Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    system_exposure

    + friends - friends
    88,451 link karma
    18,383 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] The danger of information arbiters and search engine monopolies system_exposure 1 points ago in conspiracy

    'On Democracy' by Robert A. Dahl.

    Here is a PDF containing content from Part III, and you can find the excerpt from the image above on page 17 within that document (corresponding to page 97 of the book).

    [–] A Love Letter to the State Department system_exposure 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in foreignservice

    I read the article as a defense of the vital ongoing work of our State Department in challenging times. It is transparent in its acknowledgement of political tension:

    It would be easy, perhaps, if the entirety of your Foreign Service career before the 2016 election had been served under a single president, to forget that the oath we take when becoming diplomats says that we serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. [...]

    In the wake of the OIG Review of Allegations of Politicized and Other Improper Personnel Practices in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, I think there is tremendous value in judicious public acknowledgement of this tension. Absence of dissent would be more alarming to me. In my view this transparency lends credibility to the following statement:

    Our oath commits us to serve at the pleasure of every president elected in the United States, not just the ones whose policies match our political preferences. I’ve had the privilege of serving as a Foreign Service officer for five presidents — some I voted for, some I didn’t. And my job is to serve each one to the best of my ability. It is our responsibility to provide our best counsel to those in power, even if — perhaps especially if — they do not immediately embrace our views.

    That is the role and the responsibility of career public servants in our democratic system. Career members of the Foreign Service are the joists supporting the institutions so that each successive administration — and the American people — can rely on their institutional knowledge, network of global relationships and subject matter expertise. Without the framework of a professional career Foreign Service, our nation is weaker and our global power reduced. If we all leave when it gets hard, who will be left to champion American diplomacy?

    I agree with you that the article includes political perspective. What I disagree with you on is that this inherently undermines the current administration, because the article ultimately moves beyond that limited frame of political tension toward broader considerations of the enduring value of State Department contributions on the global stage---beneath the current administration and beyond.

    [–] CIA and White House dispute report of US spy’s removal from Russia over safety concerns under Trump system_exposure -8 points ago in politics

    Note that the CIA Director for Public Affairs also responded:

    "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in a statement to CNN. "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."

    [–] Despite CIA Rebuke, CNN's Jim Sciutto Stands By His Russian Spy Story system_exposure -5 points ago in politics

    I am not intent on making people believe me.

    I think awareness of what the CIA director of public affairs says is a significant concern, as are concerns being voiced regarding her trustworthiness and efficacy as a spokeswoman. I consider public statements made by our intelligence services incredibly significant concerns, on a general basis, as well as what subsequent forces influence their propagation and interpretation. Misgivings toward Donald Trump aside, I think there are major unresolved communications problems represented in this scenario and the various reactions it is surfacing. It reflects both a crisis of trust, and an awkward intersection of security concerns with political behavior in response to messages that may be interpreted as adversarial to any given political position.

    If any intelligence service needed to communicate a politically inconvenient truth within our current political climate, how would you advise they do so for optimal reception?

    [–] 'Extraordinarily Dangerous': Former CIA Moscow station chief blasts leaks on Russian informant system_exposure 1 points ago in politics

    I think awareness of what the CIA director of public affairs says is a significant concern, as are concerns being voiced regarding her trustworthiness and efficacy as a spokeswoman. I consider public statements made by our intelligence services incredibly significant concerns, on a general basis, as well as what subsequent forces influence their propagation and interpretation. Misgivings toward Donald Trump aside, I think there are major unresolved communications problems represented in this scenario and the various reactions it is surfacing. It reflects both a crisis of trust, and an awkward intersection of security concerns with political behavior in response to messages that may be interpreted as adversarial to any given political position.

    [–] Despite CIA Rebuke, CNN's Jim Sciutto Stands By His Russian Spy Story system_exposure -27 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in politics

    Here is coverage of the CIA statement from an alternative source that you may prefer:

    The Washington Post: White House disputes accounts of Russian CIA informant

    The CIA singled out CNN in a statement that disputed the network’s reporting about what prompted the evacuation. CNN cited an unnamed source as telling them that the informant was removed in part because of concerns about the Trump administration’s mishandling of classified information and the possibility that the Russian official could be exposed.

    “CNN’s narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,” said CIA Director of Public Affairs Brittany Bramell. “Misguided speculation that the president’s handling of our nation’s most sensitive intelligence, which he has access to each and every day, drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.”

    [–] Despite CIA Rebuke, CNN's Jim Sciutto Stands By His Russian Spy Story system_exposure -10 points ago in politics

    Article excerpt:

    "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,” CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in a statement. "Misguided speculation that the president's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence - which he has access to each and every day - drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."

    The New York Times also issued a separate report poking holes in Sciutto's story, which offered a different timeline of events. Their reporters found that the Russian spy had been extracted back in 2016, before Trump had even taken office.

    [–] Political bias fuels false reporting about Trump system_exposure -6 points ago in politics

    And the "CIA" didn't pushback on anything. Its not what they do

    Do you agree with The Washington Post published characterization that the CIA disputed the CNN story?

    The Washington Post: White House disputes accounts of Russian CIA informant

    The CIA singled out CNN in a statement that disputed the network’s reporting about what prompted the evacuation. CNN cited an unnamed source as telling them that the informant was removed in part because of concerns about the Trump administration’s mishandling of classified information and the possibility that the Russian official could be exposed.

    “CNN’s narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,” said CIA Director of Public Affairs Brittany Bramell. “Misguided speculation that the president’s handling of our nation’s most sensitive intelligence, which he has access to each and every day, drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.”

    [–] Political bias fuels false reporting about Trump system_exposure -21 points ago in politics

    A possibility exists. What I consider significant is what the CIA has actually said, and I think that is worthy of attention and scrutiny. I have been tracking this story for a few days and a lot of social media responses casually impugn the integrity of the CIA as a source of information, suggesting it is somehow compromised beneath Donald Trump, which is an extraordinary claim and worthy of discussion. It is difficult to tell if people are attacking the statement because some people receive it as unfavorable to their favored causes, or if genuine concern exists.

    [–] Political bias fuels false reporting about Trump system_exposure -23 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in politics

    I am no fan of Donald Trump, but his own misbehavior does not nullify the misbehavior of others, and in the case of the CNN story there has been pushback directly from the CIA. If the truth is on the side of his opposition then careless journalism and outright lies from the media may damage the legitimacy of that cause, or even put individuals and our nation at risk.

    [–] Political bias fuels false reporting about Trump system_exposure -31 points ago in politics

    I am less interested in the accusation of political bias than the CIA itself having issued a statement regarding the CNN story. Here is an alternative source providing those details that you may prefer.

    The Washington Post: White House disputes accounts of Russian CIA informant

    The CIA singled out CNN in a statement that disputed the network’s reporting about what prompted the evacuation. CNN cited an unnamed source as telling them that the informant was removed in part because of concerns about the Trump administration’s mishandling of classified information and the possibility that the Russian official could be exposed.

    “CNN’s narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,” said CIA Director of Public Affairs Brittany Bramell. “Misguided speculation that the president’s handling of our nation’s most sensitive intelligence, which he has access to each and every day, drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate.”

    [–] Political bias fuels false reporting about Trump system_exposure -17 points ago in politics

    Article excerpt:

    The scary thing in the tale, Sciutto said, was that the CIA figured it had to sneak him out of Russia despite his incredible importance, his role over the years of letting us know what was really, truly going on behind the scenes in a county forever trying to undermine us in anyway it could. The reason was Trump’s carelessness with security secrets, according to the newsman, who told us the CIA acted in 2017 and the spy is now in the United States. As others in the know also tell us, it could take years to replace him, assuming that happens.

    There’s a problem here, however: namely that the CIA decision was made in 2016 before Trump was elected president and that the rescue would have occurred then if the spy had not been so reluctant to leave his home country. This business about Trump is “simply false,” says the CIA, and The New York Times has explained that agency’s concerns were actually intense reporter scrutiny of the detailed report on Putin’s election interference.

    [–] 'Extraordinarily Dangerous': Former CIA Moscow station chief blasts leaks on Russian informant system_exposure -4 points ago in politics

    Article excerpt:

    A CNN story last week reported a high-ranking informant close to the Kremlin, who’d been passing information along to the U.S. about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in the country's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, was pulled out sometime around May 2017. The decision to exfiltrate the informant, amid worries he might be exposed, happened after Trump met with Russian officials in the Oval Office in May 2017 and disclosed some classified information to them, the story alleged.

    The CIA immediately pushed back. “Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate,” CIA spokeswoman Brittany Bramell said last week.