That review does not really jive with the complaints from the people on the intelligence oversight committee, the NSA leaders who explicitly lied to congress, the complaint from the author of the patriot act that he thought the NSA was breaking the law, and the subsequently released complaints from the FISA court about illegal and non-credible abusive interpretations of the law and the FISA courts instructions. Also there were several reports saying nothing of consequence was prevented by the entire program. If you know him, maybe you want to ask him how he reconciles all these now matter of public record conflicts with what he just said. Of course he did leave wiggle room in the form of "[not] so clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities." ie it was only somewhat illegal so hey thats ok then? Have to say it seems more plausible to me that they did a faux-forthright job of answering questions from this new review process. I mean what else could they do? Stonewall? Adam On 2 April 2014 19:56, <dan@geer.org> wrote:
[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
What I Told the NSA
Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall, which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here, in brief, is what I told them: