DHS Wants To Monitor the Web For Terrorists

clustro writes "Under the belief that terrorists are 'increasingly' recruiting US citizens, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano says that increased government monitoring of the Internet is necessary to thwart them. It is believed that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad were inspired by radical Internet postings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Napolitano said, 'We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where tradeoffs are inevitable.'"

Comments

When you are looking for a needle in a

[Presto Vivace]

hay stack, you don't need more hay. There were so many warnings about the Ft Hood shooter, the idea that more monitoring of the Internet would have prevented the tragedy is simply laughable.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[mim]

exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Fluffeh]

exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.

But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh - how much have you actually read about Hassan? The man made treasonous statements in the presence of other commissioned officers. The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.

I wasn't an officer, but I reported less treasonous statements made by a little freak skinhead who worked for me. Nazi, neo-nazi, skinhead, whatever you care to call it, the freak drew swastikas everywhere he could draw them, and praised Hitler and his policies. His attitude toward blacks was disgusting, and his attitude toward our flag was little better. I don't know how the little freak ever got into the service.

Hassan? Same thing.

If you've read very much of what I post around here, or elsewhere, I am NOT EVER "politically correct", and I'd have reported Hassan again and again, even if I had to send letters to BuPers, the Pentagon, the White House, and to congress. No man in uniform should ever run at the mouth like Hassan did. Most certainly not a commissioned officer.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[linzeal]

This has little to do with international terrorist groups and more to do with domestic right wing militias and left-wing anarchists. If you think even 50% of the money allocated for investigating terrorism is used for over seas operations and groups, you are sadly mistaken. Even groups like Greenpeace who albeit may stage some rather spectacular displays of non-violent protect by hoisting banners up the sides of buildings have been routinely investigated under the auspices of these new anti-terrorism laws. In fact, I would say these laws, as a tool, are mostly ineffectual against international groups, mostly because of the sheer amount of translation and intelligence analysis that would need to be done to catch a single potential terrorist act is of a vast amount more than abusing these same powers to silence unwanted protest from mostly non-violent protesters. NYC spent millions of dollars tracking, documenting and arresting many of the groups who protested last years RNC convention.

Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[Anonymous Coward]

We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Go To Hell

[EdIII]

We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable

First, you're full of crap.

Secondly, there are NO SITUATIONS in which that trade-off is acceptable. NONE. There is no such thing as, "We will abuse the rights of some, just a little bit, but it will work out net positive".

It's absolutely negative, fuck you, and get out of my country. You don't deserve to be here, YOU are a greater threat to my "American Way of Life" than that Fort Hood terrorist ever was, or could have been.

Ohhh, and Mrs... if you are reading this.. seriously fuck you. That's the most asinine and offensive statement towards my rights and liberties by a public official that I have heard in a long time.

Re:Go To Hell

[oodaloop]

Why do you hate America so much?

Theatrical Security

[Voulnet]

This is what they call theatrical security: No real outcome, no real benefit, just a stage to let people gradually abandon their rights of privacy. Nothing to see here, move along people... Reminds me of when people used to write all sorts of fake alerting messages on the internet to distort intelligence scanners and fill them with false positives. Like this: bomb terrorist Osama George Bush Saddam nuclear improvised explosive devices infidels

Disturbing

[Protoslo]

Apparently the speech focused on one of those situations where "tradeoffs are inevitable." If Hassan and Shahzad were "inspired" by radical internet posts, I cannot conceive of any further investigative tradeoff that could have been made while still maintaining constitutionality. Even if they had made radical internet posts, they would have to be inciting imminent lawless action or alluding to their participation in criminal plots/conspiracies/etc. to justify a search warrant. The FBI is already on the lookout for people who post such things on public online forums.

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

I would hate to think that anyone liberal on civil rights would find these statements comforting...

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Yes, I'm sure "liberals" will be relieved that Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary (nice research, AP) of the DHS for George W. Bush, approves of the Obama Administration's "security" policies. When Republican hawks talk about "mature" security policies, they mean the ones that Dick Cheney dreams about at night, the ones that Bush was trying to step back from in his final two years; they mean Obama's current policies.

Tools are already in place, but not used

[indytx]

This is all fine and good if it actually makes us safer, but it won't. Maj. Hasan was investigated by the FBI for his contacts with radical clerics well before he went on a shooting rampage, but he was still allowed to buy a gun because this information or even a flag was never placed into the instant background check database, and the terrorism task force that was watching him didn't receive notice that he bought a gun and a bunch of ammo. Here's an idea, make it so the FBI knows when a terrorist it's investigating is buying a bunch of guns and ammo. Why don't we start there?

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[WrongSizeGlass]

There have been, and will continue to be, terrorist activities against governments, religions and 'peoples'. This includes the United States and 'our way of life' but isn't limited to the US by any stretch of the imagination. These acts of terror are committed by people of all nationalities and religions. It's evident that we all "just can't get along". The vast majority of these efforts aren't because of "perceived government eavesdropping on landlines, cellphones and e-mail" - they are because some extremist didn't get enough hugs from mommy, or someone of a nationality or religion other than theirs disrespected or harmed them or their way of life in some way (real or imaginary).

In the US this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. The Republicans tend to campaign on the 'national security' issue much more than the Democrats, and regularly use it in their talking points. When the Republicans are in power they advance this agenda openly (though we'll never be aware of most of the details). The Democrats tend to campaign on alliances and détente, though they don't use coordinated talking points effectively. When the Democrats are in power the also advance an agenda of national security, but do it quietly and "behind the scenes" (and we'll never be aware of most of the details). Both parties use & promote surveillance and other activities that attempt to skirt the limits of the Constitution and the laws. The Republicans take their flack for it up front and the Democrats take their flack for it when it exposes itself.

I'll throw some more hay onto the haystack

[captain_dope_pants]

The youngest ocelets climb low up the yellow hitech house. Will they trudge ton to Sama binded or laden with sand? Some to the r southern astygmatics lambbast ardsley want to offer help. We can canvass ass in a teflon pan. They govern mentalists with an iron hand.

** Waits for the Feebs **