5 ms·

> This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this v

by idm 10y ago

> This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy.

Veratyr 10y ago
> The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. They responded to it yes but they haven't resolved the issue I raised, which is that I'm not going to trust their conclusions without seeing verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court and that I don't think anyone else should accept their claims either. > Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy. According to [0]: "You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove." I'm saying that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. How is that fallacious? [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
- idm 10y ago
  You asked for: > verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court And yourlogicalfallacyis.com says: > to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. I would also mention "moving the goalposts" but I'm happy to leave this as "burden of proof."
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  OK, you don't trust it but they're not going to burn their sources and methods in a public report. Do you seriously expect them to voluntarily expose their assets when it could be a death sentence for their human sources? A future executive might make that decision and live with the consequences, but members of the intelligence community aren't going to voluntarily wreck their networks.
- rustyPipe 10y ago
  I agree with your sentiment but is it not possible for the authors to reveal this evidence because that would undermine their intelligence capabilities?
  - Veratyr 10y ago
    It does seem likely that that's the case however a good reason to withhold the evidence doesn't increase the likelihood that I will/should trust the report. There's no good solution to this, it's unfortunate that they proved themselves untrustworthy in the past.
    - rickycook 10y ago
      and i think that's the point. they had trust, and they totally abused that to the point where anything they say that's unverifiable is questionable. this is why these organisations shouldn't lie to their own countries' people; because it will be close to impossible to regain that trust without verifiable sources and transparency that they just can't give
    - ern 10y ago
      There's no good solution to this Yes there is, and it is already in place. There has been bipartisan oversight of intelligence from Congress for decades. A subset of the people's representatives with the necessary security clearances make sure that there are no Deep State shenanigans. Yes, it failed in the run up to the Iraq invasion, but it worked for decades before, during the Cold War.
      - Veratyr 10y ago
        I disagree. - Partisanship in Congress has resulted in a government so dysfunctional that it's been shut down. We can't trust people who can't even keep the government running to watch over services so accustomed to keeping everyone in the dark. - The committee may have been effective during the cold war but in recent times, the NSA was engaged in mass surveillance for while this committee was in place and it took an internal whistleblower for it to come to light. - The head of the NSA lied to Congress. The oversight committee can't oversee if they can't get the truth. You might be able to argue that this is a solution but you most definitely cannot argue that it's a good solution when it's recently been proven to be ineffective.

by idm 10y ago

Veratyr 10y ago

> The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. They responded to it yes but they haven't resolved the issue I raised, which is that I'm not going to trust their conclusions without seeing verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court and that I don't think anyone else should accept their claims either. > Stop confusing this matter by introducing a "burden of proof" fallacy. According to [0]: "You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove." I'm saying that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. How is that fallacious? [0]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

idm 10y ago
You asked for: > verifiable evidence that would be accepted by a court And yourlogicalfallacyis.com says: > to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. I would also mention "moving the goalposts" but I'm happy to leave this as "burden of proof."
anigbrowl 10y ago
OK, you don't trust it but they're not going to burn their sources and methods in a public report. Do you seriously expect them to voluntarily expose their assets when it could be a death sentence for their human sources? A future executive might make that decision and live with the consequences, but members of the intelligence community aren't going to voluntarily wreck their networks.
rustyPipe 10y ago
I agree with your sentiment but is it not possible for the authors to reveal this evidence because that would undermine their intelligence capabilities?
- Veratyr 10y ago
  It does seem likely that that's the case however a good reason to withhold the evidence doesn't increase the likelihood that I will/should trust the report. There's no good solution to this, it's unfortunate that they proved themselves untrustworthy in the past.
  - rickycook 10y ago
    and i think that's the point. they had trust, and they totally abused that to the point where anything they say that's unverifiable is questionable. this is why these organisations shouldn't lie to their own countries' people; because it will be close to impossible to regain that trust without verifiable sources and transparency that they just can't give
  - ern 10y ago
    There's no good solution to this Yes there is, and it is already in place. There has been bipartisan oversight of intelligence from Congress for decades. A subset of the people's representatives with the necessary security clearances make sure that there are no Deep State shenanigans. Yes, it failed in the run up to the Iraq invasion, but it worked for decades before, during the Cold War.
    - Veratyr 10y ago
      I disagree. - Partisanship in Congress has resulted in a government so dysfunctional that it's been shut down. We can't trust people who can't even keep the government running to watch over services so accustomed to keeping everyone in the dark. - The committee may have been effective during the cold war but in recent times, the NSA was engaged in mass surveillance for while this committee was in place and it took an internal whistleblower for it to come to light. - The head of the NSA lied to Congress. The oversight committee can't oversee if they can't get the truth. You might be able to argue that this is a solution but you most definitely cannot argue that it's a good solution when it's recently been proven to be ineffective.