5 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoYou find the legal reasoning behind an application that manages FISA court orders to be risible? Because that's what PRISM is.
- dmpk2k 11y agoI 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 agoSecond: 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 agoWhoops, 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.
- reagency 11y agoWell yeah, FISA is a legal farce.
- aminorex 11y agoAnd a social tragedy.