Slashdot Mirror
DHS Monitors Social Media For 'Political Dissent'
OverTheGeicoE writes "Recently, TSA's 'Blogger Bob' Burns posted a rant against a cupcake on the TSA blog. Perhaps it made you wonder if TSA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, really understand what we're saying about them, especially online. Well, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, we now know a lot more about how they monitor online comments aside from 'Blogger Bob.' EPIC has received hundreds of pages of documents regarding DHS's online surveillance program. These documents reveal that DHS has contracts with General Dynamics for '24/7 media and social network monitoring.' Perhaps it will warm your heart to know that DHS is particularly interested in tracking media stories that 'reflect adversely' on the U.S. government generally and DHS specifically. The documents include a report summary that might be representative of General Dynamics' work. The example includes summaries of comments on blogs and social networking sites, including quotes. Then again, you might remember J. Edgar Hoover's monitoring of antiwar activists during the Vietnam War, which certainly wasn't for the protesters' benefit."
From the government that brought us flag@whitehouse.gov. "Homeland security" is a tool used by a media-obsessed administration to justify its ever-increasing intrusiveness. This kind of robotic behavior in which common sense isn't allowed to override unreasonable strictness isn't making us safer, but it is making us miserable. Terrorist attacks have the word "terror" in them for a reason. The killing of innocent victims is just a vehicle for the ultimate goal of instilling paranoia and apprehension to influence behavior, and now we're fretting over jarred cupcakes. Mission accomplished.
This is a quote from a friend's mother, shortly after 9/11, in response to the absurd increase in airport security procedures. As long as people are willing to trade freedom for security, DHS and its ilk will prosper.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
DHS = STASI. And this is just the beginning. When it comes to the US government you can never be too paranoid. Yet another reason not to use facebook. But it's not just facebook I bet. Forums like this or any forums critical of the TSA are obviously being monitored for dissent. For 'domestic extremists', which really means anyone who would advocates abolishing the TSA or DHS.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"Paranoia doesn't mean the whole world isn't out to get you."
I think Slashdot has become self aware.
Link to some more sources people
http://cryptome.org/2012/01/0035.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/files/publications/gc_1281732303362.shtm#3
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
By posting an equivalency between the Nazi Germany Gestapo and the US Department of Homeland Security, I am declaring myself as belligerent. As such, according to recent legislation, this US citizen may be subject to military detainment without counsel or trial. Please inform my .......
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Here's some dissent for you: Fuck You. Fuck you and everything related to this systematic destruction of civil liberties in the US.
I'd expect them to read postings and keep an eye out for people threatening violence. That's a good thing. If someone stands up in a town square and yells that they're going to go shoot the mayor, I'd expect cops to take note. Where it becomes bad is if they harass or in any way mistreat people who aren't threatening violence. Is there any evidence that they're doing that?
Vote Ron Paul 2012
Liberty.
You're so right!
-The Choir
For the exception the occasional "law and order" conservative, very few of us here will disagree with you. Here's the thing, I know many people who think the government is really out to protect us. They really think that this monitoring of us is necessary and that if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about - really, I'm paraphrasing a programmer I used to work with and she's actually quite talented, too.
This security theater appeals to many people's emotional need to feel safe and there's no reasoning with them. I would be surprised if intelligence has anything to do with it because I've this fear pervade all levels of society. And as a democracy, excuse me, a republic, we are doomed to live under the tyranny of the scared huddled masses who feed off of the fear that is fed them by an irresponsible, profit hungry, corrupt media.
History is loaded with examples of people using people's fear to override their reason and their intellect. It has worked since the beginning of history and it saddens me that it will be true until the day we are extinct.
DHS was going to monitor Islamic sites, but they couldn't figure out all the squigglies. Since the equipment was already bought, and the contract to their buddies were already handed out, they figured, fuck it, we'll us it to monitor Americans. At least we can understand the language.
Perhaps you should read it. It specifies that military detention is FORBIDDEN for Citizens, Resident Aliens, and ANYONE ELSe who is captured/arrested within the borders of the USA. Military detention is ALLOWED (but not required) for anyone who doesn't meet the above requirements.
The key section you missed was:
Note that phrase "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of..."
And "existing law" does NOT allow military detention of US Citizens unless they're engaged in an act of war against the USA outside the USA. INSIDE the USA, they're covered by normal law enforcment, absent a declaration of martial law, which hasn't happened.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why is Snark Required?
Ten years ago, 19 hijackers armed only with box-cutters, took over 4 commercial aircraft and 3 of 4 of them into USA militarily & economically sensitive sites while eluding the entire NORAD defense organization, causing nearly 3 thousand deaths. At least, that is the official conspiracy theory, that through a series of extraordinary coincidences in near-perfect alignment, 9/11/2001 "just happened", "and that no one had any idea that such an event was even possible."
Ignored, discounted, and not investigated were such factors as (1) the USA 'Visa Express' program based in Saudi Arabia was used to bring Islamist fighters to the USA for military training for many years and, (2) the fact that at least 8 of 19 hijackers were still alive in the ME and merely victims of identity theft, (3) that 3 office towers built from concrete, steel, & glass fell symmetrically within their own footprints at very nearly the acceleration of gravity in a vacuum, and (4) that senior Bush regime officials were collaborators & signatories to the PNAC document which called for global military hegemony subsequent to a "new Pearl Harbor".
I don't mean to sound callus about the loss of those 3,000 people on 9/11/2001, but 200,000+ people per year die from tobacco-related illnesses, and 20,000+ people per year die from alcohol-related traffic accidents. We Americans have surrendered our birthright Constitution & Bill of Rights, and have waged "preemptive wars" for the past 10 years in 6+ countries, costing over $1.2 Trillion and over 5,000 servicemen killed & 100,000+ GIs seriously wounded. In all that 10 year period, no additional domestic terrorist attacks by foreign islamic terrorists have ever been consummated, and each serious attack attempted have been thwarted by alert civilians, not the USA police state.
How has this vast expenditure of blood & treasure, of the loss of individual freedoms, liberties, and inalienable rights, been worth the minimal risk of new domestic terrorist attacks? I don't see the value ...
Hey at least he was detained. The US is now assassinating US citizens abroad. A 16 year old US citizens shouldn't be killed without at least a trial or doing something really really bad.
Yup Bush was an idiot. Yup Obama is keeping the same pro-wall street, spend happy policies of Bush. There is not much difference between the spending habits of rank and file Dems and Reps, except for a few drastic differences like Ron Paul. The two parties may want to spend on different things, but they really don't want to cut.
While the Tea Party did start last election cycle with Paul, it's been hijacked by various people trying to lead a grassroots headless organization. Some are bad and get attention in the worse ways. No different than the various occupy movements not having a specific leader.
But the core belief of a small gov that follows the constitution is valid. Yes Bush was a complete and utter idiot sockpuppet. How he was elected twice baffles me. But Obama really blew his hope and change. Senator O was against warrantless wiretaps, was against the Feds being involved with state legal rights for medical marihuana, was going to close Gitmo, was against the war in Iraq, was going to close redundancies in the government. 4 years later he's broken all of those promises. Yes we're out of Iraq, but it was at Bush's timetable and not any sooner. Oh and the money trail hasn't changed, Obama is still in bed with the same big business/big bank people Bush was. Obama's DOJ has even given up on prosecuting anyone responsible for the wall street disasters. Hell even his Obama care was all pro-big business. If it was a mandated government program that's one thing, mandating private companies for health care, and then limiting new hospitals for competition is obvious lobbying by the existing health care insurance system.
So if you're happy with Obama being basically a 3rd term of Bush and want one more, then vote Dem or any of the other Rep candidates. Want a chance for something different, go with Ron Paul
Shadowy government agent #1: "We need more oil. Let's invade Iraq."
Shadowy government agent #2: "We need an excuse first."
Agent #1: "OK - let's rig the Twin Towers with explosives, making sure none of the thousands of people who work there sees us doing it. Then let's brainwash some Saudis to hijack two planes and fly them into the towers. Then we'll set off the charges and collapse the buildings."
Agent #2: "Why bother with making sure the buildings collapse? Plenty of people will die when they fly planes into them. That should get the world on our side."
Agent #1 "Because there won't be enough people in on the conspiracy with just a simple kamikaze attack. We want to have hundreds of contractors, suppliers, demolition experts, security guards, fire department personnel, building supervisors, etc, etc to bribe to keep quiet for at least ten years."
Agent #2: "Um, OK. Shall we attack another building too?"
Agent #1: "Yes. Let's fire a cruise missile at the Pentagon during morning rush hour."
Agent #2: "Not in the middle of the night when no one would see it?"
Agent #1: "No."
Agent #2: "But there'll be lots of witnesses."
Agent #1: "Don't worry. We'll pay them all to say it was a Boeing 757. And we'll knock down some lampposts on the highway overpass too, because I've just realised a cruise missile doesn't have the same wingspan as a 757. Oh, and we'll confiscate some CCTV footage to make people think we're hiding something."
Agent #2: "But don't we always confiscate CCTV footage when we're investigating something?"
Agent #1: "Yes. But this time, for some reason, it'll be suspicious."
Agent #2: “But if we fire a cruise missile, that would leave a 757 unaccounted for.”
Agent #1: “No problem. We’ll just hijack one ourselves and fly it somewhere like Andrews Air Force Base or Area 51 or somewhere like that, dismantle it, kill all the passengers, burn the luggage and then transport all the wreckage to the Pentagon to scatter around as evidence.”
Agent #2: “I see.”
Agent #1: “Also, because the towers have a lightweight steel tube framework to allow them to sway in the wind, and the Pentagon is made of reinforced concrete, a lot of LiveLeak users will be confused by the different impact shapes. So they’ll be happy to believe in the cruise missile.”
Agent #2: “Um.”
Agent #1: “What’s up?”
Agent #2: “Why don’t we just, er, actually fly another plane into the Pentagon? I mean, by that stage people will already have seen two jumbo jets fly into the Twin Towers, so I don’t see the problem with using a third.”
Agent #1: “For Christ’s sake, how many times do I have to tell you? We want things as complicated as possible so clever people on the internet can spot the holes in our plans.”
Agent #2: “Ah, right.. Sorry. OK, I’ll go get the brainwashing machine and kidnap some Saudis, then we’re good to go.