Allegedly is an overused weasel word in today's news media. They'll show you a video of someone knifing someone else and then call them the alleged perp, or say they allegedly stabbed the victim. No, they did it, they stabbed them. They can still plead not guilty by reason of whatever, but the word allegedly isn't needed.
In this case, allegedly would be if this was hearsay, or rumor, or according to a source, but no, he is flatly stating it as a fact about himself, and is generally considered honest. If we want a qualifier, you can attribute the fact to him (GG says he has) but allegedly is too weak.
No, allegedly is a good word to used in criminal cases and reporting about them. Among other things, it helps to remind people that innocent until proven guilty remains the case (most of the time) in the United States, and that's a good thing.
Well, I was going to disagree with you, because "allegation" is actually an English word with concrete meaning, whether or not it fits your personal preference on language, but you really convinced me with that comprehensive list from the reputable NOOZHAWK, which is literally the result of "a quick Google search".
Did you even read that list? Those include actual proper uses of "allegation". If you actually look at the definition of "allegation", it is a claim of fact, which is the most you can say about charges that may be brought against a defendant pre-trial. Or are you not at all aware of judicial proceedings in which facts are shown later to be incorrect?
Speaking to awareness, I studied and worked in journalism and a lifetime close friend is a criminal defense attorney / public defender.
That English words have concrete meanings doesn't prevent misuse. On the contrary, specialty words with specialized meanings are misused most often by laymen. The misuse is just more recognizable when you're familiar with the area.
"Allegedly" is a word needed only by people unfamiliar with his body of work. He seemingly spends literally all day every day doing one thing: criticizing the US government's expansion of authoritarian power. Judging from the length and meticulous citation of every single one of his articles, his speaking tour history and the videos [1] of him speaking, you either have a truly honest person on your hands or you have a psychopathic method-actor super-human capable of feats never seen or at least recorded before.
So lets say, hypothetically speaking, that I know a whole lot about how prism works, and have some slides and what not and that I trust GG with them. Let's further suppose that I am unaffiliated with Facebook, unemployed by the USG, no clearance etc. Just Joe Coder the contractor who loves Freedom. Why can't I just send them to him, what do I care if the FBI knows since I'm not under an NDA or a govt employee?
The simple answer is that the US national security apparatus doesn't follow the law. They will harass you at borders, put you on 'terrorist' lists, and otherwise attempt to intimidate and sabotage you if you are perceived as a nuisance to them. It doesn't matter whether what you do is actually illegal.
Looks good on paper. Yes you can do whatever you want with it. But unfortunately you might find yourself on some black list. Be unable to fly. Your tax records might be meticulously inspected. Your workplace might be called and secret service might want to "chat" with your co-workers and bosses about you. FBI might visit you at home just to chat and take notes.
If anything the govt. has proven that it can fuck up someone's life if they really want to regardless of what the books say. Yes in the end you might even be exonerated but by then you have been laid off, divorced, financially drained from attorney fees, your health, time and nerves are shut.
1) They are being responsible and trying to redact stuff that could get people killed or seriously damage US interests
2) They don't have a smoking gun, and are afraid to release the rest, since it's much ado about nothing.
3) Variation of #2, except Greenwald is trying to forge some slides, editing the content to back up his original story. Just a few words changed in a PPT could make all the difference.
#1 Doesn't wash with me, because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests. He may care about being arrested by the US government, or having to live in a foreign embassy if he releases something that would enrage the spooks.
#2 Seems plausible. Let's say the full PRISM slide set is just as vague as the 5 slides shown so far and doesn't actually talk about technical implementation at the premises on participants. Then the whole affair becomes somewhat embarrassing given the bombastic overreaction. Leading to fears that they would be temped to hack the PRISM slides.
Lets hope #3 is barred because WashingtonPost has a separate copy.
>because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests
Why is this again? Have you read any of, or even heard of, his books or his articles?
Before you answer, be sure not to fall into the trap so common as to be a cliche for him [1] of accusing him of having no skin in the game. I've watched him be accused of that and the rest of the things listed there and he's used to it. It doesn't phase him, he'll go right on doing what he's doing and that sucks for them.
You're acting like this stuff isn't confirmed. Political leaders (both supporting and condemning) have come right out and said this stuff is genuine and even routine.
Your theories seem to start from the premise that Greenwald is anti-US and just wants to watch the world burn. Or is stupid enough to take the risk of forging documents that would prove the US President to be a liar about violating the constitutional rights of nearly every citizen. I find that starting point very dubious.
But what exactly has been "confirmed"? There are no details. What is being alleged is broad, unrestricted access by the NSA to all user account data, not specific targeted individuals. While the Verizon metadata case is disconcerting, there is legal precedent for pen register/trap-and-trace going back decades. It's on shaky legal footing, but not obscenely illegal.
On the other hand, blanket access to the email contents of every American on domestic soil, for the NSA to just go run a search on at any time, without a court order, would almost certainly be completely illegal.
It is very very doubtful this is going on. Tech companies responding to FISA requests and sending a mirror of an individual target's account data, that is totally unsurprising. We know they respond to such requests, they've never denied it, and so the way the data is delivered is really just an implementation detail.
What Greenwald is alleging flies in the face of 9 major tech companies full of thousands of engineers who tend to side with civil libertarians, and these companies are under threat of hack all the time and conduct extensive audits of who is accessing who's data internally. It's just unbelievable that the kind of access alleged is actually occurring with active knowledge.
So, whose's to say that these slides aren't being misinterpreted as to the actual details of the program, or that the source may have obtained a copy of the PPT, but is actually not privy to the actual implementation details of the compartmentalized information. Just because someone works at the NSA means they are privy to everything. For example, analysts in WW2 often dealt with intelligence reports from Ultra, unaware of what Ultra was or how they obtained information. I want to see a slide that says "NSA box installed in Datacenter 12, with credentials for direct access to datastore"
From my watching Greenwald on talk shows, he comes across to me as someone who oversteps the bounds of calm rational analysis, and ventures forth into media whorism. I'd rather just have the slides, I don't need him to trickle them out with his interpretation. Dump the slides and dump the transcripts and notes he took from his source. Let us judge and discuss.
Greenwald may be out of his depth in interpreting what the documents mean. But that's not the same thing as saying the story is completely bogus.
Lately it's emerging that the Guardian released their story pretty soon after Snowden contacted them. I had assumed this was the kind of story that they would slowly confirm over months, but maybe not.
I agree that whatever our judgments of the character of the people involved, it would be better to have the data.
I found another tweet by Glenn saying that we won't see the full redacted presentation because "it contains very specific technical NSA means for collection - we'd probably be prosecuted if we did."
I also found another tweet by him that says (in reply to someone) " There are all sorts of secrets I have I'm not publishing - it's public interest v. harm analysis at the heart of journalism."
I hope he's making a good judgement call on not releasing the technical information. A lot of people are already writing this presentation off as fake and meaningless.
Right, so now there's no way to verify his claims. Accuse the Tech companies of not being truthful when they say that don't allow the NSA arbitrary access, but then offer no details that would actually substantiate the interpretation you made of the slides. How very convenient.
And how would divulging the NSA's program not harm their collection, but divulging the details would? If I'm the Germans and using Enigma, knowing that it was cracked, but not how it was cracked, would still get me to change my behavior.
If I'm Bin Laden, I don't have to know the technical details of how my satellite phone was tracked, just that they were doing it.
The harm has already been done, and now the harm to these tech companies is being continued with daily innuendo and no hard evidence. How much longer can this go on? Can the Guardian just keep going on for months making allegations without hard evidence?
He is doing the only smart thing to do and that is milking the story. We always complain that people are not paying enough attention to privacy and he is trying to assure that the story stays in the news for a while.
If he can come up with 1-2 further "big facts" (e.g. clearly demonstrating that ale the Tech CEOs have been lying about their involvement) this story gets much more attention than just dumping it all on one day.
I'm hoping for indisputable proof of misuse, such as eavesdropping on politicians, activists, judges and corporate espionage. It needs to be something so damning, that no one, not even the most diehard supporters, can legitimately defend the program any longer.
27 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 67.7 ms ] threadIn this case, allegedly would be if this was hearsay, or rumor, or according to a source, but no, he is flatly stating it as a fact about himself, and is generally considered honest. If we want a qualifier, you can attribute the fact to him (GG says he has) but allegedly is too weak.
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121512_harris_sherline_most_...;
http://www.examiner.com/article/ban-this-word-allegedly
Did you even read that list? Those include actual proper uses of "allegation". If you actually look at the definition of "allegation", it is a claim of fact, which is the most you can say about charges that may be brought against a defendant pre-trial. Or are you not at all aware of judicial proceedings in which facts are shown later to be incorrect?
That English words have concrete meanings doesn't prevent misuse. On the contrary, specialty words with specialized meanings are misused most often by laymen. The misuse is just more recognizable when you're familiar with the area.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj7SmjSsGw
If anything the govt. has proven that it can fuck up someone's life if they really want to regardless of what the books say. Yes in the end you might even be exonerated but by then you have been laid off, divorced, financially drained from attorney fees, your health, time and nerves are shut.
For example, they could hassle everyone you've talked to on your Verizon phone.
1) They are being responsible and trying to redact stuff that could get people killed or seriously damage US interests
2) They don't have a smoking gun, and are afraid to release the rest, since it's much ado about nothing.
3) Variation of #2, except Greenwald is trying to forge some slides, editing the content to back up his original story. Just a few words changed in a PPT could make all the difference.
#1 Doesn't wash with me, because I don't think Greenwald cares about protecting US interests. He may care about being arrested by the US government, or having to live in a foreign embassy if he releases something that would enrage the spooks.
#2 Seems plausible. Let's say the full PRISM slide set is just as vague as the 5 slides shown so far and doesn't actually talk about technical implementation at the premises on participants. Then the whole affair becomes somewhat embarrassing given the bombastic overreaction. Leading to fears that they would be temped to hack the PRISM slides.
Lets hope #3 is barred because WashingtonPost has a separate copy.
Why is this again? Have you read any of, or even heard of, his books or his articles?
Before you answer, be sure not to fall into the trap so common as to be a cliche for him [1] of accusing him of having no skin in the game. I've watched him be accused of that and the rest of the things listed there and he's used to it. It doesn't phase him, he'll go right on doing what he's doing and that sucks for them.
[1] http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-li... item five
Your theories seem to start from the premise that Greenwald is anti-US and just wants to watch the world burn. Or is stupid enough to take the risk of forging documents that would prove the US President to be a liar about violating the constitutional rights of nearly every citizen. I find that starting point very dubious.
On the other hand, blanket access to the email contents of every American on domestic soil, for the NSA to just go run a search on at any time, without a court order, would almost certainly be completely illegal.
It is very very doubtful this is going on. Tech companies responding to FISA requests and sending a mirror of an individual target's account data, that is totally unsurprising. We know they respond to such requests, they've never denied it, and so the way the data is delivered is really just an implementation detail.
What Greenwald is alleging flies in the face of 9 major tech companies full of thousands of engineers who tend to side with civil libertarians, and these companies are under threat of hack all the time and conduct extensive audits of who is accessing who's data internally. It's just unbelievable that the kind of access alleged is actually occurring with active knowledge.
So, whose's to say that these slides aren't being misinterpreted as to the actual details of the program, or that the source may have obtained a copy of the PPT, but is actually not privy to the actual implementation details of the compartmentalized information. Just because someone works at the NSA means they are privy to everything. For example, analysts in WW2 often dealt with intelligence reports from Ultra, unaware of what Ultra was or how they obtained information. I want to see a slide that says "NSA box installed in Datacenter 12, with credentials for direct access to datastore"
From my watching Greenwald on talk shows, he comes across to me as someone who oversteps the bounds of calm rational analysis, and ventures forth into media whorism. I'd rather just have the slides, I don't need him to trickle them out with his interpretation. Dump the slides and dump the transcripts and notes he took from his source. Let us judge and discuss.
Lately it's emerging that the Guardian released their story pretty soon after Snowden contacted them. I had assumed this was the kind of story that they would slowly confirm over months, but maybe not.
I agree that whatever our judgments of the character of the people involved, it would be better to have the data.
But even then, he probably cares about people being killed.
I also found another tweet by him that says (in reply to someone) " There are all sorts of secrets I have I'm not publishing - it's public interest v. harm analysis at the heart of journalism."
[1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343454484917280770?p=v
[2] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343453682387542016?p=v
I hope he's making a good judgement call on not releasing the technical information. A lot of people are already writing this presentation off as fake and meaningless.
And how would divulging the NSA's program not harm their collection, but divulging the details would? If I'm the Germans and using Enigma, knowing that it was cracked, but not how it was cracked, would still get me to change my behavior.
If I'm Bin Laden, I don't have to know the technical details of how my satellite phone was tracked, just that they were doing it.
The harm has already been done, and now the harm to these tech companies is being continued with daily innuendo and no hard evidence. How much longer can this go on? Can the Guardian just keep going on for months making allegations without hard evidence?
If he can come up with 1-2 further "big facts" (e.g. clearly demonstrating that ale the Tech CEOs have been lying about their involvement) this story gets much more attention than just dumping it all on one day.