General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe record/our memories indicate NSA and apologists, etc, have lied
I'm beginning to think that this question should have figured more prominently in the "debate" from the beginning.
It's really about the only time imo, that Saint Raygun's evil nine words "I'm from the gov, and I'm here to help!" has a real world application in terms of the inherent dubiousness of claims made by gov officials. It also dovetails with the notion that in this great debate between security v rights that the CiC no doubt gives the former greater weight to (in a "I was against it before I was for it kinda way" and therefore a motive for taking license with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Avoiding it certainly explains all of their focus on we racists, etc, and messengers like Snowden, GG, etc.
Imo gullibility (like a lotta other unflattering things) is something that rightwingers don't have a monopoly on, and this has been showcased throughout this debate, as have some of those other unflattering things.
Why believe anything the government says about the NSA?
8/8/2013 10:30am by Gaius Publius 74 Comments
. .At this point, why would you believe anything the State, or anyone fronting for it, tells you about NSA domestic spying? Even the gullible have to be non-virgins by now. Lets take a look.
Heres security expert Bruce Schneier on just this subject. He starts (my emphasis, including a few bullets and some reparagraphing throughout):
Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet
In July 2012, responding to allegations that the video-chat service Skype owned by Microsoft was changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, Corporate Vice President Mark Gillett took to the companys blog to deny it. Turns out that wasnt quite true.
Or at least he or the companys lawyers carefully crafted a statement that could be defended as true while completely deceiving the reader. You see, Skype wasnt changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, because the government was already able to eavesdrop on users.
And this is just the start of this great piece. Two things to note: http://americablog.com/2013/08/why-would-you-believe-anything-the-state-tells-you-about-nsa-spying.html
Or hell, given that "secrecy" is an intregal part of whole thing, isn't it an expectation that taking license with the truth is gonna be part of the effort to preserve it?
I do think so.
Hekate
(90,552 posts)with so many here, it's hard to "air" it all