i'm not splitting hairs, I'm asking questions that anyone should ask and they are legitimate questions - questions that should be put to Snowden and Greenwald since they are the only ones that seems to actually have the evidence and what they have produced so far (about NZ gathering data) is weak.

As I said to Paul, its not the converted that need to be convinced. Its the hoards out there that are not buying it, and for them it doesn't make sense, doesn't appear concrete, and feels like hearsay.

I will go back and look at this 2008 presentation, thanks for this link. I can't comment on it because I don't know this slide but will check it out.

"Communications of NZers"..not communications collected by NZ...there is a big difference....this info could have been collected by other systems and collected about NZers in or outside of NZ.

The dots are not yet joined....

Well it is a thing in that Key can say that the system isn't, or wasn't, wired in. Which, if I understand it correctly, is what he is saying. So we have nothing else to hang him with.

Without some more facts and stronger evidence I think the convinced will remain convinced. Don't think the rest of them will buy it tho and I think they are the ones we need to reach....

Paul, knowing that NZ is part of 5 eyes says nothing about its capacity and what it is doing - that is exactly why we need the documents and evidence. Snowden says there is a button. Great. A button. If someone had asked (and I hope one of you Journos has the chance to ask him!) 'did you conduct a search and gather results that you know came from NZs own systems' ..plus a follow up 'how do you know it came from NZ?'- and he says gives a credible detailed answer, then we are somewhere. But he hasn't done that. He has said there is a button. We need more than this.

I hope someone asks those questions. Else it all seems rather empty to me.

Alternatively, if Key caves in without more evidence than 'Snowden says there is a button' then great. Because that would simultaneously get rid of him and prove that hes dumber than we think.

So you are willing as a journo to accept that because Snowden says there is a checkbox therefore NZ is hooked into the system? I think you need to dig down deeper into that Russell. Its an extremely weak premise for such a conclusion. You know software - you know that having a checkbox on an interface is meaningless. and says nothing about what is behind the software. If Snowden had docs to show that NZ data was present in the system - then fine. But he doesnt. He just has the check box. It is not enough.

As for trusting Snowden on his word. I believe there is a button. I see no evidence beyond that for anything.

yes, but the fact that there is a button does not mean there is anything behind that button. The fact (Snowdens word) that there is a checkbox does nothing to establish what, if anything, that checkbox does. It certainly does nothing to prove that there is an entire infrastructure in NZ that feeds the 5 eyes with massive meta data. Such a claim is ridiculous but more worrying to me is that Snowden knows software intimately. He practically lives in software. He absolutely knows that this is an *extremely* weak argument but still he uses it. Why doesn't he use something stronger? It makes me worried.

So, I'm generally a fan of what Snowden and Greenwald are doing but I found last night a little worrying. There are a couple of issues that irk me:
1. the repeated claim that we should 'just believe what Snowden says' just because 'he has never been wrong in the past' is really weak. Thanks to Snowden for all he has done but none of us should accept whatever he says without evidence to support it. Such a claim that Snowden is 'the source of truth' makes me wonder if all we have is Snowdens word and that (although I hate to say it) is not enough.
2. For anyone that knows software, Snowdens point in the Intercept Op Ed that "analysts have a checkbox on a top secret system that hides the results of mass surveillance in New Zealand " means absolutely nothing. For someone that knows software like Snowden its shocking to think he could make such an obviously weak argument. Software UI (if that is really what he is refering to) exposes nothing about the processes behind the UI. It leads me to wonder again if they actually have any hard data that can show how complicit NZ is..

the whole thing makes me feel queasy as I can't help but think that both Greenwald and Snowden undermined their credibility with the very shallow evidence they tabled.

Not feeling good about this, not just for NZ but for the world. I hope no one outside of NZ took any notice and Greenwald and Snowdens credibility is not tainted outside of these shores....