Ethical challenge to the idea of America

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

Explains why MO - Bittu has toned down considerably and has almost disappeared. Soon, he will be posting only on gospel and Jesus.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Explains why MO - Bittu has toned down considerably and has almost disappeared. Soon, he will be posting only on gospel and Jesus.

That would be paranoia. While valid questions can be raised, here is a defense of Prism:

1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.
2. It is a reservoir of data (at arms length from the govt) that is available should someone become a 'person of interest'.
3. Unreasonable search and seizure is avoided by this broad sweep of metadata.
4. If Government requires specific targeting there are safeguards - Patriot, FISA etc
5. I think the program will pass muster in terms of constitutionality - laws must keep up with advancing technologies
6. There is no difference between a government camera trained on times square passively capturing images to be used later in case there is a bombing
and Prism.
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats
8. It is telling that democrats are fine with this as opposed to just the republicans.
9. It is stupid to argue that govt should have taken the public into confidence when doing so would have defeated the very purpose of Prism.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Explains why MO - Bittu has toned down considerably and has almost disappeared. Soon, he will be posting only on gospel and Jesus.

That would be paranoia. While valid questions can be raised, here is a defense of Prism:

1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.
2. It is a reservoir of data (at arms length from the govt) that is available should someone become a 'person of interest'.
3. Unreasonable search and seizure is avoided by this broad sweep of metadata.
4. If Government requires specific targeting there are safeguards - Patriot, FISA etc
5. I think the program will pass muster in terms of constitutionality - laws must keep up with advancing technologies
6. There is no difference between a government camera trained on times square passively capturing images to be used later in case there is a bombing
and Prism.
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats
8. It is telling that democrats are fine with this as opposed to just the republicans.
9. It is stupid to argue that govt should have taken the public into confidence when doing so would have defeated the very purpose of Prism.

Hmmm, Why do I think #7 as same as Uppili's comment, and you don't consider that as paranoia, it is like saying, It is OKAY for the Govt. to strip me in a public square to prevent future terrorist attacks on this soil, it doesn't matter that I'm a simpleton.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats

Hmmm, Why do I think #7 as same as Uppili's comment, and you don't consider that as paranoia, it is like saying, It is OKAY for the Govt. to strip me in a public square to prevent future terrorist attacks on this soil, it doesn't matter that I'm a simpleton.

knee-jerk reaction.

If Govt ever stripped you in public square everyone around will see you. In this case, it is not even the govt but some machines that are 'seeing' you in a machine-readable form. No one in govt can look into this without a court order. People should be debating the controls and safeguards not the process itself.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

knee-jerk reaction.

Okeee

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

If Govt ever stripped you in public square everyone around will see you. In this case, it is not even the govt but some machines that are 'seeing' you in a machine-readable form. No one in govt can look into this without a court order. People should be debating the controls and safeguards not the process itself.

Are you sure about that!!

confuzzled dude wrote:

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

knee-jerk reaction.

Okeee

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

If Govt ever stripped you in public square everyone around will see you. In this case, it is not even the govt but some machines that are 'seeing' you in a machine-readable form. No one in govt can look into this without a court order. People should be debating the controls and safeguards not the process itself.

Are you sure about that!!

Are you sure that anyone other than Snowden has been 'fingered' as someone that went snooping with a big fat magnifying glass?
Does the capability exist? Sure...with appropriate permissions. with top security clearances. with audit logs and with a court order. i haven't seen anyone identified at either the executive level, leave alone legislative levels that abused these privileges. have you?

this is a slippery slope and i don't much care about the hue of the politician doing this. this is as slimy as what the bushies did. to say otherwise is hypocritical. it is always possible to come up with reasonable sounding reasons when the guy in the govt diddling us is someone we voted for. a line has been crossed and this young man has only done us a favor putting himself at enormous risk.

count me out of the "majority of americans willing to submit...." to this.

For the record, I was fully on-board with Rumsfeld, Cheney minus Halliburton and Bush's tactics in the war on terror! I had issues with the efficiency and smartness issues around prosecuting that war but not with the overarching philosphy. Renditions, sigint, water-boarding are infiniltely more preferable to having 'true believers' wage war for an imaginary caliphate.

There is no hypocrisy - it is enlightened self-interest. Snowden guy is either a decoy or a stupid naive 29 y/o that has no idea which side his bread is buttered. If he has any solid evidence of abuse then I am happy to fete him and fix the fisa courts in the process.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Explains why MO - Bittu has toned down considerably and has almost disappeared. Soon, he will be posting only on gospel and Jesus.

That would be paranoia. While valid questions can be raised, here is a defense of Prism:

1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.
2. It is a reservoir of data (at arms length from the govt) that is available should someone become a 'person of interest'.
3. Unreasonable search and seizure is avoided by this broad sweep of metadata.
4. If Government requires specific targeting there are safeguards - Patriot, FISA etc
5. I think the program will pass muster in terms of constitutionality - laws must keep up with advancing technologies
6. There is no difference between a government camera trained on times square passively capturing images to be used later in case there is a bombing
and Prism.
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats
8. It is telling that democrats are fine with this as opposed to just the republicans.
9. It is stupid to argue that govt should have taken the public into confidence when doing so would have defeated the very purpose of Prism.

How is it different from what the Chinese, Soviets, and Pakistanis did/doing?

Let America say openly, that they are limited Freedom Country (may still be the best in teh world, but still...), and stop pointing fingers at Saudi, India, etc..etc.. then everything it does is ok.. One cannot have the cake and eat it too.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01e_1175818014

We can keep trading these...but then you knew that.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
count me out of the "majority of americans willing to submit...." to this.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/n-s-a-monitoring-and-partisan-hypocrisy/?hp

"According to a new survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans are O.K. with the National Security Agency’s surveillance program—i.e. secret tracking of phone records. Fifty-six percent think it’s “acceptable” while 41 percent think it’s “not acceptable.” That’s a slight change from seven years ago, when 51 percent said it was acceptable and 47 percent said it was not."

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is a slippery slope and i don't much care about the hue of the politician doing this. this is as slimy as what the bushies did. to say otherwise is hypocritical. it is always possible to come up with reasonable sounding reasons when the guy in the govt diddling us is someone we voted for. a line has been crossed and this young man has only done us a favor putting himself at enormous risk.

count me out of the "majority of americans willing to submit...." to this.

Max: You can be counted out, but you will be counted by the NSA computers.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
count me out of the "majority of americans willing to submit...." to this.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/n-s-a-monitoring-and-partisan-hypocrisy/?hp

"According to a new survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans are O.K. with the National Security Agency’s surveillance program—i.e. secret tracking of phone records. Fifty-six percent think it’s “acceptable” while 41 percent think it’s “not acceptable.” That’s a slight change from seven years ago, when 51 percent said it was acceptable and 47 percent said it was not."

>>>Those stats are disturbing. This suggests an acquiescence to governmental creep in terms of power. I understand that with assorted jihadis running loose, there is a need for extra vigilance, but the default position to start from should be individual rights and then modifications to that, as needed. The protocols that have been in place are robust enough to accomplish this. What is wrong with the need to show cause to a judge and getting permission to wire tap someone, if needed? I don't see the need for this carte blanche for surveillance.

1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.
2. It is a reservoir of data (at arms length from the govt) that is available should someone become a 'person of interest'.
3. Unreasonable search and seizure is avoided by this broad sweep of metadata.
4. If Government requires specific targeting there are safeguards - Patriot, FISA etc
5. I think the program will pass muster in terms of constitutionality - laws must keep up with advancing technologies
6. There is no difference between a government camera trained on times square passively capturing images to be used later in case there is a bombing
and Prism.
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats
8. It is telling that democrats are fine with this as opposed to just the republicans.
9. It is stupid to argue that govt should have taken the public into confidence when doing so would have defeated the very purpose of Prism.

Machines "only" collecting metadata "passively" is actually more pernicious than actually listening-in. It aggregates, puts context to, and ultimately may classify/profile/predict your behavior based on this data. To say that this data is "at an arm's length from the govt" is metacrap. It took me a minute to find that FISA has rejected a whole 11 of nearly 34000 surveillance requests by the govt - if you really believe that FISA is a "safeguard" and that these warrants go through a rigorous process of congressional and judicial oversight, then you have already drunk too much Koolaid.

churi. wrote:... if you really believe that FISA is a "safeguard" and that these warrants go through a rigorous process of congressional and judicial oversight, then you have already drunk too much Koolaid.

Yes, that is Messed-up Bacchu for you. He is a sucker for tall, dark..er..totalitarian figures. Bush-Cheney in the US. NaMo in India. And so on.

churi. wrote:1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.

Machines "only" collecting metadata "passively" is actually more pernicious than actually listening-in. It aggregates, puts context to, and ultimately may classify/profile/predict your behavior based on this data. To say that this data is "at an arm's length from the govt" is metacrap. It took me a minute to find that FISA has rejected a whole 11 of nearly 34000 surveillance requests by the govt - if you really believe that FISA is a "safeguard" and that these warrants go through a rigorous process of congressional and judicial oversight, then you have already drunk too much Koolaid.

Did you hear about Target sending out Pampers discount coupons addressed to a 17 year old daughter a full two weeks before the parents found out?
If you think corporates are being ever-so-careful about your privacy, think again.

US govt employees are slightly different in their behavior to the spine-less babus in New Delhi. They follow the spirit and letter of the law. When they have doubts about legality of an action, they actively question it. Sometimes they go rogue like this Snowden character and take a dump on the 1000's of duty-conscious intelligence officers' hard work and bring it to nought without following protocol.

As long as FISA courts are not used for targeting political adversaries, media and there is no evidence of that happening, there is no reason to think it is not working well.

Kris wrote:I understand that with assorted jihadis running loose, there is a need for extra vigilance, but the default position to start from should be individual rights and then modifications to that, as needed. The protocols that have been in place are robust enough to accomplish this. What is wrong with the need to show cause to a judge and getting permission to wire tap someone, if needed? I don't see the need for this carte blanche for surveillance.

This is in place. What Snowden talks about was a joint decision by all three branches of Government.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

churi. wrote:... if you really believe that FISA is a "safeguard" and that these warrants go through a rigorous process of congressional and judicial oversight, then you have already drunk too much Koolaid.

Yes, that is Messed-up Bacchu for you. He is a sucker for tall, dark..er..totalitarian figures. Bush-Cheney in the US. NaMo in India. And so on.

I take it you prefer metrosexuals like Manmohan and Rahul?

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

Kris wrote:I understand that with assorted jihadis running loose, there is a need for extra vigilance, but the default position to start from should be individual rights and then modifications to that, as needed. The protocols that have been in place are robust enough to accomplish this. What is wrong with the need to show cause to a judge and getting permission to wire tap someone, if needed? I don't see the need for this carte blanche for surveillance.

This is in place. What Snowden talks about was a joint decision by all three branches of Government.

>>>I was referring to getting clearance on a case-by-case basis. I would like to see how this rights -grab gets vetted out from a constitutionality standpoint. I will read up on this more as time permits within the next day or two.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:That would be paranoia. While valid questions can be raised, here is a defense of Prism:

1. Only machines are collecting (passively) 'metadata'. There is no broad targeting.
2. It is a reservoir of data (at arms length from the govt) that is available should someone become a 'person of interest'.
3. Unreasonable search and seizure is avoided by this broad sweep of metadata.
4. If Government requires specific targeting there are safeguards - Patriot, FISA etc
5. I think the program will pass muster in terms of constitutionality - laws must keep up with advancing technologies
6. There is no difference between a government camera trained on times square passively capturing images to be used later in case there is a bombing
and Prism.
7. I suspect a majority of Americans will willingly submit to trading this metadata-level private info for avoiding assorted terrorist threats
8. It is telling that democrats are fine with this as opposed to just the republicans.
9. It is stupid to argue that govt should have taken the public into confidence when doing so would have defeated the very purpose of Prism.

The PRISM program makes me uncomfortable. I don't know if you wrote the above as a summary of the proponents' arguments or your own views, but I disagree with some of these points.

2. I don't buy the "arm's length" argument. When such data is collected by the government, it is quite likely to be abused for petty things like stalking ex-girlfriends and snooping into the activities of one's neighbors. Power corrupts, and access to this information is power.

3. IMO, the very act of a broad and sweeping data pull like this is, by definition, unreasonable search and seizure. If the government mandated the US Post Office and the parcel companies to turn over a record of every single package they carry as a matter of routine without narrower warrant issued based on credible suspicion of illegal activity, that would be viewed as unreasonable search. 

4. I am not sure that such safeguards exist. I remember hearing on NPR that Snowden had the ability to wiretap any individual without a specific warrant. If that is true, it is a clear case of no safeguards. 

5. See my objection to 4 above. If what was reported on NPR was true, I don't think it is constitutional. 

6. There is a difference. When you go into a public place like Times Square, there is no expectation that your behavior in such a place is private. When you make a private phone call, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

7. You are probably right. But this is not evidence-based acceptance of an impingement on freedom that is demonstrated to increase security. No credible case has been made to show that this massive snooping has helped increase security. Modifying a sentiment from the founding fathers: those who willingly give up liberty for a little security stand to lose both; but those who give up liberty for an illusion of security don't deserve either. 

8. The Democrats are driven by the political motivation to not look weak on national security. If you ask me, the Republicans should be up in arms against this, because this is big government snooping into the lives of all citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom are law-abiding.

MB, at 3:30 in the original video you posted, Snowden claims: 

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail.


This is a claim that the government can easily confirm or deny. I haven't seen a denial from the government yet. If Snowden is right, I think this indicates a lack of safeguards and violates the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search.

Idéfix wrote:MB, at 3:30 in the original video you posted, Snowden claims: 

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail.


This is a claim that the government can easily confirm or deny. I haven't seen a denial from the government yet. If Snowden is right, I think this indicates a lack of safeguards and violates the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search.

I would never expect them to deny it, even if it were not true, in the name of national security.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:MB, at 3:30 in the original video you posted, Snowden claims: 

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail.

This is a claim that the government can easily confirm or deny. I haven't seen a denial from the government yet. If Snowden is right, I think this indicates a lack of safeguards and violates the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search.

I would never expect them to deny it, even if it were not true, in the name of national security.

If Snowden did not have the authority he claims to have had, I don't see how national security would be affected by the government saying so. All they would have to say is that he claims more authority he had according to the law of the land, which requires a warrant from a FISA court for such wiretaps.

Welcome back! Was not sure if it was vise or vice that kept you away.

Thanks for the point-by-point rebuttal but instead of the boring back-and-forth that will result, I am going to take a breezy style from here on out, knowing that you will address substantive issues rather than inane ones.

I am sure, you Mr.IIT or any of the number of outsourced consultants to govt. can *design* a system with a lot of safeguards. Can we, as lawyers say, stipulate that much?

It is possible, thus, to create an arms-length repository of phone-bill type information without the repository carrying 'personal' information like names addresses and so on. Yes? You will, being smart, also get the attorney general to issue a legal opinion that phone bills shorn of personally identifiable information does not enjoy the same protections as other personal informatiion. Layer 1 of the defense.

Now for layer 2: You can have enough grilled gates and sentries guarding them before anyone can even look at this data residing in huge servers with realtime accretions to this repository. Yes, if you are a sysadmin with rootlevel access that can do a 'su root', you might be able to 'grep' for a phone number after going though some form of double-blind decryption protocols. Presumably if you are that sysadmin you are content with boning a chick with pole-dancing skills that you do not have such incentives to poke around the system. In any case this repository is a lake of information and no one touches it.

Next to layer 3: Some spl ops guy chewing gum could be walking into a cave in tora bora and discover a neat little SAT phone which he bubblewraps and sends over to langley and a tech guy deciphers all missed, received, placed call numbers. This causes first level of suspicion since it is found in combat zone and some fisa court judge is disturbed during his daughter's sweet 16 party with an urgent summons to tap the 'lake'. This judge turns over the evidence and confirms yes it is supicious and you, gray-suited GI man can have the warrant. This is the point at which the vault is opened and a reasonable search takes place. The server probably prints out a neat little network analysis diagram or two of first and second degree contacts and does cross-referencing with a yet another huge repository of multiple graded lists of undesirables just like dante's description of the levels of hell.

What I tried, and it may have fallen flat frankly, is to show that there is a reasonable path that makes absolute sense to 56% of Americans who see this as nothing more than their government trying to protect them.

Is there legal sophistry involved? absolutely! Are we playing word games about what constitutes "personal" and what are the thresholds for "unreasonable search and seizure" - you bet.

But, are phone bills thrown away every day into the recycle bin complete with names and addresses by millions of Americans? Of course.

Have founding fathers heard of texting and SAT phones? and dirty bombs? Obviously not. So we fight the war with what we have...and the army we have.

Is it a knee-jerk to think all and everything government does must be inefficient by definition or worse, malice? Yes. 

Later...

Idéfix wrote:MB, at 3:30 in the original video you posted, Snowden claims: 

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail.


This is a claim that the government can easily confirm or deny. I haven't seen a denial from the government yet. If Snowden is right, I think this indicates a lack of safeguards and violates the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search.

Please check out testimony by that keith richards character.

*keith alexander NSA director

I am looking for a transcript of Alexander's testimony. In the meanwhile, here is something disturbing. We now know that the testimony that the Director of National Intelligence gave to Congress is not true. 

Still hamstrung by the programs' security classification, Wyden pressed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March 2013 about the NSA. "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" he asked.
"No, sir," Clapper replied. He added: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/08/nsa-phone-records.html

And here is evidence of Keith Alexander providing misleading testimony to Congress:

Rep. Johnson: Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?
Director Alexander: No.
Rep. Johnson: Google searches?
Director Alexander: No.
Rep. Johnson: Text messages?
Director Alexander: No.
Rep. Johnson: Amazon.com orders?
Director Alexander: No.
Rep. Johnson: Bank records?
Director Alexander: No.
Rep. Johnson: What judicial consent is required for NSA to intercept communications and information involving American citizens?
Director Alexander: Within the United States, that would be the FBI lead. If it were a foreign actor in the United States, the FBI would still have to lead. It could work that with NSA or other intelligence agencies as authorized. But to conduct that kind of collection in the United States it would have to go through a court order, and the court would have to authorize it. We’re not authorized to do it, nor do we do it.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/NSA-Director-May-Have-Also-Lied-to-Congress-About-Data-Collection

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:What I tried, and it may have fallen flat frankly, is to show that there is a reasonable path that makes absolute sense to 56% of Americans who see this as nothing more than their government trying to protect them.

Whether a set of procedures makes sense to 56% of the people is not a measure of its constitutionality. There is a good reason the constitution cannot be amended by simple majority.

MB wrote:Is it a knee-jerk to think all and everything government does must be inefficient by definition or worse, malice? Yes. 

My problem with PRISM is not that it is inefficient. PRISM may be very efficient, but I think it is a violation of constitutional liberties. As for malice, in such situations in the US, it is usually not institutional malice on the part of government that we need to worry about. But the availability of such data does enable petty, individual malice directed towards unsuspecting victims. We at SuCH are familiar with the temptation of people to use little scraps of personal information they think they know about their "enemies," and how they try to use it to settle scores. When you have regular human beings with access to such information about people that they have scores to settle with, it is not difficult to imagine how that power might corrupt them.

For some reason, I am not able to find a transcript of Alexander's testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday. I did find his written statement but not the questions from Senators and his responses. Perhaps they Senate website will put it up in a day or two. Media reports indicate that when asked about Snowden's claim of authority to wiretap anyone, Alexander replied:

“False. I know of no way to do that.” 

That second sentence reeks of concerns about plausible deniability. It is interesting that he did not say that any such wiretapping requires a warrant from a FISA court.

Idéfix wrote:
“False. I know of no way to do that.” 

That second sentence reeks of concerns about plausible deniability. It is interesting that he did not say that any such wiretapping requires a warrant from a FISA court.

One is technical feasibility and another is a legally authorized action. He is, presumably, not a SME on network-hacking and so has to be careful when it comes to technical feasibility. The first False is about legally authorized action. No such authority was ever given to an individual. There is no need to impute malice when there are good enough alternatives.

Here are a few videos of executive branch officials denying that these monitoring programs exist. 

Start at 3:25 to see the NSA director deny in Congressional testimony that the NSA routinely intercepts data: 


Watch from 6:10 as the Director of National Intelligence denies the data gathering at a Senate hearing. 

In the second video (6:10 to 6:40), Senator Wyden quotes a statement Keith Alexander made last year at the Defcon in Las Vegas, again denying the existence of data about millions of Americans. Here is the full video of Keith Alexander's presentation at Defcon.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:

Idéfix wrote:
“False. I know of no way to do that.” 

That second sentence reeks of concerns about plausible deniability. It is interesting that he did not say that any such wiretapping requires a warrant from a FISA court.

One is technical feasibility and another is a legally authorized action. He is, presumably, not a SME on network-hacking and so has to be careful when it comes to technical feasibility. The first False is about legally authorized action. No such authority was ever given to an individual. There is no need to impute malice when there are good enough alternatives.

I hope you are right that Snowden did not have the authority he claims -- I want to read the full transcript, specifically the precise question that was asked, and the following questions and answers, before forming an opinion. I don't think any Senator expects Alexander to be a technical expert, so I will be surprised if he was asked if he personally knows how to do it -- that is why the second sentence is intriguing, and reeks of plausible deniability.

Idéfix wrote:I am looking for a transcript of Alexander's testimony. In the meanwhile, here is something disturbing. We now know that the testimony that the Director of National Intelligence gave to Congress is not true. 

Still hamstrung by the programs' security classification, Wyden pressed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March 2013 about the NSA. "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" he asked.
"No, sir," Clapper replied. He added: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect but not wittingly."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/08/nsa-phone-records.html

http://rt.com/usa/intelligence-oversight-congress-difficulties-626/

Wyden was among the senators who questioned National Intelligence Director James Clapper during a hearing in March. When asked whether the government had collected data on millions of US citizens, he answered “not wittingly.”
After the exposure of PRISM, Clapper referred to the question as a “when are you going to start - stop beating your wife" kind of question, adding that his negative answer was the "least untruthful" he could give at the time.
Evasive tactics, of which this episode could be said to be an example, are frowned upon by some legislators.
"Sometimes these briefings are a game of 20 questions. If you don't ask exactly the right question, you don't get the answer," former Representative Jane Harman said when describing the situation.
Things are complicated by the secretive nature of such meetings, which exclude experts advising lawmakers from participating. Without the help of tech-savvy staffers, many lawmakers are simply not capable of asking the right questions.

In this case, Wyden asked the right question, and Clapper gave an untruthful answer -- even if it was less untruthful than other plausible untruthful answers he could have given. Giving the least untruthful of all possible untruthful answers is still lying. There is a reason people are not sworn before their testimonies into telling the "least untruth, the whole least untruth, and nothing but the least untruth." 

The wrong question would have been, "does the NSA record phone conversations / contents of emails of millions of hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper could have replied "no sir" to that and have been truthful. So Wyden actually asked the right question, and was lied to.

Finally ...one needs to examine

1. Oath taken by intelligence officials when they sign up and what they trump
2. Safe harbor provisions about perjury; protections afforded to intelligence folks
3. Collective intelligence position papers on 'messaging' in public domain including open hearings
4. Cross-checks and balances between the three branches of govt
and 
a little number called 56% and climbing.

Lagniappe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/opinion/privacy-trust-and-the-eyes-on-our-data.html

contains a good cross-section of views.

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Finally ...one needs to examine

1. Oath taken by intelligence officials when they sign up and what they trump
2. Safe harbor provisions about perjury; protections afforded to intelligence folks
3. Collective intelligence position papers on 'messaging' in public domain including open hearings
4. Cross-checks and balances between the three branches of govt
and 
a little number called 56% and climbing.

Yes, I agree. They can't be prosecuted for perjury without considering these factors.

I know...this horse has already been beaten to death:

http://ivn.us/ars-politica/2013/06/12/who-owns-your-metadata-hint-not-you/