Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Mike, Jan 13, 2012.
You could always tell who the fed was: He was the one who wanted to blow (expletive deleted) up.
Just an update:
Congress to Hold Hearing on Department of Homeland Security Social Network Monitoring
Article is based on 300 pages of docs that EPIC recently sprung loose via FOIA ...
Infowars: Group Forces Congressional Hearing On Big Sis’ Twitter, Drudge Spying
I love it! Of course we always knew they were monitoring sites, especially those that criticize the ugly-headed Hydra of "security." And now we have hard proof. Just think of all those full-time-salaried employees working hard To Keep Us Safe by spending their time reading sites such as TUG and putting us all on a list. Because we're such scary dangerous tewwowists! We are A Threat To This Great Nation!
Interestingly it seems that people may be finally starting to wake up to what this cancer is doing to our society:
I would argue that this isn't necessarily a new area for DHS. I believe these elements have always been there based on how they interact with the Public. It's just that now it's getting more difficult for people to deny it.
I think it's more that people who don't track this issue, or who don't fly, aren't even aware that it's happening. But millions upon millions of people use the Internet everyday and don't expect that their comings and goings from site to site are being monitored by the government. It's just too much like reading a book and having the government reading over your shoulder.
Except in the comments, there's always that idiot:
"I have nothing to hide! Read away!"
Right. I always forget about that guy.
How can you? He shows up all the time!
Look, I have nothing to hide either. It's just that I don't want your nose in my damn business.
(Not you, Sunny Goth, you're cool).
It's selective remembering. That guy bugs me so much I like to forget he exists.
I know exactly how you feel -- although I probably do have a few things that I'd rather have not see the light of day, but those are mostly photos of my more unfortunate fashion choices.
They assume that there is some semblance of a basis for the surveillance that goes on and it's more targeted. They don't think everything and everyone is a subject. My son was startled by the story of the LA-headed UK couple, "DHS was reading their tweets?"
Too many people are cowed by authority. "Well, he must've done something wrong." "Well, you must've given them a reason." "Well, there must be something behind this." Blah blah blah.
I do sometimes get the impression that those excuses are defense mechanisms though. Not that people actually like licking the authoritarian boot (though it takes all kinds and I'm sure there are some out there), but that people are desperate to convince themselves that "It can't really be that bad. We don't have all the facts. There must have been a Good Reason(TM) for this." The alternative is accepting the fact that a police state is, depending on your views, on the horizing, forming, or already formed and we're living in the belly of the beast.
Since when did the CIA become part of DHS? I'm sure DHS wishes it were so.
Wired/ThreatLevel (16 Feb 2012): Lawmaker Demands DHS Cease Monitoring of Blogs, Social Media
I call BS on that statement. It's another lie out of the TSA.
I say we give them as much ammo as we can. Overload them. We know they're "monitoring" whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. Fine. Let's make it worth their while.
Actually I plan to give people tools with which to block them from their web sites.
The problem will being knowing who is DHS watchers since they will be using contractors. If it were me I wouldn't use a company name or such.
Meanwhile, in the UK, they're jailing people for Facebook posts. For speech. (As they did in Canada with that woman about whom I posted a thread a few months ago.)
From Arthur Silber's blog (and yes, he's dyspeptic, but also brilliantly sarcastic -- not everyone's cup of tea but certainly mine):
Think it's not going to start happening here? Think again.
Separate names with a comma.