here are the paragraphs basing on that logical fallacy


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: steven 于 2013-06-28, 13:21:54:

回答: 作者说nsa是criminal并非基于你所说的逻辑谬误。从倒数第10段往下看。 由 允真 于 2013-06-28, 12:46:18:

引用:
Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contract employee and whistle-blower, has provided evidence that the government has phone record metadata on all Verizon customers, and probably on every American, going back seven years. This metadata is extremely revealing; investigators mining it might be able to infer whether we have an illness or an addiction, what our religious affiliations and political activities are, and so on.

引用:
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious.

Here is another fallacy: at least 51% means only 51%

引用:
The government knows that it regularly obtains Americans’ protected communications. The Washington Post reported that Prism is designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness” — as John Oliver of “The Daily Show” put it, “a coin flip plus 1 percent.” By turning a blind eye to the fact that 49-plus percent of the communications might be purely among Americans, the N.S.A. has intentionally acquired information it is not allowed to have, even under the terrifyingly broad auspices of the FISA Amendments Act.

Lawyers, man, they will twist logic to argue in their favor. It is waste of time for pointing it out. Btw, do not imply that I think her stand has no value to the society. More people concern about government policies is a good thing.




所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明