
NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012) - mitchelllc
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/
======
brown9-2
_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...](http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all-
telephone-records)

 _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...](http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-your-
telephone-records)), 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._

~~~
snarfy
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.

~~~
samstave
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?

~~~
anigbrowl
_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.

~~~
stevewillows
This comment should be included (scrolling Star Wars style) before every Alex
Jones video.

~~~
anigbrowl
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

------
DrewHintz
In March 2013, the Director of National Intelligence specifically told Senator
Ron Wyden that the NSA does not wittingly collect any type of data on millions
of Americans:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwiUVUJmGjs&feature=youtu.be&t=6m9s)

------
navyrain
It seems pretty clear that the NSA engages in bulk collection of databases
which _might_ someday contain something interesting, and only considers it
"interception" when they query their own DBs.

These creative redefinitions of seemingly benign terms are at the root of the
problem.

~~~
pyre
It's possible to lie without directly lying here:

\- "Verizon intercepts the calls, we only collect them"

\- "Verison only gives us call meta data (who called whom? when? how long?)."

\- "We don't intercept the emails, Google just gives us all of the emails
sitting on their servers."

... etc

~~~
jongraehl
"we don't - our contractors do"

"we don't - our interception devices do"

:(

------
lsiebert
He was asked about the interception of the email content, but most of the
information we have suggests that the NSA is receiving information about email
and phone metadata.

Also the questions focus on what the NSA is intercepting, not what they are
being given /demanding under a NSL.

Also it's unclear what processing by computers may be done of such material.
If you have a computer doing threat assessment of all emails, but the NSA
employees only get the assessment results, not the text, they could arguably
state what they are saying.

Wrong questions. Someone should clue congress into the right questions.

~~~
cobrabyte
Or, perhaps, the individual asking the questions phrased them in a manner that
would set the public at ease. The words seemed to have been deliberately
chosen to cover the government's ass if/when the truth comes out.

see: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

------
rosser
I wish I were only snarking when I wonder whether there's a double-top-secret
exemption to the laws about perjuring one's self before Congress, which is,
itself, secret. It just wouldn't do to have the laws that allow people to lie
to Congress about secret stuff be public knowledge, after all...

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I doubt it. Instead, I would bet it is under the table, since, in most cases,
the truth can't be determined, and, if the truth _is_ determined, somebody
will have to be on the receiving end of the witch hunt, regardless of whether
there was some "secret perjury immunity".

In other words, if we find out this guy is lying through his teeth, he's toast
no matter what the rules said he "could" say.

------
mtgx
This is from last year. It shows that he was lying the whole time. Hopefully
there are serious consequences for that.

~~~
mitchelllc
I am wondering what the most serious consequence will be, resign or more
serious?

~~~
brown9-2
There will be no consequences because Congress is behind this program, it is
legal, and whether or not this testimony was a "lie" depends upon very
specific definitions of terms like "intercept".

Most of us might hate that the government has this power but that does not
make it extra-legal.

~~~
bmelton
"Allowed by law", "legal" and "constitutional" are all entirely separate
terms.

Without trying to confuse the issue too much, Congress could pass a law that
makes slavery legal again, which is to say, that it is allowed by law. The
flip side to that though, is that the Constitution would prohibit such an
action.

That is clearly of little comfort in the meantime, but it does mean that law
enforcement officers are not necessarily bound to enforce the law, courts are
not necessarily bound to uphold it, and it likely has a good chance of being
overturned by the Supreme Court (if not before).

American Jurisprudence has this to say on the matter:

    
    
        It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law to be 
        valid, one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
        The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having 
        the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, 
        and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from 
        the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the 
        decision so branding it an unconstitutional law.
    
        In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never 
        been passed...
    
        Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow;
        that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows 
        no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no 
        acts performed under it.
    
        A void law cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An 
        unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
    
        Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the 
        land, it is superseded thereby.
    
        No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to 
        enforce it.
    

(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

~~~
dragonwriter
Interestingly, your own extended quote from American Jurisprudence contradicts
your thesis, and clearly lays out why "legal" and "constitutional" are not
separate terms, as a purported law that contravenes the Constitution, "though
having the form and name of law, is in reality no law" and "is as inoperative
as if it had never been passed". Therefore, while Congress could pass
something that pretended to be a law which violated the Constitution, by doing
so it would make "in reality no law", and whatever was purported to be made
legal by that law would _not_ be legal.

To be legal, under US law, an act must _necessarily_ be Constitutional as
well; an unconstitutional act is, _ipso facto_ , illegal.

~~~
bmelton
Too true. I was trying to differentiate the difference between Congress'
"legalization" of something, and its actual legality and, in the process,
failed miserably.

Thanks for the correction.

------
dnm
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to the Guardian article. My
understanding of that is that there's an NSL ordering Verizon to give
electronic records of the calls to the NSA. The NSA isn't collecting,
intercepting or monitoring anything. They're being handed the data by VZ.
What's the relevance?

------
MrQuincle
So, if I understand correctly, the "challenge" for the NSA is to route
everything through routers in a foreign country. There the NSA is allowed to
do whatever it wants.

------
mimiflynn
Should we add the story date to this title? 3/20/2012

------
scrabble
Does anyone trust an organization that has been spying on them to tell them
the truth afterwards?

------
coldcode
Sir your pants are on fire.

------
godgod
In other words, your government lies to you.

~~~
chris_mahan
Of course they do. All governments do.

------
VoiceofKtulu
This article is a year old, guys.

~~~
MWil
you do realize that the old story is important in today's context, right?

