59 ms·
Is there any way to prove that is not NSA, say, and set up to only catch the biggest fish, or to always present parallel construction for criminals caught this
by pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Is there any way to prove that is not NSA, say, and set up to only catch the biggest fish, or to always present parallel construction for criminals caught this way?
- bdcravens 6y agoOf course you can't prove that, any more than you can't prove that YCombinator or FastMail aren't similar NSA operatives.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y agoThat's an interesting philosophical question.[1][2] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoI like you. I tend towards pyrhonism (or maybe I don't!) so I appreciate that response. Degree of proof is a relative: Maybe a terror organisation use PIA, NSA go fishing for evidence PIA has nothing. Terror org assassinate NSA head. PIA could be a front, but NSA head had to be willing to lose his life to hide the fakery, and terror org wasn't a big enough fish ... more likely you're currently in a coma. Lots of places for false premises to creep in. Dial it back, is there a point where there'd ever be enough evidence?