8 ms·
> But just so I can understand what you're saying, why do you think it's a big assumption? Are you serious? Because there's no proof or mention of it anywhere.
by NullCharacter 11y ago
> But just so I can understand what you're saying, why do you think it's a big assumption?
Are you serious? Because there's no proof or mention of it anywhere. You're making an assumption based on literally nothing more than "well obviously, based on what I've read on the Internet, they could have done it so they must have". You're bending facts to fit a worldview, something I'm sure you yourself detest elsewhere in life.
This is like Russell's Teapot but for the NSA. You're shifting the burden of proof to someone who now has to prove a negative.
- a3n 11y agoThere's no proof or mention that they didn't. There never will be, ever. Yet we have to make decisions, even in the absence of evidence pro or con. Given that they don't disclose "wittingly" what they do, given their mission, and given what appears to be their interpretation of their mission as revealed by Snowden and others, we have to assume the "worst" within the realm of possibility. They did it, until they show me otherwise.
- codezero 11y agoThis is another point: the NSA really wants everyone to think they can, and have penetrated everything. It bolsters their image if people make these assumptions. This is one of the reasons I try not to assume the worst, especially when that's what they want you to do :)
- deelowe 11y agoLet's remove the hyperbole and call a spade a spade. So, you want them to prove a negative? Just trying to be clear.
- rnovak 11y agoThey haven't even denied breaking into the HT Network. Should they be accused, would they? I bet a dime-to-a-dollar that should they be accused, they'd release a non-statement to the press: "We cannot comment on...."
- rnovak 11y agoIt's an assumption, but I'm asking why it's a big assumption. We know that the NSA spied on Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, and those are our own (US) companies. Hacking Team produced weaponized exploits/crypto/stuffs and sold it to US enemies and allies. Having read through the documents, I assert that it's a small/likely/reasonable assumption. It's literally the NSAs mission statement to defend the US against foreign intelligence.....how is Hacking Team not a perfect example of an appropriate target for them?
- tedunangst 11y agoDid the NSA spy on google or did they spy on information passing through googles network? How much "interesting" intelligence would likely be found on HT's network? As for defense, they obviously didnt pass along what they found. If securing US networks was the reason for hacking, they completely failed to accomplish their goal.
- rnovak 11y agoI really think that's a distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, they spied on google. If you consider the fact that Google considers consumers to be more product than client, the distinction matters even less. But to your other point: This is the NSA's mission statement: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. And again, considering that HT sold weaponized crypto to non-allied countries, it's by definition "interesting" intelligence (in relation to the NSA). Also, I'm quite sure that the language in that statement indicates more of an offensive role than defensive, since that's usually what "advantage" signifies. Even if their purpose was defense, the way our Government is set up, it's defense of the government, not the governed, so you can't say with any confidence that they didn't patch internal systems that mattered to them.
- 11y ago