Homeland Security Looking for People that Organize against the government online

Friends,

I just heard a report on Fox News that the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano have put out a new report advising people about DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.

They say to be on the lookout for people that blame the government for their problems, speak of their anger at the government openly, and organize online seeking like minded people. They also say that Muslims are not suspects, but there is no increased probability that domestic terrorists have ethnic characteristics. Using this logic, the majority of domestic terrorist in America would have to be white and Christian for that that DHS claim to be true if all ethnicities are equally likely to be Domestic Terrorists.

Can some of you please find us this FOx News Report and the DHS release for analysis here, because from what I just heard Homeland Security is looking for Americans like us that have a problem with Government policies, speak openly about it, and organize online like tens of millions of Americans currently do.

More political pogroms coming from Obama.

W

William I think they were referring to this:

(Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.
A "privacy compliance review" issued by DHS last November says that since at least June 2010, its national operations center has been operating a "Social Networking/Media Capability" which involves regular monitoring of "publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards."
The purpose of the monitoring, says the government document, is to "collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture."
The document adds, using more plain language, that such monitoring is designed to help DHS and its numerous agencies, which include the U.S. Secret Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency, to manage government responses to such events as the 2010 earthquake and aftermath in Haiti and security and border control related to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia.
A DHS official familiar with the monitoring program said that it was intended purely to enable command center officials to keep in touch with various Internet-era media so that they were aware of major, developing events to which the Department or its agencies might have to respond.
The document outlining the monitoring program says that all the websites which the command center will be monitoring were "publicly available and... all use of data published via social media sites was solely to provide more accurate situational awareness, a more complete common operating pictures, and more timely information for decision makers..."
The DHS official said that under the program's rules, the department would not keep permanent copies of the internet traffic it monitors. However, the document outlining the program does say that the operations center "will retain information for no more than five years."
The monitoring scheme also features a five-page list, attached to the privacy review document, of websites the Department's command center expected to be monitoring.
CONTROVERSIAL SITES
These include social networking sites Facebook and My Space - though there is a parenthetical notice that My Space only affords a "limited search" capability - and more than a dozen sites that monitor, aggregate and enable searches of Twitter messages and exchanges.
Among blogs and aggregators on the list are ABC News' investigative blog "The Blotter;" blogs that cover bird flu; several blogs related to news and activity along U.S. borders (DHS runs border and immigration agencies); blogs that cover drug trafficking and cybercrime; and websites that follow wildfires in Los Angeles and hurricanes.
News and gossip sites on the monitoring list include popular destinations such as the Drudge Report, Huffington Post and "NY Times Lede Blog", as well as more focused techie fare such as the Wired blogs "Threat Level" and "Danger Room." Numerous blogs related to terrorism and security are also on the list.
Some of the sites on the list are potentially controversial. WikiLeaks is listed for monitoring, even though officials in some other government agencies were warned against using their official computers to access WikiLeaks material because much of it is still legally classified under U.S. government rules.
Another blog on the list, Cryptome, also periodically posts leaked documents and was one of the first websites to post information related to the Homeland Security monitoring program.
Also on the list are JihadWatch and Informed Comment, blogs that cover issues related to Islam through sharp political prisms, which have sometimes led critics to accuse the sites of political bias.
Also on the list are various video and photo-sharing sites, including Hulu, Youtube and Flickr.
While a DHS official involved in the monitoring program confirmed the authenticity of the list, officials authorized to speak for the Department did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

Homeland Security watches Twitter, social media | Reuters

I know about the website monitoring, but this was a new story out today. Im very busy here today folks and would greatly appreciate some activists assistance locating these stories??????

W

This may be part of it.

EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring

Seeking Disclosure of Records Detailing the Department of Homeland Security's Media Monitoring Activities

Background

EPIC is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information about the agency's surveillance of social networks and news organizations.
In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency planned to implement a program that would monitor media content, including social media data. The proposed initiatives would gather information from "online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards" and disseminate information to "federal, state, local, and foreign government and private sector partners." The program would be executed, in part, by individuals who established fictitious usernames and passwords to create covert social media profiles to spy on other users. The agency stated it would store personal information for up to five years.
Top News

• EPIC - FOIA Documents Reveal Homeland Security is Monitoring Political Dissent: As the result of EPIC v. DHS, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC has obtained nearly thee hundred pages of documents detailing a Department of Homeland Security's surveillance program. The documents include contracts and statements of work with General Dynamics for 24/7 media and social network monitoring and periodic reports to DHS. The documents reveal that the agency is tracking media stories that "reflect adversely" on DHS or the U.S. government. One tracking report -- "Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI" -- summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters. EPIC sent a request for these documents in April 2004 and filed suit against the agency in December. For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring. (Jan. 13, 2012)
• EPIC Sues DHS Over Covert Surveillance of Facebook and Twitter : EPIC has filed a Freedom of information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to force disclosure of the details of the agency's social network monitoring program. In news reports and a Federal Register notice, the DHS has stated that it will routinely monitor the public postings of users on Twitter and Facebook. The agency plans to create fictitious user accounts and scan posts of users for key terms. User data will be stored for five years and shared with other government agencies.The legal authority for the DHS program remains unclear. EPIC filed the lawsuit after the DHS failed to reply to an April 2011 FOIA request. For more information, see EPIC: Social Networking Privacy. (Dec. 20, 2011)

EPIC's FOIA Request


In April 12, 2011, EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the DHS seeking agency records detailing the media monitoring program.The request sought the following documents:

• All contracts, proposals, and communications between the federal government and third parties, including, but not limited to, H.B. Gary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and/or Berico Technologies, and/or parent or subsidiary companies, that include provisions concerning the capability of social media monitoring technology to capture, store, aggregate, analyze, and/or match personally-identifiable information.
• All contracts, proposals, and communications between DHS and any states, localities, tribes, territories, and foreign governments, and/or their agencies or subsidiaries, and/or any corporate entities, including but not limited to H.B. Gary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and/or Berico Technologies, regarding the implementation of any social media monitoring initiative.
• All documents used by DHS for internal training of staff and personnel regarding social media monitoring, including any correspondence and communications between DHS, internal staff and personnel, and/or privacy officers, regarding the receipt, use, and/or implementation of training and evaluation documents.
• All documents detailing the technical specifications of social media monitoring software and analytic tools, including any security measures to protect records of collected information and analysis.
• All documents concerning data breaches of records generated by social media monitoring technology.

Noting the extraordinary public interest in the plan and the public's right to comment on the measures, EPIC asked the DHS to expedite the processing of its request.On April 28, 2011, the agency acknowledged receipt of EPIC's FOIA request, but denied the request for expedited processing and did not make any substantive determination regarding the FOIA request. The DHS did not disclose any records in response to EPIC's FOIA request. On May 18, 2011, EPIC appealed the DHS's failure to make a timely substantive determination as well as the agency's denial of EPIC's expedited processing request. The DHS failed to respond to EPIC's administrative appeal and failed to disclose any records.
EPIC's FOIA Lawsuit

On December 20, 2011, EPIC filed a lawsuit against the DHS to compel the disclosure of documents relating to the agency's media monitoring program.
In January 2012, the DHS disclosed 285 pages of agency records in response to EPIC's FOIA lawsuit.
FOIA Documents


EPIC's FOIA request and lawsuit forced disclosure of the following records concerning the DHS's media monitoring program:

• January 2012 Disclosure - 285 pages (including contracts, price estimates, Privacy Impact Assessment, and communications concerning DHS Media Monitoring program)

January 2012 Disclosure

EPIC's FOIA lawsuit forced the DHS to disclose 285 pages of records. The documents include contracts, price estimates, Privacy Impact Assessment, and communications concerning DHS Media Monitoring program. These records make public, for the first time, details of the DHS's efforts to spy on social network users and journalists.
The records reveal that the DHS is paying General Dynamics to monitor the news. The agency instructed the company to monitor for "[media] reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities."

http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-medi...g/excerpt1.jpg
The DHS is attempting to "capture public reaction to major government proposals."
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-medi...g/excerpt2.jpg
The DHS instructed the social media monitoring company to generate "reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS."
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-medi...g/excerpt3.jpg
One of the example social network monitoring summaries is titled "Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI." The report summarizes dissent on blogs and social networking cites, quoting commenters.

http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-medi...g/excerpt4.jpg
The DHS instructed the company to "Monitor public social communications on the Internet." The records list the websites that will be monitored, including the comments sections of [The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News.]"
http://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-medi...g/excerpt5.jpg
Pre-Litigation Documents

• EPIC's FOIA Request, Apr. 12, 2011

Litigation Documents

EPIC v. DHS, Civ. Action No. 11-02261 (D.D.C.)

• EPIC's Complaint Against the DHS, Dec. 20, 2011, Civ. Action No. 11-02261 (D.D.C.)

News Items

• Federal Security Program Monitored Public Opinion, Charlie Savage, NY Times, Jan. 13, 2012
• Privacy Group Sues DHS Over Social Media Monitoring Program, FOX News, Dec. 24, 2011.
• Which Keywords on Twitter Get the Government’s Attention?, The Blaze, Dec. 28, 2011.

Support EPIC

Search epic.org




EPIC - EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring

Obama Administration H olding Terrorism Summit With Police Chiefs
(AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain)
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/469174/thu...S-large570.jpg
EILEEN SULLIVAN 01/18/12 10:48 AM ET





WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is providing senior state and local police officials with its analysis of homegrown terrorism incidents, including common signs law enforcement can use to identify violent extremists.


The warning signs identified for police include someone joining a group advocating violence, receiving support from a network that plans attacks or seeking out charismatic leaders who encourage violence. The analysis was conducted by the Homeland Security Department, the FBI and the National Counterterrorism Center. An overview of the findings was shared with The Associated Press and was being presented Wednesday at a conference at the White House.

The conference marks the first time this unclassified analysis is presented to 46 senior federal, state and local law enforcement officials, many of whom are police chiefs and sheriffs. The conference also includes sessions on other programs the federal government has for countering violent extremism and a briefing from a deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department about what the city has done on this front.

"Engaging local communities is critical to our nation's effort to counter violent extremism and violent crime, and this meeting brings together many of our partners," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and the president's counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, planned to attend the White House conference.

There has been an uptick in attempted attacks by Americans and other legal U.S. residents in the past few years, prompting the Obama administration to place a priority on finding ways to stop this type of violence. The administration rolled out a thin strategy last year that put local communities – not Washington – in charge of countering violent extremism in the U.S. That strategy was short on details and did not focus on threats from Islamic extremists.

The White House has encouraged law enforcement to reach out to Muslim communities to build relationships, insisting that these communities are partners in the fight against terrorism. At the same time, the government is trying to develop ways to help local law enforcement detect behavior that could indicate someone is plotting a violent attack. The challenge has been to provide behavioral indicators that indicate the potential for violence rather than religious beliefs or other constitutionally protected rights.

"The important role of local law enforcement is a key part of the administration's approach to countering violent extremism in the homeland," Brennan said. "Law enforcement officials work with communities every day and understand how to build partnerships to address this tough challenge."

Analysts from the FBI, Homeland Security Department and National Counterterrorism Center reviewed 62 cases of homegrown violent extremists and found basic similarities. The cases included violent extremists who adhered to a mix of ideologies, including people who ascribed to white supremacist beliefs and people inspired by a violent interpretation of Islam. The analysis is not a psychological profile of a homegrown terrorist, but instead offers similarities among cases that could help local law enforcement better understand and detect threats.
In the 62 cases reviewed, the subjects increasingly spoke out against the government, blamed the government for perceived problems and did so in a way that caught the attention of other people in their communities, according to the senior counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private White House event. Subjects became active on the Internet to espouse extremist views. In some cases, the subjects purchased weapons, ammunition or explosive materials.

Analysts found that a person's origin, ethnic background and socioeconomic status are not good indicators for potential violent extremist activity, the senior counterterrorism official said.

Later this month, a training program for local law enforcement on countering violent extremism will be tested in Southern California, and the government intends to roll out the training to the rest of the country through 2012. Part of the training will focus on understanding

constitutionally protected activities so law enforcement can distinguish between illegal acts and free speech. The official said the FBI academy plans to incorporate this training into its programs as well.

The FBI came under fire last year for some controversial training sessions that portrayed Islam as a violent religion.
Huffpo

Quote:

---

In the 62 cases reviewed, the subjects increasingly spoke out against the government, blamed the government for perceived problems and did so in a way that caught the attention of other people in their communities, according to the senior counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private White House event. Subjects became active on the Internet to espouse extremist views. In some cases, the subjects purchased weapons, ammunition or explosive materials.

---

Way to broad! Way broad!

W

Quote:

---

Analysts found that a person's origin, ethnic background and socioeconomic status are not good indicators for potential violent extremist activity, the senior counterterrorism official said.

---

I feel this is a lie because I read somewhere recently that the vast majority of people that were charged and convicted of terrorism in the last ten years were Muslim. And I do believe that being Muslim or from the Middle East would classify as an "ethnic background"

What I read here is that...

1. Muslims are not a threat and a person's ethnic background has nothing to do with terrorism.
2. Police are being taught by the politicians like Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama that suspect domestic terrorists are people that speak out against the government where other people can hear it and buy guns and ammunition.

W

"increasingly spoke out against the government, blamed the government for perceived problems and did so in a way that caught the attention of other people in their communities, according to the senior counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private White House event. Subjects became active on the Internet to espouse extremist views. In some cases, the subjects purchased weapons, ammunition"

That would be me! I am not an extremist, but the SPLC, La Raza, Obama, and Janet Napolitano certainly think I am because I oppose open borders and their amnesty plans.

W

William, Bret Bair on Fox just said that the White House was giving analysis to Law Enforcement on Home Grown Terrorist. It was a short commentary and not as broad a statement as you heard this morning.

The Obama administration appears determined to use Facebook, social media, the Internet and the Department of Homeland Security to spy on and intimidate his political opposition in America.

After hearing about the NDAA, he may have even more dastardly plans in store for those of us that oppose him and his criminal actions.

Even liberals and Democrats had best think about unifying with us against these abuses of power and abuses of Federal law enforcement agents and agencies because they can come for many of them next!

W

Homeland Security Shreds Constitutional Right to Anonymous Political Speech – Not to Protect Our Security – But to Monitor Dissent

Posted on January 17, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

DHS Attacks Constitutional Right to Anonymity

Anonymous political speech has a special place in American history.

As leading economic blogger Tyler Durden points out:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation– and their ideas from suppression– at the hand of an intolerant society.
***
Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the United States. Used by the likes of Mark Twain (aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens) [and the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers], we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. Particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the United States, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the Economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be.

But DHS is shredding anonymity.

Gene Howington provides details in a must-read essay:

Do you have a right to anonymous political free speech?
According to the Supreme Court, you do. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you don’t. They’ve hired General Dynamics to track U.S. citizens exercising this critical civil right.
The history of anonymous political free speech in America dates back to our founding. The seminal essays found in “The Federalist Papers” were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the nom de plume of “Publius” although this was not confirmed until a list of authorship complied by Hamilton was posthumously released to the public. As previously discussed on this blog, the right to anonymous political free speech has been addressed by the Supreme Court. Most notably in the cases of Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). In Talley, Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority said that, “Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” In McIntyre, Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said that, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [… ] an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” That seems clear enough in defining that citizens do have a Constitutionally protected right to anonymous political free speech.
The full DHS policy statement regarding its activities can be viewed in the DHS Privacy Compliance Review of the NOC Media Monitoring Initiative (November 15, 2011), but rt.com’s summary spells out the basics:

“Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.
Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.
Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.
The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.” – rt.com

This question about the right to anonymous political free speech is also asked over the background of the Electronic Privacy Information Center filing a FOIA request against the DHS to find out the details of the agency’s social network monitoring program.
***
As part of recent disclosures related to the EPIC suit, it is revealed that the DHS has hired and instructed General Dynamics to monitor political dissent and the dissenters. The range of websites listed as being monitored is quite impressive. Notably, jonathanturley.org is not on this list [Howington's essay is a guest blog on constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's website], but equally of note is that this list is by the DHS’ own admission “representative” and not “comprehensive”.
***
Some of the more high profile and highly trafficked sites being monitored include the comments sections of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News. In addition, social networking sites Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are being monitored. For the first time, the public not only has an idea who the DHS is pursuing with their surveillance and where, but what they are looking for as well. General Dynamics contract requires them to “[identify] media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities.” The DHS also instructed General Dynamics to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.” In other words, the DHS wants to know who you are if you say anything critical about the government.

Anybody thinking of the name “Goebbels” at this point is not out of line.

Nothing To Do With Security

This has nothing at all to do with keeping us safe:

• Remember, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11.

• The Federal Reserve is also apparently going to start monitoring all criticism against it.

• In modern America, the government has been using anti-terror laws to crush dissent.

• Protest is considered low-level terrorism, as is questioning war, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, stocking up on more than 7 days of food, or investigating factory farming.

• Even pointing out that the government is exercising tyrannical powers can get you harassed.

• We’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men arbitrarily making laws in secret in order to protect their power.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...r-dissent.html