Talk:National Security Agency/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

ECHELON at all

As far as I'm aware Echelon has never been admitted to by the NSA or the government at all, nor has anything on it been leaked, should we even include information of such dubious prominence without covering the substantial "echelon is nothing more than a conspiracy theory" side as well? Wintermut3 20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wintermut3 then retracted that comment, claiming to have seen EU documentation to the contrary. However, there are some issues here that deserve discussion: (1) The whole so-called "ECHELON" uproar was instigated and promoted by Duncan Campbell, who expanded a modicum of fact into a sea of speculation. The EU commission's report was pretty much just Campbell's claims. (2) There has long been a "special relationship" among the US and various British COmmonwealth nations to share intelligence monitoring work and results, and eavesdropping facilities around the world to achieve this. (3) That does not have a codename "ECHELON," however. An NSA document search turned up only two "hits" on "ECHELON", one of them clearly referring to "one of a series of levels or grades in an organization or field of activity" (from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary), and the other not comprehensible without looking up the full source context. (4) Data from such monitoring is obviously like "drinking from a fire hose;" it cannot feasibly all be forwarded or stored for use in snooping on random citizens, but must be prefiltered according to various criteria (perhaps for matches against a list of "phrases of interest"). (5) A secret operation is not necessarily a conspiracy. — DAGwyn 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


4 is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Employees

I wonder about the accuracy of the number 30,000 employees stated in the infobox. In my opinion, we should change it to "Classified", because no reliable documents confirm that NSA declares its real employees every year. Also,30,000 is just a temporary number in certain specific year, not an updated information. This case is similar to CIA's budget, which is usually kept in secret but was exceptionally made public in 1997 and 1998. Or else, we should make detailed clarification that in what year the number of employees is 30,000. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional, see NGA, for example. The budget and employees are stated in concrete number with the specific years beside. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But the workforce number is not classified. It's about 30,000. That's from the horse's mouth. There's a big difference between classified and not (the biggest one I can think of offhand is jail time). The number changes daily (mostly Fridays at the end of a pay period or Mondays when they do the read-ins) so they just say "about 30,000" for simplicity. With satellite technology, you can count the cars I suppose... Obviously, I'm joking because that's only one building. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, you can't count the supercars that are cloaked. BQZip01 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming parkings around their building on that photograph in the article, they probably suffer from traffic jams -- A man without a country (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The very notion is problematic, because much of the infrastructure is now "outsourced", and there are many organizations (think tanks, steady contractors, etc.) and individuals (including many military personnel) who are strongly affiliated with NSA but who are not officially employess of NSA. — DAGwyn 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which I believe is why the full budget is classified. But back to the point, it says approx so that should be fine. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In 1997, the aggregate budget for the US intelligence was declared publicly for the first time [1]. It means that the budget for NSA must be included in the total of $26.6 billion. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 14:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was an anomaly. The best we could do with that is "<$26.6B (1997)" in the infobox which is probably useless today (late Clinton era and pre-9/11); the CIA says that includes them too, but does that include all of the IC? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not certain that the 1997 statistic includes all of IC but there's highly chance that NSA's budget belonged to it, since it'll be ironical if one of the most important and prominent members of IC like NSA was left out. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's surely included but what can we now do with that information? There's no way to extrapolate the number of employees based on it, which is what this thread was originally about. The questionable part about the 30K is what DAGwyn brings up - is that a full count of govt' employees plus military plus contractors? Or gov't only? Or only civilians? However, going back to my first statement - just because it is not publicly available, doesn't mean it is classified. There is a difference between classification and distribution restrictions. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that some number should be given, any way. We can't know the exact number, but it's explicitly stated it's estimate. To make a correct statement, one should also declare the accuracy of the estimate. Yet I believe, many readers would be interested to know the rough number. Few care if it's exactly 38,000 or 35,000 or 43,000; but it's sort of useful information that it's not 10,000 and not 100,000. ellol (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2013

The number has disappeared from the infobox. Some number or range should be given, based on the available estimates. All of this information is not confidential, see here:

Some estimates (with a dead link to a NSA FAQ):

  • [http://askville.amazon.com/people-analysts-intelligence-community/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=5894012 How many people/analysts are in the U.S. intelligence community?]
How many people work for the NSA/CSS and what is its budget?
NSA/CSS employs approximately 30,000 people worldwide. The size of the Agency’s budget is not releasable to the public; however, if the NSA/CSS was considered a corporation in terms of dollars spent, floor space occupied, and personnel employed, it would rank in the top 10 percent of the Fortune 500 companies. It is far from true that NSA/CSS has an unlimited "black" budget, unknown by other government entities. While the budget and size of NSA/CSS are classified, these details are known by the Office of Management and Budget, by both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), by the Defense Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress, and by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Resources allocated to NSA/CSS are subject to rigorous examination and approval processes.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00018.cfm#7

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, BOLD 30,000. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the work may in fact be done by private contractors. The number 30 000 means thus nothing. I have heard the number 1 million mentioned recently. See Snowden leak shines light on US intelligence agencies' use of contractors, The Guardian, 10 June 2013 -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Zero Hedge claims, that 483,000 private individual have "top secret" access to NSA PRISM data. I do not know where they got the number, but if true, all these should be listed as employees or whatever. (Source: From 9/11 To PRISMgate - How The Carlyle Group LBO'd The World's Secrets) Update: The source for the numbers may be this HuffPost story: NSA Leak Highlights Key Role Of Private Contractors -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Refimprove

I look at some of the sections like Echelon and find a lack of citations. I am tagging the article Refimprove by paragraph until they are found. One for example was sourced to cryptome.org, which, with all due respect to a private citizen, is not the same thing as NSA. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A correction. Cryptome was good enough source for 60 minutes so it was good enough here. This section has been trimmed way back because James Bamford was quoted as saying that Echelon is a legacy system. I think more of this stuff should go into the Echelon article than here. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rules of NSA on using data without warrant

I found this source:

Where does it go?

Also another:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Do the NSA headquarters "include" the National Vigilance Park and the Cryptologic Museum?

The NSA picture gallery here includes the National Vigilance Park and the Cryptologic Museum. Are they "on" NSA property? If so I would include them in the NSA headquarters commons category. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

They are across the street. The Park is next to an overflow parking lot, and the Museum is at the end of the road. I don't think of them as being on NSA grounds (which is mostly parking lot), just another part of Fort Meade. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You turn left just before the NSA gate to get to both. The park area area is used as overflow parking for NSA staff, who walk through the gate to get in. There are signs warning visitors to avoid taking pictures in the direction of the NSA buildings, and the area is monitored. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I started a category on the Nat'l Vigilance Park to place PD NSA images taken from the NSA website. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NSA fact sheet regarding privacy corrections and response from Udall and Wyden

Sources about the NSA fact sheet regarding privacy corrections and response from Udall and Wyden:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

About the deletion:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Legacy systems

Hi. I wonder if anyone here can please check over the list of NSA encryption systems to correct a division I just made. Are some still in use or are we carrying forward a lot of old electronics? Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also is Fortezza still used, and how did it transition to USB? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

NSA exit signage

Here are some highway signs for the NSA:

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Polygraph section

I've removed the polygraph section under "operations." There are several problems.

1. Polygraphing isn't really an "operation" in the sense that a reader would expect (it has nothing to do with SIGINT/COMSEC, just recruitment).

2. The section is far too long. There's more written about polygraphing than about the actual mission of the organization. That's ridiculous.

3. The sources quoted aren't very good.

I'd recommend discussing the polygraph in its own article (or maybe the single scope background investigation article) and linking to that from here. 68.32.165.35 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I wrote the particular section discussed (you can see it here) anyhow, a few things:
  • 1. While polygraph has its own article, there are specific aspects to the NSA's polygraphing (particularly the video that the NSA made--this indicates the polygraph is an important component of the NSA) - Based on the sources I read different agencies consider their polygraphs to be separate. Polygraphs can be specific by agency, i.e. the Department of Energy had issues when it tried to establish polygraphs.
  • 2. The sources are in fact what Wikipedia determines to be high quality sources (see WP:V for more information).
  • 3. In regards to it being "too long" while there is the need to not have "undue weight" on any aspect (WP:Undue weight) the thing to do is to shorten it instead of removing it entirely.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
1. It certainly doesn't belong under the "operations" heading. As far as being an "important component of the NSA," I don't think that has been established. It's a single part of the recruitment process.
2. I wouldn't consider anything coming out of antipolygraph.org to be reliable (polygraphs are nonsense, but that's neither here nor there).
3. Since you're the author, I think it would be better for you to shorten it. I don't think it should be there in the first place, but I'm willing to compromise. 68.32.165.35 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. It's "make or break" part of the recruitment process that causes a lot of anxiety in applicants (part of why the NSA made this video and why newspapers have written articles about the NSA polygraphs) and people in the NSA are re-tested every several years, so people already in the NSA also have to deal with it.
  • 2. The major newspapers are actually the sources, and whatever statements that are from anti-polygraph or Maschke are attributed to them. The newspapers believe they are important "critical" voices in regards to the polygraph debate.
  • 3. What section would be a better place for the "polygraph" sub-heading?
  • 4. To help determine what should be shortened, what aspects of this section do you consider the most unimportant?
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That's way past Undue. 3 'graphs on something so trivial? Without even a mention (that I could see) of its use as a security check measure? For something so minor to get more attention than the warrantless surveillance & Internet data capture is absurd. At best, it deserves a couple of lines under "recruitment", & a passing mention (one sentence) under "security measures". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:50 & 03:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)~
1. The NSA warrantless surveillance & Internet data capture programs all have separate articles where "excess" information can go. No such article currently exists for "What role polygraphs have in the NSA". There is a reason why {{mainarticle|}} exists. Alternatively one can just add more summary detail to the sections on warrantless surveillance & Internet data capture programs. - Also regarding "Without even a mention (that I could see) of its use as a security check measure? " - Visiting the polygraph article says what it is, and AFAIK it also says intelligence agencies use it. I found a source that does talk about why NSA polygraphs (it officially states that it's to prevent spying, and to find things that may be used to coerce people into giving up secret stuff)
2. The sources about NSA polygraphs do not think of them as a "trivial" part of the agency. Let's look:
Shankar, Vedantam. "Polygraph Test Results Vary Among Agencies." Washington Post. June 19, 2006.
Referred to in: "Polygraph abuse at CIA, NSA." ZDNet. June 20, 2006.
  • Flock, Elizabeth (September 25, 2012). "NSA Whistleblower Reveals How To Beat a Polygraph Test". US News and World Report. Retrieved July 2, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  • Stein, Jeff. "NSA lie detectors no sweat, video says." Washington Post. June 14, 2010.
  • Nagesh, Gautham (June 14, 2010). "NSA video tries to dispel fear about polygraph use during job interviews". The Hill. Retrieved June 15, 2013.
  • Not to mention the 1983 report saying "It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions."
3. NSA employees routinely take polygraphs (they are reinvestigated every 5 years) so it's a periodic operation and not just recruitment
4. Another indication that it's not trivial for a government agency to have this section is that when polygraphs were proposed for the Department of Energy, many employees protested. (see this Salon source)
5. And another indication that it's not trivial for this article: When Ronald Reagan proposed that his cabinet members get polygraphs in 1985, George Shultz threatened to resign. He said "Management through fear and intimidation is not the way to promote honesty and protect security." (Source: Science Magazine)
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

After doing some digging I found sources that discuss practical applications of the polygraph at the NSA. So here is the "biggest possible" paragraph on NSA polygraphs:

The NSA conducts polygraph tests of employees. For new employees, the tests are meant to discover enemy spies who are applying to the NSA and to uncover any information that could make an applicant pliant to coercion.[1] As part of the latter, historically EPQs or "embarrassing personal questions" about sexual behavior had been included about the NSA polygraph.[1] The NSA also conducts five year periodic reinvestigation polygraphs of employees, focusing on counterintelligence programs. In addition the NSA conducts aperiodic polygraph investigations in order to find spies and leakers; those who refuse to take them may receive "termination of employment", according to a 1982 memorandum from the director of the NSA. There are also "special access examination" polygraphs for employees who wish to work in highly sensitive areas, and those polygraphs cover counterintelligence questions and some questions about behavior.[2] NSA's brochure states that the average test length is between two and four hours.[3] NSA polygraphing is, as of 2006, a separate process from polygraphs in other federal agencies. In 2006 Tara Wilk, a computer engineer from Arnold, Maryland quoted in the Washington Post, said "The CIA doesn't respect the NSA's polygraph and the NSA doesn't respect the CIA's polygraph. Nobody knows who the boss is, and they all think they are the most important."[4] A 1983 report of the Office of Technology Assessment stated that "It appears that the NSA [National Security Agency] (and possibly CIA) use the polygraph not to determine deception or truthfulness per se, but as a technique of interrogation to encourage admissions."[5] Sometimes applicants in the polygraph process confess to committing felonies such as murder, rape, and selling of illegal drugs. Between 1974 and 1979, of the 20,511 job applicants who took polygraph tests, 695 (3.4%) confessed to previously undetected felony crimes.[1]

In 2012 Russell Tice, a former NSA employee who worked there for 20 years and took between 12 and 15 polygraphs, said that as time went on the polygraphs became less stringent.[6] Tice accused the NSA of using polygraphs to "gather very personal information on them that they can use to blackmail them into participating in illegal and unethical conduct."[6] He also stated that the NSA "routinely uses polygraphs to terrorize the rank and file of NSA employees".[6] George Maschke, a former U.S. army reserve captain who founded the organization AntiPolygraph.org, criticizes the NSA polygraph process and states that its intended use is being a "psychological tool of coercion."[6] Vanee Vines, an NSA spokesperson, said that "In making these eligibility determinations, NSA complies with the personnel security investigative standards and procedures as outlined in various Intelligence Community directives and policy guidance memoranda."[6]

The NSA began requiring contractor employees to take polygraph tests in 1957.[2] James Bamford stated that in the 1950s and early 1960s, as paraphrased by Craig P. Bauer, author of Secret History: The Story of Cryptology, the agency received a "black eye" because it used a lot of EPQs during the polygraph process; Bamford wrote that the EPQs "bear little relationship to the person's honesty or patriotism."[1] In 1982 military personnel assigned to the NSA were now required to take polygraphs after a spying scandal occurred at the Government Communications Headquarters. In addition, the five year counterintelligence polygraph for employees and the aperiodic polygraphs had also been established at that time.[2] In 2010 the NSA produced a video explaining the polygraph process.[7] The video, ten minutes long, is titled "The Truth About the Polygraph" and was posted to the website of the Defense Security Service. Jeff Stein of the Washington Post said that the video portrays "various applicants, or actors playing them -- it’s not clear -- describing everything bad they had heard about the test, the implication being that none of it is true."[8] The persons in the video describe the process as "calm, quiet, comfortable".[8] Stein argues that "All of which is quite at odds with the experience many test subjects -- and polygraphers themselves -- have related over the years."[8] AntiPolygraph.org argues that the NSA-produced video omits some information about the polygraph process; it produced a video responding to the NSA video.[7] Maschke accused the NSA polygraph video of being "Orwellian".[8]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Bauer, p. 359.
  2. ^ a b c Bamford, Body of Secrets, p. 538.
  3. ^ "Your Polygraph Examination: An Important Appointment to Keep" (PDF). National Security Agency. Retrieved June 17, 2013.
  4. ^ Vedantam, Shankar. "Polygraph Test Results Vary Among Agencies." Washington Post. June 20, 2006. p. 1. Retrieved on July 3, 2013.
  5. ^ McCarthy, Susan. "The truth about the polygraph." Salon. Thursday March 2, 2000. Retrieved on July 5, 2013.
  6. ^ a b c d e Flock, Elizabeth (September 25, 2012). "NSA Whistleblower Reveals How To Beat a Polygraph Test". US News and World Report. Retrieved July 2, 2013. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  7. ^ a b Nagesh, Gautham (June 14, 2010). "NSA video tries to dispel fear about polygraph use during job interviews". The Hill. Retrieved June 15, 2013.
  8. ^ a b c d Stein, Jeff. "NSA lie detectors no sweat, video says." Washington Post. June 14, 2010. Retrieved on July 5, 2013.

References:

Please use cite templates

Hello all. I would appreciate it if other editors here, including User:WhisperToMe, would please use citation templates like "cite news", "cite book" and "cite web" for any additions you make to this article from now on. I counted the refs here and came away with more templates than not. If this article is ever going to advance to B-class or GA, the refs will need to match. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the page. For this article I'm fine with using citation templates :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

NSA Security manual, dated 1994, posted to Usenet

Not sure what use this is, but I found something from Usenet:

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources needed

We need reliable sources for present or past NSA stations in Morwenstow, United Kingdom; Geraldton, Pine Gap and Shoal Bay, Australia; Leitrim and Ottawa, Canada; Misawa, Japan; and Waihopai, New Zealand. Anyone? Two UK papers are sources for UKUSA Agreement but they don't mention locations. Glad to have a specific area for improvement (and to confirm that my change to B class was premature). I completely forgot about UKUSA during other work on this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Polygraph video content and archives

This is a listing of content related to the polygraph video:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If I May Defend Most NSA Employees

I think there is a great deal more information that the article could cover about the NSA and its activities (legal as well as potentially treasonous) and much of it would be contentious and lacking the ability to appear NPOV. However if I may, I would like to suggest an addition to the article which covers the fact that not every NSA employee is a willing accomplice in these latest Snowdon criminal exposures, and the agency employees themselves are overwhelmingly against the crimes that the Bush/Obama regimes are committing against the citizens of the United States. The article should at least give mention to that fact or, bare minimum, provide an external link to the reference supporting that fact.

I would like to suggest some commentary which includes Crypto-Gram Newsletter July 15, 2013 -- (section Pre-9/11 NSA Thinking) and if you're in the security and/or intelligence arena, you are already familiar with Bruce Schneier who has worked in the infrastructure for many decades, producing said newsletter as time and opportunity permits, providing a summary of events related to the U.S. intelligence industry -- so his credentials check and he has legitimacy.

Specifically within the "CRYPTOLOG" newsletter passed within and among the NSA employees there are a number of statements by employees which lament their role in committing these crimes against our country, more so putatively in a time of war. They lament becoming the bad guys violating our citizen's rights, freedoms, and liberties when the NSA is putatively supposed to be defending them; it is not pleasant for most of the NSA employees to be involved no matter how obliquely.

Pre-9/11 NSA Thinking
Specifically, the focus is on the potential abuse of the Government's applications of this new information technology that will result in an invasion of personal privacy. For us, this is difficult to understand. We *are* "the government," and we have no interest in invading the personal privacy of U.S. citizens.
When I asked Hayden about the agency's capability for unwarranted spying on private citizens -- in the unlikely event, of course, that the agency could somehow get the funding, the computer scientists, and the knowledge to begin making sense out of the Internet -- his response was heated. "I'm a kid from Pittsburgh with two sons and a daughter who are closet libertarians," he said. "I am not interested in doing anything that threatens the American people, and threatens the future of this agency. I can't emphasize enough to you how careful we are. We have to be so careful -- to make sure that America is never distrustful of the power and security we can provide."

When history pens the final draft of the Bush/Obama regime's crimes against the United States, it should be noted that not every NSA employee went along willingly, and despite working for an agency that has in effect sided with the enemies of the United States, it was (1) a gradual thing and (2) the crimes were highly compartmentalized at the start and (3) when employees learned of the crimes they did so in an economic environment where finding another job is virtually impossible, not offering opportunities for them to quit the criminal agency. Damotclese (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

To Fred Bauder. In section National_Security_Agency#Data_mining, I marked "citation needed" for the conclusion of a long sentence: "the comprehensive world-wide mass archiving of communications which NSA is engaged in as of 2013". Where did you get this idea? As I recall, it is not stated in Greenwald's article. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is, "collect it all", the central theme of Greenwald's posting would seem to refer to that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The quotation in the reference is "The crux of the NSA story in one phrase: 'collect it all': The actual story that matters is not hard to see: the NSA is attempting to collect, monitor and store all forms of human communication" Whether that is true, it seems to be what Greenwald believes. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to edit that sentence. There is a difference between "all forms of" and "all". All forms could just mean a list of types (something like touch, sight, audio; or voicecalls, voicemail and email) that doesn't exclude any others (say, like NSA can't hear voice calls). All forms could be within the law, while an unqualified all certainly is not. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have no idea; however, that building in Utah will hold a lot... I would think anything electronically transmitted or stored on a computer connected to the internet could be intercepted in some way. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Employees and budget 2013

Although I have added employee and budget info from reliable sources, it is reasonable to believe that both numbers in the article are underestimates. The NSA claims it has over 30,000 employees at its Fort Meade headquarters,[2] but the Washington Post adds that there are 4,000 NSA employees at Fort Gordon[3] and "the NSA’s station at RAF Menwith Hill ... is planned to grow by one-third, to an estimated 2,500 employees".[4] Also, "In Hawaii, the NSA outgrew its Schofield Barracks Army site years ago."[5] "The NSA’s Pine Gap site in Australia has added hundreds of new employees and several new facilities in recent years."[6] The NSA also has facilities in Texas and Colorado. Using simple addition, we're quickly approaching the 40,000 employees claimed in a Der Spiegel reference that was recently added and then removed from the article.

Also, the estimated $10 billion budget seems quite small for and agency that has 30,000-40,000 employees, 500 defense contractors with their own workforces,[7] lots of capital equipment costs, and lots of current construction costs in Utah and at its Fort Meade headquarters.

I oppose simply saying "Classified" for the employee count and budget when reliable sources have ballpark estimates. It's better to be clear that the values mentioned in the article are only estimates. We must still rely on reliable sources as much as possible, but should be aware that the employee count and budget are probably underestimates. --JHP (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I made an error. The NSA's over 30,000 employees claim is not just limited to its Fort Meade headquarters. --JHP (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

archive

This Talk page is way too long, can someone archive it, i'm not comfortable with it myself. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional NSA sources

Also, applicant timeline:

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

May I ask, what is the purpose of this list? Thanks in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In case someone wants to write more about the NSA, there are some additional sources, easily accessible, which a Wikipedian may use. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert and re-revert

I just re-reverted this revert; a note was left on my talkpage explaining that I had perhaps inadvertently replaced "best" with "breast" but a look at the diff will show that the word "breast" is used perfectly innocently in both versions of the text - to refer to an eagle's thoracic area - and I was merely making small changes to the phrasing. My edit was primarily intended to undo two small changes that produced short, choppy sentences (the first of a series of edits by User:60995shift3; we just have different stylistic tastes) and to the best of my knowledge did not change any meanings; "breast" was already there :-) So I think the anti-vandal tool misfired here, and thanks to User:KoshVorlon for the explanatory note enabling me to figure that out. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

NSA/CSS - what's CSS?

This article uses the abbreviation "NSA/CSS", but never explains what CSS is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It stands for Central Security Service, an organization co-located with NSA to facilitate cryptoligic cooperation between the agency and cryptologic components across the military services. It's in the last paragraph of the intro. I'll add the CSS just so that it's not confusing.--Sdverv (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

More NSA sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Patent Citation

Ok, I think I have found a source for the "Citation needed" bit in the patent section, see: [8], however, it seems to be a clone (or vice versa) of this page, your thoughts? Help plz 12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just a mirror (it even says it's taken from Wiki), so it can't be used as a source (it would literally be citing ourselves). Ddye 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to a list of NSA patents: http://www.wolfgang-pfaller.de/NSA%20Patents.html --92.230.155.214 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a complete lack of information on the NSA mind control, Remote Neural Monitoring, ...

... Electronic Brain Link, Remote Nerve/Brain Stimulation, synthetic telepathy, directed energy weapons, and radar or electromagnetic imaging capabilities on Wikipedia.

In all the Wikipedia articles on the NSA and US government, there is no information on the satellite or remote sensor installation which facilitate the governments deployment of NSA mind control, Remote Neural Monitoring, Electronic Brain Link, Remote Nerve/Brain Stimulation, synthetic telepathy, directed energy weapons, and radar or electromagnetic imaging capabilities. This technology is in it's prime, police have access to it nationwide, and articles exist about it's existence. But all of the official Wikipedia pages are lacking in any information on the subject. I suspect someone needs to edit in some information to cover this area of technology and the controversy of it's use. I also suspect heavy censorship and lack of information being provided by the police and government about it. There was an old article on Wikipedia about synthetic telepathy, but an edit war essentially made Wikipedia shut it down (all that's left is the medical grade brain computer interface article).

Here is a circulating document from 2006 on the technology. Enough information exists that there needs to be some mention of it in official articles. This system appears to be the backbone for the NSAs intelligence gathering and communication systems. It is being used not just without warrants, but in complete secrecy, likely because of the illegality of it's use. It allows all the information in the human brain and body to be observed and recorded remotely, what a person sees, hears, thinks, feels, dreams, all information stored in the mind including passwords and history is available to police, NSA, CIA, FBI, and government personnel.

Is the NSA Conducting Electronic Warfare On Americans?

Jonas Holmes May 19, 2006 CHRONICLE ARTICLE [full text of document of uncertain provenance deleted as possible WP:BLP violation and possible WP:COPYVIO--Rybec] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togiff (talk • contribs) 2013-07-23T12:07:37 (UTC)

"[A]ll of the official Wikipedia pages are lacking in any information on the subject" because all reliable sources are lacking in any information on the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"because all reliable sources are lacking in any information on the subject" not true. there is nearly millions of websites on the subject, information on how neurons can be read remotely and manipulated remotely, patents, laws, and research. information can be found at http://www.mindjustice.org/ and many other websites. RNM is a classified NSA project with tons of people who allege it to exist, and the basic principles of synthetic telepathy are even better established. there are also tons of victims worldwide of it's alleged use, with tons of reports on the technology and it's use. also, see the old Wikipedia article 'synthetic telepathy' - information exists that was once on Wikipedia, before Wikipedia censored it and took it offline. Wikipedia is void on details due to government censorship and attacks to the Wikipedia pages by people who are misinformed on the subject matter, or wish to control and hide the information. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html what I want to see is someone create a research article based on the information in the Wikipedia electromagnetism, electron, and electric charge articles, describing how neurons emit radio frequencies, and how microwaves and other electromagnetism can be used to stimulate ion channels and other parts of the nerves remotely. this is what allows remote non invasive brain computer interfaces like RNM/EBL to work. this would be perfect complements to Wikipedia and finally explain in detail how all this nonsense works, without the need to rely on data we cannot obtain from the government directly.
You call http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/ or http://www.mindjustice.org/ reliable? Not in the real-world sense, and not in the Wikipedia sense. As for http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html , the article Synthetic telepathy, although having little content sourced to anything, was properly merged into Brain–computer interface. If there were reliable sources, information could be added to that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheryl Welsh the director of mindjustice.org is listed as one of six mind control/non-lethal weapons experts in the world by the * United Nations. Yes everything on their website is credible and a proper source of reference, per Wikipedia's standards. mindjustice.org also references books, newspaper articles, and literature, and laws, all very good sources of information on this. did you happen to see the Russian Research section, complete with full copy of the Russian law on this? they also have tons of interviews with PhD doctors and neurologists on the subject. the Synthetic Telepathy article that was removed from Wikipedia also references several patents, and research pieces related to this technology in the USA. There are laws, and patents related to this. None of this is in the Wikipedia Brain Computer Interface article, nothing from it was merged. All that is left is a reference to the militaries investment into the technology and research, which seems to be largely outdated misinformation. It has also been deleted and removed from the article several times, meaning people keep removing the information rather than building on top of it. I actually posted these links in hopes that someone would include or amend the articles with this information. You are ignorant, you keep claiming all this is "irrelevant" and "no good sources of information exist" while ignoring the research and information provided. as far as I am concerned, your statements are irrelevant. I am providing this just for another Wikipedia'er to evaluate and hopefully build on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Togiff (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That is not an official UN document, even if it had been hosted on UN web sites. (The link on the mindjustice page is broken. ) Among the purported "author" organizations, UNIDIR appears to have some credibility, but QUNO does not, and PSIS seems to no longer exist.
No, I don't buy it.
Even if all you say is correct, Welsh and mindjustice would still not be a reliable source, unless Welsh has published her work in reliable sources.
And, even if there were a reliable source for your information, it still wouldn't fit in this article, only in mind control. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree, that reliable sources are an issue here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This entire section needs to be discarded, lest we allow the camel's nose of hearsay, pure invention, science fiction and conspiracy theories to shove itself under the tent flap. Remote viewing indeed. The next thing they will be suggesting is that NSA employees wear tin foil hats. Please. Let us limit this discussion to reality.````12/16/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAFSS60 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The main web page now has credible sources of information, including US patent 6,011,991, which describes remote brain reading tech, with remote firing devices to remotely control a persons brain/nervous system. There are also now references to there being nearly 30 satellites deployed by the National Reconnaissance Office, most of them ELINT, which is exactly what would be used to do this sort of remote brain imaging. ELINT is the monitoring of non-communication unintentionally emanated radiation, not including nuclear, which would include brain waves and psychotronic energy. Take another look (videos of NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice discussing using satellites to do spying, too): http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html Togiff (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted from Togiff's initial comment the "circulating document from 2006". It looks like a hoax to me. Some of the people circulating the document claimed it was an article that had been published in the California Chronicle. I found a Web site called californiachronicle.com (whether that's the same California Chronicle, I don't know) but a search there for "Jonas Holmes", the supposed author of the piece, turned up nothing. The article may have been written to discredit Russell Tice.

Also, even though this is all over the Internet, posting the full text of a document written by someone else may be a copyright violation. —rybec 00:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The ANT catalog

http://defense-update.com/20131229_der-spiegel-backdoor-openers-paving-way-nsa-surveillance.html Der Spiegel mentioned a particular digital lock pick called “FEEDTROUGH” tailored to match the back door the NSA managed to gain on Juniper Networks systems.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There's more stuff about the NSA Office of Tailored Access Operations (TAO) and other NSA stuff:

I'm glad German newspapers are publishing articles in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

iPhones and more

Old articles:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Security_Agency/Archive_3&oldid=1140254057"