3 ms·

"Not true" makes an unwarranted assumption. Watch the video, he has one story from the NSA in a classified hearing and the opposite story from the FBI in an un

by derrida 13y ago

"Not true" makes an unwarranted assumption. Watch the video, he has one story from the NSA in a classified hearing and the opposite story from the FBI in an unclassified hearing. Nadler is pleased with the report the FBI gave (requesting tapping for an individual from a court). There's still the case of what the NSA said at the classified hearing.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 13y ago
Nadler was at the classified hearing, and confirmed to BuzzFeed that he believes NSA is using specific warrants to capture phone content.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Interestingly, the CNET article said exactly that. "If they're targeting anyone within mainland USA, then that triggers the system to require a warrant." But everybody ignored or didn't read that part of the article.
  - DennisP 13y ago
    If they capture everyone's calls, they're not targeting anyone until someone listens to one.
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    The key word in that sentence being "targeting". A lot of the discussion is on what happens when the NSA targets a non-American overseas and that person calls or communicates with someone in the US. If you can listen to a large amount of an overseas target's communications, it's inevitable that some of what you pick up will be communications with Americans. The questions, and confusion, is what happens and what should happen when that occurs. The problem is that so much of the reporting around this gets things confused that it is hard to understand what everyone is talking about, and a lot of people are walking away with the assumption that analysts in the NSA are regularly listening to US-to-US phone calls or emails for shits and giggles.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Well... What he actually is quoted as saying is "...the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant." Listen to, not capture. He says nothing about capturing the data. There have been indications that they capture massive amounts of data, but they believe it's legal to do so, as long as they don't listen to it until they have a warrant.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Sure. But the revelation from the CNet story was Nadler's apparent belief that no warrant was required for them to listen to calls. It's also worth knowing that the USG flatly denies that they're using any authority that allows them to acquire information without calling it "collection" until an analyst accesses it. They used to, but officials now say they no longer rely on that authority; if they have the information, says the USG, they have it, full stop.
    - zb 13y ago
      if they have the information, says the USG, they have it, full stop. Everybody hopes that that's true, but there is a problem with this story. The Director of National Intelligence told Congress that the NSA hadn't "collected" information that it did, in fact, have. When this came to light he, instead of admitting that he lied to Congress and resigning, announced that he was actually using the newspeak definition of "collect" - you know, the one where it has literally no meaning. This is the problem with lying to the public and getting caught. There is no way to tell if anything else you say contains any meaning at all, let alone the truth, even if it happens to be the truth. This goes triple if you happen to have sworn on penalty of perjury that said lies were the truth and still get away with it.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Regardless of the definition of "collect" that Clapper used, he needs to go.
brown9-2 13y ago
There appears to be a lot of confusion, even from the experts, on what this exchange between Nadler and Mueller was all about: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts-getting-call-and-e-mail-content/ http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-o...

by derrida 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 13y ago

Nadler was at the classified hearing, and confirmed to BuzzFeed that he believes NSA is using specific warrants to capture phone content.

sillysaurus 13y ago
Interestingly, the CNET article said exactly that. "If they're targeting anyone within mainland USA, then that triggers the system to require a warrant." But everybody ignored or didn't read that part of the article.
- DennisP 13y ago
  If they capture everyone's calls, they're not targeting anyone until someone listens to one.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  The key word in that sentence being "targeting". A lot of the discussion is on what happens when the NSA targets a non-American overseas and that person calls or communicates with someone in the US. If you can listen to a large amount of an overseas target's communications, it's inevitable that some of what you pick up will be communications with Americans. The questions, and confusion, is what happens and what should happen when that occurs. The problem is that so much of the reporting around this gets things confused that it is hard to understand what everyone is talking about, and a lot of people are walking away with the assumption that analysts in the NSA are regularly listening to US-to-US phone calls or emails for shits and giggles.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
Well... What he actually is quoted as saying is "...the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant." Listen to, not capture. He says nothing about capturing the data. There have been indications that they capture massive amounts of data, but they believe it's legal to do so, as long as they don't listen to it until they have a warrant.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Sure. But the revelation from the CNet story was Nadler's apparent belief that no warrant was required for them to listen to calls. It's also worth knowing that the USG flatly denies that they're using any authority that allows them to acquire information without calling it "collection" until an analyst accesses it. They used to, but officials now say they no longer rely on that authority; if they have the information, says the USG, they have it, full stop.
  - zb 13y ago
    if they have the information, says the USG, they have it, full stop. Everybody hopes that that's true, but there is a problem with this story. The Director of National Intelligence told Congress that the NSA hadn't "collected" information that it did, in fact, have. When this came to light he, instead of admitting that he lied to Congress and resigning, announced that he was actually using the newspeak definition of "collect" - you know, the one where it has literally no meaning. This is the problem with lying to the public and getting caught. There is no way to tell if anything else you say contains any meaning at all, let alone the truth, even if it happens to be the truth. This goes triple if you happen to have sworn on penalty of perjury that said lies were the truth and still get away with it.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Regardless of the definition of "collect" that Clapper used, he needs to go.

brown9-2 13y ago

There appears to be a lot of confusion, even from the experts, on what this exchange between Nadler and Mueller was all about: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts-getting-call-and-e-mail-content/ http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-o...