4 ms·

What was the point, then? What exactly happened recently that we are supposed to be so upset about? If PRISM was nothing, that leaves the Verizon phone metada

by skwirl 13y ago

What was the point, then? What exactly happened recently that we are supposed to be so upset about? If PRISM was nothing, that leaves the Verizon phone metadata leak, and nothing more.

swombat 13y ago
The point is we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. This fact has been shoved into our public awareness over the last few weeks, and hopefully will continue to be at the top of our minds until it's resolved, because the conclusion of such a process, left unchecked, is the end of individual freedom. The fact that "some of it was known in the past" does not make it any less worthy of our attention today.
- skwirl 13y ago
  My point is exactly that we do NOT have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. All we have is sensationalism. This is not a "pedantic" point. In fact, we have explicitly learned that they do NOT have a backdoor to get your data from tech companies. We learned that to do so they must use a FISA order, which we have known since 2001.
  - swombat 13y ago
    If you don't have anything positive to contribute and you really think this is not worth your time, then why don't you just go away? Why the pedantic need to argue some minor sub-points when everyone else is talking about the big picture? No one cares about your arguments, and you don't seem to care about other people's arguments either. I think the best solution for everyone is if you just go and argue somewhere where people might care.
    - skwirl 13y ago
      I am very fact based, and when someone makes a claim that " we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state" I expect that there are some facts to back it up. Sweeping mass sentiment is not evidence in and of itself. Facts are not "pedantic" to me; to me evidence is the only rational basis for belief and action. And quite frankly, there hasn't been any new solid evidence presented for this "surveillance state" aside from Verizon turning over phone call metadata. I am sorry that this discussion has made you angry, but I don't feel that what you are saying is warranted. I have been reading what people have been writing very closely, which is how I arrived at the position I hold. If you want to provide the new evidence of this "surveillance state" I will read every word you write, but if the evidence is suspect I reserve the right to call it out. That is not "pedantic." I don't think that word means what you think it means.
      - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
        What evidence is suspect? Here is one new thing - The president has admitted that this programme exists while before in congressional committees it was denied. The president stated that nobody listens to your data when evidence has been presented to the contrary. No one had ever before seen a FISA court order. Most of the public was not even aware of Fisa courts. Most of the public did not know that this court has granted all requests, but two. Most of the public was not aware of secret courts interpreting secret laws while handing down secret judgments. The public did not know that a warrant was not needed but mere policy in many cases. Etc, etc, etc. All of this is new. The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is!?
    - glurgh 13y ago
      So, hang on, the person has an opinion and lists the facts they believe support it. You call them a pedant, hateworthy, that nobody cares and that they ought to 'go away' because of 'the global surveillance state' or something. You don't have to agree with the person but basically, you're being a dick. Please don't.
      - swombat 13y ago
        His opinion is starting from a vastly different set of facts than most of the people commenting here. He thinks the discussion is about provable facts. The discussion is about likelihoods and evidence. He thinks the discussion is about news. The discussion is about doing something about a programme that's been building up for a decade or more. From two such completely alien starting points, there is little possible useful argument. I've been in enough online arguments in my time to recognise a lost cause.
        glurgh 13y ago
        I didn't get that impression but that's neither here nor there. If you're convinced discussion with someone is a lost cause, the best thing to do is likely something other than flying into a mouthfrothing nerdrage at them. Surely something you've also noticed through experience in online arguments.
- embolism 13y ago
  Governments plural. The naive part of this campaign is the assumption that the US is the only government doing this, rather than the one with the leakiest operation. Asking EU governments to censure the US when they have their own programs (the UK clearly does) is just naked anti-Americanism.
roc 13y ago
> "What exactly happened recently" The existing outrageous actions of the government were finally given attention by the media, a large slice of the populace finally seems to have noticed and the government has been compelled to actually admit and address the issue. [1] We should be upset that these outrageous policies ever existed. We should be upset that it took this damn long for the media to treat the issue with the gravity it deserves. And we should be happy as hell it actually 'took' as a news story this time, let alone managed to stay in the news for weeks. To the privacy conscious, it's irrelevant whether Snowden told us anything "new". What's relevant is that (for whatever reason) this long-festering problem was finally brought to the forefront in a way that has demanded attention. I suppose if you didn't mind any of the "old news" that the government was abusing the constitution, or had made your peace with it, this might seem a pointless story. [1] Though that's a long way from a fix, it's significantly better than the dismissive "with us or against us" defenses of the past.
- skwirl 13y ago
  Thank you. IMO, this is the most factually correct and honest basis for the prevailing sentiment that I think there is. It bothers me, though, that the cause has to be renewed and sustained with misinformation. Where was this outrage when the PATRIOT act was renewed in 2011? There certainly was some, but from what I recall it was orders of magnitude less than it is now. This is why it seems to me like the outrage is based on the recent factual misconceptions. Even worse, conspiracy theories are being thrown around that go far beyond even what Greenwald originally claimed PRISM was, and those theories aren't being scrutinized and further fuel the fire. If we are going to have a debate on what the scope of electronic surveillance should be, it should be an honest one. I just feel like we're replacing the ridiculous unfounded "TERRORISTS GON DESTROY 'MURICA" sentiment with an equally ridiculous unfounded "GUBMINT OUT TA GITCHYA" sentiment. I don't like having to choose between those two options.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    Most people make decisions in an emotional manner. Politics is an ugly beast, but it is what it is. I'm just glad that non-techies actually care.
betterunix 13y ago
If PRISM was "nothing," why is everyone involved so worried? Why are they giving such careful, specific denials about what PRISM does? Why are they talking about how much harm it does to our intelligence gathering if people know about PRISM? The series of "least untruthful" statements by the Obama administration, its allies in Congress, and the leaders of the NSA and FBI suggests that there is in fact a story here.

by skwirl 13y ago

What was the point, then? What exactly happened recently that we are supposed to be so upset about? If PRISM was nothing, that leaves the Verizon phone metadata leak, and nothing more.

swombat 13y ago

The point is we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. This fact has been shoved into our public awareness over the last few weeks, and hopefully will continue to be at the top of our minds until it's resolved, because the conclusion of such a process, left unchecked, is the end of individual freedom. The fact that "some of it was known in the past" does not make it any less worthy of our attention today.

skwirl 13y ago
My point is exactly that we do NOT have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. All we have is sensationalism. This is not a "pedantic" point. In fact, we have explicitly learned that they do NOT have a backdoor to get your data from tech companies. We learned that to do so they must use a FISA order, which we have known since 2001.
- swombat 13y ago
  If you don't have anything positive to contribute and you really think this is not worth your time, then why don't you just go away? Why the pedantic need to argue some minor sub-points when everyone else is talking about the big picture? No one cares about your arguments, and you don't seem to care about other people's arguments either. I think the best solution for everyone is if you just go and argue somewhere where people might care.
  - skwirl 13y ago
    I am very fact based, and when someone makes a claim that " we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state" I expect that there are some facts to back it up. Sweeping mass sentiment is not evidence in and of itself. Facts are not "pedantic" to me; to me evidence is the only rational basis for belief and action. And quite frankly, there hasn't been any new solid evidence presented for this "surveillance state" aside from Verizon turning over phone call metadata. I am sorry that this discussion has made you angry, but I don't feel that what you are saying is warranted. I have been reading what people have been writing very closely, which is how I arrived at the position I hold. If you want to provide the new evidence of this "surveillance state" I will read every word you write, but if the evidence is suspect I reserve the right to call it out. That is not "pedantic." I don't think that word means what you think it means.
    - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
      What evidence is suspect? Here is one new thing - The president has admitted that this programme exists while before in congressional committees it was denied. The president stated that nobody listens to your data when evidence has been presented to the contrary. No one had ever before seen a FISA court order. Most of the public was not even aware of Fisa courts. Most of the public did not know that this court has granted all requests, but two. Most of the public was not aware of secret courts interpreting secret laws while handing down secret judgments. The public did not know that a warrant was not needed but mere policy in many cases. Etc, etc, etc. All of this is new. The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is!?
  - glurgh 13y ago
    So, hang on, the person has an opinion and lists the facts they believe support it. You call them a pedant, hateworthy, that nobody cares and that they ought to 'go away' because of 'the global surveillance state' or something. You don't have to agree with the person but basically, you're being a dick. Please don't.
    - swombat 13y ago
      His opinion is starting from a vastly different set of facts than most of the people commenting here. He thinks the discussion is about provable facts. The discussion is about likelihoods and evidence. He thinks the discussion is about news. The discussion is about doing something about a programme that's been building up for a decade or more. From two such completely alien starting points, there is little possible useful argument. I've been in enough online arguments in my time to recognise a lost cause.
      - glurgh 13y ago
        I didn't get that impression but that's neither here nor there. If you're convinced discussion with someone is a lost cause, the best thing to do is likely something other than flying into a mouthfrothing nerdrage at them. Surely something you've also noticed through experience in online arguments.
embolism 13y ago
Governments plural. The naive part of this campaign is the assumption that the US is the only government doing this, rather than the one with the leakiest operation. Asking EU governments to censure the US when they have their own programs (the UK clearly does) is just naked anti-Americanism.

roc 13y ago

> "What exactly happened recently" The existing outrageous actions of the government were finally given attention by the media, a large slice of the populace finally seems to have noticed and the government has been compelled to actually admit and address the issue. [1] We should be upset that these outrageous policies ever existed. We should be upset that it took this damn long for the media to treat the issue with the gravity it deserves. And we should be happy as hell it actually 'took' as a news story this time, let alone managed to stay in the news for weeks. To the privacy conscious, it's irrelevant whether Snowden told us anything "new". What's relevant is that (for whatever reason) this long-festering problem was finally brought to the forefront in a way that has demanded attention. I suppose if you didn't mind any of the "old news" that the government was abusing the constitution, or had made your peace with it, this might seem a pointless story. [1] Though that's a long way from a fix, it's significantly better than the dismissive "with us or against us" defenses of the past.

skwirl 13y ago
Thank you. IMO, this is the most factually correct and honest basis for the prevailing sentiment that I think there is. It bothers me, though, that the cause has to be renewed and sustained with misinformation. Where was this outrage when the PATRIOT act was renewed in 2011? There certainly was some, but from what I recall it was orders of magnitude less than it is now. This is why it seems to me like the outrage is based on the recent factual misconceptions. Even worse, conspiracy theories are being thrown around that go far beyond even what Greenwald originally claimed PRISM was, and those theories aren't being scrutinized and further fuel the fire. If we are going to have a debate on what the scope of electronic surveillance should be, it should be an honest one. I just feel like we're replacing the ridiculous unfounded "TERRORISTS GON DESTROY 'MURICA" sentiment with an equally ridiculous unfounded "GUBMINT OUT TA GITCHYA" sentiment. I don't like having to choose between those two options.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  Most people make decisions in an emotional manner. Politics is an ugly beast, but it is what it is. I'm just glad that non-techies actually care.

betterunix 13y ago

If PRISM was "nothing," why is everyone involved so worried? Why are they giving such careful, specific denials about what PRISM does? Why are they talking about how much harm it does to our intelligence gathering if people know about PRISM? The series of "least untruthful" statements by the Obama administration, its allies in Congress, and the leaders of the NSA and FBI suggests that there is in fact a story here.