4 ms·

Paranoia would imply fear of something unlikely to happen. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/

• diminoten 13y ago
  It is unlikely to happen, that link is silly fearmongering. Wired should be fined for publishing it.
  • chris_wot 13y ago
    Fined for publishing a story?
    • diminoten 13y ago
      For yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
      • mcantelon 13y ago
        It's pretty slopping thinking to conflate reporting/analysis based on what public officials have said with inducing a deliberate panic by lying.
        • diminoten 13y ago
          My whole assertion is that they've done none of the former.
          • mcantelon 13y ago
            They've done no reporting/analysis? They reported a CIA officials stated interest in using consumer devices for intelligence gathering. Their analysis of that was to presume it would be abused. It may not be deep reporting or analysis, but your suggestion that they should be fined would be more in line with how Russia runs things than the media culture of the West.
            • diminoten 13y ago
              Yes, it's not deep, and it's not Russia, it's Canada[0]. This reporting is very misleading. [0] http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news...
              • mcantelon 13y ago
                The "lies" they're talking about are willful fabrications, not speculative analysis. Fox News deliberately aired lies about the contents of milk in the US. They went to court to defend their right to lie. http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
                • diminoten 13y ago
                  I'm saying their speculative analysis is approaching (and surpassing) the line between "analysis" and "fabrication", and they should be punished for it.
  • mcantelon 13y ago
    PRISM was "unlikely to happen" too. The ability to conduct surveillance through consumer devices, however, is something that already exists (cell phones [1]). Given that the NSA record private phone conversations en masse, as well as many other types of data, why would you assume it "silly fearmongering" to suggest that they'll continue to develop and improve their system's capabilities? [1] http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
    • diminoten 13y ago
      I'm using your words, it's not a matter of "likeliness", it's simply a thing of which we have zero evidence or indication that it is going to occur. So yes, I do think it is "silly fearmongering" to suggest that they'll continue to develop and improve their system's capabilities in the specific way you're suggesting.
      • mcantelon 13y ago
        >I do think it is "silly fearmongering" to suggest that they'll continue to develop and improve their system's capabilities in the specific way you're suggesting. Why would they not exploit a capability that they have indicated interest in exploiting given that they've already crossed the line into illegally collecting as much private information as they can? They sold the AT&T facilitated phone tapping as something they would do selectively, with FISA warrants. It turns out they were conducting mass collection of conversations and conversation-related data without warrants. Why would they show restraint with the ability to listen through consumer devices? Talking about scenarios that are likely to happen isn't "fearmongering" it's rational vigilance given where we're at.
        • diminoten 13y ago
          Why won't they? Because they can't, is why. It's not technically or politically feasible. It's "silly fearmongering" as long as you have no evidence that they've done such a thing or are attempting to do such a thing.