6 ms·
Yes. Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens’ emails? No. Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations? No. It's worth noting that
by brown9-2 13y ago
Yes. Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens’ emails?
No.
Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?
No.
It's worth noting that "intercept" has a very specific meaning here, which the Congressman asking the question nor the reporter may not have realized.
From http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all-telephone-records http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all...
A few definitions: to "collect" means to gather and store; to "analyze" means that a computer or human actually does something with the records; to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls.
So it is possible that the NSA routinely collects telephone and/or email metadata and that the NSA does not routinely "intercept" citizen's email or cell-phone conversation (depending upon the meaning of "routinely" used), and that an answer of "No" to the latter is not a lie.
This article by the same author has more information on the program's specifics (http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-your-telephone-records http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-you...), as his sources have told him:
The NSA would insist that it does not actually "spy" on you until it gets a further order, if at all. In most all circumstances, the FBI, not the NSA, would actually listen to your conversations if a FISA order was acquired. So merely "collecting" the data is like receiving a box full of records but not opening it until and unless they had a good reason to do so.
That metaphor is not terribly comforting, but it does appear to be the government's justification for insisting that they don't actually, actively "spy" on you. It is true: If they only compile these transactional records and don't do anything with them, and they faithfully honor this distinction, then the scale of the actual surveillance is not necessarily harmful, although it feels heavy. That's a big if. It depends on whether you believe the NSA follows the rules.
- ISL 13y agoThe interception was done by Verizon, and the authorization appears to be via the FBI. Once that's done, NSA can help out if the FBI wants help. In this picture, General Alexander's answers are correct. That won't stop Congress from being livid, should the representatives choose to be.
- brown9-2 13y agoIn this case, and using these definitions, it appears no "interception" happens because there is not a computer or human listening to the actual phone calls. Verizon is sending the call "metadata".
- chris_mahan 13y agoper the definition given above: "to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls." if a computer records a call, it's intercepted, no?
- EthanHeilman 13y agoVerizon is sending them call metadata not actual calls.
- brown9-2 13y agoare you referring to what the Wired article stated?
- foobarqux 13y agoThat would be the logical interpretation but it is not the interpretation being used by the government.
- snarfy 13y agoGood catch, and it's important to understand when dealing with the law that every single word has a specific legal interpretation. This is where Clinton's famous "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" came from. Re-read those questions and realize every single word in each sentence has a few pages of legalize that defines it. 'NSA', 'intercept', 'Americans', etc. Each word.
- samstave 13y agoWhere can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word? Have you heard the claim that your name in all caps is different than your name as you would write it? What is your opinion on that claim?
- sliverstorm 13y agoThat claim sounds bogus to me. I've seen hosts of legal documents using all caps for everything (ostensibly for readability?).
- MrUnknown 13y agoI believe it is required for some sections to be in all-caps in regards to EULAs to make it more obvious it is there. Specifically, disclaimers, waivers of liability and warranties are almost always in capitol letters.
- Torgo 13y agoIANAL but it's highly dependent on context, and in many cases it's a matter of simply being extremely precise. For example, if I say "I'm not reading your email" note that I didn't say, for instance, that I'm not _collecting_ your email. Also, I didn't say I won't read it later. I also never said nobody else is reading your email right now. It is interesting to compare this to a different thread about fallacies. If you're seeking the truth it's good to interpret someone's statements charitably. However when somebody in government says something, it's better to interpret it as cynically as possible, because that's where the unconstrained power forms.
- 13y ago
- sinnerswing 13y agoNot surprise this is happening at all. "Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen" http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-134204299.html http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-new...
- coenhyde 13y agoNot excusing the collection of private information, I would be interested in knowing the extent of the analysis done with the data.
- darkarmani 13y agoI was going to correct you because i thought the reporter was James Bamford, but it's not. Bamford knows what he is talking about.
- seoguru 13y ago2 former NSA employees say that the NSA does collect massive amounts of emails from US citizens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcgR057wgoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcgR057wgoQ Lookup: "William Binney" former NSA official. he says the NSA intercepts most American email communications.
- rhizome 13y agoI have suspected for some time that Congresspeople ask their questions with a public entendre that has a separate, specifically-defined term that allows the answerer to sound like they're answering clearly and forthrightly, but which requires a parse in order to say, "hey, they simply asked the question wrong." In other words, they collude to keep the public in the dark.
- newman314 13y agoThe problem is that multiple government agencies are essentially playing semantics in an attempt to get around these "restrictions". Having a permanent digital record of what many assume to be transient information is what makes this alarming beyond belief.
- monkeynotes 13y agoNewspeak is rampant these days.
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoIf you know what the asker is asking, and you choose to interpret it differently to allow a more convenient answer, you're still a lying scumbag.
- flyinRyan 13y agoAnd, of course, the Chief could simply be lying. I'm sure all the effected companies are under gag orders so no one can call him on it.
- contingencies 13y agoJacob Applebaum, of the Tor Project, showed this clip at his keynote at 29C3 last year and commented firstly that General Alexander was probably the most powerful man in the world, and on the basis of this same text, characterised the man as a fucking liar. Your interpretation explanation shows how the creature manages to get away with it.