7 ms·

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

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.

7 ms·

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

by waterlesscloud 13y ago

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.