[phiy]

I thought this paragraph was super weasely. He is specifically saying that they don't buy directly from internet advertising sources, but there are private intel firms[1] that act as middle-men. They offer an interface and tooling that is geared for national security purposes.

The wording of this comment specifically excludes a conclusion on private intel firms. Private Intel middle men would still evade application of the Carpenter decision, and it is obviously superior for the government to work with an agency like that do to human rights and what-not.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj454d/private-intelligence-...

[adolph]

Reminds me of a decade before:

“What I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question ‘Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?’ ”

[. . .]

“Not wittingly,” Clapper replied. He started scratching his forehead and looked away from Wyden. “There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/16/state-of-decep...

[simoncion]

What's worse is that Clapper was using the NSA's definition of "Collect", which is what everyone else calls "Read and Analyze". What everyone else would call "Collection" the NSA calls something like "Interception".

Here's DNI Clapper in a 2013 interview, talking about that very question:

> First, as I said, I have great respect for Senator Wyden. I thought though in retrospect I was asked when are you going to start--stop beating your wife kind of question which is, meaning not answerable necessarily, by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least most untruthful manner, by saying, “No.” And again, going back to my metaphor, what I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers of those books in the metaphorical library. To me collection of U.S. Persons data would mean taking the books off the shelf, opening it up and reading it.

(via: <https://web.archive.org/web/20130614222820/https://www.dni.g...>)

And here's Schneier talking about the topic: <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/why-the...>

And here's some random dude on the internet also discussing the topic: <https://ethanheilman.tumblr.com/post/99480839105/definitions...>

Again, according to DNI Clapper, wiretapping and recording the results isn't collection. It's only collection when someone pulls the information out of storage and reads it.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Because they don't. The NSA is foreign intelligence. If a foreign target communicates with an American then that is what he means.

His answer makes perfect sense to me.

[adolph]

You can claim whatever you'd like. In the real world Clapper apologized for his response.

After telling Congress that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans, National Intelligence Director James Clapper has issued an apology, telling Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein that his statement was "clearly erroneous."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/07/02/198118060...

[simoncion]

Yep.

And in the real world nearly every major telecommunications company in the US was granted (by Congress) retroactive, blanket immunity for the years and years and years they spent actively participating in the domestic wiretapping that the NSA was performing that was clearly prohibited by FISA.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> was clearly prohibited by FISA.

Doesn't seem clear to me.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/fact-sheet-section-215-usa-pat...

> Section 215 has been reviewed and renewed by Congress twice since 2006. The Supreme Court has held that phone records are not considered private or privileged information for Fourth Amendment purposes because they are voluntarily provided to telecommunications carriers for billing purposes. As of July 31, 2013, the FISC had reauthorized the program 34 times under 14 different judges. More recently, however, two federal judges came down on opposite sides of the issue. Judge Richard K. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court ruled the 215 collection program illegal, while Judge William H. Pauley of the Southern District of New York upheld the legality of the programs.

[_heimdall]

Of course it's weasley, that's his job.

Starting with "to my knowledge" gets him off the hook, then he names a very specific type of data and a very specific source, he doesn't describe what kind of "court authorized process", and he only says the unspecified pilot project has been inactive for "some time" (decades? years? days?)