Multiple Subkey Pairs
martin-gnupg-users at dkyb.de
Tue Mar 18 20:12:57 CET 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 18.03.2014 19:34, schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> (1) Given how many flat wrong things get printed in the newspaper,
> believing this reporting may not be wise.
While this in general is true, I really wonder why you say that in the
current context. Especially an article where the main facts are backed
up by quotes of officials.
> (2) Let's assume it's true. The story only says it can record 100%
> of a foreign country's telephone calls for up to a month, not that
> it can store *all* telephone calls for an indefinite period of
> time. There's still a lot of targeting that has to go on here.
> Claims of worldwide surveillance are still overblown.
We were talking about mass surveillance on an internet-wide scale. Not
of a worldwide 100% surveillance.
> (3) The capability may exist, but the story never claims the system
> has been used. We've had nuclear weapons sitting idle in their
> silos for decades: this capability may be the information
> equivalent of a nuke in a silo.
"The voice interception program, called MYSTIC, began in 2009. Its
RETRO tool, short for “retrospective retrieval,” and related projects
reached full capacity against the first target nation in 2011.
Planning documents two years later anticipated similar operations
All quotes from .
> (4) Your "yes, they used that system," I simply can't believe, not
> without seeing supporting evidence.
See above. Read the article. If you don't believe them ask them for
their source material.
"At the request of U.S. officials, The Washington Post is withholding
details that could be used to identify the country where the system is
being employed or other countries where its use was envisioned."
> My uncle, a Korean War veteran, tells me that at one point during
> the war U.S. troops reported they were witnessing tactical nuclear
> strikes. It turned out this was just the 16-inch guns of the
> _U.S.S. Iowa_ battleship. Apparently, it's pretty easy to mistake
> a 16-inch shelling for a tactical nuclear strike. The relevance to
> our present situation is this: just as it was very easy for troops
> to see mind-blowingly huge explosions and to conclude the war had
> just gone nuclear, it is very easy for us to look at fragmentary
> and often-inaccurate news media reports and leap to conclusions
> about "that system must exist and it must be in use!"
I can't see how it is possible to compare a life threatening situation
of an combat situation under stress with reading and understanding a
newspaper report. But here are some more quotes from the article:
"A senior manager for the program compares it to a time machine"
"In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security
Council, declined to comment on “specific alleged intelligence
activities.” Speaking generally, she said “new or emerging threats”
are “often hidden within the large and complex system of modern global
communications, and the United States must consequently collect
signals intelligence in bulk in certain circumstances in order to
identify these threats.”"
> Be careful. Carefully separate out what you see from what cause
> you're ascribing to it. If you see X, I'm willing to accept that
> you see X. But so far you seem to be leaping towards "... therefore
> Y!", and there I think you're on much weaker ground.
Yes we were talking about logic and reason. And I told you why I
think, even without evidence my "therefore Y" is logically and reasonable.
> I never said we should not be aware of the possibility, nor have I
> ever said that such a thing cannot happen.
> I said that we should not treat it as fact, because facts are
> things which can be proven, and so far there's no proof here.
No what you said was this:
>> sorry again, if we are speaking about the YYY, only metadata if
>> recipient and sender are YYY citizens and if we believe what the
>> agency says.
> I cannot accept this assertion, as it is offered without either
> direct evidence or logically sound inferences.
And I argued why it is a logically sound inference.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users