yeahyeah

Is describing someone as sociopathic really any different than saying that they have indications of sociopathic tendencies, though? If I describe someone as crepuscular based on when I see them active, it doesn't make them a short-eared owl.

Doctorow helpfully provided a hyperlink citation!

The only attack is a single phrase, referring to him as a "sociopathic billionaire". I don't think his status as a billionaire is questioned, so you must object to the use of the one word "sociopathic". Let's check the DSM-IV:

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture"

Not every single time! Apple acquisitions generally don't even acknowledge that they've been acquired, let alone what that means for anyone or anything.

We are all Satoshi

This nearly had me clicking, before I realized it didn't actually say 'car-poodling'

Man, how did you figure that out so fast!

And here I just figured folks would think it was a throwaway account that somebody used to avoid having paranoid internet trolls dig into their online presence. Seemed like such a good cover, too.

Brb gotta dictate a memo to psyops.

Well if it's on the US then they should have stopped when we asked nicely, right?

I definitely agree with the second part. It's always going to be a back and forth. As for non-US, well, I don't think we can claim a monopoly on espionage.

Fair enough - although with this set of revelations at least it's been credited at least to mail interdictions. I was responding in a limited matter to this project, this is an example of what I'm personally fine with them doing. Other people may very well have more trouble mentally compartmentalizing the broad range of activities that the NSA (and other digital espionage agencies within the US government) are up to. Many of which are clearly unconstitutional and should be (and appear to, in some cases) now being scaled back.

In any case, to answer the specific question, we can be pretty sure that our we're not infected with official US government 0day malware by the practical considerations - they go to pretty considerable lengths to keep the spread limited (per the reporting) because once Kaspersky or any other researcher gets their hands on it the utility of the toolsets goes away or becomes highly limited.

This is exactly what the NSA should be doing. Everyone (rightfully IMO) complains about overly broad data collection happening within the USA, but here (as with stuxnet) you have the exact opposite, a targeted foreign activity conducted with care and targeting. I know it's not for everyone (not least because not everyone is in the states, huh), and it could be considered a bad precedent, but it's not like Iran asked our permission before they launched their nuclear program, or other states are actually waiting on the US's example to have their own intelligence services do their jobs. If you hold that something like 9/11 should be prevented, and that (actual) WMD programs should be stalled, then it follows that this is a fine way to go about it.

I know, right. He should keep that kind of stuff on his personal blog.