4 ms·

Snowden is making claims that are unsupported by the evidence (the evidence being the leaked powerpoint slides). Snowden's claims have also been contradicted b

by 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.
- davidxc 13y ago
  What kind of assurances would you like from the NSA? How can the NSA prove to you that the systems aren't being abused? I agree that it's an important conversation we should be having. However, I still don't think Snowden's unsubstantiated claims are irrelevant. We should be asking for more evidence for those unsubstantiated claims. Specifically, I think it would help greatly if the other slides were released. Your hypothetical conversation seems likely to devolve into a he-said she-said without more evidence.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    > What kind of assurances would you like from the NSA? How can the NSA prove to you that the systems aren't being abused? Frankly, and not to devalue the difficulty of that problem, it's their problem. "It's hard so we gave up" simply does not fly here. I agree with you I'd like to see more solid evidence, and I'm pretty sure we will-- Glenn Greenwald has stated that other slides contain potentially damaging intelligence and will not likely be released, but there are further newsworthy documents to come.
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      Frankly, and not to devalue the difficulty of that problem, it's their problem. "It's hard so we gave up" simply does not fly here. That is the laziest fucking thing you could have written here. You demand satisfaction, but are unwilling to specify to any useful level of detail the answers you seek -- and still intend to hold the NSA responsible for failing to satisfy your concerns. You demand NSA demonstrate a fact to your satisfaction, without elaborating your standards of evidence in any way. Completely unbelievable. You don't appear to be stupid, so I can't imagine that this is lost on you. So I have to worry if your head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        Here's a standard for you: Complete honesty. No secrets, period. No classifications. All activities and policies related to national security are a matter of public record by law. What? The intelligence agencies can't operate with full disclosure? Okay, I'm not a radical. They can keep some secrets from me if the actions are morally permissible and for the greater good, and the secrecy is plausibly necessary. I would even accept "trust us" at some point-- but only if they had earned my trust. They haven't. Not with decades of documentation citing immoral secrets kept for personal and political gain. The trust was gone from this relationship before I was even born. And when you violate my trust, none of it is on me. You're the one who fucked it up. You figure out how to make it right.
trevelyan 13y ago
s/Snowden's claims/NSA documents/g

by davidxc 13y ago

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.

davidxc 13y ago
What kind of assurances would you like from the NSA? How can the NSA prove to you that the systems aren't being abused? I agree that it's an important conversation we should be having. However, I still don't think Snowden's unsubstantiated claims are irrelevant. We should be asking for more evidence for those unsubstantiated claims. Specifically, I think it would help greatly if the other slides were released. Your hypothetical conversation seems likely to devolve into a he-said she-said without more evidence.
- Cushman 13y ago
  > What kind of assurances would you like from the NSA? How can the NSA prove to you that the systems aren't being abused? Frankly, and not to devalue the difficulty of that problem, it's their problem. "It's hard so we gave up" simply does not fly here. I agree with you I'd like to see more solid evidence, and I'm pretty sure we will-- Glenn Greenwald has stated that other slides contain potentially damaging intelligence and will not likely be released, but there are further newsworthy documents to come.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    Frankly, and not to devalue the difficulty of that problem, it's their problem. "It's hard so we gave up" simply does not fly here. That is the laziest fucking thing you could have written here. You demand satisfaction, but are unwilling to specify to any useful level of detail the answers you seek -- and still intend to hold the NSA responsible for failing to satisfy your concerns. You demand NSA demonstrate a fact to your satisfaction, without elaborating your standards of evidence in any way. Completely unbelievable. You don't appear to be stupid, so I can't imagine that this is lost on you. So I have to worry if your head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Here's a standard for you: Complete honesty. No secrets, period. No classifications. All activities and policies related to national security are a matter of public record by law. What? The intelligence agencies can't operate with full disclosure? Okay, I'm not a radical. They can keep some secrets from me if the actions are morally permissible and for the greater good, and the secrecy is plausibly necessary. I would even accept "trust us" at some point-- but only if they had earned my trust. They haven't. Not with decades of documentation citing immoral secrets kept for personal and political gain. The trust was gone from this relationship before I was even born. And when you violate my trust, none of it is on me. You're the one who fucked it up. You figure out how to make it right.

trevelyan 13y ago

s/Snowden's claims/NSA documents/g