the least of the moral options. Speaking up would be higher up the complicated options.

▲

anonymousiam 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not proud of it at all. The revelation was startling to me, and I was pretty unhappy about it. It was done in the name of "stopping bad people from doing bad things", but it was still illegal (at least in the white world).

Snowden had the same dilemma. He was asking the NSA lawyers about the legality of their programs, and he never got an honest answer.

Quitting would not have stopped the activity, and disclosing it would have subjected me to the same treatment that Snowden got.

(Years later, I heard an NSA program manager boasting that they would keep asking different government lawyers for an opinion on the legality of proposed programs until they got the answer they wanted. This was after Snowden's revelations.)

Pretty much everyone in CIA has a "ends justify the means" philosophy. It's easy to fall into that trap when you learn about all the devious things our enemies are doing.

Apparently EOs have been used to circumvent the constitution for quite a while.

▲

bityard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's easy for others to say, "oy, you coward, you should have blown the whistle" from the comfort their web browsers. For what it's worth, I had a security clearance in a previous job (not as high as yours, I'm sure) and I understand where you are coming from. I would have likely done the same as you. Especially with my career and the ability to provide for my family on the line.

▲

eunit250 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's probably different if you have a family, but I have quit jobs over moral implications no problem. Most people have pretty flimsy morals and will do anything to keep the money rolling in.

▲

Teever 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The mistake wasn't in not blowing the whistle but it was taking a job with this kind of organization in the first place.

Yeah the solution is to not put yourself into a position where you need to make these choices. The fuel for the fire that are organizations like the CIA are people who don't have moral qualms or who have flexible ones.

The less people who work for these organizations the better.

	▲	anonymousiam an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I never worked directly for them. I was a contractor. If all the people of conscience quit, they are left with a workforce without a conscience, which I guess is pretty much what they have now, at least in certain areas.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quitting would just be the first step in "I do not want to participate in this". Whistle blowing is much more complicated in that you are hoping to not just not be participating but maybe stopping it altogether. Being young and single compared to being older with dependents would absolutely make that decision harder. Violating secrecy laws to disclose illegal activity seems like something that should have a caveat to allow, but of course they don't.

▲

dijit 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a moral psychological quandary: quit and hope everyone shares your moral compass. (hint: they don’t).

Or work to pressure change internally, and occupy space that might have gone to a more morally flexible person if it was made vacant; but while doing so engage in supporting immoral behaviour.

	▲	wahnfrieden 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Neither work without organizing. You cannot apply any meaningful pressure from the inside as an individual worker. You also do not need to work someplace to organize it.

▲

jandrewrogers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every administration effectively creates their own interpretation of what is permissible in this regard. The rules of engagement as it were that are set down by each administration vary widely. Nonetheless, it has effectively become a one-way ratchet.

	▲	timschmidt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I would push back against the idea that intelligence agency behavior changes administration to administration. Looking through history, it's the intelligence agencies which have superior continuity of leadership. Which suggests things about who's directing who.

▲

ACCount37 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The "ends justify the means" mentality in various government security agencies is very, very real.

▲

bobanrocky 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is an unfair insinuation - ‘that he sounds proud of it’. There are many reasons one stays quiet - like you are sole provider for a family, its beem going on for a while that you ignore/doubt its seriousness etc.

	▲	dylan604 a minute ago \| parent [-]
		That's just the way the "Unlike Snowden" part read to me. Had you read further down the thread, you'd see I had already stipulated the family part before you made your comment.

▲

7thpower 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is incredibly easy for you to say.

▲

timschmidt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People need to know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction as well. The technique is used to shield these secret programs by laundering the information they collect through plausible evidentiary chains.

	▲	TacticalCoder 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> People need to know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction as well. The number of terrorists who have been caught because they were controlled by a police officer "because they ran a traffic light" (yeah, sure) is wild. In the EU at some point after every single terrorist attack the terrorists' names were known because they had left their passports in a car they left at the scene. (yeah, sure again). The really amazing thing is that they don't know the name of the terrorists right away: because the terrorists don't have the passport on themselves apparently. No: they all leave them in the last car they used. Probably that, by now, terrorists see past terror attacks and think: "Oh, I'm supposed to have my passport with me, but then leave in the last vehicle I'll use before killing people".

▲

hackthemack 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is my understanding that the US Government set up a system, long, long ago, where the British would spy on Americans and then the British would supply the information to the NSA, thereby the NSA is not technically spying on American citizens.

Words mean nothing. They can be interpreted how ever they need to be interpreted by those in power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

▲

nxobject 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My little piece... it seems like we're litigating your past below, which doesn't seem to be helpful. What's done is done; what is each of us going to do, now?

▲

croes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Snowden had also signed many NDAs with the government

▲

ihaveanNDA 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

Onavo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]