4 ms·

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 th

by 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 not smart enough to understand this comment. Seriously. I just don't see what you're getting at. Yes, if Snowden's claims don't matter, neither does his credibility; but since that's simply the inverse of what I just said, you must be trying to make a different point.
        genwin 13y ago
        I understand the comment. We need only find Snowden credible enough to ask the NSA about the truthfulness of his claims (and then assess their credibility). To me the bar would be little higher than someone leaving a cushy job to seek asylum elsewhere. I'd believe almost anything they say enough to want to investigate further. And I'd find suspicious almost any attempt to discredit them.
        Cushman 13y ago
        Your original argument, as I understand it, was that since Snowden made a claim in an interview that was not backed by evidence, and that claim was reported as news by others, current and future accusations against his personal credibility are not propaganda but legitimate rebuttals to those unsourced claims. What I'm saying is I'm willing to grant that these offhand, unsourced statements, made in context of the man explaining his own motivations, should not be treated as anything more. Further, I'll grant that regardless of Snowden's personal credibility or lack thereof-- his credibility is unimportant. Further, I expect Snowden would agree with me, since he's said that he came forward so that this would not be about him, but about the questions we should be demanding answers to from our government. Questions to which Snowden himself is completely irrelevant. It's because of that irrelevance that accusations leveled at his personal credibility, and thus at his personal statements, absolutely are propagandistic poisoning of the well aimed at discrediting his very real evidence. Although in fairness, many of them may be mere journalistic incompetence.
  - davidxc 13y ago
    Snowden is making claims that are unsupported by the evidence (the evidence being the leaked powerpoint slides). Snowden's claims have also been contradicted by other parties (ie, Google). However, some people are simply treating Snowden's claims as true. This is a problem. Since Snowden's claims lack supporting evidence, and have been contradicted by other parties, then Snowden's credibility is the only thing supporting his claims. Thus, his credibility is very relevant.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      Out of curiosity, why do you assume that Google is a more trustworthy source when it comes to describing NSA capabilities than actual documents written by the NSA?
      - davidxc 13y ago
        I'm not making that assumption. Snowden makes claims that are unsupported by the actual documents. Those claims have been contradicted by Google and Obama. I'm saying that it's possible that Snowden's unsubstantiated claims might be less than trustworthy (for a variety of reasons).
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Snowden's comments are only in contradiction with Google and Obama's if you assume the NSA is using FISA requests to obtain all of its data, and that FISA requests are actually being handled as they were in the late 1990s. Since it is unlikely that either of these are true, I'm not sure why you want to leap to the conclusion that the NSA (not Snowden) is lying about its own capabilities.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Again, so? Those people are participating in a sideshow and only matter insofar as they can be used to distract from the conversation we should be having: Public: So, can you not give us any assurances that these systems aren't being abused? NSA: Sorry, you'll just have to trust us. Public: We want to, but the problem is we think you're lying to us. You've lied to us before. NSA: What? Who told you that? THEY'RE lying! Public: That is literally the least reassuring thing you could possibly have said.

by Cushman 13y ago

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 not smart enough to understand this comment. Seriously. I just don't see what you're getting at. Yes, if Snowden's claims don't matter, neither does his credibility; but since that's simply the inverse of what I just said, you must be trying to make a different point.
      - genwin 13y ago
        I understand the comment. We need only find Snowden credible enough to ask the NSA about the truthfulness of his claims (and then assess their credibility). To me the bar would be little higher than someone leaving a cushy job to seek asylum elsewhere. I'd believe almost anything they say enough to want to investigate further. And I'd find suspicious almost any attempt to discredit them.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        Your original argument, as I understand it, was that since Snowden made a claim in an interview that was not backed by evidence, and that claim was reported as news by others, current and future accusations against his personal credibility are not propaganda but legitimate rebuttals to those unsourced claims. What I'm saying is I'm willing to grant that these offhand, unsourced statements, made in context of the man explaining his own motivations, should not be treated as anything more. Further, I'll grant that regardless of Snowden's personal credibility or lack thereof-- his credibility is unimportant. Further, I expect Snowden would agree with me, since he's said that he came forward so that this would not be about him, but about the questions we should be demanding answers to from our government. Questions to which Snowden himself is completely irrelevant. It's because of that irrelevance that accusations leveled at his personal credibility, and thus at his personal statements, absolutely are propagandistic poisoning of the well aimed at discrediting his very real evidence. Although in fairness, many of them may be mere journalistic incompetence.
- davidxc 13y ago
  Snowden is making claims that are unsupported by the evidence (the evidence being the leaked powerpoint slides). Snowden's claims have also been contradicted by other parties (ie, Google). However, some people are simply treating Snowden's claims as true. This is a problem. Since Snowden's claims lack supporting evidence, and have been contradicted by other parties, then Snowden's credibility is the only thing supporting his claims. Thus, his credibility is very relevant.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    Out of curiosity, why do you assume that Google is a more trustworthy source when it comes to describing NSA capabilities than actual documents written by the NSA?
    - davidxc 13y ago
      I'm not making that assumption. Snowden makes claims that are unsupported by the actual documents. Those claims have been contradicted by Google and Obama. I'm saying that it's possible that Snowden's unsubstantiated claims might be less than trustworthy (for a variety of reasons).
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        Snowden's comments are only in contradiction with Google and Obama's if you assume the NSA is using FISA requests to obtain all of its data, and that FISA requests are actually being handled as they were in the late 1990s. Since it is unlikely that either of these are true, I'm not sure why you want to leap to the conclusion that the NSA (not Snowden) is lying about its own capabilities.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    Again, so? Those people are participating in a sideshow and only matter insofar as they can be used to distract from the conversation we should be having: Public: So, can you not give us any assurances that these systems aren't being abused? NSA: Sorry, you'll just have to trust us. Public: We want to, but the problem is we think you're lying to us. You've lied to us before. NSA: What? Who told you that? THEY'RE lying! Public: That is literally the least reassuring thing you could possibly have said.