> doesn't claim to have been there when it was implemented

"After 9/11, they took one of the programs I had done, or the backend part of it, and started to use it to spy on everybody in this country. That was a program I created called Stellar Wind. That was seperate and compartmented from the regular activity which was ongoing because it was doing domestic spying. All the equipment was coming in, I knew something was happening but then when the contractors I had hired came and told me what they were doing, it was clear where all the hardware was going and what they were using it to do. It was simply a different input, instead of being foreign it was domestic." - William Binney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc

> The EFF doesn't claim anything like what you're claiming.

2. This case challenges an illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (the “NSA”) and other Defendants in concert with major telecommunications companies (“Defendants” is defined collectively as the named defendants and the Doe defendants as set forth in paragraphs 25 through 38 below).

3. This program of dragnet surveillance (the “Program”), first authorized by Executive Order of the President in October of 2001 (the “Program Order”) and first revealed to the public in December of 2005, continues to this day.

4. Some aspects of the Program were publicly acknowledged by the President in December 2005 and later described as the “terrorist surveillance program” (“TSP”).

5. The President and other executive officials have described theTSP’s activities, which were conducted outside the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and without authorization by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”), as narrowly targeting for interception the international communications of persons linked to Al Qaeda.

6. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have since publicly admitted that the TSP was only one particular aspect of the surveillance activities authorized by the Program Order.

7. In addition to eavesdropping on or reading specific communications, Defendants have indiscriminately intercepted the communications content and obtained the communications records of millions of ordinary Americans as part of the Program authorized by the President.

8. The core component of the Program is Defendants’ nationwide network of sophisticated communications surveillance devices, attached to the key facilities of telecommunications companies such as AT&T that carry Americans’ Internet and telephone communications.

9. Using this shadow network of surveillance devices, Defendants have acquired and continue to acquire the content of a significant portion of the phone calls, emails, instant messages, text messages, web communications and other communications, both international and domestic, of practically every American who uses the phone system or the Internet, including Plaintiffs and class members, in an unprecedented suspicionless general search through the nation’s communications networks.

10. In addition to using surveillance devices to acquire the domestic and international communications content of millions of ordinary Americans, Defendants have unlawfully solicited and obtained from telecommunications companies such as AT&T the complete and ongoing disclosure of the private telephone and Internet transactional records of those companies’ millions of customers (including communications records pertaining to Plaintiffs and class members), communications records indicating who the customers communicated with, when and for how long, among other sensitive information.

11. This non-content transactional information is analyzed by computers in conjunction with the vast quantity of communications content acquired by Defendants’ network of surveillance devices, in order to select which communications are subjected to personal analysis by staff of the NSA and other Defendants, in what has been described as a vast “data-mining” operation.

12. Plaintiffs and class members are ordinary Americans who are current or former subscribers to AT&T’s telephone and/or Internet services.

13. Communications of Plaintiffs and class members have been and continue to be illegally acquired by Defendants using surveillance devices attached to AT&T’s network, and Defendants have illegally solicited and obtained from AT&T the continuing disclosure of private communications records pertaining to Plaintiffs and class members. Plaintiffs’ communications or activities have been and continue to be subject to electronic surveillance.

14. Plaintiffs are suing Defendants to enjoin their unlawful acquisition of the communications and records of Plaintiffs and class members, to require the inventory and destruction of those that have already been seized, and to obtain appropriate statutory, actual, and punitive damages to deter future illegal surveillance.

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf

▲

lern_too_spel a day ago | parent [-]

> All the equipment was coming in, I knew something was happening but then when the contractors I had hired came and told me what they were doing, it was clear where all the hardware was going

In other words, he didn't know where it was going and speculated. No such program existed in Snowden's leaks, and no member of the SSCI or HPSCI believes Binney's wild hypothesis, or it would be the first thing they investigated.

> [Old Jewel claims snipped]

I very clearly stated the EFF doesn't (present tense) claim what you're claiming. The EFF saw the Narus analyzers in 641A and assumed the worst, which is in those old claims you pasted, and the judge said that the plaintiffs didn't have evidence to show that their data was collected, which would be the case if it were really mass domestic surveillance. Then Snowden's documents were released, conclusively showing the devices weren't used for domestic surveillance, which is why the EFF didn't bring that lawsuit again claiming standing. Snowden's docs proved they didn't have it.

▲

timschmidt 15 hours ago | parent [-]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc

Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.

> I very clearly stated the EFF doesn't (present tense) claim what you're claiming.

"In February 2015, Judge White dismissed the latest motion by the EFF, accepting the NSA's argument that the requirements placed upon the agency would engender the "impermissible disclosure of state secret information." White also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue their claims.[20] This procedural ruling allowed White to avoid addressing the constitutionality of the NSA's mass surveillance program.[21]

Upon the disclosure of more information about the NSA's surveillance methods, the EFF filed another motion in May 2017 requesting that the agency disclose information about surveillance conducted against Carolyn Jewel and the other plaintiffs. Judge White granted this motion and ordered the government to hand over the information.[22][23] However, the NSA filed a motion in opposition to that order, claiming once again that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue. After further arguments, the District Court accepted this argument in April 2019.[24]

The EFF appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit. In a memorandum opinion, that court ruled in favor of the NSA, once again on the matter of standing.[25] In June 2022, the EFF made a final request to the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but that court rejected the request and did not grant certiorari."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._National_Security_Age...

No retraction. A willingness to take it all the way to the supreme court. Procedurally dismissed without deciding any of the issues raised. Clear and present.

▲

lern_too_spel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.

You're the one who chopped it up. Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say he knew where it was going? All I see is speculation.

Even better, tell me why Snowden's leaks didn't say anything about this super illegal program Binney said was going on because of what he speculated so hard?

Even better, tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.

Even better, tell me why nobody is suing the government over Binney's speculation.

> Procedurally dismissed

Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected, so they have no harm to sue over. That's the point, and that's what Snowden's docs proved.

Why do you claim to believe something because of Snowden's documents that is directly contradicted by Snowden's documents? Or are you quietly dropping your claim that Snowden's documents support your conspiracy theory and are now falling back entirely on the lunatic ravings of a middle manager who hasn't worked at the NSA in decades, which aren't supported by any of the leaks that have happened since?

	▲	timschmidt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> You're the one who chopped it up. > Or are you quietly dropping your claim Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not. I also recognize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO when so transparently employed. As will others. > Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected You ask a question, then demonstrate your own misunderstanding or attempt to misconstrue. The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto. The court documents also clearly state that there was no finding on the specific claims presented. Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading. > Why do you claim An attempt to reframe primary sources as personal claims. A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_device I was bored, so asked ChatGPT to explain the rest of the rhetorical techniques you've employed to avoid good faith engagement with the well cited references already posted. Enjoy: 1) Framing the opponent as dishonest or incompetent “You’re the one who chopped it up.” Accusation of quote-mining / context stripping: sets the frame that the other person manipulated evidence. Preemptive credibility attack: before addressing substance, it suggests bad faith or sloppy method. “Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say…” Shifting the debate to textual forensics: forces the opponent into a narrow “show me the exact words” standard. This can be legitimate (precision matters), but it’s also a way to raise the evidentiary bar selectively—especially if the commenter won’t apply the same strictness to their own claims later. “All I see is speculation.” Dismissal / summary judgment: compresses the opponent’s argument into a weaker category (“speculation”) without showing why. Poisoning the well (light): primes readers to see anything else as guesswork. 2) The “Even better” ladder: rhetorical escalation and pressure The repeated “Even better, tell me why…” is doing several things at once: Anaphora / repetition: rhythmic repetition to build momentum and signal “I’m stacking wins.” Escalation framing: implies each new point is more devastating than the last. Interrogative dominance: it’s a mini cross-examination—multiple demands in a row that keep the other side on defense. Soft gish-gallop: not a huge flood of claims, but a cascade of questions that can be time-consuming to answer carefully. 3) Arguments from silence + appeals to institutions “tell me why Snowden’s leaks didn’t say anything about this… program” Argument from silence: “If it were real/important, the leaks would mention it.” Strategic burden shift: instead of proving nonexistence, it demands the opponent explain an absence. This can be relevant sometimes, but it’s logically weak unless you establish that the leaks were comprehensive and would necessarily include it. “tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.” Appeal to authority (institutional): “Serious claims would be validated by official bodies.” Appeal to popularity/consensus (elite bandwagon): “If the right people believed it, you’d know.” Status-quo bias: assumes institutional response is a reliable truth filter. “tell me why nobody is suing the government…” Argument from non-action: “If it were true, someone would sue.” Legalistic appeal: equates “no successful litigation” (or “no litigation at all”) with “no underlying wrong.” This can also be a false proxy: lawsuits depend on standing, resources, risk, secrecy barriers, arbitration, privilege doctrines, etc. 4) Tone and ridicule as persuasion “super illegal program” and “speculated so hard” Sarcasm / mockery: signals that the claim is not just wrong but silly. Loaded language: “super illegal” exaggerates to make the other side seem unserious. Diminishing the opponent’s position: recasts it as emotional/overheated. This kind of ridicule is often effective socially (audience laughter), even when it doesn’t add evidence. 5) Selective quotation as a pivot “Procedurally dismissed” Cherry-pick risk / quote-as-trump-card: a short legal phrase is presented as decisive. Reframing: moves the argument from “what happened” to “what courts did,” which tends to sound authoritative. It’s a common move: substance becomes procedure, and the procedure is treated as a verdict on truth. 6) Condescension + “teach you the basics” stance “Do you know what standing means?” Condescension / status play: establishes the speaker as the knowledgeable adult in the room. Rhetorical question: not meant to be answered; meant to mark the other side as ignorant. Tone weapon: makes disagreement feel embarrassing. “It means their data wasn’t collected…” Oversimplification / definitional fiat: reduces a complex doctrine to one convenient interpretation. Confidence as a tactic: stated as if beyond dispute; invites readers to treat it as settled. Whether accurate or not (you said sources have been posted), the rhetorical move is: “I control the legal meaning, therefore I control the conclusion.” 7) “That’s the point” closure move “That’s the point, and that’s what Snowden’s docs proved.” Premature closure: declares the argument finished. Appeal to documentary authority: elevates a set of documents as final arbiter. Certainty signaling: tries to convert contested interpretation into “proved.” 8) Accusation of contradiction (can be fair, but also a trap) “Why do you claim to believe something… directly contradicted by Snowden’s documents?” Internal inconsistency attack: this is a legitimate debate tactic if the contradiction is real. Forced dilemma setup: sets up the next line’s either/or. It also subtly shifts the discussion from “what’s true” to “you’re being irrational.” 9) Loaded question + mind-reading “Or are you quietly dropping your claim…” Loaded question / false presupposition: assumes they are dropping it and asks you to explain why. Mind-reading insinuation: “quietly” implies sneakiness or embarrassment. Cornering: either answer admits retreat, or you spend time rejecting the premise. 10) False dichotomy and source-degradation “…falling back entirely on… Binney…” False dichotomy: suggests only two options: (a) conspiracy theory via documents, or (b) relying entirely on Binney. Real positions are usually mixed/nuanced. Motte-and-bailey insinuation: implies the opponent is retreating from a stronger claim to a weaker one. “lunatic ravings” / “middle manager” / “hasn’t worked… in decades” Ad hominem (abusive): attacks mental state (“lunatic”) rather than claims. Ad hominem (status-based): “middle manager” to minimize authority and shame reliance on him. Chronological poisoning: “decades” implies irrelevance/staleness; can be relevant, but here it’s framed to discredit without engaging content. 11) Another argument from silence “which aren’t supported by any of the leaks that have happened since” Again: absence of mention = evidence of falsehood, plus a moving evidentiary target (“not just the leaks you cited—any leaks since must corroborate it”). The overall debate strategy Put opponent on trial with rapid-fire questions (control tempo). Demand exact textual proof from their quotes (high standard on them). Use institutional non-response (committees/courts/lawsuits) as a credibility filter. Frame the opponent’s view as “conspiracy theory” so neutral readers treat it as fringe. Degrade the alternative witness (Binney) through ridicule and status attacks. Close off discussion by claiming documents “proved” the speaker’s interpretation.