So in 7 years when a leaker finally leaks the documents that prove it ala Snowden, I wonder what thing we will be warning ya'll about that you will claim has "no evidence".
Look, as a fairly rational conspiracy theorist, I recognize the importance of evidence, but in cases like this, it's very unlikely unless a leak happens for you to ever get it, and hence instead of looking for deductive evidence you can never rely on getting, you have to use inductive logic instead, and the difference between the two logical methods (inductive/deductive) is an important distinction that isn't made enough.
Do we have hard evidence that KDC was spied on specifically? No. Do we have inductive reason to believe it's probable? Very much so.
What is the goal in discussing something if there is no proof? I just don't quite understand.
If there was evidence of such loopholes, people could demand change from their representatives. Without proof, I guess the only thing someone can do is repeat it in any IC-related thread on HN to get some easy karma points (Seens to work well!).
Don't care about the karma, what is the goal of defending those assholes from the NSA, there is loads of things being claimed about shit happening all over the world on HN that are pretty reasonable to discuss even without hard proof, but whenever it's something totally expected the NSA is obviously doing, there's always some patriot going "ah, but there's no proof". These bastards openly deny my right to privacy because I was born in the wrong country, I'm not forgetting that, they don't deserve a benefit of the doubt, nor have they ever shown to earn it. Where is the evidence of that?
Getting worked up about things which may not actually be true will waste necessary energy, so when actual proof arises of abuse, people would think nothing of it instead of being alarmed and demanding change.
Look, as a fairly rational conspiracy theorist, I recognize the importance of evidence, but in cases like this, it's very unlikely unless a leak happens for you to ever get it, and hence instead of looking for deductive evidence you can never rely on getting, you have to use inductive logic instead, and the difference between the two logical methods (inductive/deductive) is an important distinction that isn't made enough.
Do we have hard evidence that KDC was spied on specifically? No. Do we have inductive reason to believe it's probable? Very much so.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...