Yeah, that's not right (your document discusses PRISM almost exclusively).

To quote from your document "when you claim something, you should be able to prove it". Can you prove "not under any program?" Of course you can't.

That's a bit mean (there's no way you can prove a negative). But it goes to show the level of sophistry and equivocation in your analysis.

I looked through the document and was thoroughly unimpressed. I don't think you're engaging with the material at the same level others are (e.g. metadata = surveillance & NSA has direct access to metadata -> NSA surveillance by modus ponens). Nor are you considering the vast body of documents, just some choice ones related to PRISM.

I would very much like to believe that somehow Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with the endorsement of The Guardian and everyone who followed merely read some diagrams wrong but after having read your document I can't convince myself of that, nor would it be consistent with other leaks, whistleblowing accounts, policy objectives, etc.

Good work though, I think it's important for people to actually look through the slides/material themselves. I think it's great you're doing that.

Can you prove "not under any program?" No, but the preponderance of evidence (the denials from all parties, the laws that make it illegal, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary despite the fact that the release of this evidence would be a bigger story than any of the leaks so far by a country mile) shows that it is not happening under any program. Yet you still believe it is happening because you chose to believe Greenwald's thoroughly debunked misinterpretation of PRISM.

Where are these "other leaks" that show this is happening? There aren't any. You bought Greenwald's lie hook, line, and sinker.

I think we've exhausted this branch of this topic, but I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss this further on other Snowden articles and I look forward to doing exactly that.

So you'll spout the exact same nonsense in another thread, I'll call you on it, you won't present any evidence for your nonsense, and suggest we do this again?

No, thanks. I'll pass.

If you have any evidence, present it now.

Uh, yeah how about NSA's access to TEMPORA.

Your post is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one with the belief that contradicts documents, leakers, whistleblowers, journalistic reporting, senatorial reports, US history, partner documents, and on.

Or if you need more direct links look through the other branches of this thread. Plenty of evidence, much of it directly from the Congressional oversight committee itself.

The nonsense comes from trying to reinterpret a small number of slides and to then broaden that interpretation to a expansive umbrella.

It is simply truly the case that the NSA and partnered agencies have broad access to sweeping untargetted collection of data.

Tempora has nothing to do with the companies giving the NSA access to their data. Try to stay on topic.

Shifting the burden of proof? You're the one claiming something illegal is going on without any evidence. I might as well call you a rapist and ask you to prove you aren't.