Conversely, @Thomas_Drake1 @emptywheel, do you question @snowden contention that NONE of his leaked docs could possibly help a "baddy"?https://twitter.com/Thomas_Drake1/status/839462397031120896 …
-
-
.
@emptywheel@Thomas_Drake1 So you're willing to say NONE of@snowden's huge tranche, bulk or military, could have assisted real enemies? -
You 100% misread my tweet, Tim. Please go back and try again.
@Thomas_Drake1@Snowden -
.
@emptywheel@Thomas_Drake1 I read it very clearly, Marcy. I just asked a direct question. It deserves a response. -
You: "Do you question Snowden's contention" Me: "I disagree [w/Snowden, OBVIOUSLY], yeah."
@Thomas_Drake1 -
Rest of thread makes absolutely ZERO sense reading it as you have. But I get that's the gimmick here.
@Thomas_Drake1 -
.
@emptywheel Sorry, but there's no "gimmick" here. My question is crystal-clear. I don't believe@snowden & co's contention of zero harm. -
The "gimmick" is you continue to refuse to read the answer I gave you, bc you want to pretend I believe something I don't
@Snowden -
.
@emptywheel Wow. Ask a simple question, get a totally convoluted answer with personal attacks. I'm not impressed, Marcy. - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That said, when you're bulk surveilling, no distinction between baddies and not at collex.
@Thomas_Drake1@Snowden -
I'll also add: it is documented that Snowden's leaks made non-baddies who had been targeted aware of that
@Thomas_Drake1@Snowden
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hi what does the last sentence mean? (I'm not native English spkr) that harm proved or not?
-
I had an impression that until now no harm has happened due to his leaks. But maybe this=oppos
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.