4 ms·

Uh, have you been paying any attention at all, or are you just simply trolling? There's new information and solid evidence coming out on a near-daily basis.

by beedogs 13y ago

quaunaut 13y ago
Where is it. Seriously, link me some stuff. I've read everything Greenwald and Snowden have put out, and so far, it's a lot of conjecture, not a lot of hard evidence. I believe him. But we literally are incapable of making more concrete progress without more. I want more than words. Give me some pictures, give me methods, give some evidence. Some of what he's said doesn't make a lick of sense, likely because it's skewed slightly to make people more cautious about their privacy(which would be great) but is light on others. Specifically, his accusations of direct access to servers- I have a seriously hard time believing these companies, with an amazing amount of capital sitting around, would risk their potential profits to provide this backdoor(in terms of users leaving) and not fight it legally.
- jtudisco 13y ago
  They probably do fight it. They're just not allowed to tell you that.
  - quaunaut 13y ago
    But then why have your CEOs claim the complete opposite? They're not compelled to lie, they would only be compelled not to talk. Furthermore, I imagine the cost to fight something like this wouldn't be small- would it be so easy to have it lost in a company's financials?
    - harshreality 13y ago
      Why would the legal department itemize that? If there is such a program I'm sure the NSA has figured out a way to get the courts to keep everyone who knows about it gagged. How do you know what they're compelled to do? You're operating on the same principle as rsync.net with their warrant canary, as if that will actually work. I doubt it. In this case, the NSA would go to the FISA court, ask them to order Google to say that the program doesn't exist, and for good reason... not doing that could disclose the program, the existence of which is classified. The idea that you can't be compelled to lie is some Kantian ideal of a justice system. I don't see why the justice system that routinely puts people to death would be squeamish about telling people they have to lie. It might be too difficult, and too many people or resources might be involved to make it feasible to hide such a program, but that's different from saying that, as a matter of principle, you can't be ordered to lie by a court. Of course, the court order wouldn't say "you have to lie." It would say something to the effect of: "Your public statements must not mention, imply, insinuate, etc. the existence or potential existence of program X." No court is going to have trouble figuring out that failure to keep updating a warrant canary implies receipt of a secret warrant.
    - yuhong 13y ago
      AFAIK, I don't think Larry, Sergey, Eric, or Marissa (for example) have security clearances at all.
- eruditely 13y ago
  You're asking for a level of certainty that is just not possible here. As mentioned you can see with the total resources invested towards getting him, the press reports, and total coverage there is actually something going on here with the total inertia of the entire situation and he is not lying. Your demand for more evidence clearly contradicts a plan he has already made. I'm sorry your craving and addiction for something new day by day can't be satiated, but he has to leverage the evidence he has with his safety. He is a potential political prisoner.

Uh, have you been paying any attention at all, or are you just simply trolling? There's new information and solid evidence coming out on a near-daily basis.

by beedogs 13y ago

Uh, have you been paying any attention at all, or are you just simply trolling? There's new information and solid evidence coming out on a near-daily basis.

quaunaut 13y ago

Where is it. Seriously, link me some stuff. I've read everything Greenwald and Snowden have put out, and so far, it's a lot of conjecture, not a lot of hard evidence. I believe him. But we literally are incapable of making more concrete progress without more. I want more than words. Give me some pictures, give me methods, give some evidence. Some of what he's said doesn't make a lick of sense, likely because it's skewed slightly to make people more cautious about their privacy(which would be great) but is light on others. Specifically, his accusations of direct access to servers- I have a seriously hard time believing these companies, with an amazing amount of capital sitting around, would risk their potential profits to provide this backdoor(in terms of users leaving) and not fight it legally.

jtudisco 13y ago
They probably do fight it. They're just not allowed to tell you that.
- quaunaut 13y ago
  But then why have your CEOs claim the complete opposite? They're not compelled to lie, they would only be compelled not to talk. Furthermore, I imagine the cost to fight something like this wouldn't be small- would it be so easy to have it lost in a company's financials?
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Why would the legal department itemize that? If there is such a program I'm sure the NSA has figured out a way to get the courts to keep everyone who knows about it gagged. How do you know what they're compelled to do? You're operating on the same principle as rsync.net with their warrant canary, as if that will actually work. I doubt it. In this case, the NSA would go to the FISA court, ask them to order Google to say that the program doesn't exist, and for good reason... not doing that could disclose the program, the existence of which is classified. The idea that you can't be compelled to lie is some Kantian ideal of a justice system. I don't see why the justice system that routinely puts people to death would be squeamish about telling people they have to lie. It might be too difficult, and too many people or resources might be involved to make it feasible to hide such a program, but that's different from saying that, as a matter of principle, you can't be ordered to lie by a court. Of course, the court order wouldn't say "you have to lie." It would say something to the effect of: "Your public statements must not mention, imply, insinuate, etc. the existence or potential existence of program X." No court is going to have trouble figuring out that failure to keep updating a warrant canary implies receipt of a secret warrant.
  - yuhong 13y ago
    AFAIK, I don't think Larry, Sergey, Eric, or Marissa (for example) have security clearances at all.
eruditely 13y ago
You're asking for a level of certainty that is just not possible here. As mentioned you can see with the total resources invested towards getting him, the press reports, and total coverage there is actually something going on here with the total inertia of the entire situation and he is not lying. Your demand for more evidence clearly contradicts a plan he has already made. I'm sorry your craving and addiction for something new day by day can't be satiated, but he has to leverage the evidence he has with his safety. He is a potential political prisoner.