4 ms·

Sorry to bring this up but this type of thinking seems to be running wild lately on HN regarding anything NSA related.... But it must be said that: Your Logica

Sorry to bring this up but this type of thinking seems to be running wild lately on HN regarding anything NSA related.... But it must be said that: Your Logical Fallacy Is: Burden of Proof. You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

mindcrime 13y ago
You're assuming I'm making a claim that I'm not. And if anything, you have it completely backwards. IF the claim were a simple "Google is complicit with the NSA", then one could say that the available evidence weighs in favor of that claim. IF Google want to make a claim "we are not in bed with the NSA" the burden of proof IS on Google to prove that "we are not in bed with the NSA", especially in light of evidence which strongly suggests that they are. It's a moot point though, as the only claims I'm making are: A. I don't trust Google (and Yahoo, etc.). That doesn't need any proof, as it's simply a statement of my position. B. There is probably something more to the NSA/Google/Yahoo/MS/Apple relationship than what Google/Yahoo/Apple/MS are publicly saying. There is evidence (the PRISM slides) to directly support this. I'm not making any more specific claim (eg "Google have a secret server that the NSA ssh into and do direct queries on Google's database" or something) because, quite simply, I don't know. And without the rest of the PRISM slides, or the other Snowden docs, or some other input, we'll probably never know. But I've seen enough to not trust Google/Yahoo/Apple/MS/etc. completely.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Powerpoint slides of unverified origin I don't think quite meets the burden of proof that Google is complicit or even involved in anything. They are just that: Powerpoint slides.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    My understanding is that the origin is verified. I don't have the citation handy, but I believe that reporters from the WaPo contacted the NSA before the story ran, and verified that the slides are - at least - authentic. Granted, there's a lot we don't know about them, but I haven't seen any reason to believe that they aren't exactly what they seem to be.

mindcrime 13y ago

You're assuming I'm making a claim that I'm not. And if anything, you have it completely backwards. IF the claim were a simple "Google is complicit with the NSA", then one could say that the available evidence weighs in favor of that claim. IF Google want to make a claim "we are not in bed with the NSA" the burden of proof IS on Google to prove that "we are not in bed with the NSA", especially in light of evidence which strongly suggests that they are. It's a moot point though, as the only claims I'm making are: A. I don't trust Google (and Yahoo, etc.). That doesn't need any proof, as it's simply a statement of my position. B. There is probably something more to the NSA/Google/Yahoo/MS/Apple relationship than what Google/Yahoo/Apple/MS are publicly saying. There is evidence (the PRISM slides) to directly support this. I'm not making any more specific claim (eg "Google have a secret server that the NSA ssh into and do direct queries on Google's database" or something) because, quite simply, I don't know. And without the rest of the PRISM slides, or the other Snowden docs, or some other input, we'll probably never know. But I've seen enough to not trust Google/Yahoo/Apple/MS/etc. completely.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Powerpoint slides of unverified origin I don't think quite meets the burden of proof that Google is complicit or even involved in anything. They are just that: Powerpoint slides.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  My understanding is that the origin is verified. I don't have the citation handy, but I believe that reporters from the WaPo contacted the NSA before the story ran, and verified that the slides are - at least - authentic. Granted, there's a lot we don't know about them, but I haven't seen any reason to believe that they aren't exactly what they seem to be.