Spying thru social media

Is it fair to say that maybe the DOD is not spying but maybe some of the alphabet agencies are?

I'm wondering if you guys are talking about the same agencies.

 

And we agree on the issue of potential abuses. Hence why I believe in intel oversight and don't particularly like the Patriot Act. It's entirely too generic.

My point is, in reality, YOUR freedoms are not being infringed upon by such legislation (unless your name is Ahmed and you actually are from the ME). Neither are mine. There is no erasing the capability. It exists. There are regulations and procedures put in place to use the capability. That is what 99% of people who don't like the PA or similar legislation don't understand. It's touted as being unlimited surveillance and its not. The confusion was immediate and on both sides of the fence. Some Feds are paying for that misunderstanding. It is not limitless.

If you have a problem with the PA, you should focus your attention on what the definition of a "terrorist" is. With a stroke of a pen, that can change and then WE will be collected on as an opposition party to the party in power. I feel like people get fixated on the wrong issues here. If the .gov is as truly evil as a lot of people make them out to be, why even make the PA? You could conduct all the unlimited surveillance you want and not put it on the front page of every newspaper....

Transparency is the goal. Why? The .gov may not be as evil as we make them out to be. They may have had the best intentions at heart.... just a bit misguided and short sighted at times. After 9/11, slowing things down a bit would have been good. Now, a decade later, no one wants the PA powers extended.... and they weren't. I think you at least feel a bit the same as you mentioned FEMA camps etc.

I'm not sure how we got here from an article on CENTCOM buying systems for use OCONUS in support of GWOT.

 

Well said

 

Dup Post

 

​

Ah.... and here we are. You see there has been a well deserved reputation by the intelligence community in the past. It what you are expressing, we still fight today. It doesn't extend to just the intelligence community either. For certain "privileged / educated" people that have never served, there is a lack of trust of the military. A lot this has a base in fact in regards to the actions of one Richard "I'm not a crook" Nixon.

That is why you and I have this healthy mistrust of legislation such as the PA. All I am saying is keep in mind this is not 1975. there are quite stiff penalties for the following agencies to collect against US persons CONUS- NSA, CIA, DOD, DIA, NGA, etc. There are clear lines and they are not crossed. The only exception is SAEDA. SAEDA investigations are only conducted by CI and with super close scrutiny by intel oversight and along with the FBI. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single case that wasn't picked up by the FBI. Come to think of it, we should just reclass our CIs into being cooks or something useful (JK if there is any CIs out there- I would reclass you 35M). I digress.... point is that CI doesn't have limitless power to collect and investigate either. There has to be good reason to use more intrusive methods.... for all you CJA majors out there this sounds remarkably similar to reasonable suspicion (oh my... you mean there is still a Constitution and the gov't agencies must follow it?- Yes.) 4th amendment doth apply.

It even gets more complicated when the Fed needs to actually use US troops, on US soil, for collection against threats. Take for instance the border. For us to support Border Patrol takes a huge scope statement on exactly what we can and can't do. It's not a free for all. Habeas Corpus doth apply. I personally teach it as a part of the course I administer to AD US Personnel. This came up during the Gulf oil spill and I explained it then on Survival Monkeys, but the bottom line is that the Army / Any other branch will never take to leading security operations CONUS because its not within our scope. The only lead we can take in the ESFs (Emergency Support Functions) is Public Works... which is lead by USACE which is probably 70% civilian anyway.

Has that ever been violated? In fact, no. You wouldn't know this by watching the news. Take Katrina for example. The news loves to film US .mil seemingly evacuating people from their homes. What isn't shown is who is on the other side of the radio. Its not a .mil hierarchy. Its a local leadership. They have to ask us for help and then we answer to them. Habeas Corpus doth apply. Speculation is stronger than fact. I use Katrina as a Socratic discussion point in my class. I have quite a few people that were there and supported the .mil side. The answer about how it should and shouldn't be handled is generally unanimous. Luckily the class is generally the Patriotic, Constitutional loving type of crowd.

I'm not sure how I got here. My original point was that Intel Oversight appears cloak and dagger because it has to be a bit. That is why there is committees that oversee instead of a few people. So the whole community can't be misdirected into illegal activities...again. The committees are not generally open door, but then we get into state secrets. I believe we have had this discussion before and while most of us would prefer a completely transparent oversight, its just not feasible due to the free nature of our society. For example, you let Geraldo sit in one SIT briefing and he runs out to draw int he sand on national TV. That makes it a bit tough to do anything militarily or with covert action. This could lead me into another discussion on the media (also a class I teach to AD US .mil), but the swap meet is calling me and you and I will not be able to solve the Nation / World issues on this Saturday morning.

Cheers.

 

I do not have a MySpace/FaceBook/Twitter or any other type of social media pages period. My life is too private to just share with the rest of the world, let alone TPTB.

 

Do you know the lead track to "Seafull" by Trapeze? Sounds great on a Les Paul through a Twin over-driven.
(it's a code, 007)