Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by brown9-2 4759 days ago
Yes. Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens’ emails?

No.

Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?

No.

It's worth noting that "intercept" has a very specific meaning here, which the Congressman asking the question nor the reporter may not have realized.

From http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all...

A few definitions: to "collect" means to gather and store; to "analyze" means that a computer or human actually does something with the records; to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls.

So it is possible that the NSA routinely collects telephone and/or email metadata and that the NSA does not routinely "intercept" citizen's email or cell-phone conversation (depending upon the meaning of "routinely" used), and that an answer of "No" to the latter is not a lie.

This article by the same author has more information on the program's specifics (http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-you...), as his sources have told him:

The NSA would insist that it does not actually "spy" on you until it gets a further order, if at all. In most all circumstances, the FBI, not the NSA, would actually listen to your conversations if a FISA order was acquired. So merely "collecting" the data is like receiving a box full of records but not opening it until and unless they had a good reason to do so.

That metaphor is not terribly comforting, but it does appear to be the government's justification for insisting that they don't actually, actively "spy" on you. It is true: If they only compile these transactional records and don't do anything with them, and they faithfully honor this distinction, then the scale of the actual surveillance is not necessarily harmful, although it feels heavy. That's a big if. It depends on whether you believe the NSA follows the rules.

12 comments

I have suspected for some time that Congresspeople ask their questions with a public entendre that has a separate, specifically-defined term that allows the answerer to sound like they're answering clearly and forthrightly, but which requires a parse in order to say, "hey, they simply asked the question wrong."

In other words, they collude to keep the public in the dark.

Good catch, and it's important to understand when dealing with the law that every single word has a specific legal interpretation. This is where Clinton's famous "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" came from. Re-read those questions and realize every single word in each sentence has a few pages of legalize that defines it. 'NSA', 'intercept', 'Americans', etc. Each word.
Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?

Have you heard the claim that your name in all caps is different than your name as you would write it? What is your opinion on that claim?

Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?

Legislation often includes a section dedicated to definitions, commonly the first or last clause in a subsection of the US code. The holdings of court cases are also a significant source of information (but you have to distinguish between the holding, which is highly technical and narrow, and the dicta which is the long and often wide-ranging explanations of what the holding means that makes up the bulk of a judicial opinion, but which do not themselves have the force of law).

Have you heard the claim that your name in all caps is different than your name as you would write it? What is your opinion on that claim?

Complete garbage. I don't want to spend time or energy digging up all the references for you, but you can safely assume that anyone advancing that argument is a crazy trying to get out of paying income taxes (similar arguments include claims that having a certain kind of flag in the courtroom nullifies the legal force of a judicial decision and that your social security card is actually a certificate of slavery). Almost all such arguments originate from a set of fringe Christian conspiracy theories informally known as Dominionism in which (among other things) the federal government is considered an invention of Satan designed to trick Christians out of their rightful place as rulers over the Promised Land. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

Surprising or counter-intuititve legal arguments that lean heavily on 'natural law' often turn out to be grounded in religious belief as well.

This comment should be included (scrolling Star Wars style) before every Alex Jones video.
Tee-hee! I hereby waive my copyright interest in the comment above and offer it up freely for this purpose if anyone feels like implementing it :-p
IANAL but it's highly dependent on context, and in many cases it's a matter of simply being extremely precise. For example, if I say "I'm not reading your email" note that I didn't say, for instance, that I'm not _collecting_ your email. Also, I didn't say I won't read it later. I also never said nobody else is reading your email right now.

It is interesting to compare this to a different thread about fallacies. If you're seeking the truth it's good to interpret someone's statements charitably. However when somebody in government says something, it's better to interpret it as cynically as possible, because that's where the unconstrained power forms.

"Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?"

Words don't have universal legal definitions. However, at the start of a law there is usually a list of terms and how they are defined for the purposes of that law. So if want to know whether or not you can be prosecuted for X, you need to look up how the relevant terms are defined in the laws for X.

In the case of emails and phone records, in many cases the NSA isn't intercepting that information. Rather, the ISPs/telcos are intercepting it and sending the data to the NSA.

And many times the terms are defined as a reference to another part of the law. I'm not sure if there is ever a chain of references ("...as defined in secA, secA says: see secB, etc..."), but I wouldn't be surprised.
That claim sounds bogus to me. I've seen hosts of legal documents using all caps for everything (ostensibly for readability?).
I believe it is required for some sections to be in all-caps in regards to EULAs to make it more obvious it is there. Specifically, disclaimers, waivers of liability and warranties are almost always in capitol letters.
The interception was done by Verizon, and the authorization appears to be via the FBI. Once that's done, NSA can help out if the FBI wants help. In this picture, General Alexander's answers are correct.

That won't stop Congress from being livid, should the representatives choose to be.

In this case, and using these definitions, it appears no "interception" happens because there is not a computer or human listening to the actual phone calls. Verizon is sending the call "metadata".
per the definition given above: "to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls." if a computer records a call, it's intercepted, no?
Verizon is sending them call metadata not actual calls.
That would be the logical interpretation but it is not the interpretation being used by the government.
are you referring to what the Wired article stated?
If you know what the asker is asking, and you choose to interpret it differently to allow a more convenient answer, you're still a lying scumbag.
Jacob Applebaum, of the Tor Project, showed this clip at his keynote at 29C3 last year and commented firstly that General Alexander was probably the most powerful man in the world, and on the basis of this same text, characterised the man as a fucking liar. Your interpretation explanation shows how the creature manages to get away with it.
2 former NSA employees say that the NSA does collect massive amounts of emails from US citizens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcgR057wgoQ

Lookup: "William Binney" former NSA official. he says the NSA intercepts most American email communications.

The problem is that multiple government agencies are essentially playing semantics in an attempt to get around these "restrictions".

Having a permanent digital record of what many assume to be transient information is what makes this alarming beyond belief.

And, of course, the Chief could simply be lying. I'm sure all the effected companies are under gag orders so no one can call him on it.
I was going to correct you because i thought the reporter was James Bamford, but it's not. Bamford knows what he is talking about.
Not excusing the collection of private information, I would be interested in knowing the extent of the analysis done with the data.
Newspeak is rampant these days.
Not surprise this is happening at all.

"Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-admin-spied-fox-new...