Thanks for letting me know about parallel construction - I hadn't heard of it.
You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught.
You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught.
They painted fascism with an American flag, and you ran it up the pole.
In a way its' embarrassing for the NSA to get a defence that is written by such a rube. But at the same time, the general public doesn't seem to be concerned, so perhaps it was unnecessary in the first place.
I could be wrong, but I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in your statement. I think you are slowly coming to realize that your actions were wrong; that you do need to defend them. The bad news is that you you fucked up, and you owe the Americans you pretend to care about an apology.
I think it is reasonable to say that he is slightly more informed to speak on these issues than a secretary.
It's really not surprising he hasn't heard of parallel reconstruction, considering:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200
Also, there's no need to be so hostile. It's simply his point of view, and by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture.
To quote the very post of his that you're replying to:
"You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught."
He's hardly saying nothing bad ever happened, or that all abuses are known for that matter.
How is that different from "he lacks credibility" ?
His character is secondary to his veracity.
> His claims can have limited scope and still be credible.
His claims were about the NSA. That is the scope over which we all agree he is not a credible source on.
He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison).
I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.
You should have heard of it. It was brought up the last time you posted your blog post to HN:
Quiz, where did the FISA court come from?
Seriously? Have you - as far as the NSA's activities goes - been living under a rock?
... oh.