Which goes to my point. If you have any issues, you have an issue with the fact that they hack congressional computers, not that that possess exploits and malware, which this article is about.
You have an issue with their actions in that particular case, which is outside the scope of this article, or the argument that I was making.
> They push the narrative that these tools are being used on americans, should be ashamed, don't trust your intelligence agencies etc.
I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check.
He's making the point that this is a tool. A weapon, but a tool. It's a very targeted tool, requiring manual delivery to an individual system. Getting upset at the CIA having this is like getting upset that they have assault rifles. Sure, they can do horrible things with assault rifles, and agents could even storm a US household and kill citizens. But as much as that would reflect horribly on the CIA, the fact that assault rifles exist and they have access to them is not indicative of their intent to use them on US citizens, regardless of whether it has happened in the past. Their charter means that these tools have valid reasons for existence under their normal, expected operating parameters.
I mean, your example is not really the best. Rifles are just another tool that I'd call for to be removed from the CIAs arsenal if they were on record as using them against the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.
Why? What if it was knives? Should be make sure the CIA has no knives? The problem isn't the tool, it's the people in place that let them be used inappropriately. If the Army used a tank inappropriately, I wouldn't call for all tanks to be removed from the Army's arsenal, I would call for a review of the people and procedures that allowed it to happen. Tanks are a valid and essential part of our offensive and defensive arsenal. As are assault rifles. As are missiles. As are digital infiltration and information gathering techniques and software.
> Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup).
There you go. The tanks weren't removed, the organization was disbanded. Having tanks is not an indicator that an organization will attempt a coup, if having tanks is useful to the normal function of that organization.
At this point, you're making my points for me, so either it's evident to you at this point, or you aren't going to get it (as you're consistently misinterpreting the point), or you're trolling. In any case, I don't see this continuing productively past this point, since I'm just repeating myself.
You're just making a different point than the OP. He was arguing that there's no evidence that these tools have been used outside of the accepted bounds of the CIA. That's obviously false given the Senate hacking (which itself was over the CIA not liking the results of governance over another tool in their arsenal: "enhanced interrogation").
But going back to the temporary disbanding, how in practice do you think that would work? You can't just jail or execute all of the military. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the very weapons used against the government would be locked up until you could figure out who those 'domestic enemies' are that the Oath to the Constitution talks about? Yes the very existence of these tools isn't a problem, these tools being in the hands of those who have proved that they are systemically incapable of legally using these tools is a problem. You therefore remove those tools from their arsenal, going so far as to disband them entirely if necessary (ie. if their use of these tools threatens the country on a whole and you can't trust them to truly give the tools up completely).
I don't have a problem with the use of these tools in general by intelligence agencies, I have a problem with the CIA's access to these tools.
> I then show public examples of the CIA not only using hacking tools against Americans, but against the very oversight framework that's supposed to keep them in check.
Again, you're not arguing that the possession of the tools, which this article presents, is the bad thing. Your issue seems to be with the hacking of congressional computers, which I agree, is a bad thing.
The scope of this article (and the previous leak) is showcasing the tools and abilities of the CIA. I argue that we want the CIA, the espionage arm of the US government, to have the ability/tools to conduct espionage. Now how they apply those abilities/tools is up for debate and scrutany.
Good god people, this is literally the anti-encryption argument, with the tables flipped.
When they apply those tools against the very checks and balances governing the use of those tools, the only safe option is to (at least temporarily) remove those tools from their arsenal.
