6 ms·

Misinformation on NSA programs includes statements by senior U.S. officials

112 points by molecule 13y ago

dantheman 13y ago
It's unfortunate that the rule of law bifurcating in this country - swat teams and militaristic police for us common folk and the ability to lie to congress, etc not being punished for the rulers. Hopefully a committee will be started to investigate these crimes and people will involved will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Amadou 13y ago
I think it says a lot that the defense of these programs relies on what amounts to the redefinition of words, sometimes redefinitions with practically the opposite meaning - like how "collect" has been changed to mean access already collected data. If they can't defend the programs with straightforward language it means they simply aren't being straightforward with us.
- gasull 13y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
  - eatmyshorts 13y ago
    Clapper admitted on national TV that he responded in the “least most untruthful manner”. I've been trying to understand exactly what that means. Doublespeak indeed.
    - Ultron 13y ago
      Thanks for sharing that. Absolutely fascinating and chilling.
- sage_joch 13y ago
  A week earlier, President Obama, in a television interview, asserted that oversight of the surveillance programs was "transparent" because of the involvement of a special court, even though that court’s sessions and decisions are sealed from the public. I just don't even know what to say to this. There is no way to have a discussion if they are going to redefine words arbitrarily.
  - manys 13y ago
    one definition of transparent is, "cannot be seen."
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Another real & interesting source: "The Language of the Third Reich," by Victor Klemperer (philologist, brother of the renowned conductor, he flew away from Nazi Germany). This is more relevant than 1984 because it is the real thing.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Can you please (please!) tell me where there's proof that their definition of 'collect' has changed to mean that in their usage. I have suspected that is what Feinstein and others have used as its meaning, but I can't prove it. I have enough proof to satisfy myself they have redefined 'acquire' here, but 'collect' would be nice too, if you would oblige! "Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information." [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa....
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I don't remember where I first saw it, but it is mentioned on this list of NSA word redefinitions that the EFF is keeping track of: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames
- jmadsen 13y ago
  That's spot on. Their biggest concern would seem to be to re-word things in a way that later they can't be accused of having lied. Clapper lead the charge on that one at the very beginning. No attempts to actually clarify what they are up to.
mtgx 13y ago
As I said at almost every article where the "NSA officials" were defending the programs in some way - Do not trust them! They can't be trusted. We need a real external investigation done into this (and even that needs to be done by very credible people), and then we'll see how it all goes. You can't be naive enough to trust anything the NSA or the administration is saying now.
- oleganza 13y ago
  Who should investigate this? The same government guys? Will you trust this investigation? Private investigators? Will multi-layered bureaucracy let any outsider to just go in and look into papers? Or you suggest going to congress and mr. president to ask permission to let you investigate? (Basically, asking the same gov. guys you never trust.) Here's suggestion: I don't want to play this game. Let NSA do whatever they want to do, but I don't want to pay for this. Let me not pay my taxes and use different currency, so they cannot tax me by inflating it. Then we'll see if they'll have enough funds to continue doing what they are up to. The real fix is total removal of any moral justification for the government. Give voluntarily to those who deserve it (in your view) and expose violence when they try to extract money from you by force (explicitly via taxation or implicitly via inflation). When people see the "gun in the room", they'll be more informed about how shit like NSA happens to them and how to actually prevent it. However, if you in favor of some government policy, I respect you decision and will never violently prevent you from sponsoring it. But will you give me the same respect if I disagree with you and not violently prevent me from withdrawing my participation? In other words, will you blame or at least not justify a violent action against me if I decide to not pay for some government programs I dislike?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're welcome to withdraw from our social compact, but in doing so you can't be allowed to stay on U.S. soil because as a practical matter we can't help but defend you from invasion if you do. I'm sure there are lots of other countries that would love to have you, though.
    - 13y ago
belorn 13y ago
I would place some part of blame on the journalists for not asking specific enough questions. All the discussion around "direct access" was a typical example where more precise questions would say more than hundred pages of discussion. For example, do Google allow NSA to run computer code on google's servers? More specific, do NSA supply database queries when demanding data? Do NSA ever provide Google with tracking code like JS or links to NSA webbugs (1px imgs) that Google later put in targeted ads? Do Google ever provide physical (or remote) access to servers, hard drives (like backups) or network devices to NSA? Either of those would to me be equivalent with "direct access", while I can perfectly see how Google would not define it as such.
- acqq 13y ago
  I can imagine that the current state of affairs is that the private tracking networks sell the data to NSA. It's not just the problem if the private company or the government institution does something, the bigger problem is if the whole system which includes the private companies is outside of checks and balances and prone to misuse. The honest and not hidden laws should regulate both private and government uses of citizens' data.
Mordor 13y ago
> I assume most people are acting in good faith He's talking about himself of course, the NSA is premised upon the exact opposite.
seclorum 13y ago
I hope that in the future states of the Earth, they teach disinformation and doublespeak detection/eradication techniques to the teenagers of the tomorrow. It sure would help to know thats going to happen..

112 points by molecule 13y ago

It's unfortunate that the rule of law bifurcating in this country - swat teams and militaristic police for us common folk and the ability to lie to congress, etc not being punished for the rulers. Hopefully a committee will be started to investigate these crimes and people will involved will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Amadou 13y ago

I think it says a lot that the defense of these programs relies on what amounts to the redefinition of words, sometimes redefinitions with practically the opposite meaning - like how "collect" has been changed to mean access already collected data. If they can't defend the programs with straightforward language it means they simply aren't being straightforward with us.

gasull 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
- eatmyshorts 13y ago
  Clapper admitted on national TV that he responded in the “least most untruthful manner”. I've been trying to understand exactly what that means. Doublespeak indeed.
  - Ultron 13y ago
    Thanks for sharing that. Absolutely fascinating and chilling.
sage_joch 13y ago
A week earlier, President Obama, in a television interview, asserted that oversight of the surveillance programs was "transparent" because of the involvement of a special court, even though that court’s sessions and decisions are sealed from the public. I just don't even know what to say to this. There is no way to have a discussion if they are going to redefine words arbitrarily.
- manys 13y ago
  one definition of transparent is, "cannot be seen."
pfortuny 13y ago
Another real & interesting source: "The Language of the Third Reich," by Victor Klemperer (philologist, brother of the renowned conductor, he flew away from Nazi Germany). This is more relevant than 1984 because it is the real thing.
eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Can you please (please!) tell me where there's proof that their definition of 'collect' has changed to mean that in their usage. I have suspected that is what Feinstein and others have used as its meaning, but I can't prove it. I have enough proof to satisfy myself they have redefined 'acquire' here, but 'collect' would be nice too, if you would oblige! "Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information." [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa....
- Amadou 13y ago
  I don't remember where I first saw it, but it is mentioned on this list of NSA word redefinitions that the EFF is keeping track of: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames
jmadsen 13y ago
That's spot on. Their biggest concern would seem to be to re-word things in a way that later they can't be accused of having lied. Clapper lead the charge on that one at the very beginning. No attempts to actually clarify what they are up to.

mtgx 13y ago

As I said at almost every article where the "NSA officials" were defending the programs in some way - Do not trust them! They can't be trusted. We need a real external investigation done into this (and even that needs to be done by very credible people), and then we'll see how it all goes. You can't be naive enough to trust anything the NSA or the administration is saying now.

oleganza 13y ago
Who should investigate this? The same government guys? Will you trust this investigation? Private investigators? Will multi-layered bureaucracy let any outsider to just go in and look into papers? Or you suggest going to congress and mr. president to ask permission to let you investigate? (Basically, asking the same gov. guys you never trust.) Here's suggestion: I don't want to play this game. Let NSA do whatever they want to do, but I don't want to pay for this. Let me not pay my taxes and use different currency, so they cannot tax me by inflating it. Then we'll see if they'll have enough funds to continue doing what they are up to. The real fix is total removal of any moral justification for the government. Give voluntarily to those who deserve it (in your view) and expose violence when they try to extract money from you by force (explicitly via taxation or implicitly via inflation). When people see the "gun in the room", they'll be more informed about how shit like NSA happens to them and how to actually prevent it. However, if you in favor of some government policy, I respect you decision and will never violently prevent you from sponsoring it. But will you give me the same respect if I disagree with you and not violently prevent me from withdrawing my participation? In other words, will you blame or at least not justify a violent action against me if I decide to not pay for some government programs I dislike?
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're welcome to withdraw from our social compact, but in doing so you can't be allowed to stay on U.S. soil because as a practical matter we can't help but defend you from invasion if you do. I'm sure there are lots of other countries that would love to have you, though.
  - 13y ago

belorn 13y ago

I would place some part of blame on the journalists for not asking specific enough questions. All the discussion around "direct access" was a typical example where more precise questions would say more than hundred pages of discussion. For example, do Google allow NSA to run computer code on google's servers? More specific, do NSA supply database queries when demanding data? Do NSA ever provide Google with tracking code like JS or links to NSA webbugs (1px imgs) that Google later put in targeted ads? Do Google ever provide physical (or remote) access to servers, hard drives (like backups) or network devices to NSA? Either of those would to me be equivalent with "direct access", while I can perfectly see how Google would not define it as such.

acqq 13y ago
I can imagine that the current state of affairs is that the private tracking networks sell the data to NSA. It's not just the problem if the private company or the government institution does something, the bigger problem is if the whole system which includes the private companies is outside of checks and balances and prone to misuse. The honest and not hidden laws should regulate both private and government uses of citizens' data.

Mordor 13y ago

> I assume most people are acting in good faith He's talking about himself of course, the NSA is premised upon the exact opposite.

seclorum 13y ago

I hope that in the future states of the Earth, they teach disinformation and doublespeak detection/eradication techniques to the teenagers of the tomorrow. It sure would help to know thats going to happen..