WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed

[caseymoz]

105. That article is full of doublespeak.

Besides again, a lot of name calling against Greenwald, it depends on the semantical difference between the phrase "collected directly from servers" and "direct access" to servers. This wasn't the part of Greenwald's article where the fact was presented. This was the editorial side of it.

Then it also depends on the companies' own ambiguous "denials" about the program which could be read either way. Apple denying that they knew about PRISM? Given how secretive the NSA is known to be, Apple could have conformed with PRISM without ever being given the name. That much is certain.

One of the things he doesn't attack is the broad warrant the NSA obtained to gather this information, in violation of the 4th amendment. That's the fact Greenwald provided. Everything is just prevaricating, evasion and distraction.

And in case you missed the half-dozen times JDPriestley has put it up, here's the link to that court order:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

To bolster this weak rebuttal, Bob Cesca then engages in ad hominum attack through three fourths of the article. Take that away, and he hardly has a rebuttal, much less a refutation.

You want me to begin to break it down?

1st paragraph says the reporting was bad. Doesn't give details

2nd paragraph is an agreement in principle with limiting the government-- irrelevant.

3rd graph says the reporting was agenda driven. Doesn't give details.

4th graph quotes Greenwald about having a debate . . . leading to . . .

5th graph says bad reporting is not the way to start debate (Okay but why's the reporting bad? I'm waiting. Get to the point.)

6th graph says we an have a debate without misinformation (irrelevant. Why was Greenwald's reporting bad?)

7th graph he gives a general account of greenwald's article, with the phrases PRISM and "direct access" specified.

8th graph some idiot sarcasm about "heads exploding" that have nothing to do with Greenwald's reporting. (Which Cesca's so proud of, the repeats several more times.)

9th graph makes a rebuttal, finally, based on the meaning of "direct access" and the word "PRISM," and it uses Google as an example of the denials by companies. It doesn't say if Google was typical, and it doesn't try to reconcile the details of PRISM with Google's statement. Finally, though, he's gotten to a few facts.

10th graph Finally! Cesca mentions the warrant. He doesn't try to reconcile what the warrant says with the companies' denials. He does compare the court order to the companies denials, and says we should believe the companies' denials. Why? Then he mischaracterizes Greenwald's argument. "Regardless, it seems as if Greenwald’s entire story hinges on a semantic interpretation of the PRISM language." No no no! That's a deliberate distraction. It hinges on that warrant. And Cesca hasn't and can't explain that away.

11th graph another irrelevancy about people's response to the news.

12th graph He "refutes" the whistleblower Greenwald depended on for information about server access. This is the guy who designed PRISM; a guy faces prison for talking to the press. Cesca says because the companies deny there's any direct access to the server, why it must be true, and whistleblower must be full of shit. This does not rebut the court order, which seems to conform to the broad capabilities the whistleblower has said PRISM has.

13th & 14th graphs: Cesca say WaPo had all but backed off of their claim, and since it did, that stubborn, headstrong Greenwald should too. An ad hominum attack, pure and simple.

You know, it's getting late. I'll just tell you, the rest of this article continues in the vein. You think that it has disproved Greenwald's fact. Actually, no. It's a weak a rebuttal that's filled with hot air and ad hominum attacks just like the sort you yourself make against Greenwald. It's as bad as anything on Fox News, and like Fox, all it does is give you permission to hate on the Goldstein of the moment, while providing the weakest of rebuttals necessary. It definitely doesn't prove Greenwald's facts were wrong, it just gives enough ad hominum attacks to where you think Cesca must have done it. He didn't. And if you don't think so, what did Cesca say that convinces you Greenwald must be dead wrong?

Your source is so badly written. So many paragraphs I was thinking, "Come on. Get to the point!" It was all double plus duckspeaking.

Sorry. It says little more than your previous post on this branch said. And you said it in fewer words.

Really, are you going be guided by Fox-News-type tactics to bolster your support for Obama? I'm really getting tired of this. I'm about ready to leave the Democratic Underground and the Democratic Party. And I'm not the only one. I'm tired of eating sh*t about this.