4 ms·
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
by 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 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!?