![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
N*A
No, the "*" isn't a W. It's an S. I'm talking about the government agency so much in the news these past few days.
It's not on the topic of domestic surveillance per se, but I keep finding myself thinking about a conversation I had with my old pal who works for N*A now. It was a conversation in which he tried to justify, using that old blackmailability argument, the screening for homos the agency did (& surely still does) in its hiring process. If you've got this thing in your life that's so scandalous, the notion goes, it could give foreign agents something to use against you. He did seem to buy that an entirely out-to-the-whole-world queer was no threat by that line of reasoning. But he was never near with me on the selectivity of investigating this particular potential point of blackmail.
The alternative example I gave him was that of the heterosexual married worker who's cheating on his wife. Wouldn't he be every bit as blackmailable? Maybe even moreso, depending on his circumstances? This is what I've been contemplating. I don't recall his ever having a decent response there. But he had/has a belief in normalcy that might well make him think me facetious, comparing a taboo perversion with what happens in regular people's lives. (I won't tell the story about his security clearance being held up, though the reason behind that delay seemed at least as important as whether he s**ked d**k.) (Look at me, [faux] cleaning up my foul language!)
I've gotta say, though: you KNOW this stuff in the latest set of revelations (such as we know of it) isn't the only spying "we" are doing on U.S. citizens. I mean, c'mon. Who you kiddin'. Jeez-oo-Pete. Criminey.
It's not on the topic of domestic surveillance per se, but I keep finding myself thinking about a conversation I had with my old pal who works for N*A now. It was a conversation in which he tried to justify, using that old blackmailability argument, the screening for homos the agency did (& surely still does) in its hiring process. If you've got this thing in your life that's so scandalous, the notion goes, it could give foreign agents something to use against you. He did seem to buy that an entirely out-to-the-whole-world queer was no threat by that line of reasoning. But he was never near with me on the selectivity of investigating this particular potential point of blackmail.
The alternative example I gave him was that of the heterosexual married worker who's cheating on his wife. Wouldn't he be every bit as blackmailable? Maybe even moreso, depending on his circumstances? This is what I've been contemplating. I don't recall his ever having a decent response there. But he had/has a belief in normalcy that might well make him think me facetious, comparing a taboo perversion with what happens in regular people's lives. (I won't tell the story about his security clearance being held up, though the reason behind that delay seemed at least as important as whether he s**ked d**k.) (Look at me, [faux] cleaning up my foul language!)
I've gotta say, though: you KNOW this stuff in the latest set of revelations (such as we know of it) isn't the only spying "we" are doing on U.S. citizens. I mean, c'mon. Who you kiddin'. Jeez-oo-Pete. Criminey.
no subject
no subject
Pretty funny that he didn't have an answer for that one, I s'pose. I would think that person could be blackmailed--sure he (or she) could.
Nothing that the N*A does surprises me--I'm only surprised that Bush has admitted to authorizing any of it. I'm sure what he & the agency have admitted to is only the very small tip of a very large iceberg.
and beyond
Re: and beyond