Does this bother you?

[cali]

It's from 2012 and I don't know if it's still going on, but do you think this can be justified? The other thing I want to point out is that this is an excellent example of why the terror, terror, terror infrastructure will be impossible to dismantle; it's a huge corporate gift. There's lots of money to be made off of terror.

DHS monitoring of social media concerns civil liberties advocates

Civil liberties advocates are raising concerns that the Department of Homeland Security’s three-year-old practice of monitoring social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter could extend to tracking public reaction to news events and reports that “reflect adversely” on the U.S. government.


<snip>

With the explosion of digital media, DHS has joined other intelligence and law enforcement agencies in monitoring blogs and social media, which is seen as a valuable tool in anticipating trends and threats that affect homeland security, such as flu pandemics or a bomb plot.

But monitoring for “positive and negative reports” on U.S. agencies falls outside the department’s mission to “secure the nation,” said the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which obtained a copy of a contract and related material describing DHS’s social media monitoring through its FOIA suit.

According to the documents, the department’s Office of Operations Coordination and Planning awarded a contract in 2010 to Fairfax-based General Dynamics’ Advanced Information Systems. The company’s task is to provide media and social media monitoring support to Homeland Security’s National Operations Center (NOC) on a “24/7/365 basis” to enhance DHS’s “situational awareness, fusion and analysis and decision support” to senior leaders.


“The language in the documents makes it quite clear that they are looking for media reports that are critical of the agency and the U.S. government more broadly,” said Ginger McCall, director of EPIC’s open government program. “This is entirely outside of the bounds of the agency’s statutory duties, and it could have a substantial chilling effect on legitimate dissent and freedom of speech.”

<snip>

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-13/world/35441734_1_social-media-dhs-documents-reports

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. Of course it does. The whole topic is antithetical to the foundation of America. n/t

[cali]

2. I think what's so troubling, is that this is part and parcel of

mass surveillance even though many people would deny it's connected. This mindset has become endemic in our government.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. But, we're supposed to "trust" a government that fears its own people.

The government lies to us, spies on us, keeps secrets from us, and we're supposed to trust them?

[cali]

5. well, according to more than a few Duers, you're a teabagging libertarian

if you don't trust government.

for my opinion on that, see my tagline.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. In a democracy, we should neither trust or fear our government.

I don't trust politicians or government functionaries, nor as a citizen, should I. Nor should any citizen. They are allegedly working for us in a democracy. We need to elect more representatives and fewer "leaders".

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

I don't believe in "Father Knows Best" government no matter which party elects daddy.

[woo me with science]

4. Of course it does.

So does the obvious propaganda machine that now blankets the internet and for which the organizational, financial and operational underpinnings are completely opaque.

[DirkGently]

7. Of course. Dissent is not a national security issue.

Once again, unflattering views of the status quo or government policy are conflated with potential lawlessness and tracked, stalked and infiltrated.

Government has no business watching people who simply don't agree with policy, or who publish unflattering opinion or information.

[GeorgeGist]

8. I was never good at chess ...

but I do know that pawns are the most expendable.

[Laelth]

9. Yup. Bothers me. n/t

-Laelth

[Jim Lane]

10. It depends on what data they store and what they do with it.

If they note who posted something critical and use that information to make up an Enemies List, or even a list of suspicious persons to be watched more closely, then it bothers me a lot.

If the idea is to gain feedback on the Department's performance, then it could be legitimate. I could easily see some people griping online about a problem that they wouldn't think to call to the attention of a big unresponsive government bureaucracy. For example, if they find a lot of complaints about TSA agents being rude during screenings, then they can identify that as an area the Department's top officials should look into.

My guess is that it's neither of the above -- they're not trying to identify critics or improve their own performance. It's most likely just a PR exercise. If they find complaints about wasted money, they'll give priority to press releases about their rigorous financial oversight, and so on. On that theory, the project is itself something of a waste of money but not a threat to civil liberties, so it bothers me but only a little.