4 ms·

Nonsense. You have repeatedly insisted that the NSA document must be wrong ("nothing to see here, folks"), simply because Google denies providing "direct access

Nonsense. You have repeatedly insisted that the NSA document must be wrong ("nothing to see here, folks"), simply because Google denies providing "direct access". You do this by drawing a semantic equivalence between what the NSA asserts and what Google denies, and then assuming that the NSA is wrong. This is not a reasonable position for anyone with a technical background. Because anyone with such a background should surely realize that the two statements are not mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of ways for data to be collected which the NSA might reasonable categorize as "direct" while leaving Google with plausible grounds to categorize as "indirect" or otherwise deny knowledge of.

tptacek 13y ago
Everyone, including The Guardian, now agrees that Google had "plausible grounds" to "categorize access as indirect", because that's exactly what their access was.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  I agree it is a semantic distinction and that your characterization of what Google is doing is probably accurate. I disagree that holding this viewpoint gives you any grounds for attacking Snowden's credibility (as you have repeatedly done) or asserting that widespread claims of inappropriate NSA surveillance are implausible or technically impossible.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  There's not nearly enough information yet to make a definitive statement about this. And let's go back to a quote in this article, which seems to have been edited since I originally read it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-com... “The server is controlled by the FBI,” an official with one of the companies said. “We do not offer a download feature from our server.” Well. Now what?

tptacek 13y ago

Everyone, including The Guardian, now agrees that Google had "plausible grounds" to "categorize access as indirect", because that's exactly what their access was.

trevelyan 13y ago
I agree it is a semantic distinction and that your characterization of what Google is doing is probably accurate. I disagree that holding this viewpoint gives you any grounds for attacking Snowden's credibility (as you have repeatedly done) or asserting that widespread claims of inappropriate NSA surveillance are implausible or technically impossible.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
There's not nearly enough information yet to make a definitive statement about this. And let's go back to a quote in this article, which seems to have been edited since I originally read it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-com... “The server is controlled by the FBI,” an official with one of the companies said. “We do not offer a download feature from our server.” Well. Now what?