

Misinformation on NSA programs includes statements by senior U.S. officials - molecule
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/misinformation-on-classified-nsa-programs-includes-statements-by-senior-us-officials/2013/06/30/7b5103a2-e028-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_print.html

======
Amadou
I think it says a lot that the defense of these programs relies on what
amounts to the redefinition of words, sometimes redefinitions with practically
the opposite meaning - like how "collect" has been changed to mean access
already collected data.

If they can't defend the programs with straightforward language it means they
simply aren't being straightforward with us.

~~~
sage_joch
_A week earlier, President Obama, in a television interview, asserted that
oversight of the surveillance programs was "transparent" because of the
involvement of a special court, even though that court’s sessions and
decisions are sealed from the public._

I just don't even know what to say to this. There is no way to have a
discussion if they are going to redefine words arbitrarily.

~~~
manys
one definition of transparent is, "cannot be seen."

------
belorn
I would place some part of blame on the journalists for not asking specific
enough questions. All the discussion around "direct access" was a typical
example where more precise questions would say more than hundred pages of
discussion.

For example, do Google allow NSA to run computer code on google's servers?
More specific, do NSA supply database queries when demanding data? Do NSA ever
provide Google with tracking code like JS or links to NSA webbugs (1px imgs)
that Google later put in targeted ads? Do Google ever provide physical (or
remote) access to servers, hard drives (like backups) or network devices to
NSA?

Either of those would to me be equivalent with "direct access", while I can
perfectly see how Google would not define it as such.

~~~
acqq
I can imagine that the current state of affairs is that the private tracking
networks sell the data to NSA. It's not just the problem if the private
company or the government institution does something, the bigger problem is if
the whole system which includes the private companies is outside of checks and
balances and prone to misuse. The honest and not hidden laws should regulate
both private and government uses of citizens' data.

------
dantheman
It's unfortunate that the rule of law bifurcating in this country - swat teams
and militaristic police for us common folk and the ability to lie to congress,
etc not being punished for the rulers. Hopefully a committee will be started
to investigate these crimes and people will involved will be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law.

------
mtgx
As I said at almost every article where the "NSA officials" were defending the
programs in some way - _Do not trust them_! They _can 't_ be trusted.

We need a real external investigation done into this (and even that needs to
be done by very _credible_ people), and then we'll see how it all goes. You
can't be naive enough to trust anything the NSA or the administration is
saying now.

~~~
oleganza
Who should investigate this? The same government guys? Will you trust this
investigation?

Private investigators? Will multi-layered bureaucracy let any outsider to just
go in and look into papers? Or you suggest going to congress and mr. president
to ask permission to let you investigate? (Basically, asking the same gov.
guys you never trust.)

Here's suggestion: I don't want to play this game. Let NSA do whatever they
want to do, but I don't want to pay for this. Let me not pay my taxes and use
different currency, so they cannot tax me by inflating it. Then we'll see if
they'll have enough funds to continue doing what they are up to.

The real fix is total removal of any moral justification for the government.
Give voluntarily to those who deserve it (in your view) and expose violence
when they try to extract money from you by force (explicitly via taxation or
implicitly via inflation). When people see the "gun in the room", they'll be
more informed about how shit like NSA happens to them and how to _actually_
prevent it.

However, if you in favor of some government policy, I respect you decision and
will never violently prevent you from sponsoring it. But will you give me the
same respect if I disagree with you and not violently prevent _me_ from
withdrawing my participation? In other words, will you blame or at least not
justify a violent action against me if I decide to not pay for some government
programs I dislike?

~~~
rayiner
You're welcome to withdraw from our social compact, but in doing so you can't
be allowed to stay on U.S. soil because as a practical matter we can't help
but defend you from invasion if you do. I'm sure there are lots of other
countries that would love to have you, though.

~~~
oleganza
So you can point out legitimate owners of the soil? Was there a contract among
some folks? Maybe you have some theory of property rights. I'd be very
interested to hear it and see how consistent it is.

Btw, slavery once was legal too. It must be covered by your theory of justice.

~~~
rayiner
Nobody "owns" the soil, not really. "Ownership" is a fiction--nothing more
than an implied agreement between you and a big enough group of other people
that if someone tries to displace you from a particular patch of soil, the
group will forcibly remove that person. The U.S. governments (the federal and
states) don't "own" the soil within the borders of the U.S., but have
exclusive jurisdiction to enforce ownership agreements on U.S. soil for no
greater or lesser reason other than the fact that they can defend those
borders against outsiders.

It is interesting that you mention slavery. No amount of bleeting about
"natural rights" will keep armed people from enslaving you, as has happened
countless times throughout history. Your "right" to freedom is nothing more or
less than your agreement with a sufficiently large group of other people that
they will defend you against people trying to enslave you. The history of
slavery in the U.S. actually exemplifies this. The 13th amendment didn't end
slavery. Constitutional recognition of peoples' inherent right to freedom
didn't end slavery. Union soldiers burning down southern cities ended slavery.

~~~
oleganza
See my comment below. I don't advocate any definition of "ownership". Call it
however you want. It is you, not me who is using those concepts when you tell
me that some group of people have some sort of agreement by which I must pay
taxes, use certain paper bills as a legal tender etc. I am only saying that if
I don't hurt anyone and do not want to participate in certain activities, what
is the justification for violent action against me?

So please explain what you meant by your original comment.

~~~
rayiner
The justification is that you are on soil that was staked out and is defended
by those other people. You're welcome to leave, but you're not welcome to stay
without abiding by the rules of the group.

You are advocating a particular definition of ownership: ownership that gives
you the right to occupy soil independent of any compact with some other group
of people.

------
seclorum
I hope that in the future states of the Earth, they teach disinformation and
doublespeak detection/eradication techniques to the teenagers of the tomorrow.
It sure would help to know thats going to happen..

------
Mordor
> I assume most people are acting in good faith

He's talking about himself of course, the NSA is premised upon the exact
opposite.

