NSA tracking 9 out of 10 Ordinary Americans in files received according to Wash Post and Documents

a reply to: GArnold

I was merely noting that I think it's 100% instead of 90%.

I wasn't particularly faulting your research.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Actually . . . with literally ACRES of computers online more than 40 years ago . . . in several locations around the planet--including the UK and Australia . . . with their technology up to 50 years ahead of civilian tech . . . I think they have

LONG had more than sufficient tech to keep tabs on all the citizens in the Western world and in most of the rest of the world--at least those with phones etc.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I think "targeting" individuals is a bit of a moot point.

Given that the software searches for a long list of keywords . . . and stores whatever communications, sources and destinations of that communication . . . regardless . . .

INDIVIDUALS don't necessarily have to be "targeted" in the traditional sense to be caught up in the vast dragnet.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Who? The NSA?

Why do you think the NSA has tech that is 50 years ahead of the corporate sector in 2014. Just cause?

Times have changed. The government's deep black ops likely still is ahead of many private endeavors, but by how many years, I don't know.

NSA isn't deep black OPs. It's fairly well known now, and they use regular technology that most anyone can get their hands on for the right $$$

Now, as for keeping "tabs" that's different from being, "targeted", wouldn't you say? Clarity of terminology, and it's correct application from one context to another, is essential. Within the context of the 1 main link (of which the rest use as a source), the targeting is on an unknown amount of Americans, likely very minute. That's different from keeping "tabs" and logging it into a database to search via algorithms for suspicious key words and activities.

Look, if you're trying to say you fear some sort of AI superhive with agent cyborgs of the next generation or so, tapping into all this info that's now being stored, I'd have more empathy, but trying to get flipped and feel that we're all being targeted from actual agents, is just not possible.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I didn't think you were being critical. I was just saying I think you are right. Everyone is a target in my opinion. I had to base what I said in this thread off what the Wash Post reported.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I think "targeting" individuals is a bit of a moot point.

Given that the software searches for a long list of keywords . . . and stores whatever communications, sources and destinations of that communication . . . regardless . . .

INDIVIDUALS don't necessarily have to be "targeted" in the traditional sense to be caught up in the vast dragnet.

Its mostly a mind screw, a psyop. They want us to know, even poor joe blow, that they have assumed control.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BO XIAN

Who? The NSA?

Why do you think the NSA has tech that is 50 years ahead of the corporate sector in 2014. Just cause?

Times have changed. The government's deep black ops likely still is ahead of many private endeavors, but by how many years, I don't know.

NSA isn't deep black OPs. It's fairly well known now, and they use regular technology that most anyone can get their hands on for the right $$$

Now, as for keeping "tabs" that's different from being, "targeted", wouldn't you say? Clarity of terminology, and it's correct application from one context to another, is essential. Within the context of the 1 main link (of which the rest use as a source), the targeting is on an unknown amount of Americans, likely very minute. That's different from keeping "tabs" and logging it into a database to search via algorithms for suspicious key words and activities.

Look, if you're trying to say you fear some sort of AI superhive with agent cyborgs of the next generation or so, tapping into all this info that's now being stored, I'd have more empathy, but trying to get flipped and feel that we're all being targeted from actual agents, is just not possible.

Obviously you did not spend one second reading about the NSA Bluffdale center. They have one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world at their disposal. They can store the entire worldwide communications every single day for the next 20,000 years. Buy that equipment at RadioShack. I have no idea why you continue to pass dis information and outright untruths about the NSA in this thread. If I could ban you from this thread I certainly would do that. You have not watched one documentary ( I have posted or otherwise) or read one valid article on the NSA as far as I can tell. Nothing you say about the NSA has any basis in reality as far as I know. I really wish you would "deny ignorance" and educate yourself about what is actually going on... The tactics the NSA has used since 9-11 and the technology at their beck and call. Yet you seemingly want to appear on this thread and back up your claims with no links and no actual facts. . Call people you do not know liars based on nothing and derail and disrupt reality.



Please please research a little bit before spending more time spreading un truths about the NSA


This is a good breakdown of what we know.

www.theguardian.com.../1

In the end, its just a colossal waste of time and money.

They've never caught any threat that was an actual threat that they themselves didnt create = colossal waste of time & $$$$$.

Eff 'em!!!

a reply to: GArnold

Yea, you know, because that's somehow relevant to his post, except it's not in the slightest.

I mean, what you said definitely makes it 50 years ahead of the public sector, just cause, except most of the supercomputers out there are corporate, and are made from scaling up tech that is readily available to the public.

Top500List

IBM, IBM, dell... so super secret half a century ahead tech

Just give up. You're now spouting complete nonsense trying to make me into something I'm not.

I'm not defending anyone, except the truth. You lied, I called it out, you continue to ignore. Pathetic, and beyond ridiculous.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Sigh. You have no idea what the NSA has or doesn't. You have no clue what they do.... What their targets are or any other such thing. You have spent no time looking at a single thing I posted. You have not read any Guardian article. No New York Times article or watched a second of Frontline or Nova. The technology the NSA has is without question years beyond what is avail in the corporate section. Most of what they have is classified. You may want to look up that word. Please for the love of God go away. Please take your 1950 understanding of technology and reality to another thread. Seriously stop calling people liars and dis agreeing with people on this thread who have actually looked into NSA abuses. Please refer to the 4th admendment. Please just stop. I am asking you to stop attacking everyone on this thread. I am asking you to stop calling people liars who you do not know. Seriously please just stop. Go away. I would respect you if you had posted a single intelligent fact or argument yet you have backed up nothing with any link ... Any fact . Instead you resort to name calling and derailing any kind of conversation being had.

a reply to: GArnold

No. You're a liar, and I'll continue to make that claim until you decide to be a decent human being and admit fault.

You continue to lie. I have quoted, and posted links. I have directly called out your lie, and you have chosen not to address it.

You have shared the role of name calling, don't lie again and act as if this isn't the case. Ridiculous.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: GArnold

No. You're a liar, and I'll continue to make that claim until you decide to be a decent human being and admit fault.

We usually do not call people liars.

We Research and Reference then discuss the facts.

Then, we do the pants on fire thing.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

IIRC, a number of whistleblowers have asserted everything from 25 years to 50 years ahead for the more secret sectors of the oligarchy's level of tech.

I think the Lockheed head was one such.

Certainly in my Navy role in 1970, we used a computer net routinely . . . and that was not any level of black ops.

a reply to: pl3bscheese


Lol. Whatever. You have serious problems. Please post actual facts that prove what the Washington Post posted in the article are "lies". Stop it! I am not in the slightest bit a liar. You do not know me. I do not associate with crazy people. Please take a few minutes to go over why the text I quoted from the Wash Post are " lies".

The only link you posted was to supercomputers. That's it. Nothing to do with the NSA or who they target or what tactics they use. Nothing.

You can go to hell.

a reply to: Logarock

There is that aspect of flaunting their control, alright.

Intimidation is a favorite meme and a favorite strategy of theirs.

a reply to: GArnold

Certainly more than a few folks are more or less addicted to being willfully blind, willfully ignorant or AT LEAST WILLFULLY fogged, tuned-out about critical issues of our era.

It's toooo threatening to be otherwise for major chunks of the population. It risks their decompensating to a mass of incoherent protoplasm. And THAT they are going to go to GREAT LENGTHS to avoid.

Insider after insider has said things like . . . mind blowing . . . beyond imagination . . . 25 years ahead . . . 50 years ahead . . . etc. etc. for decades.

Certainly that's uncomfortable to face. IT's also likely to be truer than not true.

originally posted by: GArnold
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Ok..

I meant 9 out of 10 people whose files were received by the Wash Post are ordinary Americans.

Not foreign Terrorists.... This is a sample size obviously. If it is a sample size then in general I would say out of every 10 people being intercepted... 9 out of 10 are ordinary Americans. The Post received 160,000 accounts. Happy now? I changed the title to reflect the mistake.

To which I replied that this was still incorrect. I quoted:

Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.

This first paragraph, which does not mention Americans. You are confused. In the second paragraph, it states, and I quote:

Many of them were Americans. Nearly half of the surveillance files, a strikingly high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to U.S. citizens or residents. NSA analysts masked, or “minimized,” more than 65,000 such references to protect Americans’ privacy, but The Post found nearly 900 additional e-mail addresses, unmasked in the files, that could be strongly linked to U.S. citizens or U.S.residents.

We can clearly deduce some things from these TWO paragraphs.

1, a number of people were targeted. Let's call that X.

2, (9/10)X were not the intended targets.

3, unknown of X were americans, "many of them".

4, nearly half of the FILES were of Americans. This does not even give us enough information to conclude almost 50% X = Americans.

What is absolutely clear, is that 9/10 of those in which there are files of, were not Americans.

Does this make sense to you?

You sticking with the quote of the 1 paragraph, makes it either ignorance, else an attempt to lie. You continuing to remain ignorant, makes it willful. I posted those two paragraphs 3 times already. This makes it 4. I clearly state out the reasoning here. I do all the work for you.

Does it make sense yet?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Will you try to listen to my response to you? I think it was rather balanced.

Decades ago, much of the exotic tech was coming directly out of the government funded projects. A portion of it still is. The gap seems to have lessened in the last 15-20 years considerably. I think the main reason is the internet. Information is widely distributed, and education is much more prevalant, overall.

I recall an academic remarking that funding had dried up from government sources in recent years. You had to look for funding from private corporations. Anyways, it seems the government still has an edge in some respects. Darpa certainly comes out with some exotic fun things (though the bulk is canned).

The best I can tell, in general, the gap is very small in 2014. A lot of this "mind boggling" stuff was about tech that is now decades old. Maybe it's still a little bit ahead of what is public knowledge, who knows? What the GENERAL public knows is different from what is publicly available knowledge. There's some incredible things going on that the public can be aware of shortly after the fact, these years.

I do think that we've had some exotic tech related to UFOs for some time now. I do think we've got some stuff locked far away from public view, but in general what seems to be going on in NSA centers involves tech that isn't hyper advanced. What's my reasoning? Look at the size of the facilities, and how much power they consume. Regular super computer technology in it. It must be secure, scalable... things that the exotic can't be, by way of it being so damned novel and hacker-styled.

The smartphone in my hand right now is 50 years ahead of the biggest supercomputers of that time. It's more powerful. It stands to reason, if the tech were 50 years ahead, and had the capabilities it claims, it would be a rather small facility, that could be in a friggin apartment bedroom, running off a simple 15A rail.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I am finished arguing with you over semantics. The Post and many many other legitimate news sources did in fact claim it was 9 out of 10 are ordinary Americans.

""""WASHINGTON, DC A report by the Washington Post has alleged that as many as ninety percent of individuals being monitored by the NSA are ordinary Americans and not foreign surveillance targets."""""
- See more at: www.bignewsnetwork.com... puf

"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Washington Post said on Saturday a study of a large collection of communications intercepted by the U.S. National Security Agency showed that ordinary Internet users, including Americans, far outnumbered legally targeted foreigners caught in the surveillance.

"Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else," the Post said."""

mobile.reuters.com...

"""WASHINGTON — Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from US digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.

Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to the Washington Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.""""""

www.bostonglobe.com...


www.truthdig.com...

There are 419 article covering this exact thing at this link.

news.google.com...

I am literally done with your sticking up for the NSA. Your lack of knowledge regarding facts about the Snowden disclosures. I am done with your name calling. I am finished with your attempts to derail and disrupt this thread. I have seen articles on sock puppets before and read evidence. I never thought I would actually run across someone who I would legitimately think could be a paid employee of the NSA whose sole purpose is to obscure the actual facts and disrupt legit conversation on what was posted. I was a History Major and Political Science minor. I have studied the NSA for 23 years. I have studied every possible thing I can read on the subject for the last 4 years. I have read every Guardian article... New York Times article every Wash Post article. I have watched the frontline investigation into the NSA as well as Novas. Most everything you claim in this thread is not based on facts or reality. Your claims are based on semantics and not actual facts. Good for you... Glad you showed up to call people liars and attack anyone with intelligent ideas on this thread. Your ignorance of reality is frankly on full display for all to see. What we know about the NSA now thanks to Snowden is just the tip of the iceberg. What they are doing is far worse and far more outlandish than we know of so far.

I am going to stop pretending you even exist. I am done with you for good.

a reply to: neo96

Funny how the article gets its info from WAPO yet doesn't link to the article.