2 ms·
You sure did a lot there to avoid refuting his point (and avoid saying anything substantial, I might add). His point is that the actual abuse hasn't been docum
by d23 13y ago
You sure did a lot there to avoid refuting his point (and avoid saying anything substantial, I might add). His point is that the actual abuse hasn't been documented, and they surely wouldn't do it in such a silly way as this article suggests if they were abusing it in this manner.
- ianterrell 13y agoI was annoyed at the condescension of "internet meme", and was commenting on that. When the clear potential for abuse has been thoroughly documented, getting nitpicky on actual abuse seems like a waste of time. Of course, were I to get nitpicky, I'd say there is documented evidence of abuse (with NYTimes reporting going back years): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/16193324027/nsa-boss-insists-that-analysts-cant-abuse-surveillance-systems-forgets-to-mention-that-they-have.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/16193324027/nsa-bo... -- EDIT: I do believe there's a difference between the potential for abuse and actual abuse. But I further believe the potential for abuse from global surveillance is so significant that even the potential is a dire problem in its own right. I was a bit too flippant about that distinction above.