4 ms·

>most of it was already public knowledge since the 90s There is a difference between innuendo and leaked powerpoint slides. >Now I obviously cannot prove that

• doubt_me 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_L... The fact the he even got involved in the leaks makes me think that its all a lie. He could have done it like the FBI leak of the 70s but I don't know why he didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investi...
• DanBC 13y ago
  It wasn't innuendo! There were EU parliament reports; the industrial espionage was known; spying on friendly nations was well known. The slides give more detail, they include names or programmes, and they are about modern abuses. But it is wrong to say that we didn't know that governments surveilled their citizens. Some people might have ignored it.
  • epipsychidion 13y ago
    As the saying goes, the devil was in the details. It's not the existence of spying but the extent that made everyone take notice. "surveilled their citizens" is too general a term;it can include anything from monitoring international communication for a handful of citizens to collecting metadata for every single phone call ever made (as was the case). I never said or implied that there was no proof that governments spied on their citizens so don't represent that as my belief.