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

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#41

Post by MrUnknown »

sliverstorm wrote: post #27
samstave wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That claim sounds bogus to me. I've seen hosts of legal documents using all caps for everything (ostensibly for readability?).

I believe it is required for some sections to be in all-caps in regards to EULAs to make it more obvious it is there. Specifically, disclaimers, waivers of liability and warranties are almost always in capitol letters.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#42

Post by rhizome »

brown9-2 wrote: post #5

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 "anal…

I have suspected for some time that Congresspeople ask their questions with a public entendre that has a separate, specifically-defined term that allows the answerer to sound like they're answering clearly and forthrightly, but which requires a parse in order to say, "hey, they simply asked the question wrong."

In other words, they collude to keep the public in the dark.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#43

Post by rhizome »

Alex3917 wrote: post #30
samstave wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?" Words don't have universal legal definitions. However, at the start of a law there is usually a list of terms and how they are defined for the purposes of that law. So if want to know whether or not you can be prosecuted for X, you need to look up how the relevant terms are defined in the laws for X. In the case of emails and phone records, in ma…

And many times the terms are defined as a reference to another part of the law. I'm not sure if there is ever a chain of references ("...as defined in secA, secA says: see secB, etc..."), but I wouldn't be surprised.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#44

Post by rayiner »

bmelton wrote: post #10
brown9-2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Legal" usually implies Constitutional. Collecting metadata is quite probably legal in both senses of the term.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#45

Post by newman314 »

brown9-2 wrote: post #5

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 "anal…

The problem is that multiple government agencies are essentially playing semantics in an attempt to get around these "restrictions".

Having a permanent digital record of what many assume to be transient information is what makes this alarming beyond belief.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

bmelton wrote: post #10
brown9-2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#47

Post by nosuchagency »

This is so sad, part of the reason the nsa can get away with this is because of spineless idiots like this cognressman who was clearly more interested in telling his joke about dick cheney, than in defending american's civil rights. This performance from hank johnson is even worse than this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#48

Post by bmelton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #46
bmelton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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 whi…

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.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#49

Post by foobarqux »

chris_mahan wrote: post #15
brown9-2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, and using these definitions, it appears no "interception" happens because there is not a computer or human listening to the actual phone calls. Verizon is sending the call "metadata".

per the definition given above: "to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls." if a computer records a call, it's intercepted, no?

That would be the logical interpretation but it is not the interpretation being used by the government.

Re: NSA Chief Denies Domestic Spying Story (2012)

#50

Post by monkeynotes »

brown9-2 wrote: post #5

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 "anal…

Newspeak is rampant these days.
Post reply on HN