[andrewfong]

One way of interpreting his comments: We suck up all the data and then apply filters to remove domestic information. Although the NSA has access to information on the American people, it does not specifically target Americans and discards purely domestic information. As such, it is not "spying on the American people" so much as inflicting collateral damage on the privacy of the American people.

To a certain extent, this is understandable. The NSA may not trust Verizon's judgment on who a foreign national is. And the nature of a more specific request may reveal classified information -- e.g. if the NSA asked for "all calls to Libya" just prior to the bombing campaign, that may have revealed something was up.

That's not to say any of this is justified, or that the attempts to filter out domestic information are effective. Apparently, you have to be 49% foreign or less to be filtered out, whatever that means (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/bombsh...).

But it's the explanation I would give if I were him.

[d23]

I hear the argument, but I'm just worried about this: what happens in the future if a future politician can change the definition of "terrorist" to include "hacker" or "dissident" or "activist"?

[weland]

I know this is reductio at hitlerum, but about 70 years ago, you had to be 49% foreign or less not to be filtered out...

[eru]

The standards were actually stricter.