Redefining English: Senator Feinstein Says The Press Needs To Stop Calling Patriot Act Surveillance Program A 'Surveillance Program'

from the wow dept

It's no secret that the intelligence community tries to give the "least untruthful" answers by basically redefining the English language. In an open Senate Intelligence Committee hearing today, in which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA boss Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney General James Cole all got to talk up how important spying on everyone is, there was an incredible moment in which Intelligence Committee boss Senator Dianne Feinstein scolded not these bosses of the surveillance program, but the press for calling it a surveillance program. Yes, you read that right. We'll add the clipped video once it's available, but she argued that the Patriot Act's Section 215, which has been interpreted to allow for the collection of phone records on every phone call is NOT a surveillance program because it just "collects metadata." She suggests that it's unfair to call this surveillance program a surveillance program. That's because she's either lying or doesn't understand what metadata reveals.

So we have a simple request. Since metadata is no big deal and it's not surveillance, when will Senator Feinstein release all of the metadata on all of the phone calls to and from her various offices, mobile phones and home phones?

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, metadata, nsa surveillance, patriot act, section 215, surveillance

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 26 Sep 2013 @ 5:17pm

    First-past-the-post. Learn it. Know it. Hate it.

    I really hate this attitude, the equivalent of which is saving, "if you vote for a third party you are wasting your vote."...If it weren't for attitudes like yours third parties would have a chance.

    That is exactly what I'm saying, and while you can fantasize all you want about grassroots attempts to bring in a third party, on a scale like that of California (or even one of it's representative districts) tragedy-of-the-commons will kill your idealistic third-party ambitions. Every. Single. Time.

    It's a weakness of first-past-the-post election systems, which we haven't updated (regarding national representative elections) since we made it.

    Even then, we've gotten good people into office, and they tend to either go bad (e.g. play ball) or go inert (e.g. become useless). So all your effort, even if you did get one of your third-party saviors into office, would probably be moot as he or she got completely walked over for not toeing the line. Even the well-spoken Al Franken has had his sense of humor, along with his human soul, sucked out of him by the process.

    So no. I'm open to solutions, ottermaton, but your line of if you can't organize well enough to get a third-party candidate into office, it's your fault is not going to manifest a voting block large enough to actually succeed. What it might do (if you succeed enough) is throw the election to the other guy, thereby punishing the third-party constituents for even trying. This is why PACs often throw money to third-party candidates that show potential to bleed votes from their primary competitor.

    How the fuck did you get on this boat?

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.