At least in theory, in a democratic society, "the government" should only do things that we've decided to allow. In the US, these decisions are made by representatives we've elected. As far as I know, the USG doesn't sell people's private information to anyone willing to pay to blackmail them, and uses your tax money to enforce the values of our society and the social contract we've constructed more so than to simply further its own power.
Now, obviously, different governments fall are at different points on the "furthering institutional power" versus "supporting ideals" spectrum, as do other institutions who work in the security space, but equating the actions of anyone who's ever used or traded an exploit hardly seems accurate.
It was meant as a sarcastic comment, of course it is inaccurate. :)
IMHO:
Unfortunately democracy doesn't work, in practice, as the theory might suggest. What we have in the majority of countries are people in power focused on either:
- Preserving their power (status quo), or tangentially the power of those who put them in office
- Shifting the power structure, so that they (and their group) can take control
There are few and far between examples of politicians (let alone governments) that act with true altruistic purposes, favoring the interests of "the people". The built-in incentives in our society (and some might argue, our own nature) unfortunately make this a rare occurrence.
By the way... I might argue that the government doesn't sell our information because there is no buyer. It is the user of this information. It is used to control (mainly to control dissent). ;)
Hah, thanks for clarifying, I had a suspicion, but still wanted to write out the argument in case there was some truth to the sarcasm.
It's hard to talk without going down into specifics. Different people got into power in different countries in different ways and are kept in power by different means. Switching out the hierarchy that's in power seems healthy for a society, and happens every once in awhile, as well (e.g. in Nigeria's recent election).
I don't think we should expect politicians to be altruistic and I think democracy is a spectrum. America has a somewhat democratic system, although almost half the eligible people don't vote, and a large portion of the population that does vote appears to mirror campaign spending, which is controlled by a much smaller, but still relatively diverse number of donors. Increasing the number of people with enough discretionary spending to give to campaigns makes this system more democratic, as does lowering the max amount an individual can contribute.
Perhaps one day we will have a society where everyone contributes ideas evenly to this distributed system that is democratic government, but for now, I think it's important simply to look for steps in that direction - get more people thinking and talking about political ideas, understanding the issues, and weighing the consequences of their vote.
Personally, I find the electoral college system the biggest barrier to engaging people... "what does it matter, our state is going for candidate X anyway".
I don't think the IC uses their capabilities to advise campaigns or blackmail dissidents anymore. They might have under J Hoover, but I imagine that to be wholly a blemish of the past.
Maybe, maybe not? I'd bet it depends on the people, depends on the job. Are you an anarchist assigned government drudgework? Bad news. Are you a chaotic neutral "forced" into fascinating meaningful government work? Might be great for everyone even if you wouldn't have taken the job normally.
"Those indicted include Johan Anders Gudmunds, identified by federal documents as an administrator of Darkode who created a large botnet of hacked computers that stole private information "on approximately 200,000,000 occasions.""
And on such a paltry amount of private information events compared to what the NSA captures!
Now, obviously, different governments fall are at different points on the "furthering institutional power" versus "supporting ideals" spectrum, as do other institutions who work in the security space, but equating the actions of anyone who's ever used or traded an exploit hardly seems accurate.