5 ms·

"Collected" legally means looked at by a human. I'm talking about sent to the NSA, processed by algorithms and stored. That's not 'collected'. It's a word game

"Collected" legally means looked at by a human. I'm talking about sent to the NSA, processed by algorithms and stored. That's not 'collected'. It's a word game they play. My original assertion stands. And be careful of "not under the PRISM program". The "not this program" has been shown to be false over and over (in spirit) as there are many related programs that do joint work on shared datasets. Regarding Greenwald's reporting, can you link to something comprehensive (and trustworthy) about inaccuracies?

csandreasen 12y ago
This is the actual legal definition of collected per DoDD 5240.1-R[1]: "C2.2.1. Collection. Information shall be considered as "collected" only when it has been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component in the course of his official duties. Thus, information volunteered to a DoD intelligence component by a cooperating source would be "collected" under this procedure when an employee of such component officially accepts, in some manner, such information for use within that component. Data acquired by electronic means is "collected" only when it has been processed into intelligible form." That would include sent to the NSA, processed by algorithms and stored. The "read by a human definition" as far as I can tell comes from the EFF selectively quoting that definition[2] and drawing their own conclusions from their selective quotation, not the regulation itself. As the regulation itself states, as soon as any DoD intelligence components receives it and processes it, it is considered collected. The misunderstanding is compounded by Clapper's June 9th 2013 interview with Andrea Mitchell, where he tries to explain that there's a legal difference between collecting content and metadata and fails miserably[3]. Mind you, Clapper is not part of the NSA. That's not an excuse, since as DNI he should know better, but it does explain it somewhat... Regarding issues with Greenwald's reporting, here's a few: - Misinterpretation of the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slides that led to the series of "NSA is collecting millions of a communications inside (insert country here)": http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interpretation-of-boundlessinformant-nsa http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interp... - Innacuracies in the early PRISM reporting: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-is... - Innaccuracies in the early XKeyscore reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c - Stewart Baker, quoted extensively in the "NSA spies on porn" article, claims the authors omitted key parts of his quotes because it would make them look hypocritical: http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ - A long list of early mistakes in NSA reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 For a good rundown of various NSA programs, I'd recommend reading the Electrospaces analysis[4]. In particular, his analysis of PRISM[5] and BOUNDLESSINFORMANT[6] are really good, as is his recent Strategic Missions List post[7]. [1] http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/524001r.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/524001r.pdf (see page 15) [2] https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect [3] http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/nbc-news-exclusive-transcript-of-andrea-mitchells-interview-with-director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper/ http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/nbc-news-exclusive-... [4] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/ http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/ [5] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-known-about-nsas-prism-program.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-known-abou... [6] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInformant http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInfo... [7] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/09/nsas-strategic-mission-list.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/09/nsas-strategic-mis...
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  I don't know how to read that definition - it contains more legal jargon. What is "received for use by an employee"? When are electronic communications "processed into intelligible form"? Is a server that stores and processes data an employee? And for 100% sure PRISM received and stored mass data about American communications - both internet records and phone records. There's no debate about that. There was even (faux) legislature proposing moving the storage site from NSA hands to partner hands. These articles seem like minor quibbles, mostly to do with terminology, but not the broad implications of the program. There are so many damning slides. Like... "Of these 1,789 applications, one was withdrawn by the government The FISC did not deny any applications in whole or in part." (42) "With all querying if you discover its in the US, then it must go to the OSC quarterly report... 'but its nothing to worry about'" (99) http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl... Looked quickly through the articles, not sure if I saw anything really damning - they seemed like minor quibbles. I must depart for non-tcp-mediated social obligations and consider this an incomplete reply - apologies for that. Hopefully the thread is alive later, and another poster can fill in the conversation here as it evolves. Adeiu.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    I don't think any of those are particular minor quibbles. To summarize: BOUNDLESSINFORMANT: Initial reporting show concrete number on just how much NSA was spying on a whole slew of European citizens. Shortly afterward, the actual intelligence agencies of those countries stepped up and said that those were not reflected NSA spying on those countries, but instead those numbers reflected communications that they themselves had gathered, mostly from areas like Afghanistan, and handed over to the NSA under intelligence sharing agreements. PRISM: Initial reporting said that the NSA had direct access to the servers of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc., and could conduct data-mining from them without any oversight. Actual story ended up being that those companies were handing over data on specific targets under court order - NSA did not have access to any of their servers. XKeyscore: Initial reporting was saying that the NSA was sucking up all communications including Americans. The author to the story that I linked to was pointing out that Marc Ambinder had previously disclosed XKeyscore in his earlier book saying that it was a system to index metadata that was already collected using other means, and there was no proof shown by Greenwald or indicated in his slides he published that it had been used to collect American's communications. The Stewart Baker article: Stewart Baker was interviewed over the phone for the "NSA spying on porn habits" article, but they subsequently left out the core of his argument in order to not undermine their own argument. I thought that spoke to Greenwald's journalistic integrity somewhat - it also puts into perspective the fact that most of the slides he's published have been heavily cropped and there's no way to independently verify the contents of those slides. The long list of mistakes article: Just pointing that there has been such a rush to report most of NSA documents that most of the initial reporting has had numerous mistakes of varying degrees of severity. In any case, enjoy your social obligations!
lern_too_spel 12y ago
Not under any program. None of Snowden's documents show that the US government has the access you think they have, and all the companies involved and the government have explicitly denied it. You're going with Greenwald's misinterpretation of a slide against all evidence to the contrary. Regarding Greenwald's incompetence: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N0dRIEqagB9V4ipNMdT3q8h4NYrsSSXRr6gJlMqIcrc/edit?usp=docslist_api https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N0dRIEqagB9V4ipNMdT3q8h4...
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Yeah, that's not right (your document discusses PRISM almost exclusively). To quote from your document "when you claim something, you should be able to prove it". Can you prove "not under any program?" Of course you can't. That's a bit mean (there's no way you can prove a negative). But it goes to show the level of sophistry and equivocation in your analysis. I looked through the document and was thoroughly unimpressed. I don't think you're engaging with the material at the same level others are (e.g. metadata = surveillance & NSA has direct access to metadata -> NSA surveillance by modus ponens). Nor are you considering the vast body of documents, just some choice ones related to PRISM. I would very much like to believe that somehow Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with the endorsement of The Guardian and everyone who followed merely read some diagrams wrong but after having read your document I can't convince myself of that, nor would it be consistent with other leaks, whistleblowing accounts, policy objectives, etc. Good work though, I think it's important for people to actually look through the slides/material themselves. I think it's great you're doing that.
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    Can you prove "not under any program?" No, but the preponderance of evidence (the denials from all parties, the laws that make it illegal, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary despite the fact that the release of this evidence would be a bigger story than any of the leaks so far by a country mile) shows that it is not happening under any program. Yet you still believe it is happening because you chose to believe Greenwald's thoroughly debunked misinterpretation of PRISM. Where are these "other leaks" that show this is happening? There aren't any. You bought Greenwald's lie hook, line, and sinker.

csandreasen 12y ago

This is the actual legal definition of collected per DoDD 5240.1-R[1]: "C2.2.1. Collection. Information shall be considered as "collected" only when it has been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component in the course of his official duties. Thus, information volunteered to a DoD intelligence component by a cooperating source would be "collected" under this procedure when an employee of such component officially accepts, in some manner, such information for use within that component. Data acquired by electronic means is "collected" only when it has been processed into intelligible form." That would include sent to the NSA, processed by algorithms and stored. The "read by a human definition" as far as I can tell comes from the EFF selectively quoting that definition[2] and drawing their own conclusions from their selective quotation, not the regulation itself. As the regulation itself states, as soon as any DoD intelligence components receives it and processes it, it is considered collected. The misunderstanding is compounded by Clapper's June 9th 2013 interview with Andrea Mitchell, where he tries to explain that there's a legal difference between collecting content and metadata and fails miserably[3]. Mind you, Clapper is not part of the NSA. That's not an excuse, since as DNI he should know better, but it does explain it somewhat... Regarding issues with Greenwald's reporting, here's a few: - Misinterpretation of the BOUNDLESS INFORMANT slides that led to the series of "NSA is collecting millions of a communications inside (insert country here)": http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interpretation-of-boundlessinformant-nsa http://www.matthewaid.com/post/67998278561/greenwalds-interp... - Innacuracies in the early PRISM reporting: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-isnt-data-mining-NSA-scandal http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/prism-is... - Innaccuracies in the early XKeyscore reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c https://medium.com/state-of-play/f49beeaf6a9c - Stewart Baker, quoted extensively in the "NSA spies on porn" article, claims the authors omitted key parts of his quotes because it would make them look hypocritical: http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/11/27/understanding-enemy/ - A long list of early mistakes in NSA reporting: https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 https://medium.com/state-of-play/bb27db32ae38 For a good rundown of various NSA programs, I'd recommend reading the Electrospaces analysis[4]. In particular, his analysis of PRISM[5] and BOUNDLESSINFORMANT[6] are really good, as is his recent Strategic Missions List post[7]. [1] http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/524001r.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/524001r.pdf (see page 15) [2] https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect [3] http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/nbc-news-exclusive-transcript-of-andrea-mitchells-interview-with-director-of-national-intelligence-james-clapper/ http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/newsroom/nbc-news-exclusive-... [4] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/ http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/ [5] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-known-about-nsas-prism-program.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-known-abou... [6] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInformant http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/search/label/BoundlessInfo... [7] http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/09/nsas-strategic-mission-list.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/09/nsas-strategic-mis...

xnull2guest 12y ago
I don't know how to read that definition - it contains more legal jargon. What is "received for use by an employee"? When are electronic communications "processed into intelligible form"? Is a server that stores and processes data an employee? And for 100% sure PRISM received and stored mass data about American communications - both internet records and phone records. There's no debate about that. There was even (faux) legislature proposing moving the storage site from NSA hands to partner hands. These articles seem like minor quibbles, mostly to do with terminology, but not the broad implications of the program. There are so many damning slides. Like... "Of these 1,789 applications, one was withdrawn by the government The FISC did not deny any applications in whole or in part." (42) "With all querying if you discover its in the US, then it must go to the OSC quarterly report... 'but its nothing to worry about'" (99) http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPlaceToHide-Documents-Compressed.pdf http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl... Looked quickly through the articles, not sure if I saw anything really damning - they seemed like minor quibbles. I must depart for non-tcp-mediated social obligations and consider this an incomplete reply - apologies for that. Hopefully the thread is alive later, and another poster can fill in the conversation here as it evolves. Adeiu.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  I don't think any of those are particular minor quibbles. To summarize: BOUNDLESSINFORMANT: Initial reporting show concrete number on just how much NSA was spying on a whole slew of European citizens. Shortly afterward, the actual intelligence agencies of those countries stepped up and said that those were not reflected NSA spying on those countries, but instead those numbers reflected communications that they themselves had gathered, mostly from areas like Afghanistan, and handed over to the NSA under intelligence sharing agreements. PRISM: Initial reporting said that the NSA had direct access to the servers of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc., and could conduct data-mining from them without any oversight. Actual story ended up being that those companies were handing over data on specific targets under court order - NSA did not have access to any of their servers. XKeyscore: Initial reporting was saying that the NSA was sucking up all communications including Americans. The author to the story that I linked to was pointing out that Marc Ambinder had previously disclosed XKeyscore in his earlier book saying that it was a system to index metadata that was already collected using other means, and there was no proof shown by Greenwald or indicated in his slides he published that it had been used to collect American's communications. The Stewart Baker article: Stewart Baker was interviewed over the phone for the "NSA spying on porn habits" article, but they subsequently left out the core of his argument in order to not undermine their own argument. I thought that spoke to Greenwald's journalistic integrity somewhat - it also puts into perspective the fact that most of the slides he's published have been heavily cropped and there's no way to independently verify the contents of those slides. The long list of mistakes article: Just pointing that there has been such a rush to report most of NSA documents that most of the initial reporting has had numerous mistakes of varying degrees of severity. In any case, enjoy your social obligations!

lern_too_spel 12y ago

Not under any program. None of Snowden's documents show that the US government has the access you think they have, and all the companies involved and the government have explicitly denied it. You're going with Greenwald's misinterpretation of a slide against all evidence to the contrary. Regarding Greenwald's incompetence: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N0dRIEqagB9V4ipNMdT3q8h4NYrsSSXRr6gJlMqIcrc/edit?usp=docslist_api https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N0dRIEqagB9V4ipNMdT3q8h4...

xnull2guest 12y ago
Yeah, that's not right (your document discusses PRISM almost exclusively). To quote from your document "when you claim something, you should be able to prove it". Can you prove "not under any program?" Of course you can't. That's a bit mean (there's no way you can prove a negative). But it goes to show the level of sophistry and equivocation in your analysis. I looked through the document and was thoroughly unimpressed. I don't think you're engaging with the material at the same level others are (e.g. metadata = surveillance & NSA has direct access to metadata -> NSA surveillance by modus ponens). Nor are you considering the vast body of documents, just some choice ones related to PRISM. I would very much like to believe that somehow Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with the endorsement of The Guardian and everyone who followed merely read some diagrams wrong but after having read your document I can't convince myself of that, nor would it be consistent with other leaks, whistleblowing accounts, policy objectives, etc. Good work though, I think it's important for people to actually look through the slides/material themselves. I think it's great you're doing that.
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  Can you prove "not under any program?" No, but the preponderance of evidence (the denials from all parties, the laws that make it illegal, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary despite the fact that the release of this evidence would be a bigger story than any of the leaks so far by a country mile) shows that it is not happening under any program. Yet you still believe it is happening because you chose to believe Greenwald's thoroughly debunked misinterpretation of PRISM. Where are these "other leaks" that show this is happening? There aren't any. You bought Greenwald's lie hook, line, and sinker.