Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spammyusername 4166 days ago
> 2008

That's the wrong date. Again, it doesn't seem you know anything about the PCLOB. Basic information is on Wikipedia, if you ever look.

Do you have any point besides making endless discursive asides about how much you simultaneously believe and disbelieve the PCLOB? I'm starting to think conversing with you is a complete waste of time.
1 comments
csandreasen 4166 days ago
> Basic information is on Wikipedia, if you ever look.

First member was appointed in January 2008. Go reread it.

> Do you have any point besides making endless discursive asides ... I'm starting to think conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

My thoughts exactly - It's not worth my time conversing with someone whose argument is basically "No, you're wrong. You obviously don't know anything about the subject." It's been fun - I'm not going to waste any further time on this thread.

link
spammyusername 4165 days ago
You can't even get the most basic information correct. It's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Formed in 2004, first meeting in March 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Civil_Liberties_Ove...).

My point is that the government cannot be expected to competently judge itself. That is our task as citizens, if you want to use those reports as the basis of your ill-informed opinion, go ahead.

link
csandreasen 4165 days ago
... and you can't seem to follow through with your research - if you read past the first paragraph, you'll see that the 2004 PCLOB was completely disbanded by Congress and replaced with an entirely separate organization whose members were approved by Congress rather than appointed solely by the President. A cursory glance at their own website would tell you the same in more detail. Ironically, that was entire point I was making - people shouldn't assume take the first document they read on a given subject (or in this case, the first paragraph of the first document they read) and assume it's the complete story.

You'll note that I even "Draw what conclusion you may want from those numbers" in my original post. I offered those three reports because out of everything I've read on the subject, those were the most comprehensive. So far, you've offered a whole lot of ad hominem, a Wikipedia link and an argument that boils down to "it's a government agency, therefore corrupt and inept". If you're going to make a point, try backing it up with an actual argument and ditching the insults.

link