Transparency? The word games behind the defense of NSA surveillance

[99th_Monkey]

Here's a handy guide to understanding the dodgy language used by NSA apologists.

~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~ * ~~~~

Transparency? The word games behind the defense of NSA surveillance
byJoan McCarterFollow * Daily Kos * August 15, 2013

Trevor Timm at the indispensable Electronic Frontier Foundation has your guide to understanding when the government is lying to you about NSA surveillance. Which is pretty much most of the time. Some of his examples:

What does "bulk collection" mean? An intelligence official says it's "when we collect and retain for some period of time that lets us do retrospective analysis." We've seen this in action before, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was trying to twist his way out of admitting that he lied to Congress. The actual act of hoovering up of millions of communications from Americans, without a warrant, isn't "collecting," according to the administration.

Then there's the word "target." When government officials can’t directly answer a question with a secret definition, officials will often answer a different question than they were asked. For example, if asked, “can you read Americans’ email without a warrant,” officials will answer: “we cannot target Americans’ email without a warrant.” As we explained last week, the NSA’s warped definition of word “target” is full of so many holes that it allows the NSA to reach into untold number of Americans’ emails, some which can be purely domestic.

Here's another favorite: the "not under this program" dodge. Another tried and true technique in the NSA obfuscation playbook is to deny it does one invasive thing or another “under this program.” When it’s later revealed the NSA actually doesdo the spying it said it didn’t, officials can claim it was just part of another program not referred to in the initial answer. [...] Now we’re likely seeing it as part of the telephone records collection debate when administration officials repeat over and over that they aren’t collecting location data “under this program.” Sen. Ron Wyden has strongly suggested this might not be the whole story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/15/1231487/-Transparency-The-word-games-behind-the-defense-of-NSA-surveillance?detail=hide

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. If neither the excutive or legislative branches won't tell us..we need more whistleblowers.

[99th_Monkey]

3. I've been wondering what someone does, who is under one of these "gag orders"

National Security Letters sent to people threatening them with arrest if they
reveal what they know, like Sibel Edmonds has been under, as well as those
congress reps (like Ron Wyden) who are on certain committees, and have been
"briefed" by NSA on details they are gagged from being able to talk about.

What if Congress held a Hearing, where someone under a gag order is asked
to testify before Congress, how would that work?

But I digress .. yes .. MORE whistleblowers.

[GoneFishin]

2. And maybe they are using "oversight" in the other sense of the word.

In that case I agree that we have plenty.