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, <[1]dan@geer.org> wrote:

     [ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
     [2]www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_506
     5447.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:

References

   1. mailto:dan@geer.org
   2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology