5 ms·
Given all the misleading statements so far when you hear a statement like this: "the statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications w
by spikels 13y ago
Given all the misleading statements so far when you hear a statement like this:
"the statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect"
They are basically meaningless unless you can ask a few follow up questions:
- What exactly is incorrect in that statement?
- Specifically which entities does this denial cover?
- Can more than one analyst listen?
- How about anyone else (i.e. a non-analyst)?
- What exactly does "eavesdrop" include?
- How is "domestic" defined?
- What are "communications"?
- What do you consider "proper legal authorization"?
- Are you using any non-standard definitions for the words in your statement?
I don't think you can give these guys any benefit of a doubt.
- beefman 13y agoNobody has given a credible description of the surveillance capabilities/policy of NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. It's not possible for either citizens or lawmakers to reach an understanding from a handful of negative statements. We shouldn't be playing 20 Questions, we should demand the executive branch provide a positive description of its surveillance programs.