Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Office of the Director of National Intelligence Statement (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, we're down to (15+ / 0-)

    "the evil government made a statement, it must be considered false."  How can we ever trust anyone who makes a statement contradicting what someone else says?  

    Did you catch the part where ZDNet said they were pulling the CNet story because it had been contradicted?

    I wonder how many statements it would take to at least make you question the original story.

    "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

    by anonevent on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 07:50:33 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder how many Church Comm.'s it would (14+ / 0-)

      take for you to -

      Gah. Too fucking much. Too fucking much.

      You used a statement from James Clapper - JAMES FUCKING CLAPPER - as evidence. I honestly am too fucking gobsmacked right now to go on.

    •  If you think a government statement can (7+ / 0-)

      be used to refute a story about government wrongdoing - why in the fuck are you on DKos?

    •  So a giant media corporation pulls a story (9+ / 0-)

      about massive spying by private corporations and big government - like smoking gun and 'let them eat cake' kind of stuff and it's a clear cut indication that the government is clean.

      Trust authority much?

      This is absolute authority kind of stuff - beyond the law, extrajudicial - that means face saving is institutional.

      We're on our way to pre-crime.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 08:05:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The DNI director says that Congress was NOT (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jaywillie, Fogiv, Quicklund, Deep Texan

        briefed in the way that Nadler had thought.  If Nadler disagrees, then Nadler can come forward and say otherwise.  I don't think that will happen though.

        But what's interesting is, we had the "Nadler walks it back" diary, and now the "Zdnet walks its own story back" diary, and some here STILL hold on to the original story as Gospel.  Why?  There's no evidence to that story since the closed door briefing was close doored, we don't know what Nadler heard, from whom he heard it, or whether Nadler properly understood whatever he heard from whomever it was, yet we're to hold that original story as ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and dismiss anything that contradicts it (by multiple, public, on the record sources) as lies and CT?

        •  Feinstein explained it: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, VeloDramatic, markthshark

          Dig up the quote, please, it came down very recently.

          The NSA is in fact recording all of the phone calls of every American.  Every analyst at the NSA can, in fact, listen to those phone calls.

          The analysts have been told not to do so without a warrant.  That is what Clapper means when he says that the NSA isn't listening to phone calls without a warrant.

          It's completely not reassuring.

          •  I saw the quote. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            I thought it was a misunderstanding on DiFi's part, since it would take an incredible amount of storage to record and store all cybertraffic.  That includes video calls by Skype and the like.  Recording and storing actual video would take a huge amount of storage.  But then I read the "Everything you don't want to know about the NSA & didn't ask" diary and it seems to indicate that everything is indeed being stored (it didn't say for how long, but it would have to be for a while in order for it to be useful).

            But you're take is along the lines of my own speculation, which was that in the Nadler closed brief testimony there may have been a misunderstanding between ability and authorization.  The CNET story, whose plug has now been pulled, seemed to convey that an NSA analyst, on his own accord, had, not just ability, but authorization to look at content without a court order.  And that take was what prompted multiple people to say that the FBI director, President, et al, were liars.  If the CNET story had stuck to the ability to look at content rather than suggesting authorization without court order, then the controversy would've been avoided.  But that also would have been a much less sensational story.  And not exactly new.  There were already stories that NSA recorded lots of data and stored it in encrypted form, and could only decrypt it to read it with a court order.

    •  ZDNet did NOT pull the CNet story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy
      Update at 2:50 p.m. ET on June 16: We're pulling the plug on this story — (for clarification: ZDNet's story, not CNET's) — following Rep. Nadler's latest comments casting doubt on CNET's story.
      The absofuckinglutely irritating aspect is that YOU just accepted the diarists edit without even clicking through -- and apparently so did others!

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 09:50:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site