2015-07-08 9:08 GMT+09:00 Sean Lynch <[1]seanl@literati.org>:

     A "litmus test" issue might be whether you think the NSA's expressed
     surprise over Snowden's leaks was genuine. I tend to think it was,
     and that his documents are genuine. I see no reason for the NSA to
     be substantially more competent than, say, the OPM.

   There's absolutely no reason to think the NSA doesn't have a
   layered/multi-cell operation wherein a mere contractor is not given
   access to nation-essential secrets. If there's a foreign spy you want
   him to penetrate what seems like a complete organisation. Why not give
   them what they want? There's lots of "more secure than FBI/CIA, less
   secure than 'we broke enigma' " work to be done, just put it in the
   public-facing independently operating organisation.
   Would you publish "we broke enigma" in a memo to the intranet? NSA
   didn't. NSA wouldn't get worse at what they do.
   The real headbreaker is when this is a problem. It's basically not a
   problem until you're a threat to the absolute fundamentals of what the
   NSA is designed to protect. And what's that? Is it personal freedom,
   the advancement of the human race, and the minimization of suffering?
   Is it the maximization of some abstract profit? The concentration of
   power? Do the latter two pretty much amount to the first?
   Intelligence laundering is a serious issue, of course, but running a
   clean organization would make the laundering exceedingly hard.

     They're each large organizations with no bottom line that attract
     people of flexible moral character who are attracted to power and/or
     job security.

   I'm in Korea, I talked to a bunch of US soldiers stationed here.
   They're exceedingly good-hearted, well-intentioned, high-spirited guys.
   Many love their work, the tension, the seriousness and hone their
   performance for sport and need. The balance between trigger-happy and
   accident-adverse is delicate and they seem extensively coached to
   preserve the balance properly.
   I've talked to some that like their state, but hate the FED. I've
   talked to some that think the US is bad but it's enemies are worse.
   I've talked to some that have doubts about parts of the US, about
   corruption, but believe in democracy such that they believe the US is a
   fundamental force of good.
   The lesson is: very moral people still do very immoral things for many,
   sometimes excellent, reasons.

     I don't think those traits tend to lead to effective organizations,
     as much as a number of Hollywood movies would like us to believe.

   I think there's not much difference between organisations. Make sure
   people's motivations are sincere and that they put in the effort.
   There's apparently a serious issue with "human resource rot" where
   worse people get brought into orgs or people get unfocused or
   demotivated. Without a bottom line there's less penalty for it. Doesn't
   mean it will happen. Snowden sure shows a certain amount of rot in
   NSA_Public. The recent Trident leak shows that the UK's nuclear
   deterrent program is rotten to a ridiculous point, but seems to
   indicate the US does much better.
   Who knows! ;)

References

   1. mailto:seanl@literati.org