4 ms·

If you'd never heard of parallel construction before today, that seems to powerfully undermine your credibility. Why should we take you more seriously than some

by sedev 13y ago

If you'd never heard of parallel construction before today, that seems to powerfully undermine your credibility. Why should we take you more seriously than someone who says "I was a secretary at the NSA for years and I never heard of anything bad happening, therefore nothing bad happened"?

rl3 13y ago
"I was in the Computer Network Operations Development Program, and my office was S32X: Signals Intelligence Directorate (S) > Data Acquisition (S3) > Tailored Access Operations (S32) > Special Tactics and Techniques (S32X)." I think it is reasonable to say that he is slightly more informed to speak on these issues than a secretary. It's really not surprising he hasn't heard of parallel reconstruction, considering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200 Also, there's no need to be so hostile. It's simply his point of view, and by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture. To quote the very post of his that you're replying to: "You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught." He's hardly saying nothing bad ever happened, or that all abuses are known for that matter.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture. How is that different from "he lacks credibility" ?
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    Credibility and scope are two different things. His claims can have limited scope and still be credible. I don't see any reason to doubt his character.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > I don't see any reason to doubt his character His character is secondary to his veracity. > His claims can have limited scope and still be credible. His claims were about the NSA. That is the scope over which we all agree he is not a credible source on.
jjoonathan 13y ago
Come on, "left hand isn't aware what the right is doing" isn't just plausible, it's standard practice at any organization larger than a dozen or so people. He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison). I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.

by sedev 13y ago

rl3 13y ago

"I was in the Computer Network Operations Development Program, and my office was S32X: Signals Intelligence Directorate (S) > Data Acquisition (S3) > Tailored Access Operations (S32) > Special Tactics and Techniques (S32X)." I think it is reasonable to say that he is slightly more informed to speak on these issues than a secretary. It's really not surprising he hasn't heard of parallel reconstruction, considering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200 Also, there's no need to be so hostile. It's simply his point of view, and by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture. To quote the very post of his that you're replying to: "You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught." He's hardly saying nothing bad ever happened, or that all abuses are known for that matter.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture. How is that different from "he lacks credibility" ?
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Credibility and scope are two different things. His claims can have limited scope and still be credible. I don't see any reason to doubt his character.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > I don't see any reason to doubt his character His character is secondary to his veracity. > His claims can have limited scope and still be credible. His claims were about the NSA. That is the scope over which we all agree he is not a credible source on.

jjoonathan 13y ago

Come on, "left hand isn't aware what the right is doing" isn't just plausible, it's standard practice at any organization larger than a dozen or so people. He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison). I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.