5 ms·

Uhhh, that post looks more like rampant speculation than an update on where things stand. Here are a bunch of primary sources of info that came out over the wee

• asperous 13y ago
  That Twitter status has a lot of qualifiers
• cadlin 13y ago
  None of those are primary sources, just FYI. And from the second article (an op-ed by a Congressman): >Neither program allows the NSA to read e-mails or listen to phone calls of American citizens. This is blatantly false, and the Government has said as much. The entire article is a mixture of falsehood and slick (read: dishonest) reasoning. The first link is more unsubstantiated than the submitted link. And the third link is a tweet about what a Congressman said. The only one that has any helpful information is the Washington Post article and it's just a statement offered without evidence. In case you didn't know, primary sources would be things like internal memos, pictures, videos, etc that are related to programs like Prism. E.g., the evidence offered by Edward Snowden and not in any of the links you posted.
  • jessedhillon 13y ago
    The evidence offered by Edward Snowden, that you have been able to see, says very little about actual capability. And without context, we don't even know if it describes current or proposed capability. We don't even know if it was created by an NSA employee, and not e.g. a BAH contractor. So if we're going to be standing on some sort of epistemological high ground, let's make sure it's not quicksand beneath our feet.
  • k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> "This is blatantly false, and the Government has said as much." The government probably isn't the best source when making a decision as to what you think the program allows.
• flyinRyan 13y ago
  Why is such blatant misinformation voted so highly?
  • throwit1979 13y ago
    Because HN readers have largely been swayed by the endless "nothing to see here" commentary of tptacek et al.