4 ms·

>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. >Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of h

>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. >Snowden shouldn't spend the rest of his life in jail, which is what would invariably happen would be go to trial in the US. This, too, is a false statement and conjecture.

rurounijones 13y ago
>>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight >This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. Which is itself a statement that is very much up for dispute. Maybe we should add the word "effective" before "oversight"
thaumasiotes 13y ago
>> an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight > This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. This is a worthless comment. Of these two scenarios, which do you find more likely? A. Your parent comment knows just as much as you do about whatever "oversight" is notionally exerted over the NSA, but chooses to describe it as "zero" for rhetorical reasons, such as for example a functional equivalence to what might happen in the case where the NSA actually outranked everything else in the country. B. Your parent comment actually believes that in the US government org chart, the NSA is at the very top. I lean toward scenario (A), in which case your response has all the value of "does not, infinity!" In general, saying "what you said is incorrect because you're wrong" just makes you sound even more uninformed than the guy saying "but that's wrong!" If you've got something to back yourself up with, use it, don't just assert that it's there. > This, too, is a false statement and conjecture. Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?
- mst 13y ago
  > Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"? The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.
nailer 13y ago
Snowden states he was able to look up information on any citizen, including the President, without any explicit approval or subsequent investigation. What evidence do you have to refute that?
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  That's not the way logic works. Affirmative assertions need to be demonstrated by the person making the claim. It's not encumbent on anyone to disprove Snowden's claims; it's his responsibility to show that they are true.
  - nailer 13y ago
    The weird thing is the NSA has never refuted the very specific allegation of Booz's access and the lack of supervision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-...), merely just repeated that 'oversight exists'. Since we're all discussing a massive series of leaked documents, how do you logically think otherwise? Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals-some-agents-abused-spying-power http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals...

rurounijones 13y ago

>>an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight >This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. Which is itself a statement that is very much up for dispute. Maybe we should add the word "effective" before "oversight"

thaumasiotes 13y ago

>> an extremely well funded organization with zero oversight > This is a false statement since the NSA does have oversight. This is a worthless comment. Of these two scenarios, which do you find more likely? A. Your parent comment knows just as much as you do about whatever "oversight" is notionally exerted over the NSA, but chooses to describe it as "zero" for rhetorical reasons, such as for example a functional equivalence to what might happen in the case where the NSA actually outranked everything else in the country. B. Your parent comment actually believes that in the US government org chart, the NSA is at the very top. I lean toward scenario (A), in which case your response has all the value of "does not, infinity!" In general, saying "what you said is incorrect because you're wrong" just makes you sound even more uninformed than the guy saying "but that's wrong!" If you've got something to back yourself up with, use it, don't just assert that it's there. > This, too, is a false statement and conjecture. Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"?

mst 13y ago
> Wow! Do you see any problems with simultaneously describing something as "false" and as "conjecture"? The available anecdata clearly proves they don't.

nailer 13y ago

Snowden states he was able to look up information on any citizen, including the President, without any explicit approval or subsequent investigation. What evidence do you have to refute that?

jessedhillon 13y ago
That's not the way logic works. Affirmative assertions need to be demonstrated by the person making the claim. It's not encumbent on anyone to disprove Snowden's claims; it's his responsibility to show that they are true.
- nailer 13y ago
  The weird thing is the NSA has never refuted the very specific allegation of Booz's access and the lack of supervision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-...), merely just repeated that 'oversight exists'. Since we're all discussing a massive series of leaked documents, how do you logically think otherwise? Let's see what the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has to say: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals-some-agents-abused-spying-power http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/23/4651448/nsa-report-reveals...