New evidence of the intelligence community’s intentionally deceptive use of the English language was released today in the form of a Defense Intelligence Agency document that instructs analysts to use words that do not mean what they appear to mean.
The section of the DIA’s “intelligence law handbook” on the “Collection of Information about United States Persons” opens like this:
To begin the journey, it is necessary to stop first and adjust your vocabulary. The terms and words used in DoD 5240.1-R have very specific meanings, and it is often the case that one can be led astray by relying on the generic or commonly understood definitions of a particular word.
DoD 5240.1-R — entitled “Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons” – is the Department of Defense document that implements Executive Order 12333, the unilateral presidential directive first signed by President Reagan that authorizes government agencies to covertly sweep up vast amounts of private data from overseas communications.
The plainspoken employee handbook was one several documents about Executive Order 12333 the ACLU obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and released today. See also today’s Intercept story: “The Ghost of Ronald Reagan Authorizes Most NSA Spying”
Here is the handbook explaining how not to be led astray:
For example, “collection of information” is defined in the Dictionary of the United States Army Terms (AR 310- 25) as: “The process of gathering information for all available sources and agencies. ” But, for the purposes of DoD 5240 .1-R, information is “collected” —
only when it has been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component in the course of his official duties… (and) an employee takes some affirmative action that demonstrates an intent to use or retain the information.
So, we see that “collection of information” for DoD 5240.1-R purposes is more than “gathering” – it could be described as “gathering, plus … “. For the purposes of DoD 5240.1-R, “collection” is officially gathering or receiving information, plus an affirmative act in the direction of use or retention of that information.
For good measure, there’s this footnote:
In addition, data acquired by electronic means is “collected” only when it is processed into intelligible form…;What constitutes an intelligible form may be somewhat problematic.
Analysts can even gather information and keep it for up to six months without it counting as having been “collected”, as long as it’s being “held or forwarded to a supervisory authority, solely for the purpose of making a determination about its collectability.”
Although the intelligence community’s astonishing abuse of words has been frequently noted, particularly in the context of surveillance, this may be the first time we’ve actually seen an instruction manual.
And as it happens, it comes right in the middle of a couple pieces I’m writing about another linguistic perversion, the non-denial denial. (My exegesis of CIA director John Brennan’s latest ran on Friday; more examples from recent history should be out tomorrow.)
The intelligence community’s redefinition of terms inspired the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer and Brett Max Kaufman last year to author a “lexicon for decoding the true meaning of what NSA officials say” which includes nifty non-intuitive recastings of terms such as surveillance, relevant, targeted, incidental and inadvertent.
There’s also a “Guide to the Deceptions, Misinformation, and Word Games Officials Use to Mislead the Public About NSA Surveillance” that Trevor Timm wrote for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Mike Masnick’s more tongue in check “NSA-To-English Dictionary” from Techdirt.
This is the definition of “collection” that has been in use for at least 20 years, based on my first-hand experience. It is really meant to provide the collector a way to separate the wheat from the chaff without getting in trouble for having inadvertently gathered that chaff. Once it reveals it self to be chaff, it is to be disposed of in accordance with whatever rules are in place at a particular activity. If you’re looking for things to worry about, focus on those *rules* and those *activities* and don’t be distracted by silliness like this.
Not many comments, but all comments are held for reasons their authors totally disagree with. Now you can stop my right to speak freely to others on any subject by just moderating….as in,,,,make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent.
“I shall not moderate my criticism”
synonyms: die down, abate, let up, calm down, lessen, decrease, diminish;,,,,,In other words you moderate to make sure I agree with you. Interesting that I still lose my right to freedom of expression when my views do not coincide with yours. I wonder what they call that? I can’t think of the word right now…but I will eventually!
Did they get their playbook directly from Orwell;s 1984, or what? This is so bizarre! It reminds me of something some fiend like Hitler would come up with.
tl; dr: Just assume that they are lying. Makes things much simpler.
It seems pretty plain to me. “Gathering” is like a blowjob. “Collecting” is swallowing it.
Just sounds like more lipstick on pigs.
How is it that the bulk of ‘journalists’ do not realise how they are being played so thoroughly and so continuously? Some may be sympathisers / collaborators with the new authoritarianism, some may be afraid in some form conscious or unconscious. But I get no sense even of them holding their noses over the ordure they are shovelling on behalf of governments. Its not even as if the ends justify the deceits, the corruption of everything we hold in such esteem will only undermine our future prosperity. Its like a line by line repudiation of the enlightenment.
That’s the way it’s always been in the U.S. government. Powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and justices in all three branches of government have always been free to twist and interpret the words of our Constitution, laws, and regulation however they like, and we the people simply have to abide by their twisted interpretations.
Look how long it has taken for the Bill of Rights to be “incorporated” or determined to be applicable against the laws of individual states, when that was clearly the intent and meaning from the beginning. And we still don’t have the right to a grand jury when charged with a felony under state law, even though that is clearly the plain reading of the Fifth Amendment.
What’s the difference between a terrorist and a soldier from foreign soil?
Music and video file-sharers should redefine “download” as including the act of listening or viewing what they retrieve from the internet. Before anyone can be accused of pirating digital information, it would then be necessary for content owners to prove it has actually been consumed.
As I’m sure froomkinknows It’s entirely normal in political, legal contexts to define commonly used terms and by necessity with there being so many different ways to define a term the definition given to a word will sometimes seem like a perversion of the word as Dan Froomkin uses it but that doesn’t mean this amounts to an intentionally deceptive use of the language. Not even close. It’s simply that the definition doesn’t conform to how it’s used in all contexts. The way they use” collect” does seem like a perversion of the usual meaning but they’re not deceiving anyone. Collect better describes the activity prior to the 6 month expiration, with ” store” or “retain” better describing decision to hold onto
Of course they are deceiving people. When they testify before congress they well know that they are using one definition and Congress another. In fact, both may be aware of the subterfuge and conduct this little play to fool the citizens they are spying on. They are collecting all our phone calls and emails by the normal use of the word “collect,” any everytime they deny it they are lying.
Excellent, potent work, as usual, Mr. Froomkin. Thanks, and keep it up!
Had also wanted to make some glib newspeak allusion.
I’m no expert in contemporary administrative procedure regulations concerning those agencies addressed by such authorizations as EO12333, but judicial interpretation (of statute and regs.) and congressional drafting (of statute and regs.) are governed according to “plain meaning” canons. Surely there is a provision of the administrative procedure code directing agencies to promulgate and implement regulations in simple language. Also surely, the subject agencies would be exempted from those requirements, probably according to some other provision of the same authority, subject to, I don’t know, rubber stamped quarterly certifications that all’s well from the DNI or AG to the intelligence committee. (Not sure whether intelligence community regs are published in the federal register with the comment periods and all; my understanding of IC is that there is no chance APA rulemaking regs apply).
But such a statutory exemption would be similarly damning: The public is entitled to understand the parameters of the law except in this little area.
Constitutional and criminal law has pretty thoroughly construed “search” and “seizure” and [things subject to search and/or seizure] more or less in accord with the plain meaning of those words. A specialized construction of words like “acquire” and “collect” — or at least the specialized construction that IC proponents have been flogging and the featured handbook illustrates — would seem to frustrate that very meaning.
ORWELL, PEOPLE! Politics and the English Language, 1946
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.”
Well done. But there must be emphasis on proper thinking and behavior to begin with. And it must go hand in hand with the proper use of language. We must also dispel the notion of the incorrigibility of man. Contrary to what some may believe or practice, the ability to deceive others is not the defining characteristic of humans.
There is no chance the average Joe, already stripped off all of his cultural roots and traditional values, brainwashing himself and his children 24/7 from the awakening till falling asleep adn not even recognizing it, could recognize modern scientific propaganda methods.
One just has to visit a meeting of citicens discussing local problems. It’s stunning how people, despite suffering from the problems of bad politics, are absolutely incapable to focus on the roots and the responsible politicians, but instead they are eating every NLP-phrase that is thrown at them from the officials.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that education can be tought and bought, but not a healthy common sense.
War is peace.
Black is White.
Slavery is Freedom.
Debt is Prosperity.
Plutocracy is Democracy.
We, the people, can change this in ONE election.
Encourage everyone to vote (especially those who haven’t)! Encourage everyone to vote for candidates who state (and prove) that they will not take any organized money. That takes care of the Democratic and Republican parties and more. Sure, there’ll be confusion the day after – honest confusion. Honest. It’s the ONLY path to save the republic.
Join me?!
… Correct “tongue in cheek” in the last sentence…
It’s the nature of Government, the most corrupt, mendacious murderous construct yet devised by man in 10,000 years of trying.
The ability to deceive others is possibly the defining characteristic of humans. It requires the imagination to conceive the world as seen through eyes of another sentient being, and to manipulate their perceptions to cause them to reach an erroneous conclusion. Humans are a social animal, and therefore act more effectively in groups. Government practices deception on a massive scale and is therefore the crowning achievement of the human species.
So rather than disparaging government, your statement only confirms why it is so effective. Less imaginative species, who confined themselves to telling the truth, have, lacking the ability to manipulate others towards some larger goal, long since become extinct. The power of deception is so great that moral rules have been created to restrict its use by the lower levels of society.
Hold your tongue.
Like the Intelligence Law Handbook, DoD 5240.1-R — “Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons” – the time it takes to interpret your linguistic circus show is worth more than the edification it provides.
~ LBJ took the IRA down to 4th Street U.S.A. and what did he find … but the DOD IC of American on LSD.
That is true of any statement made by the government. If statements could be easily deciphered, their meaning would be clear, which is obviously not a desirable outcome.
Assuming these are real flesh and blood human beings who come up with this duplicitous bullshit, and they do go home eventually and socialize with “normal” people, how can they know which lies to use with their wives and children? It’s no wonder our foreign policy is insane, and our spies are insane, and they believe that Webster got it wrong and they are the new authority on WORDS. After all, words aren’t that important to an “INTELLIGENCE” agency. Anyone have an idea how to wipe the slate clean and start over? Rhetorical(sort of)
“Anyone have an idea how to wipe the slate clean and start over?”
They, meaning the major powers of the northern hemisphere, will likely do that for you. No one can be sure of the timing and nature of the event, but given the intransigence of the leaders of Five Eyes, and those of the other major powers, it’s not unreasonable to think that they will eventually lose control of the situation. Having said that, for those who are left, that event will open the way for the eventual establishment of lasting peace and justice.
The 10 or 15 people (I’m being optimistic.) left after the decade long nuclear winter initiated by the slate cleaning will have centuries to figure it out while they struggle to survive. Will they are smart enough to avoid capitalism and the other deformities of our culture? Some other cultures have survived in cooperation with nature for thousands of years so I know its possible.
There are variables to consider in such a scenario. Current warhead counts suggests that only exchanges involving the U.S., Russia, India, and Pakistan have the ability to lead to a nuclear winter scenario, and all four, including their anticipated targets, are in the northern hemisphere. The threshold for nuclear winter is put at 5000 to 10,000 megatons (http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/88spp.html). (An all-out regional war between India and Pakistan, for example, has the potential to exceed the 5,000 megaton threshold, but this would require desperation of epic proportions on the part of those countries’ leaders. The more troubling scenario is a US/Russia conflict involving most of Europe. Should 100 cities be involved in such a conflict, the 10,000 megaton threshold could be reached.) Having said that, since relatively little mixing of air occurs between northern and southern hemispheres (in the troposphere where most of the soot and smoke is likely to occur), it’s unclear to what degree the southern hemisphere would be affected by the above scenarios. Despite the immense loss of life that entails, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that large populations would remain intact, and the surviving non-warring countries would be in a position to eventually chart a new course.
“We see that ‘collection of information’ for DoD…purposes is more than ‘gathering’ —it could be described as ‘gathering, plus,’” the handbook reads.
Wittgensteinian word games.
The Executive Order does not specifically allow “assembly” of this data, so it remains outside of the order and without a defense under this order. The fight would be classification of the processes as defined. And of course, someone to bring the fight over these word games.
Anyway, a means of bringing a public, kicking, screaming, and in denial, to the discussion of the EO’s “private language”. And then to confrontation, education, and declaring “assembly” to be “a bridge too far” and subject to prosecution.
Followed by death of a culture through the babble of “private language”.
Is this deceptive vocabulary meant to fool themselves? I doubt when it was formulated that those who produced it ever expected it to see the light of day, at least not in their lifetimes.
Nice skirt they put on the Fourth Amendment here:
What complete and utter bullshit.
Guessing that one of the most common comments that will appear beneath this article will be similar to this:
DIA Fact:
Lewis Carroll Fiction:
Lewis Carroll .. brilliant. Made me think of this, of course: “There’s that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means … “