3 ms·
It's barely been twelve hours - too soon for the results of any real investigation to have influenced the editorials coming out. What we're hearing is the posit
by jimrandomh 11y ago
It's barely been twelve hours - too soon for the results of any real investigation to have influenced the editorials coming out. What we're hearing is the positions that were prepared prior to the attacks themselves.
It's possible that the perpetrators evaded surveillance with encryption. It's also possible that the perpetrators did have their phones tapped, but investigators dropped the ball. It's possible that they avoided phones and did all their planning in person. It's even possible that someone made an executive decision to not intervene and stop them, for political reasons.
As far as I know, none of Snowden's criticisms have been addressed at French organizations. While there's some possibility US intelligence agencies could have picked up on this, it's primarily a European matter and not the NSA's responsibility. This makes Snowden's having undermined the NSA quite unlikely to have been relevant.
- tonfa 11y agoWhen the article says: > In response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks that hit Paris in January of 2015, France adopted one of the most aggressive surveillance laws in the Western world. That was not enough to stop these attacks. That's very misleading, as the law was just voted and isn't in application yet.
- mikeash 11y agoAll the reactions are just existing positions being repeated. The NSA fans attack Snowden. The gun nuts blame gun control. The tech crowd criticizes surveillance. And all throughout, almost no information about the actual events is available. It's all quite tedious.