4 ms·

> "So how do you explain that you lied before?" (silence) Given that the email they showed does not represent a change to their story (that they never received

by mpyne 12y ago

> "So how do you explain that you lied before?" (silence) Given that the email they showed does not represent a change to their story (that they never received an emailed concern from Snowden) I'm not sure that it's obvious it was a lie. After all, Snowden's question was purely procedural, not a pronouncement of wrongdoing of any sort. The most action you'd possibly expect to be taken as a result of that email is that NSA's internal training adds a footnote to the hierarchy of authorities slide. > Was anyone at the NSA ever punished for lying to the public or Congress? The man who lied to Congress is the DNI, not a member of the NSA, and his testimony was a designed sandbagging: He could be charged with an actual crime no matter which answer he had given, so I'm not surprised that the DOJ isn't racing to proffer charges here, especially since the Senator asking the question both already knew the answer, and knew that he could have given the answer to the public directly, if he wished, since he has Congressional immunity to his comments on the Senate floor. The NSA itself doesn't talk to the public as a rule, so it would be hard to convict members of them of lying in the first place. Their public statements are clearly designed to be at least technically truthful. So I'm concerned then, that this has all become a giant echo chamber: People are fed information and use that to confirm that which they already believe, even when the evidence actually presented is contradictory. I know you're probably trying to vent more than anything but I don't see as a possibility that many people here will be changing their mind any time soon. And I say that as someone who changed my mind; one of my highest-voted comments here was in support of Snowden on the occasion of the first story that popped up, before it became clear that the story being presented wasn't the same as the story as it actually was.

sixQuarks 12y ago
This is interesting. So you were a Snowden supporter at first, but changed your mind after seeing more evidence. I'd like to know what made you change your mind.
- mpyne 12y ago
  It was changed pretty quickly, to be honest. PRISM was announced as a system that could "literally read your thoughts as you type". Greenwald said the NSA had direct, unfettered access to Facebook, Google, etc. So naturally I was pretty concerned about this vast abuse of authority and massive blow against Constitutional freedoms, and expressed as much here on HN. But just reading the NSA slides made it clear that something much different (and far less sinister) was being talked about. They couldn't "read our thoughts" after all. At worst, the system allowed tech companies to automatically package up the data legally obtained through actual warrants or subpoenas, something previously routinely done manually. PRISM even still required the company's manual involvement for each and every single request. The reality was far different from what had been implied, and sometimes even actually stated. Greenwald himself had either lied, or been mislead by someone, and my money was on the latter. But it was Snowden's job to know how PRISM worked and get Greenwald to explain it right. When it turned out that the self-described "career intelligence operative" was... not, I quickly realized that things weren't as they seemed. And then all sorts of excuses started piling on: Oh, PRISM does require a warrant sometimes, but the Court that issues them gives secret rulings (oooh). Never mind that the Court in question was around since 1978, or that no other nation even bothers putting judicial oversight on foreign intelligence. Snowden said he'd have been fine with PRISM with Article III warrants, but when an Article III warrant was duly issued for his own arrest then all of a sudden all U.S. courts were corrupt. And on it goes. And it's turned out that way for almost literally every single leak since. Some claim would be made about the NSA, but then when pressed Snowden or Greenwald would have to admit that the topic being discussed was a capability, but there wasn't evidence of major misuse. Or they'd leave out important context. A lot of this stuff would have been damning in some way on its own, so I could never figure out why the shiftyness was required. When you're debating with the USG and the USG is more honest, that's sad in many ways.
  - sixQuarks 12y ago
    I honestly thought you were going to provide some solid information, but this doesn't hold up in my book. These are weak reasons to change your mind (in my opinion). Snowden explained the "literally read your thoughts as you type" part in the NBC interview. Seeing someone's typing, erasing, changing words is a window into their thought process. Not sure why you disagree with that. And when you make a joke about the court that issues them "gives secret rulings (oooh)", why are you making a joke out of one of the most serious loopholes in the whole system?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > why are you making a joke out of one of the most serious loopholes in the whole system? Because the rulings are not secret. They just happen to not be public, like many other court rulings that the people are perfectly fine with accepting.

by mpyne 12y ago

sixQuarks 12y ago

This is interesting. So you were a Snowden supporter at first, but changed your mind after seeing more evidence. I'd like to know what made you change your mind.

mpyne 12y ago
It was changed pretty quickly, to be honest. PRISM was announced as a system that could "literally read your thoughts as you type". Greenwald said the NSA had direct, unfettered access to Facebook, Google, etc. So naturally I was pretty concerned about this vast abuse of authority and massive blow against Constitutional freedoms, and expressed as much here on HN. But just reading the NSA slides made it clear that something much different (and far less sinister) was being talked about. They couldn't "read our thoughts" after all. At worst, the system allowed tech companies to automatically package up the data legally obtained through actual warrants or subpoenas, something previously routinely done manually. PRISM even still required the company's manual involvement for each and every single request. The reality was far different from what had been implied, and sometimes even actually stated. Greenwald himself had either lied, or been mislead by someone, and my money was on the latter. But it was Snowden's job to know how PRISM worked and get Greenwald to explain it right. When it turned out that the self-described "career intelligence operative" was... not, I quickly realized that things weren't as they seemed. And then all sorts of excuses started piling on: Oh, PRISM does require a warrant sometimes, but the Court that issues them gives secret rulings (oooh). Never mind that the Court in question was around since 1978, or that no other nation even bothers putting judicial oversight on foreign intelligence. Snowden said he'd have been fine with PRISM with Article III warrants, but when an Article III warrant was duly issued for his own arrest then all of a sudden all U.S. courts were corrupt. And on it goes. And it's turned out that way for almost literally every single leak since. Some claim would be made about the NSA, but then when pressed Snowden or Greenwald would have to admit that the topic being discussed was a capability, but there wasn't evidence of major misuse. Or they'd leave out important context. A lot of this stuff would have been damning in some way on its own, so I could never figure out why the shiftyness was required. When you're debating with the USG and the USG is more honest, that's sad in many ways.
- sixQuarks 12y ago
  I honestly thought you were going to provide some solid information, but this doesn't hold up in my book. These are weak reasons to change your mind (in my opinion). Snowden explained the "literally read your thoughts as you type" part in the NBC interview. Seeing someone's typing, erasing, changing words is a window into their thought process. Not sure why you disagree with that. And when you make a joke about the court that issues them "gives secret rulings (oooh)", why are you making a joke out of one of the most serious loopholes in the whole system?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > why are you making a joke out of one of the most serious loopholes in the whole system? Because the rulings are not secret. They just happen to not be public, like many other court rulings that the people are perfectly fine with accepting.