8 ms·

> 4. It is entirely legitimate to challenge Snowden's grasp of what NSA was doing, especially in the wake of his more extravagant claims.... Legitimate because

> 4. It is entirely legitimate to challenge Snowden's grasp of what NSA was doing, especially in the wake of his more extravagant claims.... Legitimate because you've seen the entire 36 page document and are basing your objections on actual evidence? Or legitimate because you are arguing from authority? As far as I can tell, you either fail to understand the significance of the leak or are a shill. Case in point, questioning whether Snowden "understands" what the actual NSA documents say is meaningless since he did not write them and has never been alleged to have written them. So unless you are asserting that the materials are not in fact genuine, all you are doing is distracting attention from the only meaningful question: whether (1) the NSA is so grossly incompetent that it does not understand its own surveillance apparatus, or (2) the organization is in fact engaging in what most reasonable people would consider excessive and dangerous levels of data collection.

tptacek 13y ago
I'm saying it's legitimate to ask the question, and that it's illegitimate to tar anyone who does as a propagandist. Snowden isn't just sharing materials he acquired from NSA; he's also giving interviews and making apparent sweeping statements about the capabilities and actions of NSA. His credibility is extraordinarily relevant.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  Snowden is irrelevant. The NSA is the one claiming "direct access". Their credibility is what matters. Cole's point (that you attacked) is that personalizing the debate into a discussion of Snowden's crebility involves distracting from the important matter at hand. In this he is absolutely right. Either you understand this and are a shill, or you do not understand this and are an unknowing dupe who is getting played.
  - rosser 13y ago
    As long as Snowden keeps himself in the story by giving interviews and making claims not substantiated by materials already released, he and his credibility are directly and specifically relevant.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Ignore everything he says and focus on the documents released and let them speak for themselves.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      Snowden's claims are directly substantiated by the NSA document which specifies that the NSA has direct access to data from most email service providers.
      - threeseed 13y ago
        Which has been categorically denied by the email service providers themselves and public statements from the NSA. So clearly something is amiss here.
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Yes. Something is clearly amiss, which is why the focus on Snowden is -- as Juan Cole pointed out -- an irrelevant distraction seized on by those who wish to pull attention from the real issue at hand. I also wonder at the technical naivity of those who believe that the NSA document must be wrong because Google and Obama have issued narrow statements in support of the FISA process. Because if we had to place bets, my guess is that (1) the NSA is either archiving all of the underlying data flowing across US backbone pipes and using this to reconstruct databases such as Google email archives, or (2) it has access to private SSL keys that let it decrypt content transmitted across SSL, or (3) it has automated the process of issuing FISA requests to the point where the process offers no sensible check on the abuse of power or protection of individual privacy.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  The angry response of the head of the NSA means his credibility is far greater than anyone in Congress or in the three letter agencies. I can't believe we are even discussing his credibility, when you hear about the actions of our public officials.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    The NSA doesn't like a leak - any leak. It's hard to confer credibility onto Snowden simply because the head of the NSA was angry about a leak. The NSA isn't about to tell us, this part of what he said was true, but this part isn't. That's the hard part for the government (and for that matter Google, Facebook, et al). They can't give a full picture of the scope or scale of the story.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Credibility isn't a zero sum game.
    - darkarmani 13y ago
      If the NSA has zero credibility and you determine that Snowden has a little credibility on apposing points, you aren't going to lean towards the person with more credibility?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        It's not simply a contest between NSA and Snowden. Snowden has also said things that Google has contracted, and things that Obama has contradicted. The point isn't that any one of these entities should prevail on their "credibility"; it's that the lack of credibility that Clapper has at NSA isn't an indicator of how much credibility Snowden has. From what I've seen of Snowden's claims, he indeed does seem to be a bit delusional.
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Until the NSA denies the legitimacy or accuracy of the leaked documents, there is no disagreement between it and Snowden. And if you think Google is more credible than the NSA when it comes to describing the NSA's technical capabilities, then you are the one with a credibility problem....
- Cushman 13y ago
  Has he been asking anyone to take those claims at face value? He claims to want to start a public discussion, and explaining his own motivations is a part of that. So here's how that might go: Public: Is it true that an arbitrary analyst at a government contractor has the technical ability to read anyone's personal email? NSA: No. That would be illegal. Public: Given the scope of what has already been revealed, and your demonstrated commitment to lying to us, what assurances can you offer to us that this is NOT taking place? How is Snowden's credibility relevant to this discussion at all?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    In a video interview with The Guardian, Snowden claims to have had incredibly broad authority to wiretap Americans, saying "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail."
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Are you quoting that out of a belief that I haven't seen the interview? I have. I also remember the part, I think immediately after, when he said "I think the public is owed an explanation." Aren't we? How, again, is Snowden's credibility at issue? At all? Sure, assume he is lying. So?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I don't know how much clearer I can make the point that Snowden's credibility is highly relevant to the newsworthy claims Snowden is himself making that aren't backed up by the source material he leaked. I've said over & over here: I agree that his credibility isn't relevant to the contents of 3 Powerpoint slides.
        Cushman 13y ago
        You keep repeating that you think it's relevant. You still haven't actually said how. What difference does it make? Does the public deserve less of an assurance that these systems aren't being abused because one source made a claim that wasn't evidential, nor presented as evidence? I'll repeat myself now: What makes you think Snowden himself, or anyone on the pro-democratic-debate side of this, wants you to take his claims at face value?

tptacek 13y ago

I'm saying it's legitimate to ask the question, and that it's illegitimate to tar anyone who does as a propagandist. Snowden isn't just sharing materials he acquired from NSA; he's also giving interviews and making apparent sweeping statements about the capabilities and actions of NSA. His credibility is extraordinarily relevant.

trevelyan 13y ago
Snowden is irrelevant. The NSA is the one claiming "direct access". Their credibility is what matters. Cole's point (that you attacked) is that personalizing the debate into a discussion of Snowden's crebility involves distracting from the important matter at hand. In this he is absolutely right. Either you understand this and are a shill, or you do not understand this and are an unknowing dupe who is getting played.
- rosser 13y ago
  As long as Snowden keeps himself in the story by giving interviews and making claims not substantiated by materials already released, he and his credibility are directly and specifically relevant.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Ignore everything he says and focus on the documents released and let them speak for themselves.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    Snowden's claims are directly substantiated by the NSA document which specifies that the NSA has direct access to data from most email service providers.
    - threeseed 13y ago
      Which has been categorically denied by the email service providers themselves and public statements from the NSA. So clearly something is amiss here.
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        Yes. Something is clearly amiss, which is why the focus on Snowden is -- as Juan Cole pointed out -- an irrelevant distraction seized on by those who wish to pull attention from the real issue at hand. I also wonder at the technical naivity of those who believe that the NSA document must be wrong because Google and Obama have issued narrow statements in support of the FISA process. Because if we had to place bets, my guess is that (1) the NSA is either archiving all of the underlying data flowing across US backbone pipes and using this to reconstruct databases such as Google email archives, or (2) it has access to private SSL keys that let it decrypt content transmitted across SSL, or (3) it has automated the process of issuing FISA requests to the point where the process offers no sensible check on the abuse of power or protection of individual privacy.
darkarmani 13y ago
The angry response of the head of the NSA means his credibility is far greater than anyone in Congress or in the three letter agencies. I can't believe we are even discussing his credibility, when you hear about the actions of our public officials.
- mbreese 13y ago
  The NSA doesn't like a leak - any leak. It's hard to confer credibility onto Snowden simply because the head of the NSA was angry about a leak. The NSA isn't about to tell us, this part of what he said was true, but this part isn't. That's the hard part for the government (and for that matter Google, Facebook, et al). They can't give a full picture of the scope or scale of the story.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Credibility isn't a zero sum game.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    If the NSA has zero credibility and you determine that Snowden has a little credibility on apposing points, you aren't going to lean towards the person with more credibility?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It's not simply a contest between NSA and Snowden. Snowden has also said things that Google has contracted, and things that Obama has contradicted. The point isn't that any one of these entities should prevail on their "credibility"; it's that the lack of credibility that Clapper has at NSA isn't an indicator of how much credibility Snowden has. From what I've seen of Snowden's claims, he indeed does seem to be a bit delusional.
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        Until the NSA denies the legitimacy or accuracy of the leaked documents, there is no disagreement between it and Snowden. And if you think Google is more credible than the NSA when it comes to describing the NSA's technical capabilities, then you are the one with a credibility problem....
Cushman 13y ago
Has he been asking anyone to take those claims at face value? He claims to want to start a public discussion, and explaining his own motivations is a part of that. So here's how that might go: Public: Is it true that an arbitrary analyst at a government contractor has the technical ability to read anyone's personal email? NSA: No. That would be illegal. Public: Given the scope of what has already been revealed, and your demonstrated commitment to lying to us, what assurances can you offer to us that this is NOT taking place? How is Snowden's credibility relevant to this discussion at all?
- tptacek 13y ago
  In a video interview with The Guardian, Snowden claims to have had incredibly broad authority to wiretap Americans, saying "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail."
  - Cushman 13y ago
    Are you quoting that out of a belief that I haven't seen the interview? I have. I also remember the part, I think immediately after, when he said "I think the public is owed an explanation." Aren't we? How, again, is Snowden's credibility at issue? At all? Sure, assume he is lying. So?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I don't know how much clearer I can make the point that Snowden's credibility is highly relevant to the newsworthy claims Snowden is himself making that aren't backed up by the source material he leaked. I've said over & over here: I agree that his credibility isn't relevant to the contents of 3 Powerpoint slides.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        You keep repeating that you think it's relevant. You still haven't actually said how. What difference does it make? Does the public deserve less of an assurance that these systems aren't being abused because one source made a claim that wasn't evidential, nor presented as evidence? I'll repeat myself now: What makes you think Snowden himself, or anyone on the pro-democratic-debate side of this, wants you to take his claims at face value?