5 ms·

I don't know in the epistemological sense, but there's just no reason to believe such a thing to be true.

Sauer_Kraut 13y ago
Aside from the details that show the NSA having employees in companies install monitoring hardware worldwide? Or those that assist in providing data in return for some themselves? None of that counts to you because "there's just no reason to believe such a thing." You are essentially saying you don't believe anything you may have read in the past few years counts as control. What IS control then, other than the ability to control others, which the US/NSA has attempting to keep on top of since the shift in data traffic trends in the 1990s.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Did you just ask "What is control, other than the ability to control others"? Do you honestly not recognize the shell-game you're playing with that question? You're responding to all of the things I said with tricks and games. You don't want to talk facts, so I don't want to talk with you. I'm done, unless you want to stop drawing conclusions and start painting a real picture.
  - APoliteRequest 13y ago
    Could you acknowledge how having control is indeed having control? These installations didn't just trip and fall into place.
ImprovedSilence 13y ago
There is also no reason to believe it's not true, no?
- diminoten 13y ago
  Correct. Just like there is also no reason not to believe in ghosts or magic or bigfoot or unicorns.
pdonis 13y ago
there's just no reason to believe such a thing to be true No reason to believe what to be true? The US government's placing of backdoors in the long-distance telephone network is historical fact. That historical fact is a reason to believe that what the US government has done once, it could do again. It may not be a reason you want to accept, but it's still a reason.
- diminoten 13y ago
  The NSA can't stop you from visiting Hacker News. That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. The NSA does not have the ability to do this. So no, this is not historical fact.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. When it became public knowledge that the US government had backdoors in the long distance telephone network, that did alter people's behavior and the course of events. Similarly, the public knowledge that the NSA is spying on the Internet is altering people's behavior and the course of events. I agree the NSA can't stop people from visiting HN, but they can certainly change the incentives faced by people using the Internet. Perhaps this doesn't meet your definition of the word "control", but you still seem to find it significant. this is not historical fact What isn't? Are you saying that you don't believe the US government put backdoors into the long distance telephone network? Or that you don't believe the NSA is spying on the Internet? Or are you just saying you don't care, because you can still visit HN? That doesn't change the historical fact; it just means you don't care about that particular historical fact.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Wrong kind of alter. You're talking about practical changes, but in no way was anyone forced to change their behavior. In this instance, 'alter' would be something the NSA did which literally changed an outcome. As in, block access to Hacker News, or redirect gmail.com to gmail.nsa.gov. The NSA does not have this power, nor has the US government ever done this. So again no, it is not historical fact.

Aside from the details that show the NSA having employees in companies install monitoring hardware worldwide? Or those that assist in providing data in return for some themselves? None of that counts to you because "there's just no reason to believe such a thing." You are essentially saying you don't believe anything you may have read in the past few years counts as control. What IS control then, other than the ability to control others, which the US/NSA has attempting to keep on top of since the shift in data traffic trends in the 1990s.

diminoten 13y ago
Did you just ask "What is control, other than the ability to control others"? Do you honestly not recognize the shell-game you're playing with that question? You're responding to all of the things I said with tricks and games. You don't want to talk facts, so I don't want to talk with you. I'm done, unless you want to stop drawing conclusions and start painting a real picture.
- APoliteRequest 13y ago
  Could you acknowledge how having control is indeed having control? These installations didn't just trip and fall into place.

ImprovedSilence 13y ago

There is also no reason to believe it's not true, no?

diminoten 13y ago
Correct. Just like there is also no reason not to believe in ghosts or magic or bigfoot or unicorns.

pdonis 13y ago

there's just no reason to believe such a thing to be true No reason to believe what to be true? The US government's placing of backdoors in the long-distance telephone network is historical fact. That historical fact is a reason to believe that what the US government has done once, it could do again. It may not be a reason you want to accept, but it's still a reason.

diminoten 13y ago
The NSA can't stop you from visiting Hacker News. That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. The NSA does not have the ability to do this. So no, this is not historical fact.
- pdonis 13y ago
  That's what control means, the ability to alter your behavior or the course of events. When it became public knowledge that the US government had backdoors in the long distance telephone network, that did alter people's behavior and the course of events. Similarly, the public knowledge that the NSA is spying on the Internet is altering people's behavior and the course of events. I agree the NSA can't stop people from visiting HN, but they can certainly change the incentives faced by people using the Internet. Perhaps this doesn't meet your definition of the word "control", but you still seem to find it significant. this is not historical fact What isn't? Are you saying that you don't believe the US government put backdoors into the long distance telephone network? Or that you don't believe the NSA is spying on the Internet? Or are you just saying you don't care, because you can still visit HN? That doesn't change the historical fact; it just means you don't care about that particular historical fact.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Wrong kind of alter. You're talking about practical changes, but in no way was anyone forced to change their behavior. In this instance, 'alter' would be something the NSA did which literally changed an outcome. As in, block access to Hacker News, or redirect gmail.com to gmail.nsa.gov. The NSA does not have this power, nor has the US government ever done this. So again no, it is not historical fact.