Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

Jacob Appelbaum jacob at appelbaum.net
Mon Jun 10 15:09:27 PDT 2013


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 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



More information about the liberationtech mailing list