Dictionary Arbitrage and Section 215: “Relevant”

There’s an odd footnote in the White Paper the Administration released to justify its Section 215 dragnet.

3 The word “tangible” can be used in some contexts to connote not only tactile objects like pieces of paper, but also any other things that are “capable of being perceived” by the senses. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2013) (defining “tangible” as “capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch”) (emphasis added).

I’m interested in it because it seems to prepare us all to discover that the Administration has been getting things–like DNA, screen captures, and similar–with Section 215 that are absurd.

But I’m also interested because the Administration chose to use Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. A good American dictionary — and the most up-to-date version!

Which is why I found it so suspicious that the Administration decided to use a 24-year old edition of the Oxford English Dictionary for this definition.

Standing alone, “relevant” is a broad term that connotes anything “[b]earing upon, connected with, [or] pertinent to” a specified subject matter. 13 Oxford English Dictionary 561 (2d ed. 1989).

To create this dragnet, after all, the Administration has had to blow up the meaning of “relevant” beyond all meaning. And they had to dig up an old British tome for this particular, all-important definition?

So I looked up how the American Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “relevant.” Here are the first two definitions:

a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand

b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony>

“Having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter and hand.” Not, “possibly maybe having a teeny fraction bearing on the matter and hand.” But a “significant and demonstrable bearing” on a terrorist investigation, in context.

So the Administration apparently looked up “relevant,” discovered it proves our point — that their use of the term is totally ridiculous — and kept digging through old dictionaries until they could find one that proved their point. (Update: Read this entire comment from Adam Colligan for more on what the dictionaries say.)

The online Oxford dictionary, by the way, provides this as the first definition for “relevant:”

closely connected with the subject you are discussing or the situation you are thinking about

As with all absurd arguments in DC, it depends on what the definition of X is.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

25 Responses to Dictionary Arbitrage and Section 215: “Relevant”

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV @AllenDeLaney @GatorsBB Best way for South Carolina to assure themselves series ends with them still leading the division. Tricksy.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Saw 2 wild turkeys and one bald eagle today. Wild turkeys are prettier than domestic but how was that ever a debate?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Sad, is a great human. https://t.co/dV6R27SZKF
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ProFootballTalk: Did family football ties factor in to Bill Belichick's decision to draft Ted Karras? "No." (Still a chatty guy.) https…
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @IanPGunn Wade passed? RIP
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @mellinger: After drafting a guy who beat up his pregnant girlfriend, the Chiefs asked for trust. Nope: https://t.co/BcQlpAoPeT
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Serious cred to @jaketapper for keeping the line where it should be as to the idiotic rump human wart asshole that is Ted Cruz.
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @BuzzFeedAndrew @NYTimesDowd Yeah, of course not. It never is when it comes to Clinton. It is always roses and champagne. #orBS
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit Um, so the time I spent snow and water skiing is no good?
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @NYDailyNews: Ex-cop gets $108G disability pension while training aspiring cops https://t.co/JJZPak4kRe https://t.co/0CPVwkap62
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz By all means, because she is presumptive Dem nominee, we should blow off all concerns of warmongering as to Clinton https://t.co/XK9CPerotL
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @BuzzFeedAndrew @NYTimesDowd Duh. And, despite the normal Dowd stupid rhetoric, title is spot on about Clintonian warmongering.
7hreplyretweetfavorite