3 ms·

How do you know?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
I posted links. If you don't think Google has encrypted its cross-datacenter traffic, you can try to access it yourself. If you don't think the NSA has stopped collecting all phone metadata, why would there be records of the NSA collecting a subset of metadata afterward?
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Every corrupt organization keeps two sets of books.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    There remains no evidence that the NSA is deliberately flouting the law. If there were, Snowden would have leaked that instead of lists of hacked Chinese computer systems.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      I don't understand the timeline you're implying. Snowden did blow the whistle on this program, in 2013. Your link was from 2015, and now it's 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Snowden has lost the access he had before his whistleblowing. It will take another whistleblower to reveal the scale of current unsupervised malfeasance.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        You're not following the point. The point was that people did care about the leaks and took appropriate action. Secondarily, you're not understanding the leaked documents. The leaked documents showed that the NSA believed that the phone metadata program was legal. Once there is a court ruling that it is illegal, its lawyers cannot justify the program. Thirdly, your phrase "another whistleblower" shows that you do not know what a whistleblower is. Leaking thousands of programs where just one of them happens to be illegal but not obviously so (to the point where Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        As discussed in the podcast, not even a few of the people at NSA believed anything of the sort. WaPo hasn't taken down this gem yet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/27/lawyers-said-bush-couldnt-spy-on-americans-he-did-it-anyway/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/27/lawye... As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court (in which DoJ faces no opposing counsel) in order to jury-rig a fig leaf for the ongoing destruction of personal liberties. I'm made my peace with the fact that the authoritarians to whose whims we are subject will occasionally overstep their bounds in public. When they do so, the public may protest and eventually conditions might improve somewhat. When the unsupervised services harm us, their putative employers, we have no recourse. Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You guys make a great team!
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > As discussed in the podcast, not even a few of the people at NSA believed anything of the sort. Snowden's documents themselves showed the legal justification for the phone metadata program. It nakes sense that Snowden would claim otherwise in the podcast because he is barely literate and hasn't actually read most of the documents he leaked. > As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court You don't "lobby" a court. You have lawyers justify a position. > Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You're the one making a bizarre definition of "whistleblower." Is it whistleblowing to leak all of your company's documents if you don't know they are doing anything illegal so long as somebody can later find one thing that is illegal? Obviously not.
        resters 7y ago
        > Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing The public outrage was due to various top officials denying that anything like PRISM was going on, when in fact it was. So either the program was illegal, the false statements made by officials about them, or the classification of the process that prevented democratic oversight. One of the three had to be illegal, it's not really relevant to split hairs over which was one actually was.

How do you know?

I posted links. If you don't think Google has encrypted its cross-datacenter traffic, you can try to access it yourself. If you don't think the NSA has stopped collecting all phone metadata, why would there be records of the NSA collecting a subset of metadata afterward?

jessaustin 7y ago
Every corrupt organization keeps two sets of books.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  There remains no evidence that the NSA is deliberately flouting the law. If there were, Snowden would have leaked that instead of lists of hacked Chinese computer systems.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I don't understand the timeline you're implying. Snowden did blow the whistle on this program, in 2013. Your link was from 2015, and now it's 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Snowden has lost the access he had before his whistleblowing. It will take another whistleblower to reveal the scale of current unsupervised malfeasance.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      You're not following the point. The point was that people did care about the leaks and took appropriate action. Secondarily, you're not understanding the leaked documents. The leaked documents showed that the NSA believed that the phone metadata program was legal. Once there is a court ruling that it is illegal, its lawyers cannot justify the program. Thirdly, your phrase "another whistleblower" shows that you do not know what a whistleblower is. Leaking thousands of programs where just one of them happens to be illegal but not obviously so (to the point where Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        As discussed in the podcast, not even a few of the people at NSA believed anything of the sort. WaPo hasn't taken down this gem yet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/27/lawyers-said-bush-couldnt-spy-on-americans-he-did-it-anyway/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/27/lawye... As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court (in which DoJ faces no opposing counsel) in order to jury-rig a fig leaf for the ongoing destruction of personal liberties. I'm made my peace with the fact that the authoritarians to whose whims we are subject will occasionally overstep their bounds in public. When they do so, the public may protest and eventually conditions might improve somewhat. When the unsupervised services harm us, their putative employers, we have no recourse. Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You guys make a great team!
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > As discussed in the podcast, not even a few of the people at NSA believed anything of the sort. Snowden's documents themselves showed the legal justification for the phone metadata program. It nakes sense that Snowden would claim otherwise in the podcast because he is barely literate and hasn't actually read most of the documents he leaked. > As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court You don't "lobby" a court. You have lawyers justify a position. > Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You're the one making a bizarre definition of "whistleblower." Is it whistleblowing to leak all of your company's documents if you don't know they are doing anything illegal so long as somebody can later find one thing that is illegal? Obviously not.
      - resters 7y ago
        > Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing The public outrage was due to various top officials denying that anything like PRISM was going on, when in fact it was. So either the program was illegal, the false statements made by officials about them, or the classification of the process that prevented democratic oversight. One of the three had to be illegal, it's not really relevant to split hairs over which was one actually was.