Awesome Stuff: Have A Cool Drink This Weekend
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

NSA's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

Techdirt

from the let's-here-the-other-side-speak dept

Sat, Jun 15th 2013 12:00pm -

Given how much time we’ve spent on the NSA surveillance story this week, we thought it would only be fair to allow the NSA a chance to speak for itself, and so we offered up our standard “favorite Techdirt posts of the week” post to the NSA. I think we may have accidentally signed ourselves up for PRISM in doing so, but such is life.

First off, thanks to Mike for giving us this chance to reach out directly. We’re already well aware of what you think of us (you know why), and frankly, Techdirt seemed rather empty this week compared to its usual bits of content. But, here are our favorites, and your own surfing habits suggest you agree:

  • ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
  • ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
  • ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼
  • These are sobering findings.
  • ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼

Thanks again! See you next week, even if you won’t see us.


118 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NSA's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
118 Comments
DCP says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm

Name-calling and insults are nearly always used when the antagoniser cannot come up with anything original to say and I think OOTB well qualifies. Certainly seems to be lacking a few brain cells in the subtlety, originality and sociability departments. In fact, I suppose most folk would class those sort of foul-mouthed insults as coming from someone with a distinct lack of education, manners and/or social graces and, in the case of OOTB (judging by his comments with their ever-increasing coarseness), they would probably be spot-on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 12:02pm

I can sense your anger and I know why you are angry.
The rise of pirates have rob you of your pride, you believed in something that was never to last.

You won’t find peace in anger.

Piracy is here to destroy monopolies that outgrown their usefulness and others are not responsible for your wrong choices in life.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I read that conversation you had with it. It was hard to read your responses. Mike clearly stated what he believes then you ignorantly change what he said. It was like watching some trying to argue something was blue when it was red. The only person who thinks won that conversation was you. I cringed as it went deeper and deeper and you willfully didn’t see it.

Anonymous Coward says:

◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼ ◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼◼

◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊, ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊. ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊! ◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊? ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Fear and loathing

Between the chickenshit spammers that seem to roost here, and the NSA apologizers, this article fits right in..I mean, there’s nothing there that could be, should be read by ordinary people.

Secret stuff is still stupid, like the agency that handed this out back when secrecy was not redactable.

Oh, standards have gravely slipped.

Must put a new law into place to control the idiots.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, that would be the Entertainment industry with a long history of being on rehab. The tech industry and those associated with it tend to be more educated and not on drugs. It’s not like politicians or the entertainment industry ever innovates (beyond leeching off of other people’s innovations of course), they’re all too high and stupid to know anything about tech. Oh, sure, politicians used to innovate a long time ago (Benjamin Franklin and electricity, Thomas Jefferson was very brilliant and supposedly spoke five languages and if you read his works he is obvious very brilliant) but those days are now long gone (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul who was a medical doctor for a number of years).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Come on. You know where he works. You’re probably obsessive enough to know where he lives. If you really want to have a discussion with him: schedule a meeting, buy a plane ticket, get a hotel, then go talk to him. But your broke ass can’t afford that. Face it, you went to law school but are too much of a douchebag to even be a working lawyer. Society would be better off if you decide to go off yourself.

horse with no name says:

Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:

Well, let’s see. Mike’s been in such a tizzy over getting the top ranking for the NSA keywords on Google that he sort of ignored at least a couple of things.

One such story was a review of the “leaker” himself, showing that he exaggerated his claims, and potentially may just be a patsy for other people doing the real leaking. His employer pointed out that this high school drop out wasn’t making the 200k a year that he claimed, as an example, and that it’s rare for someone with 3 months experience to be in job this guy claimed to be in. Could be nothing more than BS, but interesting that it got no play on Techdirt.

Another interesting story that didn’t make it here was that Trent Reznor announced a new NIN album is coming out. Now, Techdirt doesn’t usually cover record releases, but then again, it’s not every day that the Lord of the FREE! Reznor announces new music – on a record label. That’s right, the new album is getting released on Columbia. So the message here is “do it yourself when nobody will pay for it, but most certainly use labels when you want to make money and get wide exposure”. Another story just not making it onto Techdirt.

Then again, we still have Step2 on the top of every page (and that dog is dead), but the CwF thing is pretty much gone, replaced with “buy our stuff” insider shop. Sort of tells you a whole story, doesn’t it?

So actually, this is in keeping with this joke post from Mike, which is that Techdirt redacted anything that would go against the themes of the site, even if it is news and interesting.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 exaggerated his claims,

No, go boil your head. If I met you in real person, bad things would happen. For the sake of humanity take yourself out. yet you cower in being anonymous. You fear being DOXed. If you’re really interested, I’ll post my real name, location and a time we can meet you slimy coward.

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: exaggerated his claims,

Oh, and little boy, maybe you should read a bit more:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

Not exactly the same thing, is it? You are falling for the same thing that drives much of Techdirt these days, third hand information and unverified sources.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:

Hey Blue, you’re a little late to the game — we covered the fact that Trent Reznor was going to Columbia last year, and even interviewed him about it:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/00013120781/trent-reznor-talks-to-techdirt-about-his-unconventional-new-record-deal-why-he-still-loves-diy.shtml

Maybe you should actually read Techdirt instead of going straight to the comments to complain that we didn’t write what you wanted us to write…

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:

Hi Leigh.

Actually, that story is a year old, and it was in relation to Trent’s work with his wife on the How to Destroy Angels project. Part of the reasoning for a label deal at that point was because the project was not the same as NIN, and therefore needed the exposure that Trent could not generate himself within his own fan base.

To quote “Reznor pointed out that he has a huge fan base… for Nine Inch Nails. He was worried that those fans are the only ones who would pay attention — and that they’d not necessarily appreciate How to Destroy Angels or (worse!) think that it’s “just a side project with my wife.” He specifically worried that NIN fans would say “this isn’t what we want to hear,” and that would then limit their ability to reach a wider audience.”

Not a single mention there of a new NIN album. In fact, Trent had been in the past pretty clear that there was no new NIN material in the making. Something clearly changed in the last 12 months.

So before you get all uppity and feel superior about yourself, perhaps you should consider that the story clearly has changed since October 2012, and now the deal has clearly expanded to cover NIN work as well.

No matter how you feel about it, it’s a pretty significant situation when even NIN needs the label deal to get the exposure and connections required to be hit material, don’t you think? The release of a new NIN album (and not work with his wife) is pretty important, don’t you think?

As a side note, your uppity and superior tone makes you sound like a smarmy little kid. It’s not the first time this week that you have completely missed the point of a post, trying to sound like you know better. Maybe you should spend a little more time reading and understanding before you dismiss comments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile... the stories that didn't get covered:

No is not, NIN is just using the tools available to him, labels are a tool to be used, they are not the only gate to go and that empowers musicians by orders of magnitude when time comes to sit down and talk numbers.

Any more horseshit you want to say.

Zem (profile) says:

Cracked it

So I passed the page code through a program that assigns ascii code based upon certain non standard formatting. Then using the meta data, and my 100tb sieve, I ran it though a standard decryption routine. The next bit was hard, I had to find someone who could translate Navajo code (was suprised they still use it).

End result was a very nice recipe for chicken alphabet noodle soup. I suspect there is also a message in the soup but I was too hungry at the time to stop and read it.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Not so funny, now

This came in over at CNET today-

The NSA is listening to calls without a warrant. Usually it’s based on an analyst’s decision:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

” The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.”

” If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee. “

Who’s laughing now? I’m certainly not.

horse with no name says:

Re: Not so funny, now

Again:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Ca lls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

Not exactly the same thing, is it? You are falling for the same thing that drives much of Techdirt these days, third hand information and unverified sources.

Work on critical thinking, you might do better!

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting conservatives, DHS buying billions of rounds of ammo and no-hesitation targets, politicians attempting to disarm the public, TSA molestors at airports, VIPR squads at bus stops, FBI foiling its own plots while failing to prevent real ones despite explicit warnings, Obamacare, government lies about chemical weapons being used in Syria (gee, kind of like Iraq…), public military drills in metropolitan cities such as LA, Miami and Chicago, copyright maximalists’ extortion scheme and lobbying for a regulatory coup of the internet, pharmaceutical industries preventing cheaper medications from being imported, patent trolling at an all-time high, private corps using children as guinea pigs for invasive data-mining at public schools without parental consent (e.g. retina scans), and now the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic snooping PRISM program.

Do you see a silver lining in all this because I sure don’t.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Quote:

Nadler: OK, then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn?t need a new warrant. Other-words is what you just said is incorrect. So there?s a conflict.

Mueller: I?m not sure it?s the answer to the same question. I?m sorry, I didn?t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it?s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Taken from your own source, do you even read what you post?

little green men says:

Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Why am I not surprised that Little Green Footballs got this wrong?

Rep. Nadler did say that he was told that a new warrant was not needed to listen to the call. Nadler asked Director Mueller what was necessary in order to “listen to the phone,” Mueller said “a particularized order from the FISA court” would be required, Nadler then asked if that answer was “classified in any way,” Mueller said he didn’t “think so,” then Nadler said that he was told that “you didn’t need a new warrant.” The context is beyond clear. Nadler asks it twice, first as “get the contents of that phone,” and then as “listen to that phone.” Metadata comes up only once and it’s merely used as the reason someone might “want to do more” in Mueller’s words. You can assert that Nadler got it wrong (misunderstood, misremembered, or even lied) but not that CNET mischaracterized Nadler. I actually went through the trouble of transcribing the exchange below.

Nadler: “Secondly, um, under section 215, if you’ve gotten information from metadata and you, as a result of that, um, think that, ‘Um, gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, um, looks suspicious, and we ought to actually get the contents of that phone, of that phone’ do, do you need a new specific warrant?”

Mueller: “You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information so you need the subscriber information. You would have to get probably a national security letter to get that subscriber information.”

Nadler: “And to…”

Mueller: “And then if you wanted to do more…”

Nadler: “If you wanted to listen to the phone?”

Mueller: “Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.”

Nadler: “Now is the answer you just gave me classified?”

Mueller: “Is what?”

Nadler: “Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?”

Mueller: “I don’t think so.”

Nadler: “Okay, then I can ask, then I can say the following: We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that, uh, you could get, uh, specific information from that telephone, uh, simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict…”

Mueller: “I’m not certain it’s the same answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.”

Nadler: “Well, I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question.”

Check the accuracy of my transcription yourself– http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FBIOver

Nadler begins to speak at about 46:20 into the video.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Quote:

Nadler: “Okay, then I can ask, then I can say the following: We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that, uh, you could get, uh, specific information from that telephone, uh, simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict…”

I don’t think he reads what he posts or think much about it, because clearly Mr. Nadler is questioning why before they were told that they could get the the information and contents of calls with just an analyst believing they needed and now that is not the case, I believe that is what he meant by “So there’s a conflict…”

Mueller appears to pull the “confused act”, he clearly was caught unprepared.

little green men says:

Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Looks like I was right. It wasn’t a mischaracterization of Nadler’s words. It looks like Nadler is the one who got it wrong. According to The Atlantic (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/), he has walked back his comments. You don’t walk back comments unless you’ve screwed up.

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Not so funny, now

Nadler sounds confused, so it’s hard to take any of this stuff at face value. Clearly he got something wrong somewhere along the line, and while he feels he asked the same question, clearly he did not – in part because of the “setup” of the question.

Nadler’s own questioning is weak, and so confusing that he appears to have confused himself. Why not just ask a direct question instead of running around in twisted circle? He left himself (and everyone else) confused.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Not so funny, now

He didn’t sound confuse when he asked Mueller which ones was it, they need a FISC authorization or just an analyst to start looking into the contents of phone calls.

Is right there on the link you have provided.

Now you want to believe the NSA is not looking into everything, well, I have this bridge you know, have you intersted in making a once in a lifetime investment on a sure high ROI? by the way I have to transfer fifteen million dollars but I need a contact are you interested in it I am an African Prince.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Not so funny, now

Not saying that Nadler got it right, but this…

You don’t walk back comments unless you’ve screwed up.

…is just a wrong statement. Accurate comments are sometimes walked back or “corrected”, if the comments were something that wasn’t supposed to be revealed or were damaging to someone powerful enough to demand a walkback.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Not so funny, now

Check the accuracy of my transcription yourself

I’ve compared your transcription with another transcription of that same exchange.

That other transcription is contained with the story, ?Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls?, by Connor Simpson, The Atlantic Wire, dated: “12:30 PM ET” (no other date) (web page metadata: Modified: 16 Jun 2013).

While there are some differences in words and phrases between the two transcripts, those differences do not appear to materially affect the substance of the exchange.

Further, while I did not review the video at this time, I did watch the hearing live on C-SPAN. Both transcripts substantially comport with my recollection of the essentials of that exchange.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Not so funny, now

Check the accuracy of my transcription yourself

? with another transcription of that same exchange.

A third transcription: ?James Clapper Throws a Concentrated Nugget of Orwellian Turd-Splat?, Emptywheel, June 17, 2013.

Emptywheel indicates she did her transcription herself:

I?ve put my transcription of the exchange between Jerry Nadler and Robert Mueller below?

Again, some small differences among ?all three, now? transcriptions. Emptywheel does omits one brief bit of dialogue that may have been cross-talk. No material differences.

Magill (profile) says:

Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not

As recent investigative reporting the AP points out … (and which many of us in the Networking business have known about since the 1970s! … remember, the Internet used to be called the ARPAnet!)

“Americans who disapprove of the government reading their emails have more to worry about from a different and larger NSA effort that snatches data as it passes through the fiber optic cables that make up the Internet?s backbone. That program, which has been known for years, copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis.”

PRISM may “focus” the data stream into many independent feeds, but the “bulk feed” has been in place for a long time. And when you consider how “dirt cheep” Terrabyte disk drives are today…

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not

That program, which has been known for years, copies Internet traffic as it enters and leaves the United States, then routes it to the NSA for analysis.”

This is true (and covers all digital communications, not just internet — so it includes telephone, too).

However, there’s a little tricksiness in that description. The program isn’t limited to internet traffic that leaves or enters the US. It’s all internet traffic. They say it’s “international”, but they have define all internet traffic as “international” regardless of the origin or destination of the packets.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not

I take back that assertion.

Well, one of the items that I was comparing it against was a story that came out in today’s Washington Post.

?U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata?, by Barton Gellman, June 16, 2013

? Lawyers for the agency came up with an interpretation that said the NSA did not ?acquire? the communications, a term with formal meaning in surveillance law, until analysts ran searches against it. The NSA could ?obtain? metadata in bulk, they argued, without meeting the required standards for acquisition.

Goldsmith and Comey did not buy that argument, and a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official said the NSA does not rely on it today.

As soon as surveillance data ?touches us, we?ve got it, whatever verbs you choose to use,? the official said in an interview. ?We?re not saying there?s a magic formula that lets us have it without having it.? ?

So at one time ?although, it is claimed, not anymore? it is semi-reputedly asserted that NSA lawyers were playing definitional games with the word ?acquire?.

We’ve heard something similar about possible definitional games with the word ?collect?.

Then there’s the ?51% chance of foreign?, and I believe that may actually be attributable to a named source.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not

I do not take back the assertion that all traffic is being captured.

From the Associated Press story referenced by the OP, the closest to a named, reputable(*) source that I can come up with for that assertion is Bruce Schneier. And Schneier makes clear that that’s just a reasonable assumption. It appears that he doesn’t know it for a fact, of his own personal knowledge, and can’t testify to it. He’s just making assumptions.

Meanwhile, we have the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committe, Mike Rogers (Michigan) telling us today:

Asked if he could provide assurance that calls were not being listened to or recorded by the U.S. government without warrants, Rogers replied, ?absolutely.?

?It is against the law for the NSA to record and monitor U.S., Americans? phone calls. It is against the law, and the law is very clear on this,? Rogers said.

?It would mean that the NSA had to conspire with the FBI, would have to conspire with both parties in Congress on the intelligence committees and the oversight functions in the executive branch to do something beyond what the law very narrowly allows. I find that implausible,? he added. ?The NSA is not listening to Americans phone calls and it is not monitoring their emails. If it did it is illegal, it is breaking the law.?

While most of that statement refers to phone content (which may or may not have anything to do with VoIP), the portion that says, ?The NSA ? is not monitoring their emails,? seems to refer to internet content.

Of course, Mr Rogers was not under oath?he was on CNN. And the American electorate just isn’t too shocked any more by politicians who tell bare-faced lies.

(*) Btw, ?semi-reputedly? in my earlier post should have been ?semi-reputably?. However, despite the difference in meaning, either word does work in that earlier context.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Prism may be new.. but the "pipe" is not

[Rep. Rogers:] ?The NSA ? is not monitoring their emails?

?Exposure of NSA surveillance draws attention to Mueller remark about real time email tracking?, by Catherine Herridge, Fox News, June 17, 2013

With the growing scrutiny of government databases and the extent of domestic surveillance, new questions are being raised about a program FBI Director Robert Mueller once said could pull in emails from U.S. citizens on domestic soil ?as they come in.?

Mueller?s comments came during a routine Senate Judiciary Oversight Committee hearing in March 2011.

?.?.?.?.

?Going forward, which is all we need to be concerned about at this time, what can you tell us about new procedures that are in place that will head off another Fort Hood in the future?? then-Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl asked at the 2011 hearing.

Mueller replied: ?We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search.?

Much like Declan McCullagh’s CNET story over the weekend, I’m not sure that the facts behind the Fox News story published today bear the interpretion spun onto them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Puerile and childish

We’ll Mansick is up to his usual standard, wow If I was a 8 year old school boy I might think this was funny.

It’s sad to see how Masnick thinks this is just some sort of joke for him to make a little extra money.

And he copped some considerable flak from it too, But Masnick is simply too stupid to see what this kind of thing does to the tatters that are the left overs of whatever was left of his ‘reputation’.

Are those blank lines every single original thought that Masnick has ever had ?

Masnick, no one quite knows what it is you do with your life, but one thing for sure, you don’t know how to do ‘funny’.

We do know thought that Masnick has found his position in life, and is at least aware of his limitations.

Who else would spend their entire lives cleaning the toilets of the internet and pasting them here.

I hope you 15 diehard, cultist fans found this really funny, and that it was worth it for the slap in the fact this has done to your already deeply damaged ‘reputation’.

Masnick, you are really funny when you are trying to be serious, you are seriously bad when you are trying to be funny.

Anonymous Coward says:

Puerile and childish

We’ll Mansick is up to his usual standard, wow If I was a 8 year old school boy I might think this was funny.

It’s sad to see how Masnick thinks this is just some sort of joke for him to make a little extra money.

And he copped some considerable flak from it too, But Masnick is simply too stupid to see what this kind of thing does to the tatters that are the left overs of whatever was left of his ‘reputation’.

Are those blank lines every single original thought that Masnick has ever had ?

Masnick, no one quite knows what it is you do with your life, but one thing for sure, you don’t know how to do ‘funny’.

We do know thought that Masnick has found his position in life, and is at least aware of his limitations.

Who else would spend their entire lives cleaning the toilets of the internet and pasting them here.

I hope you 15 diehard, cultist fans found this really funny, and that it was worth it for the slap in the fact this has done to your already deeply damaged ‘reputation’.

Masnick, you are really funny when you are trying to be serious, you are seriously bad when you are trying to be funny.

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually he’s having a great week. It’s the trolls not doing so well as many of the community have figured out it’s a waste of time to respond and just go ahead and hit the report button until the magic amount of people have buried the response.

I’m curious how long post #89’s visible life will be.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Awesome Stuff: Have A Cool Drink This Weekend
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...