Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#71

Post by saraid216 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #70
saraid216 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the answer is yes, > Acknowledgement that it has collected the communications records of American lawmakers and other officials is likely to make it harder for the NSA to argue that it needs such broad collection powers to defend against terrorism. If the answer is no, > The letter’s authors include surveillance skeptics like Sensenbrenner as well as those who voted against an earlier curtailment of NSA authoritie…

You are saying that an answer of "no" is just not credible. I agree with that.

That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#72

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

saraid216 wrote: post #71
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying that an answer of "no" is just not credible. I agree with that.

That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.

> I'm saying that getting a lie on record

But you are certain that it would be a lie? Then it is implicit in this that the "no" is not credible. You're not being very clear.

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#73

Post by saraid216 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #72
saraid216 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying that getting a lie on record is valuable because it makes it more likely that desirable consequences will occur.

> I'm saying that getting a lie on record But you are certain that it would be a lie? Then it is implicit in this that the "no" is not credible. You're not being very clear.

What would you like me to clarify?

If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#74

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

saraid216 wrote: post #73
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm saying that getting a lie on record But you are certain that it would be a lie? Then it is implicit in this that the "no" is not credible. You're not being very clear.

What would you like me to clarify? If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?

> The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position.

That's clearer, thanks, though a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful unless it has consequences. It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes.

The link to "denial and lie on record" to positive consequences is a tenuous one. The consequences of "truthful denial on record" are that the status quo of widespread scepticism continues, i.e. no new consequences.

> Is this really so challenging to grasp?

it is not useful for you to get upset and offensive when you aren't being understood. It would be useful for you to be clearer.

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#75

Post by coldtea »

gizmo686 wrote: post #55
coldtea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which means Obama may effectively be a puppet Effectively? Nobody gets the backing of a major party for his nomination, donations, etc, without being thorougly screened and vetoed that they'll "do the right thing" to continue supporting several interests (partisan, financial, political, etc). It's not like parties do all this gerrymandering and political games to then allow some loose canon President to realy chang…

The difference is that when the puppetmasters are two political parties in competition to each other, they have adapt their positions to popular opinion or else their puppets loose power and become worthless. When the puppetmasters are the NSA, then they do not need to adapt their posistions, because regardless of the election, they still have puppets.

>The difference is that when the puppetmasters are two political parties in competition to each other, they have adapt their positions to popular opinion or else their puppets loose power and become worthless.

Or you know, they can shape popular opinion to only care about secondary issues (which politician said what on TV, Obama's birth certificate, the debt ceiling, gay marriage, tax cuts, Hilary vs Palin, etc) which the parties pretend to fight out on, while agreeing on all important issues or slightly skewing from the same general direction on them...

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#76

Post by saraid216 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #74
saraid216 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you like me to clarify? If the no is true, then there isn't actually an issue. The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. Is this really so challenging to grasp?

> The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. That's clearer, thanks, though a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful unless it has consequences. It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes. The link to "denial and lie on record" to positive consequences is a tenuous one. Th…

> a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful

This is how contracts work. This is how courts work. This is what people mean when they say, "Get it in writing." This is why we force confrontations. This is what Sun Tzu meant by picking your battleground. This is an essential utility that pervades the entirety of history and daily life.

> It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes.

I enumerated the possible outcomes when you asked how it would be useful.

It is not terribly surprising that utility is explained by listing the ways in which it is used.

> it is not useful for you to get upset and offensive when you aren't being understood. It would be useful for you to be clearer.

Honestly, I am having a hard time deciding whether or not you're a troll. That I'm responding at all is giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've discussed challenging concepts on here before, and I recognize when I'm being unclear or when I have an inadequate grasp on the subject to give a clear answer. That is not the case here. This is not a challenging concept. It is a core part of social interactions for anyone who has access to HN.

Re: Senator presses NSA to reveal whether it spies on members of Congress

#77

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

saraid216 wrote: post #76
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point of such a request is to have someone give a public statement committing themselves to a position. That's clearer, thanks, though a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful unless it has consequences. It seems that you can only state the usefulness by enumerating the possible outcomes. The link to "denial and lie on record" to positive consequences is a tenuous one. Th…

> a "public statement committing themselves to a position" is not in itself useful This is how contracts work. This is how courts work. This is what people mean when they say, "Get it in writing." This is why we force confrontations. This is what Sun Tzu meant by picking your battleground. This is an essential utility that pervades the entirety of history and daily life. > It seems that you can only state the usefuln…

> This is how contracts work. This is how courts work. This is what people mean when they say, "Get it in writing." This is why we force confrontations.

And yet it doesn't work if you're James Clapper and can lie to congress without fear of consequence. This is why it's worth asking if there would in fact be consequences in this case.

Post reply on HN