3 ms·

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 th

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.
  - droopybuns 13y ago
    Thomas has regularly made meaningful & insightful contributions to the hacker news community. I don't know what your vendetta is against him, but please- take ad-hominem attacks back to reddit. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I do find his perspective more interesting then your attacks.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >you continually trivialize this story He's certainly not doing that here.
- jdp23 13y ago
  trevalyan did address your question about credibility. In trevalyan's view, your claims here over the last couple weeks have been "have been demonstrated wrong again and again", and that you've shown a pattern of "claiming there's no story here." And I don't see any attribution of motives. EDIT: (which doesn't mean I think your original question is wrong)
  - tptacek 13y ago
    What does my credibility have to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on Tice's claim that NSA spied on pre-candidate Obama? I don't understand your observation here at all. My point was that my track record of comments has nothing to do with the answer to the question. If you or 'trevelyan believe I'm wrong, and that there is or will soon be major media coverage about this story, or that major media coverage doesn't signify anything, you can say that.
    - jdp23 13y ago
      Your credibility doesn't have anything to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on this. It's a good question. However your credibility will inevitably influence how people respond to the question and the answer. For example, if hypothetically somebody has shown a pattern of saying "there's no story here", using whatever rhetorical technique works best in a given situation to support your views, and then frequently being shown wrong when it turns out there genuinely is a story here even though some of the initial details were incorrect or had insufficent evidence ... well, in that case, others would very reasonably take past history into account when they see the same pattern coming up. I have no idea whether there or not there will be major media coverage about the story. The lack of coverage so far implies to me that (a) there isn't yet sufficient supporting evidence or documentation for this and (b) there are enough real disclosures that people are being careful about airing insufficiently supported claims and (c) it hasn't gotten to "Obama birth certificate" levels of significant attention even though there's not sufficient supporting evidence.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      No. I think you're right and that there isn't enough to substantiate this story for a mainstream publication relying on two-source verification to risk publishing it. This is why I agreed off-the-bat that it might be disinformation. That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past. And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  "Why did nobody cover that" -- how can that be answered by anyone but the media the question is about, what can anyone here do other than speculate? Yet even that already happened, the first line of the first response of the other poster was "This could easily be misinformation". So much for sitting on the high horse in glass houses?

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.
- droopybuns 13y ago
  Thomas has regularly made meaningful & insightful contributions to the hacker news community. I don't know what your vendetta is against him, but please- take ad-hominem attacks back to reddit. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I do find his perspective more interesting then your attacks.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >you continually trivialize this story He's certainly not doing that here.
jdp23 13y ago
trevalyan did address your question about credibility. In trevalyan's view, your claims here over the last couple weeks have been "have been demonstrated wrong again and again", and that you've shown a pattern of "claiming there's no story here." And I don't see any attribution of motives. EDIT: (which doesn't mean I think your original question is wrong)
- tptacek 13y ago
  What does my credibility have to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on Tice's claim that NSA spied on pre-candidate Obama? I don't understand your observation here at all. My point was that my track record of comments has nothing to do with the answer to the question. If you or 'trevelyan believe I'm wrong, and that there is or will soon be major media coverage about this story, or that major media coverage doesn't signify anything, you can say that.
  - jdp23 13y ago
    Your credibility doesn't have anything to do with whether any major media outlet has run a story on this. It's a good question. However your credibility will inevitably influence how people respond to the question and the answer. For example, if hypothetically somebody has shown a pattern of saying "there's no story here", using whatever rhetorical technique works best in a given situation to support your views, and then frequently being shown wrong when it turns out there genuinely is a story here even though some of the initial details were incorrect or had insufficent evidence ... well, in that case, others would very reasonably take past history into account when they see the same pattern coming up. I have no idea whether there or not there will be major media coverage about the story. The lack of coverage so far implies to me that (a) there isn't yet sufficient supporting evidence or documentation for this and (b) there are enough real disclosures that people are being careful about airing insufficiently supported claims and (c) it hasn't gotten to "Obama birth certificate" levels of significant attention even though there's not sufficient supporting evidence.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    No. I think you're right and that there isn't enough to substantiate this story for a mainstream publication relying on two-source verification to risk publishing it. This is why I agreed off-the-bat that it might be disinformation. That said, given that Tice has at least some credibility on this front, I also think these allegations should cast suspicion on claims you have made that there is reasonable judicial oversight of America's public security apparati, a belief you have used to cast suspicion on statements from whistleblowers like Snowden whom you have attacked in the past. And it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into your comments (in which case I apologize). But if that's the case, an easy way to avoid it would be countering your public statements that are critical of whistleblowers with the occasional statement clarifying your personal belief in the legality or morality of the actions which they allege are taking place. A statement expressing your belief that surveillance should only occur after probable cause and with specific judicial oversight would put me, and I suspect the others upvoting my comments, much more at ease.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
"Why did nobody cover that" -- how can that be answered by anyone but the media the question is about, what can anyone here do other than speculate? Yet even that already happened, the first line of the first response of the other poster was "This could easily be misinformation". So much for sitting on the high horse in glass houses?