4 ms·

There's been no proof that it is metadata, we are supposed to take liars at their word. Seems rayiner is willing to do so.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
chc 13y ago
It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.
- throwawayaway 13y ago
  accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.
lern_too_spel 13y ago
In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?
- throwawayaway 13y ago
  you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

chc 13y ago

It's more reasonable than just making things up. There's no proof that it isn't your complete records. There's also no proof that it isn't your full analyzed genome and the complete details of your future as determined by precognizant children in an underground lab. If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts, there's nothing we can't accuse the government of doing. So sticking to the only facts we have, even if they're shaky, is hardly something to criticize rayiner for.

throwawayaway 13y ago
accusing a sect of liars of telling lies, is not making things up, taking proven liars at their word is just as bad. by saying "the executive spys on the public generally in a way that acquires only metadata", he's sticking to the facts as admitted so far by these liars. however, given that the people who are telling us they only acquire metadata, having previously denied it, also tell us they are not performing mass surveillance, use weasel language such as "under this program", redefine words that have sensible meanings such as "collect", it's worth taking the time to criticize someone for repeating their party line.
pessimizer 13y ago
>So sticking to the only facts we have That somebody has said something may be a fact, but the substance of the content of that speech is not a fact. We have as much evidence that what they say is true as we have evidence that idle speculations that don't contradict the known facts are true. None. None other than what Snowden hands us, rather, which tells us that they are not only willing to lie to us, but excited to come up with new ways to do it. >If we're willing to speculate without any concern for concrete facts To be clearer: I don't think that the government is particularly interested in my genome, therefore I don't believe that the government has analyzed my genome. There's no evidence that precognition exists, so I don't believe that there are psychics analyzing me for future crimes. The government is clearly interested in the content of all of my conversations and everything that I read. Let's talk about the possibilities of that, instead. There are things that the NSA are doing and have done that will never be able to be verified. There are things that I am doing and have done that will never be able to be corroborated, and will leave no evidence. Operating as if that's not a possibility is a denial of reality. Allow the facts to remain indeterminate, rather than relying on the testimony of the accused because you're starving for facts.

lern_too_spel 13y ago

In your mind, why did Snowden only release documents about bulk domestic metadata collection if the NSA is engaging in bulk domestic data collection?

throwawayaway 13y ago
you are begging the question, it's not metadata any more when they can cross reference it to deanonymise it. in my mind, snowden's documents show bulk domestic data collection.