5 ms·

Now Sunday's oddly worded press release makes more sense: "The statement that a SINGLE analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal au

by spikels 13y ago

Now Sunday's oddly worded press release makes more sense: "The statement that a SINGLE analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect" http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/880-odni-statement-on-the-limits-of-surveillance-activities http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...

jrochkind1 13y ago
Or perhaps the emphasis should be on ANALYST. An Analyst maybe not, a sysadmin, oh, yeah, sure (and we have about 1000 of those). But really, I don't believe anything they say, or believe that I'm capable of figuring out the true meaning of the careful wording that they think they are using to 'technically' tell the truth while intentionally making everyone think they meant something else that was really a lie. I mean, Clapper has already admitted he lied to Congress, right?
- bigiain 13y ago
  Especially when they're clearly using regular words re-interpreted into jargon to intentionally mislead the people responsible for their oversight. "Collect" apparently has an intelligence-community meaning that's quite different to the regular dictionary definition - when the NSA says they don't "collect" data, what they seem to mean is that their computer systems intercept and archive that data, but that human analysts haven't (yet) looked at it. In what other profession would you get away with making up a new definition of a word that's almost 100% opposite to the "regualar" meaning of that word, then using the word with your meaning when talking to the government? "Oh no, I didn't 'steal' that money - in the investment-banking-community, 'steal' means spending stolen money. I haven't spent any of that money yet- it's still sitting in my bank account - so no, I didn't steal any money."
- cma 13y ago
  "So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no'."
asperous 13y ago
The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect. The words italicized are qualifiers- that is they reduce the scope of the statement. It is uncertain that if you removed any one of those qualifiers the statement would still be true.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by spikels 13y ago

jrochkind1 13y ago

Or perhaps the emphasis should be on ANALYST. An Analyst maybe not, a sysadmin, oh, yeah, sure (and we have about 1000 of those). But really, I don't believe anything they say, or believe that I'm capable of figuring out the true meaning of the careful wording that they think they are using to 'technically' tell the truth while intentionally making everyone think they meant something else that was really a lie. I mean, Clapper has already admitted he lied to Congress, right?

bigiain 13y ago
Especially when they're clearly using regular words re-interpreted into jargon to intentionally mislead the people responsible for their oversight. "Collect" apparently has an intelligence-community meaning that's quite different to the regular dictionary definition - when the NSA says they don't "collect" data, what they seem to mean is that their computer systems intercept and archive that data, but that human analysts haven't (yet) looked at it. In what other profession would you get away with making up a new definition of a word that's almost 100% opposite to the "regualar" meaning of that word, then using the word with your meaning when talking to the government? "Oh no, I didn't 'steal' that money - in the investment-banking-community, 'steal' means spending stolen money. I haven't spent any of that money yet- it's still sitting in my bank account - so no, I didn't steal any money."
cma 13y ago
"So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no'."

asperous 13y ago

The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect. The words italicized are qualifiers- that is they reduce the scope of the statement. It is uncertain that if you removed any one of those qualifiers the statement would still be true.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]