It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NSA: Revealing how many Americans we’ve spied on would violate their privacy

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

In a letter (PDF) recently sent to Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Inspector General explains that he cannot provide an estimate of how many Americans the agency has spied on, because doing so would “would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”

That letter was first obtained by reporter Spencer Ackerman at Wired. It claims that even attempting to produce an estimate of how many Americans the agency has spied on is “beyond the [Inspector General's] capacity,” and that “dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission.”
...
All that Senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the Inspectors General cannot provide it,” Wyden told Ackerman. “If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ‘back door searches’ loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant.”


Source

Land of the spied upon, home of the open door policy (your door, that is)
edit on 6/19/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit--Please add SOURCES to your news stories and your own thoughts opinions, not just one sentence.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
If it wasn't so sad that would be funny.

It would be nice to rid ourselves of some of the shackles that we've let the govt bind us with.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Gee, really, how hard would it be to just write down on a piece of paper: "All of them"?

I guess they're so busy spying on all of us they just can't spare even one dude to type down those three words.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
If it wasn't so sad that would be funny.

It would be nice to rid ourselves of some of the shackles that we've let the govt bind us with.


I know what you mean!!

We all love technology, but this is ridiculous. I think some of these people are educated beyond their intelligence.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's basically everyone. I find it amusing they are worried about violating privacy. That's there freaking job.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


"All of them". Hysterical. We should all change our names to Joe Blow and Jane Q Public. Legally, of course.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Lol, this country is such a joke it's not even worth getting upset about anymore.

It's hilarious to see morons still talking about how "free" we are.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd
Lol, this country is such a joke it's not even worth getting upset about anymore.

It's hilarious to see morons still talking about how "free" we are.


What blows me over is how many people still think we aren't regulated enough. Got a bunch of them right here in river city (ATS).



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
This is some epic, fantastical Newspeak.


I don't know what pisses me off more the reply or the fact that the American public will accept this reply.

From the Wired link:


McCullough argued, giving such a figure of how many Americans were spied on was “beyond the capacity” of the NSA’s in-house watchdog — and to rectify it would require “imped[ing]” the very spy missions that concern Wyden and Udall. “I defer to [the NSA inspector general's] conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission,” McCullough wrote.


So, WTH!? DOes that mean there are too many citizens being spied on to count? I think so. Russell Tice said as much in 2006.

abcnews.go.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Then they aren't the good guys. If they were the good guys they wouldn't be hiding. You don't hide and you don't run from the law if you're the good guys, or so they say.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by KillerQueen
This is some epic, fantastical Newspeak.


I don't know what pisses me off more the reply or the fact that the American public will accept this reply.

From the Wired link:


McCullough argued, giving such a figure of how many Americans were spied on was “beyond the capacity” of the NSA’s in-house watchdog — and to rectify it would require “imped[ing]” the very spy missions that concern Wyden and Udall. “I defer to [the NSA inspector general's] conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission,” McCullough wrote.


So, WTH!? DOes that mean there are too many citizens being spied on to count? I think so. Russell Tice said as much in 2006.

abcnews.go.com...

So the NSA's answer is....

We spy on so many American citizens that we can't even keep track of it.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Wow, what a weak argument. Of course they will be allow to not give out a number. Those commenting 100% are probably in the ballpark.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
What's fairly amazing is the agency's reply will be sufficient enough to end it. For some reason there is a group of people who are actually allowed to say things like "I don't know" or "we can't tell you" and that just ends it. But if joe says this to some cop with an assault rifle he winds up dead, and then said cop's answers to what happened "I don't know" and "I can't tell you for security reasons" is enough to let him continue working.

I do find it hard to believe the agency doesn't have a basic software program to create a number, just any number, evena made up number. That seems remarkable to me. Could they not produce some printout that says "45 people and all were Al Qeada members."



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
I do find it hard to believe the agency doesn't have a basic software program to create a number


LoL! They don't need one. They already know the number. It's approximately 300,000,000. Give or take.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Wow, what a weak argument. Of course they will be allow to not give out a number. Those commenting 100% are probably in the ballpark.


I'm pretty sure they saved the one I sent to my Aunt Mary. It just said, Hi Auntie, bomb, muslim, hot dog, gun, obama, target, america, nwo, bilderberg, shootout, fruit loops, cocoa puffs, pipe bomb, explosion, rifle, boom, blast, IED, plot, screwed, free speech, founding fathers, jefferson, washington, adams, douche bag, bush, clinton, cheney, romney, biden, air force one, rocket, drone, anthrax, napkin, runny nose, hamas, dairy farmer, al qaeda, cub scout, butt wipe, hillary, dhs, nsa, cia, fbi, omg, wtf, and, kiss, my, ass... Love ya lots, frazzle







 
5

log in

join