5 ms·

This could easily be misinformation. That said, Russ Tice has more credibility than you do when it comes to talking about NSA capabilities, in that his claims o

This could easily be misinformation. That said, Russ Tice has more credibility than you do when it comes to talking about NSA capabilities, in that his claims of unconstitutional spying (dating back to 2005) anticipated and are well-supported by the leaked NSA documentation, while your claims dating two weeks back about how everything is operating under reasonable judicial oversight have already been proven wrong.

tptacek 13y ago
I don't understand what my credibility has to do with the question I asked. This is the rare example of a genuinely fallacious (if gently posed) ad-hominem argument.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  Your post attacks Tice's credibility by implying that if his claim was legitimate, this news would be covered more broadly. Since there is not yet a story in the NYT about this, his claim must not be legitimate, right? Leaving aside the interesting questions about how and why the media is covering this story, if you are attacking Tice on the grounds that his claims are not credible, you are in a weak position given that his previous claims on this matter have been very publicly vindicated in the past two weeks, while yours have been demonstrated wrong again and again. My post was an ad-hominem attack (but not an ill-intentioned one) because I continue to be mystified how you can repeatedly insist there is no story "here". Does it not BOTHER you that your government is claiming the privilege to conduct at-will surveillance of anyone based on suspicion of a crime? Or the very visible way these tools and others have been used to intimidate the press over the past few months and cover-up official wrong-doing? What about excessive levels of government secrecy (which of the documents released to date do you consider sensitive enough not to merit public discussion)? What exactly needs to be happen in this story for you to stop defending the status quo?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Now, instead of addressing my question, you're making up motives for me to have asked the question in the first place and assaulting those motives.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      Your credibility has everything to do with the way you continually trivialize this story and attempt to discredit anyone who accuses the government of wrong-doing. But if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Here you continue to push the same line of argument which has nothing to do with the question I asked, or even in challenging the validity of the question itself, in attempt to personalize the issue instead of discussing it. No major media outlet is taking my credibility into account before making editorial decisions.
      - meepmorp 13y ago
        > but if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance? If I had to bet, he probably got bored after he stopped beating his wife. When did you embark on your hobby of begging questions?
        trevelyan 13y ago
        Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not yet expressed this opinion and I do not see why he cannot unless he disagrees with it.
        tptacek 13y ago
        We should be able to interrogate news stories without requiring everyone on the thread to declare their biases; in fact, overtly avoiding those declarations seems like good "thread discipline" to me. Are we talking about the facts and issues that follow from the facts, or are we echoing our biases off each other? I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.

tptacek 13y ago

I don't understand what my credibility has to do with the question I asked. This is the rare example of a genuinely fallacious (if gently posed) ad-hominem argument.

trevelyan 13y ago
Your post attacks Tice's credibility by implying that if his claim was legitimate, this news would be covered more broadly. Since there is not yet a story in the NYT about this, his claim must not be legitimate, right? Leaving aside the interesting questions about how and why the media is covering this story, if you are attacking Tice on the grounds that his claims are not credible, you are in a weak position given that his previous claims on this matter have been very publicly vindicated in the past two weeks, while yours have been demonstrated wrong again and again. My post was an ad-hominem attack (but not an ill-intentioned one) because I continue to be mystified how you can repeatedly insist there is no story "here". Does it not BOTHER you that your government is claiming the privilege to conduct at-will surveillance of anyone based on suspicion of a crime? Or the very visible way these tools and others have been used to intimidate the press over the past few months and cover-up official wrong-doing? What about excessive levels of government secrecy (which of the documents released to date do you consider sensitive enough not to merit public discussion)? What exactly needs to be happen in this story for you to stop defending the status quo?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Now, instead of addressing my question, you're making up motives for me to have asked the question in the first place and assaulting those motives.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    Your credibility has everything to do with the way you continually trivialize this story and attempt to discredit anyone who accuses the government of wrong-doing. But if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Here you continue to push the same line of argument which has nothing to do with the question I asked, or even in challenging the validity of the question itself, in attempt to personalize the issue instead of discussing it. No major media outlet is taking my credibility into account before making editorial decisions.
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      > but if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance? If I had to bet, he probably got bored after he stopped beating his wife. When did you embark on your hobby of begging questions?
      - trevelyan 13y ago
        Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not yet expressed this opinion and I do not see why he cannot unless he disagrees with it.
        tptacek 13y ago
        We should be able to interrogate news stories without requiring everyone on the thread to declare their biases; in fact, overtly avoiding those declarations seems like good "thread discipline" to me. Are we talking about the facts and issues that follow from the facts, or are we echoing our biases off each other? I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.