[mikegagnon]

I think the author's most important point is that she sees the NSA Director as a "good man," even though she considers his activities to be criminal and a threat to democracy.

I agree with her.

I think it is important to realize that authorities aren't necessarily caricatures of evil like Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. I don't believe Gen. Keith Alexander is conspiring to undercut democracy. I believe he is earnest but misguided. And I believe the present institution rewards and promotes those who are earnest and misguided. I believe it is simply an emergent phenomenon.

Of course there exist evil people who will intentionally abuse their power for selfish gain. I do not believe though that blatant evil is the dominant force in the world. I think the most common case is that there are just people in power who are trying to do something "good," yet they share different values and concerns than their opponents.

How could someone be "good" yet conduct mass surveillance? (1) The belief that terrorism represents a grave threat, (2) the belief that mass surveillance is the best way to combat terrorism, and (3) the belief that their implementation of mass surveillance doesn't represent a significant threat to civil liberties.

This is important to consider when you oppose someone's actions and policies. It won't be productive to assume your opponent is evil. Rather, it will be better to have an honest intellectual discussion and debate about your values and the pragmatic dangers of secrecy and mass surveillance.

[joezydeco]

This one line

"The General seemed convinced that if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him."

Makes me think back to that Daniel Ellsberg article where he's briefing Kissinger for the first time about having access to the whole of the USA's intelligence banks:

"First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well."

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...

[brandonbloom]

> if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him

So then tell me what you know that I don't.

Oh, you're also convinced that it's best if I don't know? Well then you'll forgive me if I maintain some healthy skepticism.

[mikegagnon]

Exactly. I believe Gen. Keith Alexander (and the others who espouse that idea) have been seduced into believing in benevolent dictatorship.

That's not how democracy works though. Fundamentally, democracy is premised on mistrust in authority (hence voting citizens, checks and balances, the bill of rights, etc.) In a democracy, the citizens aren't expected to blindly trust the authorities. The citizens must be informed, the citizens must make their own judgements, and then they will vote for legislators and executives who share their platforms.

I believe the government's stance is "but if we debate these issues publicly, it will tip our hand to the terrorists, which would defeat the whole purpose of mass surveillance in the first place." That's a legitimate concern.

However, my stance is that in a democracy not every form of law enforcement and secret surveillance is possible. If a law or policy only succeeds if it is kept secret from the citizens, then that law or policy is incompatible with democracy. Only that which can be publicly debated can be made law.

The key in debating these issues is that opponents and advocates need to discuss and debate the issues without assuming each other are evil. And everyone must maintain an open mind. Because otherwise, we will never find ways to overcome our differences and address the root issues (differing values and concerns).

[j_baker]

It could also be that if she knew what Alexander knew, she'd only become more disgusted than she already is.

[AndrewGreen]

"...if only I knew what he knew, I would agree with him": in 1995 Phil Zimmerman told me that is exactly what the establishment types were saying to the cypherpunks.

[jnbiche]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

--W.B. Yeats

[j_baker]

I don't buy it. Clearly it's simplistic to try to cast this as being "Alexander == the devil". But that doesn't make Alexander a good person.

I've yet to see any evidence of Alexander being an earnest individual. I have seen evidence that Alexander is good at convincing people he's an earnest individual despite evidence to the contrary. And that scares me tremendously.

[mikegagnon]

I don't know for a fact that Alexander is a good person. I just assume he is because I assume people are good in general, and, pragmatically, that assumption leads to more fruitful debates.

People lie all the time, to themselves and to everyone else.