4 ms·

How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken

by vinhboy 13y ago

How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken SSL. For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.

growupkids 13y ago
How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!
- philwelch 13y ago
  No politician ever shut down J. Edgar Hoover, and not for lack of wanting or trying. Hell, they have a hard enough time with relatively innocent bureaucracies. Do you really think No Such Agency lacks defenses from political interference?
aestra 13y ago
>Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife No. Convicted, yes. Charged, no. Here in the United States we have the presumption of innocence.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- elpool2 13y ago
  "We have reports that you beat your wife" is not an unfair question to ask someone charged with beating his wife. Just because our legal system presumes innocence doesn't mean you can't question someone until they've been convicted of a crime.
  - aestra 13y ago
    "We have reports that you beat your wife" is fair and to question someone on that is fair and is much much different from "when did you stop beating your wife?" which the GP said was a fair question. I never said or even implied you can't question someone until they have been convicted of a crime, I just said questioning them like they are already guilty isn't fair and I think is shitty journalism.

by vinhboy 13y ago

growupkids 13y ago

How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!

philwelch 13y ago
No politician ever shut down J. Edgar Hoover, and not for lack of wanting or trying. Hell, they have a hard enough time with relatively innocent bureaucracies. Do you really think No Such Agency lacks defenses from political interference?

aestra 13y ago

>Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife No. Convicted, yes. Charged, no. Here in the United States we have the presumption of innocence.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
elpool2 13y ago
"We have reports that you beat your wife" is not an unfair question to ask someone charged with beating his wife. Just because our legal system presumes innocence doesn't mean you can't question someone until they've been convicted of a crime.
- aestra 13y ago
  "We have reports that you beat your wife" is fair and to question someone on that is fair and is much much different from "when did you stop beating your wife?" which the GP said was a fair question. I never said or even implied you can't question someone until they have been convicted of a crime, I just said questioning them like they are already guilty isn't fair and I think is shitty journalism.