481–490 of 510 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. If Putin had better intel on Ukraine and the west (and the true state of his own armed forces) then he, most likely, would not have started the war.
Weird how the West knew exactly what Russia was going to do beforehand, yet couldn't stop it. All that intel couldn't help preventing a war apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
perhaps, perhaps not one thing is for sure, though: falsely portraying trust in expertise and science as, "blindly trusting institutions and their dogma" or "for people with a superiority complex, or those content with the status quo" , has been a trope of those same anti-science, anti-expertise politicians for even longer. As Asimov wrote: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been…
You may want to read what I wrote again. I did not "falsely portray trust in expertise and science" etc, not in any way; nor would I. It's rather aggressively wrong to attach such to my point (which you missed). You seem to have jumped from me saying that some put too much stock in dogma and institutions, to believing that this was an attempt to attack expertise and science. There was nothing in my comment, even impl…
You seem to have jumped from me criticizing those who do (particularly those who are anti-science and anti-expertise), to an accusation that you personally did so. There was nothing in my comment, even implicit, that would lead someone fair to this conclusion. If you aren't doing it, the criticism doesn't apply to you.
This assumptive leap typifies the persecution complex I'm talking about: emotional thinking which short-circuits reason, and harms genuine scientific thinking. Consider re-reading your own comment if you don't see that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the rejection of examples of what was requested is weak labeling the victims as "corrupt" is also weak saying 'ok you're right but maybe it's a good thing' is weak none of the arguments really seem great against the evidence presented. anything else?
What's the strongest evidence you have? The example provided isn't very compelling in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very social person is probably less likely to speak out against their peers because they have become friends with them and their power somewhat lies in those people liking them.
I also think it's part of their character to be agreeable, not just that they are friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no Ok, well a lot of people care about warrants. You can feel free to not care! But a lot of other people care about warrants. Therefore, it is good that this stuff was exposed, according to the people who care about warrants.
> Ok, well a lot of people care about warrants. Including me. > Therefore, it is good that this stuff was exposed, according to the people who care about warrants. Once again, no country in the world requires its intelligence agencies to get a warrant to surveil a foreigner outside its borders who has information relevant to national security. This is both legal and something we all expect, and we already knew this b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a naive view of cybersecurity.
What's a better and non-naive view? Bonus points if you can explain why it's impossible to develop and sell a link encryptor running OS software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the strongest evidence you have? The example provided isn't very compelling in my view.
What's the strongest argument you have against the evidence presented? Your personal convincing isn't really pertinent to the fact that the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak.
Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it.
What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the strongest argument you have against the evidence presented? Your personal convincing isn't really pertinent to the fact that the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak.
> the example given fits the request: someone killed as a result of an intel leak Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it. What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I…
but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak:
- whether you agree with the killing
- whether it is 2 or 2 million
- what their profession is
- whether they are civilians
- whether you personally think they're corrupt
- what you personally have a problem with
literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed"
QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the problem. You know they are speaking an essential truth when you look at the feathers ruffled by Snowden, Assange and those who follow in their path. They will get their due acclaim if we're lucky to have a more moral and free society in the future.
Snowden actually got a lot of support. I remember that even some high profile corporate executives expressed support... Though a cynical take on that would be that it was just to cover their own asses because they wanted to make themselves (and their companies/platforms) look like victims of government surveillance as opposed to facilitators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I repeat: > It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud. You’ll have to read most of it as well, the juicy parts and citations are towards the bottom. Bootlickers have the burden to prove data is not misused these days—not the other way around.
> It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud That well-sourced Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. Nowhere does it say the US government can access data on its own citizens from other Five Eyes countries. It says this: "So far, no court case has been brought against any US intelligence community member claiming that they went around US domestic law to have foreign countries spy on US citizens…
The page does mention the canadian case and european fallout (though that with conflicting language).
Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case.
- Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise?
- Of course warrants are rubber stamped.
- There’s no laws against using third party data.
- No one every gets in trouble… see Clapper lying to Congress on national TV. Oh, except the ones that speak up about the law.
They even have a technical term for it called “parallel construction.”
The important point is they get whatever they want without practical restraint. This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.