5 ms·

NSO seems to be used by tyrants to go after legitimate opposition. The NSA isn't used by the President to target the party out of power no? But in NSO case in

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• hammock 5y ago
  >The NSA isn't used by the President to target the party out of power no? No, definitely not.
• kdkdmdm 5y ago
  > The NSA isn't used by the President to target the party out of power no Close, but you've got the wrong organization. It was the FBI that used evidence it knew was false from the start to justify a spying campaign into the opposition candidate and then used the candidate's campaign's resistance of that illegal election interference to justify political interference and, ultimately, an indictment. That's right, the Obama DOJ illegally harassed the Trump campaign and then the out of control FBI and House Democrats (led by the former FBI director, Mueller) followed through with the farce of an impeachment, aided and abetted by misleading coverage of the proceedings, which resulted in only an indictment for resisting the illegal investigation and election interference And now the same people assure us that the 2020 election was the fairest and most secure ever. Real confidence inspiring! Personally I never had any doubt in the security of the US elections until the same machine that insisted the Russian collusion was real (it definitely wasn't), and that the lab leak theory was never plausible (it's not definitely true but it's definitely plausible and always has been), insisted that there was no way they could've been fraudulent. Thou dost protest too much, methinks.
  • igorzx31 5y ago
    ^This person is wrong. FISA and FBI counter-intel have a low bar to get warrants because that's what congress intended.
    • freeflight 5y ago
      Indeed, the FISA court only exists to rubber-stamp warrants. In 33 years the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, in that same time only 12 were denied, a rejection rate of 0.03% [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#FISA_warrants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
      • perl4ever 5y ago
        The rejection rate, in a vacuum, isn't evidence that they are rubber stamping warrants. From a logical perspective, it could mean that those submitting requests are able to avoid sending weak ones and choose to do so. I'm not saying I believe you/the standard view is wrong, but there must be some other evidence.
        • javajosh 5y ago
          On the contrary, a rejection rate that low implies rubber-stamping, prima facie. You would need positive evidence to support your assertion, e.g. that FISA submissions are unusually high-quality. The actual case is, I am sure, that the system was constructed to make allowing the warrant to be easy, rejecting it hard, and the people involved are just responding to incentives. Namely, since it's all secret they are only accountable to each other, so why give each other a hard time?
          • perl4ever 5y ago
            >a rejection rate that low implies rubber-stamping, prima facie. You would need positive evidence to support your assertion I've deftly avoided ever taking a class in statistics, but I have gathered there are two schools - Bayesians, who are honest about having priors, and everyone else.
• Dah00n 5y ago
  To clarify, are you arguing that NSO Group have had a bigger impact on innocent people, suppression of speech, etc. than the NSA? If so, I'm not sure I buy what you seem to be arguing, that "NSO case in India" and "It can be used to plant evidence" makes it anywhere near as bad as what the NSA has done/does. In my opinion this is exactly how a "poor-man's NSA" would look: What your money can buy from greedy corporations protected by nasty governments. >legitimate opposition Who decides what is legitimate though? It sounds like weasel words to me, just like "terrorists" (that get defined by those in power and then maybe later becomes revolutionists and heroes if they actually win). Going after Snowden, torture in Guantanamo, and using three letter agencies for industrial espionage is also "legitimate".
  • Spooky23 5y ago
    > arguing that NSO Group have had a bigger impact on innocent people, suppression of speech, etc. than the NSA? I'm not the OP, but maybe a way to put it is that impacts are more variable or chaotic? Generally speaking, the "impact" of a US government entity is reasonably predictable based on US policy and interests. Something like NSO, where tools are sold on the market to many entities are probably less predictable and thus more impactful. I'd expect a lower level of operational discipline from <random mideast state> than from the US military. The other factor is who are NSO Group's masters, and what do they know? If <random mideast state 1> compromises <random mideast state 2>, does <third party> get intel?
  • manquer 5y ago
    The people decide what is legitimate opposition by elections. NSO was used to tap the democratically elected leader of opposition in India. Doesn't get any clearer than that. [1] I don't know how to compare between hot pan and the fire on who is worse [1] with Watergate and more recent (unproven) accusations on wiretapping of politicians, the US is no stranger do this type of monitoring either