Comment by lern_too_spel

> Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not.

I based my claim that all he had was speculation on exactly the quote you gave. Nowhere in that quote does he say that he saw the devices set up to spy on Americans. Instead, he assumes it. He assumes something that directly contradicts the documents that Snowden released specifically about Stellar Wind. https://www.theguardian.com/nsa-inspector-general-report-doc...

You claim that I've chopped up a quote in order to come to my conclusion, but you're the one who gave that chopped up quote my conclusion is based on to begin with.

> 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

Utter nonsense. The government wouldn't say specifically how they selected foreign data in the initial Pearl case. Afterwards, Snowden's leaks showed that they only contained foreign data.

> Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.

You're the one making conspiracy theories out of whole cloth. Instead of trying to use ChatGPT to dismiss my claims, why don't you spend your time looking at what Snowden's docs actually claimed like a reasonable person who doesn't wear tin foil hats?

Let's get back to the original comment I responded to. Do they have access to anybody's FAANG data or not? Snowden's docs say they do not. Nothing Binney said disagrees with that, even if his wild assumption is correct.