Thread: The guberment in our social medias!

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...g-sites-86741/

The Feds have been forced to release their social network monitoring manual, which contains the list of words the government watches on social media and news sites.

Earlier the Huffington Post reported on the Feds have been forced to give up their list of words they monitor on Facebook, Twitter, and comments being posted on news articles so I compiled that list below.

Homeland Security Manual Lists Government Key Words For Monitoring Social Media, News

Ever complain on Facebook that you were feeling “sick?” Told your friends to “watch” a certain TV show? Left a comment on a media website about government “pork?”

If you did any of those things, or tweeted about your recent vacation in “Mexico” or a shopping trip to “Target,” the Department of Homeland Security may have noticed.

In the latest revelation of how the federal government is monitoring social media and online news outlets, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has posted online a 2011 Department of Homeland Security manual that includes hundreds of key words (such as those above) and search terms used to detect possible terrorism, unfolding natural disasters and public health threats. The center, a privacy watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued to obtain the release of the documents.

The 39-page “Analyst’s Desktop Binder” used by the department’s National Operations Center includes no-brainer words like “”attack,” “epidemic” and “Al Qaeda” (with various spellings). But the list also includes words that can be interpreted as either menacing or innocent depending on the context, such as “exercise,” “drill,” “wave,” “initiative,” “relief” and “organization.”

These terms and others are “broad, vague and ambiguous” and include “vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters,” stated the Electronic Privacy Information Center in letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

The manual was released by the center a week after Homeland Security officials were grilled at a House hearing over other documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that revealed analysts were scrutinizing online comments that “reflect adversely” on the federal government. Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security, and Richard Chavez, director for the National Operations Center, testified that the released documents were outdated and that social media was monitored strictly to provide situational awareness and not to police disparaging opinions about the federal government. On Friday, Homeland Security officials stuck by that testimony.

A senior Homeland Security official who spoke to The Huffington Post on Friday on condition of anonymity said the testimony of agency officials last week remains “accurate” and the manual “is a starting point, not the endgame” in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats. The official denied Electronic Privacy Information Center’s charge that the government is monitoring dissent. The manual’s instruction that analysts should identify “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities” was not aimed at silencing criticism but at spotting and addressing problems, she added.

[...]

Go to the link for the full list of words.

And this too. Bad idea.


House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet
By Brendan Sasso - 05/26/12 08:10 AM ET

House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.

The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.

It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said n an interview with The Hill earlier this year.

He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where's it's really the governments that are at the table but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of internet freedom."

"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.

Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.

Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.

The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.

Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.  

“We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments,” Strickling said.

In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”

“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.

He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.

“And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...ulate-internet

Not news to me.

The FBI has been monitoring and tracking PORN viewing for some time.

I suspect anyone who is active on the internet has a file somewhere.

I am sure they have been getting a feed from TGR for sometime.
Some pretty spicy things have been posted here of the years.

What I warry about is Corperations using the information to make Employment decisions. They almost have access to it now, soon the guberment or private company will sell your online persona to those who wish to know everything about you. What you look at, what you think about many issues. ect ect

Originally Posted by MTT

What I warry about is Corperations using the information to make Employment decisions. They almost have access to it now, soon the guberment or private company will sell your online persona to those who wish to know everything about you. What you look at, what you think about many issues. ect ect

It will probably get worse as Facebook tries to monetize and justify its valuation. That's a big reason why I only use social media under a nickname, not my real name. I wouldn't use it all for the reasons you've listed but my touring partners now prefer to arrange tours (condition reports, start times, where to meet etc.) by sending out notices and disusing it via social media.

Originally Posted by MTT

Not news to me.

Well no shit. It was more the list of words. Did you bother to read those?

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

And this too. Bad idea.


House to examine plan for United Nations to regulate the Internet
By Brendan Sasso - 05/26/12 08:10 AM ET

House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.

The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.

It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.
“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said n an interview with The Hill earlier this year.

He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where's it's really the governments that are at the table but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of internet freedom."

"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.

Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.

Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.

The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.

Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.  

“We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments,” Strickling said.

In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”

“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.

He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.

“And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...ulate-internet

That is some scary shit. Something like this should be on the news every night

Move along, nothing to see here folks, just the next phase of Agenda 21 in action. Just tune in to your favorite useful sycophant to be reminded that we should just trust the govenmernt and their fascisti. By, of and for the sheeple, I swear it's still true.

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.

At least this comment gave me a bit of hope. Glad the administration appears to be against it as well.

Originally Posted by tone capone

Move along, nothing to see here folks, just the next phase of Agenda 21 in action. Just tune in to your favorite useful sycophant to be reminded that we should just trust the govenmernt and their fascisti. By, of and for the sheeple, I swear it's still true.

Mentioning "Agenda 21" moves you to the top of the list! The libruls are gonna getcha!

Bring it on!

But No, I don't think they will need to dissapear people or kill anyone.

When the control/surveillence grid is fully established the way they want it, you will have no choice but to comply and conform in order to function in any way in society. This is why there is a war on self reliance.

By the way, I don't think these treaties (LOST, Internet control) are not going to pass. They know they lost the current battle in the information war and people are awakening and fed up. The do gooder control freaks will take one step back, for now. The majority of the brain dead lemmings that read "the paper" every day and think they're smart will obey the simple command, "FORWARD" towards the ciff. Only the real smartess Libtards refuse to see how authoritarian their beloved Democrats have the potential to be.

But this is also the time when true Liberals will actually call this fascist bullshit out and I see light at the end of the tunnel.

I guess you trolls are just gonna drop that hot potato, huh? I thought so. Keep closing your eyes and ears, marching, "Forward".

So many of you, so intelligent, so compassionate, and so generous in your own lives, but so easily deceived by the con men and women of the world. It honestly breaks my heart.

you mean the conmen that peddle "Agenda 21" and rant about liberals and "sierra clubers"