Federal Contractor Monitored Social Network Sites

[alp227]

The Department of Homeland Security paid a contractor in 2009 to monitor social networking sites — like Facebook, blogs and reader comments on a news article — to see how the residents of Standish, Mich., were reacting to a proposal to move detainees from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to a local prison there, according to newly disclosed documents.

While it has long been known that the department monitors the Internet for information about emerging threats to public safety like a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, the documents show that its Social Networking/Media Capability program, at least in an early stage, was also focused on “public reaction to major governmental proposals with homeland security implications.”

A department official said Friday that the social network monitoring program did not produce reports about public opinion, but instead focused exclusively on monitoring crises like hazardous material spills, shooting incidents and natural disasters.

Still, the newly disclosed documents show that in August 2009, during an early test of the program, a contractor compiled reactions among residents of Standish, Mich., to the short-lived detainee proposal. It found that most people “were opposed to the plan,” arguing it could make the community a terrorist target, but that others characterized these concerns as “hysteria.”

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/federal-security-program-monitored-public-opinion.html?pagewanted=all

[7wo7rees]

1. They're HEEEEEEEEEERE

TOO...

[customerserviceguy]

2. Don't put anything on Facebook

that you wouldn't put on a billboard over your house. And when you do, don't expect 'privacy'.

[JackRiddler]

3. Same is obviously true of the entire Web, including this page.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Yep, I always keep that in mind when I post anywhere

Or even when I write an email.

[L. Coyote]

5. Laws protecting rights and the Constitution are a thing of the past, in effect

when we are spied upon like this, there is no right to privacy

[boppers]

6. The laws never protected "privacy" of hanging something up in a public square.

Nor broadcasting it to everybody in any other way.

[L. Coyote]

7. Social networks are private spaces

[boppers]

8. What could have possibly given you that idea?

They're publicly accessible, and privately owned (by people who are not you, unless your name is Zuckerberg), and there is no "closed door" (hence, Katz comes into play, there's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" being created when posting on public web pages). Here's the controlling case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

[sabrina 1]

9. There is a reasonable expectation of protection from the Government following you around

even in public places, listening to your conversations without your permission. Where do you come up with this Orwellian nonsense? We used to attack people like Saddam Hussein for having 'minders' following people around. We were SO free we would never tolerate that kind of thing!! Right!

The more I see people willing to defend every step taken towards totalitarianism, I think this country does not deserve the freedoms we were guaranteed in the Constitution. Maybe the faster we slide into total Government oppression, the better, THEN maybe people will understand what they gave up so willingly.

I don't want the government following me around the Internet, or around the Mall, which is the same thing, eaves-dropping on my conversations without permission. Maybe it's okay with you, but a lot of us know that once you give any government an inch, they won't stop there.

Not like we don't have examples in history to show how sneaky they are as they creep, step by step, usually under the pretext of 'national security' toward total control of the population. It's when they take the first steps that people need to show their outrage, while they still have the power to do so.

And it's obvious THEY know they should not have been doing it which is why they tried to hide it.

[boppers]

11. "reasonable expectation of protection" and "reasonable expectation of privacy" are far apart.

Lets take, oh, the largest US government citizen, warrant-less, information program I can think of.
1. They know where you work.
2. They know when you work.
3. They know how much you earn.
4. They know who paid you.

We gave that privacy up 40 years before I was even alive....

...and people will scream bloody murder if you want to get rid of Social Security.

"Where do you come up with this Orwellian nonsense?"

I do not take that as a personal attack, but as an honest inquiry, so let me respond in the same spirit:
It's what I grew up with.

Numbers to track us all.

SS#, Bank account numbers, Credit card numbers, Address numbers...

Ways to track.

[sabrina 1]

12. Well the reason for this state of affairs is because with each step towards getting there, there

were people who said 'oh, stop being paranoid, this will make things more convenient' etc. etc.

Take the SS# eg, that was never supposed to be used for anything other than to ensure people would be able to collect it when they retired or if they were disabled.

I'm not sure when it suddenly became an ID# but it was never intended to be. I think it might have even been illegal, or at least unacceptable at one time, to use it as an ID#. But once they force something on the public, it becomes acceptable. I'm sure people in the Soviet Union, born after all the draconian policies were established there, just lived with them and thought of them as normal.

No one fought the use of the SS# as an ID#, or if they did, they were obviosly over-ruled, just as now people are willing to take yet another step towards even more government surveillance because 'it will make things easier and safer'.

It's probably too late to stop these intrusions, but never too late to start reversing, which won't happen if we keep accepting more of them.

And you are correct, I am curious about the history of when these Orwellian practices became acceptable and whether there was much of a fight against them as each one was imposed on the people.

[JackRiddler]

10. Should and is are different.

There is no justification for government surveillance of personal profiles on social network sites without cause to investigate actual crime (and a warrant), but good luck getting that through courts that no longer recognize fourth amendment protections. Meanwhile, reality is that Internet privacy doesn't exist; at best only while shopping, if the store is actually secure enough not to broadcast your CC number to the world.

[JoePhilly]

13. Talk about an oxymoron.

The LAST thing social networks are is PRIVATE.

If you post pictures of yourself drunk at a party on Facebook, don't be surprised if other people, including the police see it.

If you are suspected of a crime, don't be surprised if the police go to your PUBLIC facebook page, and collect the names of as many of your friends as they can.

The idea that facebook, twitter, etc are PRIVATE spaces, is silly.

[L. Coyote]

14. On Facebook I have an expectation of privacy, I control who sees my posts and

if the police are seeing that I post archaeology photos, they are snooping in my private communications to my specified friends!

[JoePhilly]

15. From a legal perspective ...

Once you start sharing information in a manner that you can't control, the argument that you "expected that info to be private" is reduced.

The legal point is that if you are not protecting that info, and it "gets out", too bad.

So for instance, let's say you take some naked photos and give them to some one you are dating. That other person can claim that those photos are now their property, and they can distribute them as they wish. Now, you could enter a legal case about this. But the point is, you put your info into the public domain ...

In your example, you claim that only people you select can see your info. Well, once they see it, they can share it. Some of your info can become part of their info.

My point is that if you want some piece of info to remain private, you better not share it on a social network site, because what's you do, YOU have placed it into the PUBLIC domain.

[sarcasmo]

16. Imagine the information they have on each one of us, mind blowing.