Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald's Old Game (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well tell us what we are to believe it means then. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patate, Argyrios, Tony Situ, Sylv

    Reasonable people can certainly see that the original story was not entirely true and that key points that caused great anxiety have now gone away.

    When they have to change key details, or describe them in a different way, they are most certainly walking back away from their original presentation.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:13:41 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The key points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, deep info

      have not gone away.

      That some people think this was the key point speaks to thier ignorance, and that goes for those outraged and those saying "no big whup."

      •  Again, what the key points are is up to the reader (6+ / 0-)

        Some believe the direct access is a very big deal and changing that detail changes the source of their particular problem with this program.

        The sooner people understand that the sooner we might be able to move on to discuss what is really important and that was diaried yesterday on the FP.

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:54:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you think it is a "very big deal?" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          Is that the key to the story in your mind?

          •  I've read your posts in this thread, and still (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sylv, Moravan

            don't know what your point is.

            OK, you say that the fact that the "direct server access" claim has now been debunked is no big deal because the "direct server access" claim wasn't a big deal in Greenwald's story (I disagree with your assessment; that sensationalistic claim was shouted all over the place).

            OK, but you also seem resistant to having the actual truth of the matter reported.  If you really want to discuss whatever you think IS the main issue, then what's the harm on having the tech issues reported accurately rather than in a false sensationalistic manner?  Perhaps you're annoyed because without the sensationalistic claim of "direct server access", lots of the emotional underpinnings of the original outrage are now undermined, so people won't care as much about whatever you think was the real issue.

            We could have been saved this trouble had Greenwald reported his story straight, rather than reporting it in a way so as to intentionally leave the impression that NSA had direct access to tech company's main servers.

            The fact is that NSA doesn't have direct access to the tech companies' main servers, can't directly access anyone's email whenever they want, can't "watch your thoughts as they form".  All they can do is access data requested in FISA court orders, orders that the tech companies comply with by placing the requested data on servers that are segregated from the main servers.  You may not think that that changes the entire emotional feel of the story, but for most people there's a big difference between NSA having direct access to everyone's accounts, email, cloud stored files, etc; and NSA merely accessing special purpose servers where the tech companies placed of FISA court requested info.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site