6 ms·

You make a good point regarding Russia, although I think we both know that the US's record regarding covert operations and legality has been spotty.

by dmpk2k 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago
Then it should be especially easy to cite a source wherein the US sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience. Because that is what this story says is happening in Russia. So much so that when Adrian Chen went to Russia to interview people, the Russian propaganda factory set up him with an interview with a neo-Nazi and then ran stories about Chen's neo-Nazi sympathies. Think about that: a Russian news outlet had a neo-Nazi on the payroll to set Chen up with.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
  I'm 100% sure that the Nazi is on the payroll of FSB, and the news outlet is also one of their establishments. This kind of a set up is totally their style.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I think about how conditioned to nonsense the Russian society must be for it to seem credible to anyone that an NYT reporter traveled to Russia to network with neo-Nazis. It's a spooky thing to consider.
    - fit2rule 11y ago
      It is perhaps scary to consider, but a lot of the non-Western world consider the USA to be a land of fascists and nazi's, alas. And there is much that can said about just how "true" this observation may be ..
    - reagency 11y ago
      Or for it to seem credible that Iraqis had WMDs and hijacked planes to crash the WTC.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        What would be a convincing argument for people who don't believe 9/11 is a US government conspiracy? Edited for clarity.
    - Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
      Well, it is. Or maybe not only that; there's a strong culture of saying the right thing even if you're not that convinced :( But most people will believe it. It's very sad.
- dmpk2k 11y ago
  You misunderstood what I wrote. The statement that the US has a spotty record with the legality of its covert operations does not logically imply that the US has "sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience". I was pointing out that just because something is illegal in the US won't stop the government if it's so inclined. They'll either find some dubious legal justification (see how the Authorization to Use Military Force has been interpreted), or just do it anyway (I find the legal reasoning supporting PRISM beyond specious; it's risible). I thought my posts were pretty clear? I think you're mixing me up with the arguments of other posters.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    You find the legal reasoning behind an application that manages FISA court orders to be risible? Because that's what PRISM is.
    - dmpk2k 11y ago
      I have no idea what you're referring to. I mean PRISM, the surveillance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) (unless that's what you mean by "manages FISA court orders", in which case... I'm somewhat establishment militarist, but wow)
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Second: I believe PRISM is what I said it was: a computer system that manages FISA 702 warrants. The link you cite actually backs me up on that. The specific issue of which NSA program is named "PRISM" and which other one isn't isn't especially important, except to the extent that when asked for evidence for an extraordinary claim, you produced evidence for a different claim, and that evidence doesn't even appear to be accurate.
        dmpk2k 11y ago
        Whoops, it seems I edited my post from out from under you; sorry. You also have my apologies for the earlier good-faith comment. Sadly, I don't have the hours necessary to debate this, because that's where this is going (legal analysis is something you research and write over days, not on HN), and wasn't even my point (aka, I like keeping my arguments limited in scope, not some meandering train wreck). We'll have to agree to disagree.

You make a good point regarding Russia, although I think we both know that the US's record regarding covert operations and legality has been spotty.

by dmpk2k 11y ago

You make a good point regarding Russia, although I think we both know that the US's record regarding covert operations and legality has been spotty.

tptacek 11y ago

Then it should be especially easy to cite a source wherein the US sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience. Because that is what this story says is happening in Russia. So much so that when Adrian Chen went to Russia to interview people, the Russian propaganda factory set up him with an interview with a neo-Nazi and then ran stories about Chen's neo-Nazi sympathies. Think about that: a Russian news outlet had a neo-Nazi on the payroll to set Chen up with.

Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
I'm 100% sure that the Nazi is on the payroll of FSB, and the news outlet is also one of their establishments. This kind of a set up is totally their style.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I think about how conditioned to nonsense the Russian society must be for it to seem credible to anyone that an NYT reporter traveled to Russia to network with neo-Nazis. It's a spooky thing to consider.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    It is perhaps scary to consider, but a lot of the non-Western world consider the USA to be a land of fascists and nazi's, alas. And there is much that can said about just how "true" this observation may be ..
  - reagency 11y ago
    Or for it to seem credible that Iraqis had WMDs and hijacked planes to crash the WTC.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      What would be a convincing argument for people who don't believe 9/11 is a US government conspiracy? Edited for clarity.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
    Well, it is. Or maybe not only that; there's a strong culture of saying the right thing even if you're not that convinced :( But most people will believe it. It's very sad.
dmpk2k 11y ago
You misunderstood what I wrote. The statement that the US has a spotty record with the legality of its covert operations does not logically imply that the US has "sponsored a propaganda outfit that made up fake people who invited events out of whole cloth and posted them to sites for a US audience". I was pointing out that just because something is illegal in the US won't stop the government if it's so inclined. They'll either find some dubious legal justification (see how the Authorization to Use Military Force has been interpreted), or just do it anyway (I find the legal reasoning supporting PRISM beyond specious; it's risible). I thought my posts were pretty clear? I think you're mixing me up with the arguments of other posters.
- tptacek 11y ago
  You find the legal reasoning behind an application that manages FISA court orders to be risible? Because that's what PRISM is.
  - dmpk2k 11y ago
    I have no idea what you're referring to. I mean PRISM, the surveillance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) (unless that's what you mean by "manages FISA court orders", in which case... I'm somewhat establishment militarist, but wow)
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Second: I believe PRISM is what I said it was: a computer system that manages FISA 702 warrants. The link you cite actually backs me up on that. The specific issue of which NSA program is named "PRISM" and which other one isn't isn't especially important, except to the extent that when asked for evidence for an extraordinary claim, you produced evidence for a different claim, and that evidence doesn't even appear to be accurate.
      - dmpk2k 11y ago
        Whoops, it seems I edited my post from out from under you; sorry. You also have my apologies for the earlier good-faith comment. Sadly, I don't have the hours necessary to debate this, because that's where this is going (legal analysis is something you research and write over days, not on HN), and wasn't even my point (aka, I like keeping my arguments limited in scope, not some meandering train wreck). We'll have to agree to disagree.