Homeland Security Given Green Light to Monitor American Journalists

[Magda Hassan]

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)'s Media Monitoring Initiative that emerged from the Department of Homeland Security in November, Washington has written permission to collect and retain personal information from journalists, news anchors, reporters or anyone who uses "traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed." According to DHS, the definition of personal identifiable information can 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."
RT adds:

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.

According to RT, the website "Fast Company" reports that the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been in play since at least early-2010 and that the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.
http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-security-...33420.html

[Peter Lemkin]

My, things are getting VERY BAD, very quickly! No wonder there have been rumors of the FEMA camps being 'gotten ready'. If you're not an outright fascist yourself, you are now under suspicion and can be spied upon actively and 'legally'. Great. When do they start the formation of the SS and SD? Opps....forgot, they already have! Silly me! The Americans are raising no more of 'fuss' about the onslaught of fascism, then did the Germans or Italians. At least the Spanish [some brave ones of them!] fought the onslaught there [America backed the fascist side, as did Hitler]. Even some brave Americans went [illegally] to fight on the anti-fascsist side in Spain. They were called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. I had the honor to meet a few of them. Their existence is never taught in history books, not surprisingly....nor that America backed the fascist side in Spain. But, that is history; now it is happening all here and now! Fast!...and still the Sheeple sleep or watch junk TV. Very sad, indeed! It has been clear to me they were already doing this kind of thing; but it is a whole other thing when they openly announce they are and even claim it to be 'just' and 'legal' and 'defensible'! I fear if there is not a rebellion this Spring and Summer, with the next election America may be LOST forever~! Remember Adele A's post of two days ago on the history of bringing fascism to America. It is here now...the ONLY question is will the People fight to rid themselves of it?! For once it gets to the virulent stage, nothing can be done, I fear - and that last stage is but months or short years ahead IMHO.

This is SO far from the idea of Freedom of Speech [and thought and expression] than one can imagine. It is intimidation and worse! You either think, speak and act like our would-be masters do, OR ELSE! It has come to that!...but this will not be like McCarthy and 'repaired'....it will grow like a cancer and consume the entire corpus of our Nation...if it has not already!

Of course, a small number of brave Germans fought the rise of fascism. Notable among them were the Wit Rosa [White Rose], who were all arrested, and brutally tortured to death, though they were but young university students.

Thanks for that 'heads up' Magda! Coming to a country near you too!

[Peter Lemkin]

Radical Implications http://intelligenceresigned.blogspot.com/

"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation."

"State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

That is an excerpt from Articles 7 and 9, respectively, of La Carta del Lavoro, also known as the Labour Charter of 1927, introduced by Benito Mussolini, and decreed by the Grand Council of Fascism.
Don't snap and declare me a crazy; feel free to make a counter-point.
Don't see red at the mere mention of comparing what's happening in the U.S. to what the history books teach as "fascism". Read it. Learn about it.

"Italian Fascism" was centered around a corporate economic system, which involved collaboration between corporation and state in order to set economic policy; the government's economic intervention was to consist of helping private enterprise. This was supposed to end "class conflict", and criminalized strikes and lockouts, prejudicial to the national economy.

Don't jump to conclusions. Don't take my word for it. This is the internet. Stop, learn, and think. I share with you what I find relevant. Please return the favor.

Now, onto other matters.
I'm sure you know that SOPA and PIPA have been shut down for now, many fear that they will return in some form or other.
In fact, have you heard yet about ACTA: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? It's actually rather strange how the text of the document seems to not be publicly available for reasons involving national security. Why do you think a treaty that deals with intellectual property would affect national security? Of course, you can read it here through the current glory of the internet.
Forbes magazine considers it worse than SOPA. They aren't the only ones worried.

Why is this relevant to my previous quip about the merger between corporate and state? Because on January 18th, the Internet Blackout caused quite a commotion. Websites that participated in this massive wave of collective political activism include Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, Wordpress, Flickr, 4chan, Craigslist, and countless others. Here's a slightly more extensive list.
And how did private enterprise respond? Well, Chris Dodd, a former U.S. Senator and current Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) posted the following in this statement:

"Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major
concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their
corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging. It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.
A so-called "blackout" is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this "blackout" to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy."

What astounds me is that the people who claim that this sort of bill is necessary for the financial sustenance of the entertainment industry (or any facet of the economy that suffers from piracy) are almost exclusively those who RUN the industry. Most of the actors/artists/etc. who have spoken out about it are distinctly against it. So is piracy hurting them badly enough for something like SOPA? As far as I can tell, it isn't.

What is the best part of all of this fun? Chris Dodd publicly threatened on Fox News that he would not contribute to Obama's campaign for speaking out against SOPA.
Ah, the power of money.
...though I fully expect this election to accomplish little in terms of how corporate and state is merging.
Why do I think so?

Mark Patterson: Obama's current Chief of Staff of the Secretary of the Treasury, used to be a Lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
William Daley: Was Obama's Chief of Staff [and Clinton's secretary of Commerce starting 1997], and was also on the Executive Board of JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Jack Lew: Obama's current director of the Office of Budget and Management, and is slated to become Chief of Staff in February. He was also a Chief Operating Officer for Citigroup.
Valerie Jarett: Senior Adviser to the President. Was the CEO of real estate development and management company The Habitat Company, board member of the Chicago Stock Exchange (Chairwoman for a while), and is on the board of trustees and directors for several other companies.

These people make articles like this seem kind of strange.


So why compare this with 'fascism'? Why be worried? Is the government catering more to private interest than the public good? Well, as I'm sure you know, the Occupy movement, which has been largely targeting big business and corruption in U.S. politics, has been rather active about political dissent.

So, the NDAA Passed. Congress has knowingly created a loophole that can deny the rights stated in the Bill of Rights to U.S. Citizens. This has been met with a LOT of hostility. In my opinion, rightfully so.
Was it bad enough? Apparently not.

Here's the kicker of this blog post:
On October 12th, 2011, Senator Charles Dent introduced the Enemy Expatriation Act. What does this do?
Well, it amends the Immigration and Nationality Act.Rebellion and Insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy, and Advocating Overthrow of Government all qualify as grounds for having one's citizenship revoked. This bill adds the following clause:

"engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States"

I encourage you to read through it, but here's my version of a summary: Actively advocating a change in the government that involves going against the current system is grounds for removal of citizenship. This makes anyone who acts in a manner that encourages structural change that is antithetical to the government's intention subject to whatever the U.S. justice system affords non-U.S. citizens. How does that make you feel?
Here are some other takes on this bill.

In grimly related news, the LAPD will be participating in a joint military training exercise in Los Angeles. AWESOME.

[Peter Lemkin]

[Jan Klimkowski]

I'd be grateful if one of our fine American members could explain how this can possibly be constitutional in peacetime.

Thanking you in advance.

[Keith Millea]

I'd be grateful if one of our fine American members could explain how this can possibly be constitutional in peacetime.

Thanking you in advance.

Constitution?We don't need no stinking Constitution

[size=12]Cue:Bandits laugh and give high fives.......:mexican:[/SIZE]

[Peter Lemkin]

I'd be grateful if one of our fine American members could explain how this can possibly be constitutional in peacetime.

Thanking you in advance.

Consta....what? Oh, that old piece of parchment!....that was put in the shredder quite some time back! NOTHING lately has been 'constitutional'. Whole bodies of 'law' [cough!], such as the unPatriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA, warrentless wiretapping, indefinite and lawyerless detention, torture, renditions, murder of Americans without trial, Gitmo, wars without Congress approving them, Presidential signings, Citizens United, Supremes deciding elections, COG, FEMA camps, end of habeas corpus, Enemy Expatriation Act, denial of Occupy and others rights to protest - and I could go on for pages are NOT Constitutional - in fact they are against both the letter and spirit of the Constitution...but as I said...that old piece of paper was shredded - so no longer applies. Get with the modern world Jan....get up to date! Constipation, maybe; Constitutionality is so passe'! Its the fascism, man....get with the program!
:captain:

N.B. It is not [in 'their' minds] peacetime - there is a MAJOR war on, The Great & Endless War On Terror [and anyone, anyplace, any means 'they' choose!]
:wirlitzer:

[Jan Klimkowski]

Peter - I know you didn't mean that in a patronizing way.

Of course we all know about the unconstitutional actions of elite power structures.

However, there are still certain constitutional shibboleths, such as the rule that the CIA cannot operate in continental USA. This is of course circumvented every nano-second of every hour of every day. But not openly and brazenly.

What is intriguing about this proposal is that its target is journalists from network anchors in Washington to the stringer in Dakota.

Some of those journalists are mockingbirds, and may not be too concerned about the spooks tracking their every shit and shag. However, despite Colby's boast, not all are on Cynthia's payroll.

The covert Game is becoming a very public Circus.

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter - I know you didn't mean that in a patronizing way.

Of course we all know about the unconstitutional actions of elite power structures.

However, there are still certain constitutional shibboleths, such as the rule that the CIA cannot operate in continental USA. This is of course circumvented every nano-second of every hour of every day. But not openly and brazenly.

What is intriguing about this proposal is that its target is journalists from network anchors in Washington to the stringer in Dakota.

Some of those journalists are mockingbirds, and may not be too concerned about the spooks tracking their every shit and shag. However, despite Colby's boast, not all are on Cynthia's payroll.

The covert Game is becoming a very public Circus.

No, Jan, correct - not written in a patronizing way. In all honestly, they have simply abandoned any crypto-illegality/unconstituionality/fascsim - they are brazen and open about it now! They want to scare the fecal matter out of anyone not towing the line as a journalist - with [I think] the alternative media, blogger, Forum poster and livestreamer VERY MUCH front and foremost on their minds! This broad brush will also take care of those who make a living as a journalist or pseudo-journalist.

The Constitution is dead as a coffin nail. Really. Let's see if the People are dead as well....if there will be a reaction...or silent complicity and consent!!!!! The covert is now overt. That bad! Will some individual 'journalist' or journalistic organization bring this to Court?! We shall see...but the Courts now are controlled for the most part too. The system never was much to brag about - now it is utterly BROKEN....not by accident, but by sabotage [an inside job!].

The wording including "persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest," is inside-the-beltway-speak for anyone who writes/films against [even questions!] the Elite Cabal/Secret Government/Deep Political goals/PTB is a criminal ipso facto, and will be kept watch upon - and dealt with if they are effective in further spreading such ideas....by a variety of means....not the least of which will be the icy chilling effect/intimidation/fear induced by this program. The first of many under DHS, I'm sure.

We all knew they were doing things like this, now they are pushing it right in the People's faces and saying, in effect, "Yeah, we're spying on everyone who doesn't think like us or keep their mouths/lenses/pens/computers shut.....so what are you going to do about it?! - NOTHING!"

[Peter Lemkin]

Homeland Security Committee Hearing on DHS Monitoring of Social Media (Live Blog)
By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday February 16, 2012 8:28 am
Tweet254


11:35 AM Meehan concludes the hearing and mentions how state fusion centers in Pennsylvania conducted monitoring operations and sent information not just to agencies but private entities. He thanks the witnesses for being at the hearing but says the subcommittee will continue to ask questions.

The meeting is adjourned.

11:33 AM Committee member wanted to know why $11 million is being spent to follow the news. ACLU of Massachusetts asks, "DHS, why do you need to pay a private corporation $11 million to follow breaking news? Don't have CNN?"

11:32 AM ACLU of Massachusetts is doing great coverage on Twitter. A committee member asked what the program is used for. The chapter says, "Callahan continues to dodge questions about anything other than "situational awareness," otherwise known as "Reading the News." And they ask if Chavez is throwing FBI under the bus as he keeps saying another agency does spying, not DHS.

11:26 AM These witnesses sound so incompetent and they are so nauseating in their constant repetition of bureaucratic tripe that a representative says he cannot even remember what they were supposed to talk about during this hearing.

11:22 AM Cravaack is back. Thompson says there is an RFP (request for proposals) out. He suggests that Callahan and Chavez are misleading subcommittee on nature of General Dynamics' contract. Both look like deer in headlights and have no idea what they are being asked about. They maybe lied but they seem so incompetent that they probably have no idea they did.

11:17 AM Thompson asking follow-up. He gets into notion of identifying political and journalistic activities that reflect adversely on the federal government. Chavez says DHS doesn't do this. Thompson is a bit befuddled. He goes back to the contract. Chavez says we don't focus on one media source. It goes back to media provided, not the provider, he says. Thompson says General Dynamics has expertise and can look at media and newspapers better than department. Chavez says we are not all watching TVs so DHS is pushing out information.

Thompson says Callahan designed a program without any review of whether another agency is doing it. Thompson says she took nine months to put the program together and he wants to know if another agency is doing something. Thompson would assume DoD or FBI would do something like this. Callahan says she doesn't know. "That isn't the right answer from due diligence standpoint," Thompson says.

11:09 AM Callahan says they do monitor national special security events. We monitor the what, not the whos. Chavez said they would look for keywords. Meehans interrupts and wants to know who identifies what should be analyzed. Who is it that says go after the what?

DHS will see what's trending. Meehan wants to know how this works. This is kind of hysterical but somewhat seedy how DHS is answering these questions and making some of these representatives crazy.

11:07 AM Meehan asks follow-up and wants to know about not having repeat incident like what happened with Standish, MI.

Callahan says issue of Standish, MI, and transfer of Guantanamo detainees was not a live report. So would not happen again. Standish, MI, example is an anomaly in a two-year old handbook.

11:05 AM Representative (?) wants to know if a single source could put misinformation or disinformation and make it hard for DHS to understand what is happening. DHS looks at multiple sources on social media during a disaster so Callahan and Chavez said there wouldn't be a problem.

11:02 AM - Callahan repeats that the standard DHS operates under is not the "who" but the "what." No personally identifiable information collected unless there are life or death circumstances. Only stored in reports. We do not do analyses. We publish system of records notices under Privacy Act. For transparency purposes, this is done to show what categories we are using when collecting personally identifiable information.

11:00 AM Rep. Cravaack is up for questioning. Part of General Dynamics contract to track what is negatively being but to see if agencies or departments are meeting standards. It is part of operational awareness.

10:56 AM Privacy reviews look to make sure that staff is complying with standards, Callahan says. She says there were 2 circumstances where public officials were named; for example, President Obama. The example of having a public official like a president is why we have narrow categories of what can be disclosed. She says identifying Giffords as target of an attack helped response.

10:51 AM Thompson wants DHS to write out why there was a delay on EPIC's FOIA request. Thompson asks about General Dynamics contract. He wants to know why DHS is training a private contractor. Thompson is confused because private contractors usually have a general expertise. But, Chavez says we are training outside people to do inside work. Thompson wants to know what skill sets General Dynamics brings to the table [They have an $11 million contract.]

Chavez says that DHS does not have skill sets to monitor websites. He says they do. Thompson asks for the procurement document for General Dynamics. Chavez doesn't know what Thompson is asking. General Dynamics has had contract since Chavez began working for DHS.

Questions raised by EPIC, Thompson says, suggest "significant issues around safeguards." It would be good to bring EPIC and other individuals to testify before subcommittee.

10:47 AM "This is not a political operaton." Capturing public reaction to major government proposals should not be what is done, Speier states.

Callahan says that this is well outside the scope of DHS. If you look, you can see that Standish, MI, report only exists in my files because of privacy review we conducted.

EPIC recommends: 1) cease collecting info on journalists 2) suspend DHS monitoring until safeguards in place and 3) you provide annual report on collecting of information. She says I think that we should have representatives of EPIC and others in privacy community testify before the subcommittee.

10:44 AM Speier puts witnesses on notice for not responding to EPIC's FOIA request. Says no organization should have to file a lawsuit. Speier asks to amend contract with General Dynamics to exempt tracking of journalists and building of files on bloggers so Privacy Act is not violated.

Callahan clarifies that reporters' information collected is name, affiliation, title and publicly available ID. DHS only collects information if it lends to credibility of report.

10:42 AM Privacy office reviews keywords being tracked like "disaster" or "floods." No information is collected on individuals but they may be first on the scene.

10:39 AM Callahan is talking about privacy reviews and auditing. Meehan interrupts and asks who is directing what is being monitored. Chavez now says keywords associated with events in past or agencies are monitored. There is no way to look at all of messages on Twitter so this is what they monitor.

Meehan follows up The limited people working for you could spend limitless time without producing a product so there has to be direction. Where does line get drawn when it comes to overlooking general discussion?

10:35 AM Meehan is concerned some of the reports on monitoring of social media. Testimony has been revealing in sense of giving us an overall perspective. We all appreciate government being able to broadcast through social media. We can go past those kind of things.

"We're here today because we are trying to find that line." It is not just expectation of privacy. We know they are communicating in public fora. We are talking about monitoring communications on message boards or forums. Help us understand what you are doing to ensure individual communication is not leading to individuals being ID'ed by the govt. What are you doing to make sure there isn't a chilling effect so someone concerned about an issue will not be relevant to write a letter to the editor or post a blog?

We are concerned about directive DHS has with private contractor that says reports that reflect adversely on government agencies should be identified. "This appears to be what was asked for in the contract with General Dynamics." Tell me what we are doing so private commentary is not being misused.

10:31 AM Chavez gives opening statement. Here's a copy of the statement.

10:30 AM Not going to transcribe what Callahn is saying when it probably comes from her opening statement, which is posted here.

10:28 AM Talking about standard allowing collection of personal identifiable information. After January 2011, limited personal identifiable information may be collected when it lends important invitation. First weekend that this information was allowed to be collected was when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot.

10:27 AM Callahan says there is a lot of personal information that is not necessary for DHS to use. There are department-wide standards for use.

Three uses: external communications and outreach, awareness of breaking news and situational awareness statements and when law enforcement needs it for investigations. There are uniform privacy standards and DHS is transparent.

10:26 AM Statement from EPIC (referenced in original post) now entered into record

10:23 AM Witnesses give opening statements now - Mary Ellen Callahan and Richard Chávez, both affiliated with DHS

10:20 AM Rep. Bennie G. Thompson celebrating how social media can be used to save people in the event of a disaster. He says that to ensure accountability and trust are embraced as value DHS must embrace safeguards & clear policy on data mining. There should be protocols to follow if there are violations. Public must be confident that interacting with DHS will not result in surveillance or violation of constitutional rights.

10:15 AM - Rep. Meehan introduces topic of today's hearing, notes previous hearing on "Terrorist Use of Social Media" and neglects to mention witnesses concluded it would be best to let them use the media and just track their activity.

Rep. Speier is giving her open statement now. She mentions how a couple from UK was not allowed in the US because of a joke posted on Twitter. She mentions how the Occupy movement and Arab Spring harnessed Twitter. She says she will ask about privacy protections in place that regulate DHS monitoring. She wants to know how Department handles volume of postings on social media.

Original Post

A congressional committee hearing is being held today on the Homeland Security Department's (DHS) monitoring of social media. The meeting, being convened by the House Subcommittee of Counterterrorism and Intelligence, chaired by Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA), is being held as a result of documents on DHS monitoring that were exposed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public research center that focuses attention on emerging issues of privacy and other civil liberties issues.


(photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The hearing will happen at 10 am ET. It can be watched here. And I will be tweeting and/or live blogging the hearing. [Follow @kgosztola for the latest updates.]

EPIC has not been invited to speak to the hearing as a witness. The two witnesses that will be present are Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer for DHS, and Richard Chávez, the director of the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning at DHS. The group, however, did submit a statement that will be included in the record and is essential reading for anyone, who wants to know exactly what EPIC uncovered and why it is significant. The statement is also strong because it calls for DHS to end all social media monitoring operations.

The organization notes, "EPIC obtained nearly 3,000 pages of documents detailing the Department of Homeland Security's activities." EPIC filed a FOIA lawsuit in December 2011 that forced the release of documents they had requested.

From EPIC's "Statement for the Record":

These documents reveal that the agency had paid over $11 million to an outside company, General Dynamics, to engage in monitoring of social networks and media organizations and to prepare summary reports for DHS. According to DHS documents, General Dynamics will "Monitor public social communications on the Internet," including the public comment sections of NYT, LA Times, Huff Po, Drudge, Wired's tech blogs, ABC News. DHS also requested monitoring of Wikipedia pages for changes and announced its plans to set up social network profiles to monitor social network users.

DHS required General Dynamics to monitor not just "potential threats and hazards," "potential impact on DHS capability" to accomplish its homeland security mission, and "events with operational value," but also paid the company to "Identify[] reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond or recovery government activities."

Within the documents, DHS clearly stated its intention to "capture public reaction to major government proposals." DHS instructed the media monitoring company to generate summaries of media "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."

Both Meehan and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) of the Subcommittee wrote a letter to the Homeland Security Department. The letter asked various questions and stated the following:

Although there are clear advantages to monitoring social media to identify possible threats to our security, there are also privacy and civil liberties concerns implicit in this activity. With its domestic mission, the Department of Homeland Security needs to be mindful of the rights of the citizens of our country to express themselves online. Not only should guidance issued by the Department permit analysts to do their jobs identifying threats, but it should also be stringent enough to protect the rights of our citizens.

The letter called for "clear effective guidance" to be issued on the collection of information by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. At no point does the letter suggest DHS monitoring of social media should not be going on. It simply suggests it is not regulated to an extent that protects Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

*

When the hearing begins, updates will appear at the top. All times will be EST.
37 Comments
Tags: War on Terrorism, Surveillance, Privacy, Hearing, Congress, Social Media, Homeland Security, EPIC