3 ms·

Sigh… Listen when I talk about single source. I’m talking about “Edward Snowden made a claim”. It doesn’t magically become two sources because he gave two exam

by mdhb 2y ago

Sigh… Listen when I talk about single source. I’m talking about “Edward Snowden made a claim”. It doesn’t magically become two sources because he gave two examples. Moving on from the technicalities though because it’s a dumb argument to get stuck in and into the heart of it. We are still stuck with the problem however that there wasn’t ever any evidence of this happening that anyone could point to even after an in depth investigation into the topic beyond the dozen incidents over more than a decade time period. Snowden (and now you) made the claim that in fact it was much higher but you simply can not prove it which is awfully convenient but does leave the question open of how could he possibly have known this? Are you meaning to tell me that the biggest leaker of classified information in the US’s history for some reason chose to hold back on what he knew about that topic? He must have known of specific people and incidents and could have cross referenced what was in the investigation with what he knew. He couldn’t have dreamed up a more perfect gotcha moment if that was the case to come out and say what about incidents X, Y and Z. That never happened and you should naturally wonder why that might be. He either didn’t actually know of any or he chose not to reveal it for undisclosed reasons beyond a vague insinuation. I also want to put it to you that perhaps Edward Snowden was not exactly an honest broker in the way he claims to be. I know it’s somewhat blasphemous here but as I mentioned in another thread this week there is actually a rather compelling theory in the IC that he might have been part of an malicious insider campaign from the very start. In part because of things like this ironically.

somenameforme 2y ago
Your argument seems to be basically coming down to "Ah, but we don't have indisputable proof of said claims!" while intentionally ignoring the fact that what evidence we do have makes it clear that the auditing and self investigating capabilities at the NSA are somewhere between nonexistent and abysmal. For things like an agent to be able to spy on numerous "girlfriends" over periods of half a decade, only to finally be outed because one of them suspected he was spying on her and reported him to the government? And even then, in such an extreme circumstance, for there to be basically no penalties whatsoever (besides him resigning)? This is strong evidence in support of the claims of widespread abuse that Snowden made, before these cases became publicly known. Beyond this Snowden's revelations were not about abuse within the domestic surveillance apparatuses, but about the existence of those apparatuses themselves. Prior to Snowden the idea that the government was engaging in widespread surveillance, of essentially everything, was still just a "conspiracy theory." The entire system itself is likely illegal, as it pisses all over the 4th amendment, but cannot be legally challenged because of a simple problem - for one to prove standing, to enable them to sue, they need to not only prove they were spied on, but also harmed by spying. Each time this is tried, the NSA simply claims national security and refuses to cooperate. So we have a likely illegal surveillance system with no legal means of challenging it. So people trading sex pics, spying on lovers, or whatever - these are all instances of abuse within a system that should not even exist.
- mdhb 2y ago
  It’s not the absence of “indisputable proof” it’s the absence of ANY proof. There are only a couple of possible scenarios here that I can think of: 1. Snowden is making a claim here that he suspects but doesn’t have proof of (I.e speculation). 2. He does have proof but isn’t willing to share it. Not with the public, not with investigators and for some reason he chose to never mention it internally beforehand. 3. He is intentionally making outlandish claims he knows are wrong. I can’t see any universe where option 2 is likely. He is every possible motivation to do so if you go with his public story about why he did what he did. I’m entirely open to options 1 and 3 however. Also nobody is claiming that those incidents were anything other than abuse of the system. We are all in agreement on that. The question of is this more common than other threats they face from insiders such as spies for example is what we disagree on and so far I’ve not seen a single piece of compelling evidence to suggest it is. Furthermore, I’ve explained how there are now new controls in place to prevent that from happening again and you don’t even have to ascribe any kind of altruistic motivation for it about protecting people’s privacy. You can entirely put it at the feet of they want to make sure they never have another Snowden incident again. This is why I’m saying that this just isn’t a realistic threat that people should be worrying about in 2024.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by mdhb 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

Your argument seems to be basically coming down to "Ah, but we don't have indisputable proof of said claims!" while intentionally ignoring the fact that what evidence we do have makes it clear that the auditing and self investigating capabilities at the NSA are somewhere between nonexistent and abysmal. For things like an agent to be able to spy on numerous "girlfriends" over periods of half a decade, only to finally be outed because one of them suspected he was spying on her and reported him to the government? And even then, in such an extreme circumstance, for there to be basically no penalties whatsoever (besides him resigning)? This is strong evidence in support of the claims of widespread abuse that Snowden made, before these cases became publicly known. Beyond this Snowden's revelations were not about abuse within the domestic surveillance apparatuses, but about the existence of those apparatuses themselves. Prior to Snowden the idea that the government was engaging in widespread surveillance, of essentially everything, was still just a "conspiracy theory." The entire system itself is likely illegal, as it pisses all over the 4th amendment, but cannot be legally challenged because of a simple problem - for one to prove standing, to enable them to sue, they need to not only prove they were spied on, but also harmed by spying. Each time this is tried, the NSA simply claims national security and refuses to cooperate. So we have a likely illegal surveillance system with no legal means of challenging it. So people trading sex pics, spying on lovers, or whatever - these are all instances of abuse within a system that should not even exist.

mdhb 2y ago
It’s not the absence of “indisputable proof” it’s the absence of ANY proof. There are only a couple of possible scenarios here that I can think of: 1. Snowden is making a claim here that he suspects but doesn’t have proof of (I.e speculation). 2. He does have proof but isn’t willing to share it. Not with the public, not with investigators and for some reason he chose to never mention it internally beforehand. 3. He is intentionally making outlandish claims he knows are wrong. I can’t see any universe where option 2 is likely. He is every possible motivation to do so if you go with his public story about why he did what he did. I’m entirely open to options 1 and 3 however. Also nobody is claiming that those incidents were anything other than abuse of the system. We are all in agreement on that. The question of is this more common than other threats they face from insiders such as spies for example is what we disagree on and so far I’ve not seen a single piece of compelling evidence to suggest it is. Furthermore, I’ve explained how there are now new controls in place to prevent that from happening again and you don’t even have to ascribe any kind of altruistic motivation for it about protecting people’s privacy. You can entirely put it at the feet of they want to make sure they never have another Snowden incident again. This is why I’m saying that this just isn’t a realistic threat that people should be worrying about in 2024.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]