3 ms·

> When they say "for national security" that's really what they mean - people would be SO upset if they heard everything, that the blowback could be disastrous

> When they say "for national security" that's really what they mean - people would be SO upset if they heard everything, that the blowback could be disastrous both as a country as well as for the individuals responsible. Bingo. I also think they showed their hands when they uttered this gem in Jewel VS NSA, wherein the government argues in a way protecting the interests of Verizon, et al. > AND WE SET THIS FORTH, AGAIN, FOR THIS COURT IN OUR MOST RECENT FILING IN WHICH THE DNI ASSERTED THE STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE AND EXPLAINED TO THE COURT THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THESE TERRIBLE DISCLOSURES THAT OCCURRED OVER THE PAST YEAR -- IN FACT, THIS IS THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY -- DISCLOSURES THAT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT HAVE SERIOUSLY HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COMPANY "National security of this company", eh? That sentence doesn't make the slightest bit of sense unless it's taken for granted that "National Security" means "the financial health of Verizon".

derefr 11y ago
> "National Security" means "the financial health of Verizon" I think there's a chain of reasoning by which that can make sense, and which doesn't include cronyism: 1. National Security is dependent upon the "health" of the economy of the country; 2. therefore, any corporation providing a large-enough part of a nation's GDP is effectively part of its war engine just as surely as if it were producing bullets or tanks or MREs; 3. therefore, an attack on any company of that scale is an attack on the country's economy, and thus an attack on that country. It's scary how easily this chain of reasoning comes to mind, and how few objections I can think of to it.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  It's an application of the Rice doctrine, which ties US economic supremecy into other aspects of international US dominance.
tormeh 11y ago
Does Verizon operate outside the US as well? If so, they probably meant "the finanancial security of this company in this nation"

derefr 11y ago

> "National Security" means "the financial health of Verizon" I think there's a chain of reasoning by which that can make sense, and which doesn't include cronyism: 1. National Security is dependent upon the "health" of the economy of the country; 2. therefore, any corporation providing a large-enough part of a nation's GDP is effectively part of its war engine just as surely as if it were producing bullets or tanks or MREs; 3. therefore, an attack on any company of that scale is an attack on the country's economy, and thus an attack on that country. It's scary how easily this chain of reasoning comes to mind, and how few objections I can think of to it.

rodgerd 11y ago
It's an application of the Rice doctrine, which ties US economic supremecy into other aspects of international US dominance.

tormeh 11y ago

Does Verizon operate outside the US as well? If so, they probably meant "the finanancial security of this company in this nation"