2 ms·
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 sensationalis
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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 agoWhat 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 agoSo, 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 agoHis 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 agoI 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.