Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 60 posts

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#3

Post by 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.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#5

Post by 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...

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.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#6

Post by brown9-2 »

mitchelllc wrote: post #4
mtgx wrote: post #2

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

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

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.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#8

Post by 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...

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#10

Post by bmelton »

brown9-2 wrote: post #6
mitchelllc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

"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)
Post reply on HN