On 2013-06-10, at 6:09 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <ja...@appelbaum.net> wrote:
> x z: >> @Jacob, I agree with your points regarding American exceptionalism. >> @Eugen, to prepare for the worst scenario is one thing, to advocate some >> shady rumor as fact is another. >> @Rich, those are good movie scripts :-). But it does not work for 9 firms, >> and hundreds of execs all with diverse values and objectives. >> @Nadim, when you say "we all always 'knew' this was happening", I don't >> know what "this" refers to. Is it NSA surveillance, or is it the "direct >> access" bit? >> >> To me, the crucial point is the "*direct access*", and also Guardian's >> claim of these firms "willingly participating" in PRISM. I argued that >> "direct access" is untrue in my previous email, but none of your replies >> (except Rich's) are relevant to my arguments. > > What would you call a FISA API for government agents to query a system > and return data on a target? Would you call that direct access or an > indirect access? If Google runs the FISA API server, does that make it > more or less direct than if the FISA API server is a blackbox run by the > NSA? > >> >> The "direct access" bit is what made this story sensational. Without this >> bit, the story would be much less juicy but more true. In the long run, >> truth gives more power than lies. Washington Post has backed down to >> reality, for which I applaud their judgment. Guardian has not, and keeps on >> defending their misinformation and bad reporting, for which I resent deeply. >> > > You don't know the truth and you seem to think you do. The story that is > important is that Google makes one claim, while the NSA slide makes > another. Note that the law doesn't allow Google to even tell the press > the whole truth. > >> If Snowden and Greenwald do not mislead the world on 'direct access" and >> just report it rationally, I'd applaud their courage. Now I think Snowden >> is not more than a self-aggrandizing douche. >> > > I'm sorry, did you watch his video interview? On what grounds to you > call him a self-aggrandizing douche exactly? I can't believe I was actually feeling bad for this guy yesterday. Dismissing one of the greatest whistleblowers of century as a "self-aggrandizing douche" is just beyond words. Maybe we're being trolled. NK > >> I hope internet freedom can advance with accurate awareness, not by public >> paranoia. > > You take issue with a very weird semantic bit of the larger story. How > does such semantic nitpicking, where you don't actually even know the > facts behind your speculations, help advance any cause, anywhere? > > All the best, > Jacob > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
