> It doesn't.
> Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance
OK. Not only are you inconsistent but your arguments are based around ill-defined terminology. Goodbye now.
You are difficult to argue with because you continue to either misinterpret or warp my words. Goodbye now.
It appears that you finally agree both that PRISM isn't mass wiretapping and that AT&T and Verizon aren't being mass wiretapped. Good. You appear to have learned something even if you now claim to have known all along.
Stop fucking putting words in my mouth.
You've just got to get your last word in to frame the conversation in a way that doesn't give you cognitive dissonance, don't you? OK. Go ahead and have it. Claim I am saying whatever you want me to say.
This argument has been wholly destructive and not the least bit constructive, because you constantly derail it at every turn and put me in a position of defending the same thing over and over instead of covering new ground. This is a common tactic used by authoritarian and conservative types across the world and I don't have time to play ball.
Have fun, kid.
It doesn't. That's my point. How many more times are you going to show that you don't know what PRISM is while claiming that you do?
Also, surveillance is, by definition, close observation. Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance any more than having access to Google Maps satellite imagery without any other data sources to join to. More specifically, it isn't mass wiretapping, which as you recall was your original claim that you have yet to substantiate, instead pointing to this metadata program that I had earlier used to show you that no evidence exists for mass wiretapping of Americans.