4 ms·
So, I know we are looking for hypocrisy here because gasp hypocrisy, but there really isn't any. You were providing your information to the government, making
by cobrausn 13y ago
So, I know we are looking for hypocrisy here because gasp hypocrisy, but there really isn't any. You were providing your information to the government, making sure nobody other than the government sees it isn't at conflict with defending the NSA's actions if you see this kind of activity as legitimate.
- uptown 13y agoOn one hand he's alarmed that enrollment data may not be properly protected. On the other hand, he's protecting an agency that's requiring technology companies to create back-doors and weaken encryption algorithms for the NSA's convenience. How are those two objectives not in conflict?
- shortstuffsushi 13y ago> How are those two objectives not in conflict? A. The government wants all your data available to them. B. The government does not want all your data available to the public. A != B Edit: Not to come off as rude, I just tend to agree. If you want to say that in that sense, the government is being hypocritical, perhaps that's true. At the same time, though, their goal here is (hopefully) to keep your data safe from outsiders, whereas we can "trust" them to be good with the data they backdoor from companies ;)
- joyeuse6701 13y agoBasically, the gov't is allowed to have all your information and see it, and no one else. Enrollment data needs to be protected from everyone but the US gov't is the stance. From this perspective, there is not conflict of interest.