4 ms·

My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.

by GHFigs 12y ago

opendais 12y ago
Yes, and the NSA would refuse to give the context...so you have to make assumptions about information about them.
- GHFigs 12y ago
  I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions. [1] Including the abundance of evidence already available about XKEYSCORE.
  - opendais 12y ago
    You have every right to disagree. :) I think erring on the side of the assumption that is bad for everyone is more likely to be true. Especially since its consistent with the NSA's overreach in other areas. For instance: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analy... or http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-on-privacy-audit-shows.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-o... If they break the law over 2,500 times a year with no apparent consequences, do you honestly think its likely you are right? If so, good on you. Personally, I'd rather assume things are more in line with the other abuses than dismiss them out of hand. In what way is the assumption that they are tagging/tracking the sessions not consistent with: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.... ? The fact some are US-based? But we already know they violate that regularly, 'accidentally'. The volume of data? We already know they have datacenters large enough to store and analyze it. I'm genuinely curious why you draw those conclusions.

My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.

by GHFigs 12y ago

My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.

opendais 12y ago

Yes, and the NSA would refuse to give the context...so you have to make assumptions about information about them.

GHFigs 12y ago
I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions. [1] Including the abundance of evidence already available about XKEYSCORE.
- opendais 12y ago
  You have every right to disagree. :) I think erring on the side of the assumption that is bad for everyone is more likely to be true. Especially since its consistent with the NSA's overreach in other areas. For instance: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analysts-purposefully-violated-privacy-rights http://thehill.com/policy/technology/318515-nsa-admits-analy... or http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-on-privacy-audit-shows.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-o... If they break the law over 2,500 times a year with no apparent consequences, do you honestly think its likely you are right? If so, good on you. Personally, I'd rather assume things are more in line with the other abuses than dismiss them out of hand. In what way is the assumption that they are tagging/tracking the sessions not consistent with: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/30_July_2013.... ? The fact some are US-based? But we already know they violate that regularly, 'accidentally'. The volume of data? We already know they have datacenters large enough to store and analyze it. I'm genuinely curious why you draw those conclusions.