NSA To Datamine Social Networking Sites

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has discovered that the NSA is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in Internet technology -- specifically the forthcoming 'semantic web' championed by the Web standards organisation W3C -- to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals."

Comments

Standard Waste of Our Tax $

[eldavojohn]

NSA Researcher: "Herr Direktor, the results from mining Slashdot have just come in!"
NSA Director Alexander: "Well, what have you found, son?"
NSA Researcher: "Well, sir, according to the report, this multi-billion dollar project has revealed that TripMaster Monkey is insightful, informative & interesting ... also that ..."
NSA Director Alexander: "Yes, what else?"
NSA Researcher: "It's about Commander Taco, sir ... he's gay.
NSA Director Alexander: "My GOD! Get me the president! And make sure he's dishonerably discharged immediately!"
NSA Researcher: "Yes SIR!"

How are they certain that the rules derived from these sites like MySpace or even Slashdot are even accurate? People post mis-information all the time & you can hardly call MySpace a reliable source for even seeding a semantic web. You can build a social network but even then it's hard because you're linking mostly aliases. Nowhere will you find my real name associated with my slashdot or myspace account--though you may be able to link them.

Re:Standard Waste of Our Tax $

[Moqui]

On MySpace, I am independently wealthy, married to *two* supermodels, and have so much Slashdot karma that I have infinite mod points.

Because, as we all know, no one lies on the Internet. :)

In all seriousness though, there is a difference between the NSA parsing MySpace pages and the NSA pulling down phone records. It's my fault if I put anything on the social sites that could be used against me in the future (see: retarded bank robbers who post pictures of their "loot" with masks off on their MySpace pages) as the site is public by its very definition (well, the publicly non-friend sections that is). My phone records on the other hand, are private.

Data mine all you want, I don't think it will give you that much information. That is, other than how not to style a webpage.

Re:Welcome to..

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

.. 1984. George was right, just off by 22 years.

The NSA's been intercepting & analysing any communications it can get its hands on since its inception.

Nothing new here, and its been going on since long before 1984 (although george was smart seeing it coming in '48).

How do you sleep at night, NSA workers?

[kthejoker]

I still don't get how NSA workers as American citizens can justify this kind of BS in their heads. They seriously must be the most sociopathic, mean-spirited, fascist-minded people in the country.

Seriously, as a citizen of this great country, I couldn't sleep at night if I were personally responsible in some way for collecting and aggregating this information.

We should expect that actually.

[PotatoHead]

With this particular administration, it's troublesome because I just KNOW they are going to use it to serve their interests, not ours in general.

I got worked up about this a while ago and the hard truth is that free speech is just that --free! We all are big kids and have spoken on the Internet. If what we have written is defensible, then we can expect to live by it. Those of us older school netizens are very likely to understand this and post accordingly. I honestly worry about the current generation however. It's difficult to differentiate casual speech where feelings are expressed in less than flattering ways from more serious speech with some measure of intent behind it.

Which again brings me back to some worry where this administration is concerned. The fact that they are looking to do this because they can suggests to me the motivation is less than pure. Honestly, why bother unless there is some benefit to all of us for doing it. Afterall we are the ones paying the bill.

We, as a people, are reaching a general state of unrest --and we've got reasons for that. The Internet empowers us to trancend the ordinary media channels and exercize our role in ways that make established power channels nervous. Real change brings with it some accountability for those gaming the system toward their own ends. Given their position, this is a perfectly logical reaction.

A government doing the right things, that has the high ground where justifying it's actions is concerned, has little reason for efforts like this. Take this as strong evidence this is not the case with our current leadership.

So, even though we have all spoken on the net and technically should not worry because it's all legal, I say there is some cause for worry for the accountability factor. (Not us, our leadership.)

Here's the takeaway: If you want to speak, in this connected day and age, on matters of government, you had better make sure what you write is defensible and that you have the high ground in your convictions. If not, you will be marginalized at some time in the future if your activities merit the effort. That sucks, but that's gonna be the way it is until such time as we elect a solid government that will modify existing legislation to keep such activities in check. Trust me, this particular one is just not ever going to do that.

The good news, IMHO, is that this same connected power that puts us in an exposed position also permits us to work together toward solid reform that is in our best interests! Best to take serious advantage of that now, before the advantage is lost, or legislated away. Is there no longer any doubt about the true intent of net neutrality? Sure, money is the big driver here, but so is speech! The blogs, for better or worse, have made complete fools of the established media channels and a growing number of people grok that now. (Why the hell did it take so long?)

We see our attorney general saying he is open to the idea of prosecution for whistle blowers, our President and Vice have claimed to be above the law and cloak pretty much everything in secrecy, our global actions are more self-serving than ever, recent court appointees are screened for their deference to established power channels, and our expectation of privacy is being marginalized under the ruse of greater security. (God damm it, a whole lotta people have no fucking backbone!) --And there is more, but hey --I've gotta work you know?

Show me some benefit and I'll ignore this whole thing. Until then, it's probably safe to say this will be used to marginalize any potential challengers to the current status quo politically.

Despite this, I personally will continue to speak. Our speech lies at the core of our freedom. Stay quiet and all is lost. Join me, put aside your fear they cultivate and speak your mind --just be sure it's true and just. --eventually we all will be better for it, IMHO.

The New COINTELPRO

[spun]

What is the point? Do they think terrorists are going to be putting up MySpace profiles? No, this is about finding and suppressing people who question the government. This isn't about terrorists, its about peace activists, environmentalists, socialists, libertarians, and anyone else not satisfied with the status quo. Think COINTELPRO. This has no purpose other than facilitating the suppression of dissent. To quote from the wikipedia page:

According to Brian Glick, in War at Home, COINTELPRO used a broad array of methods, including:

1. "Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents." [3]

2. "Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists." [4]

3. "Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, 'investigative' interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters."

4. "Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks--including political assassinations--were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official 'terrorism.'". [5]

This is scary. Just because this information is out there doesn't mean the government should datamine it or act on it. Even in public, one has a reasonable assumption that one won't be stalked or spied upon. Besides, this is a complete waste of resources that could go to doing soemthign effective to fight terrorism. But the powers that be honestly don't want that. If you are selling security, you have to make sure people feel insecure.