It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


I Asked the NSA for its File on Me and Here's What I Got Back

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:14 PM

"Although these two programs have been publicly acknowledged," the NSA wrote to me a few weeks later, "details about them remain classified and/or protected from release by statutes to prevent harm to the national security of the United States."

Oh, really? I'm skeptical that my country's national security will be threatened if the agency share what its got on me. The NSA clarified:

"Our adversaries are likely to evaluate all public responses related to these programs," the NSA continued. "Were we to provide positive or negative responses to requests such as yours, our adversaries' compilation of the information provided would reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."

I find this article interesting because of the letter received by the author from the NSA. In it there is a great deal of double speak and justification for why they won't supply the author with the data they collect on him. Using the FOIA to request this data seems to be as good a method as any to try to obtain disclosure on the data the NSA collects, but I'm not surprised they declined due to "national security reasons".

Personally I would not have the guts to request my 'file' for fear the very request would create a backlash from the NSA. The letter received from the NSA is below at the 'External Image'. If someone is able to embed the letter then it would be appreciated as I only seem to be able to produce the link.

Link to Article

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

Here you go~

+21 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

They should have just mailed you a picture of one of their people flipping you the bird...

At least it would have been honest...

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by sulaw

Thank you, Sulaw.

I am greatly appreciative and I can use this as an example for future posts.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

Well, is it our legal right to know.

At-least, thats what they tell us.

Ever wonder what the government knows about you? Here you go:

edit on 26-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Metallicus

Well, is it our legal right to know.

At-least, thats what they tell us.

Ever wonder what the government knows about you? Here you go:

edit on 26-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

It is your 'lawful' right to know. Legalities and statutes are a con perpetrated upon 'us' by 'them'. Statutes can only be applied if you agree to them.
edit on 26-8-2013 by sayzaar because: (no reason given)

+6 more 
posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:35 PM
These people at the NSA have lost the trust of the American People.

This Agency should be dismantled. The letter proves it.

They are incapable of telling the truth no matter what the subject.

They hold up a picture of 911 saying "we can't let this happen again".

Ironically, 911 would of never happened if it wasn't for the arrogance of these agencies.

Their quest to have a larger budget and the intentional withholding of crucial information.

Led to that tragic day...

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:36 PM
Perhaps this is my own ignorance as a civilian,, but their response seems to be as full of BS as it is legalese.

In what way would releasing records of data collected about me, TO me give "our adversaries" any information? That only works if I share the information with "our adversaries" or if they can somehow intercept the letter, right? And I don't think data on one person could even give the kind of info they talk about. In fact, I think they (inadvertently or not) hint at this by their wording.

Then again, maybe their spy tech is far more advanced than even we realize. I remember when I was a kid, my uncle told me that the govt has satellites powerful enough to read the print off of a piece of paper on the ground. Maybe they're not stopping at digital data collection, but are actually monitoring certain people IRL, in their off-line, non-phone communications and activities? I mean, I'm sure they do that to some people. But what if it's way more than "some"?

IDK... their response makes the whole thing seem even shadier, and raises more questions than it answers.

It also seems like "national security" is the new catch phrase they use to hide whatever they want. And maybe I'm wrong there,, but that's really how it seems. How does the release of the "collateral murder" video jeopardize national security in any way, for example? Sure, it lowers some folks opinion of our military, and what we're up to-- but as far as I'm concerned, that's not the same thing.

Protecting your image, or covering personal asses in high positions are not matters of national security.

Maybe that's just me....

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:37 PM
Why didn't he do it the way everybody else does, and pay somebody to loot the info. It's the only way.

Nothing will get them to tattle on themselves, ever.

edit on 26-8-2013 by lernmore because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:44 PM
Given that the majority of information about the real you, is contained in you...collecting peripheral data (and storing it - thus rendering it open to infiltration) on you would seem more of a threat to NatSec, based on information that can put together any way they like.


posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:46 PM
I`ve never heard of FISC before so I googled it.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was established by Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The role of the FISC is to provide judicial oversight of Intelligence Community activities in a classified setting. The FISC is composed of federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and its decisions can be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) and the Supreme Court.

The FISC has jurisdiction to hear applications for, and issue orders authorizing, four traditional FISA activities: electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen/trap surveillance, and compelled production of business records. In addition, the FISC has jurisdiction to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures related to programmatic surveillance certified under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The FISC operations are largely kept secret due to the sensitive nature of the proceedings, and the court's ex parte process is primarily non-adversarial. The target of the order is not given an opportunity to appear at the hearing or informed of the presence of the order.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

I'm thinking that I might try another tack. Being former military, now retired, maybe I should ask the question of "WHAT" I am nor allowed to discuss in public.

I understand that signing a non-disclosure agreement is one thing, but what about just discussing the various things that I have learned or observed over the years? All without anyone saying word one on whatever is not to be discussed.

After all Big Sis has said I am a potential.

Common sense plays a part as well, but it's getting to the point where people are getting nervous just having a normal conversation.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 02:59 PM
Sorry the Patriot Act ?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] The law does not apply outside the United States. The law has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.


They had that 'authority' before the Patriot Act.

They should know that.

And it is not just the NSA who uses the FISA court :

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the United States by federal law enforcement agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.[1] Its powers have evolved and expanded to the point that it has been called "almost a parallel Supreme Court."[

FISA Court

All anyone has to do is look at the Utah data center to know they are keeping more than just 'metadata'.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 03:30 PM

Ah yes, the old Glomar Response,
very popular with government back in the
Vietnam conflict / nuclear protest era of the late 60's early 70's.

wikipedia / Glomar Response

www. Justice . gov / FOIA requests / Glomarization of Privacy

Federal court upholds ruling that Agencies have right to neither confirm nor deny

Here are some links
showing how very real
this "Glomar Response" policy is.

requests for records on other named individuals -- can involve sensitive personal privacy considerations.

Specifically, a FOIA request seeking records which would indicate that a particular political figure, prominent businessman or [color=gold] even just an ordinary citizen has been the subject of a law enforcement investigation may require an agency to flatly refuse to confirm or deny whether such records exist.

Too bad the Fed/media complex
ignores all this when it comes time
to slander and smear an individual in
some sensational trial before it has even started.


posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

Well chances are that their findings are positive in nature, otherwise they would have placed negative ahead of positive in the response.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 10:34 PM
Look, people, this whole business goes back to the days when some of us started complaining about businesses putting cookies into our computers. Remember those days? Some of complained bitterly about that obscene practice, that invasion of our privacy. Did the government ever do anything about that clearly illegal practice given our rights? Nope! It talked a bit about it, but it did absolutely nothing of any consequence. And the practice was allowed to flourish and expand.

Now we know why.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

compilation of the information provided would reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."

"The national security?

I thought it was "our" national security.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:17 PM
What is all the paranoia for? I don't care what info others have on me. It doesn't affect me, can't and won't, but then not much flaps me. Maybe I'm just secure an individual to worry about such petty stuff.
Your all acting like children afraid of a spook under the bed. It's hilarious. Only in America aye?

My father used to look after mentally disturbed people. One thought he was a fruit and people would peel him and another though he was being watched. Both were true, as the first one was a fruitcake and the other was in a secure wing with a camera.

Sounds like a real life version of ATS before it was on the web.

Of course the mods will delete due to insecurity which will prove my point (added so I win both ways)

edit on 26-8-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by Metallicus

I don't think they even have a "file" on him. They can backtrack and come up with all of his data but there's no premade file.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:21 PM
Now that this can of worms is officially open,... I declare All data created, stored ,and or transferred digitally to be TAINTED,... meaning the provenance or "chain of custody" of said data is henceforth not to be taken at face value and is to be considered null and void...

Suck on that lawyers LOL!!!
edit on 26-8-2013 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in