Hacker News Reader

Comment by Amadou | Hacker News Reader

I think it says a lot that the defense of these programs relies on what amounts to the redefinition of words, sometimes redefinitions with practically the opposite meaning - like how "collect" has been changed to mean access already collected data.

If they can't defend the programs with straightforward language it means they simply aren't being straightforward with us.

View on HN

A week earlier, President Obama, in a television interview, asserted that oversight of the surveillance programs was "transparent" because of the involvement of a special court, even though that court’s sessions and decisions are sealed from the public.

I just don't even know what to say to this. There is no way to have a discussion if they are going to redefine words arbitrarily.

one definition of transparent is, "cannot be seen."

Another real & interesting source: "The Language of the Third Reich," by Victor Klemperer (philologist, brother of the renowned conductor, he flew away from Nazi Germany). This is more relevant than 1984 because it is the real thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

Clapper admitted on national TV that he responded in the “least most untruthful manner”. I've been trying to understand exactly what that means. Doublespeak indeed.

Thanks for sharing that. Absolutely fascinating and chilling.

Can you please (please!) tell me where there's proof that their definition of 'collect' has changed to mean that in their usage. I have suspected that is what Feinstein and others have used as its meaning, but I can't prove it. I have enough proof to satisfy myself they have redefined 'acquire' here, but 'collect' would be nice too, if you would oblige!

"Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information." [1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa....

I don't remember where I first saw it, but it is mentioned on this list of NSA word redefinitions that the EFF is keeping track of:

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames

That's spot on. Their biggest concern would seem to be to re-word things in a way that later they can't be accused of having lied. Clapper lead the charge on that one at the very beginning.

No attempts to actually clarify what they are up to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com