Your credibility has everything to do with the way you continually trivialize this story and attempt to discredit anyone who accuses the government of wrong-doing. But if I got them wrong, what are your motives for defending warrantless surveillance?
Here you continue to push the same line of argument which has nothing to do with the question I asked, or even in challenging the validity of the question itself, in attempt to personalize the issue instead of discussing it. No major media outlet is taking my credibility into account before making editorial decisions.
Thomas has regularly made meaningful & insightful contributions to the hacker news community.
I don't know what your vendetta is against him, but please- take ad-hominem attacks back to reddit. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I do find his perspective more interesting then your attacks.
Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not yet expressed this opinion and I do not see why he cannot unless he disagrees with it.
We should be able to interrogate news stories without requiring everyone on the thread to declare their biases; in fact, overtly avoiding those declarations seems like good "thread discipline" to me. Are we talking about the facts and issues that follow from the facts, or are we echoing our biases off each other?
I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.
