Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: EPIC sues DHS. DHS stated that it will monitor postings of Facebook and Twitter users

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    EPIC sues DHS. DHS stated that it will monitor postings of Facebook and Twitter users

    https://epic.org/2011/12/epic-sues-d...vert-surv.html
    Quote Originally Posted by EPIC.org
    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.
    Federal register notice
    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-2198.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by DHS
    The NOC will use Internet-based platforms that provide a variety of
    ways to follow activity related to monitoring publicly available online
    forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards. Through the use of
    publicly available search engines and content aggregators the NOC will
    monitor activities on social media for information that the NOC can use
    to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating
    picture. The NOC will gather, store, analyze, and disseminate relevant
    and appropriate de-identified information to federal, state, local, and
    foreign governments, and private sector partners authorized to receive
    situational awareness and a common operating picture.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If it is in the public domain....tough toenails. You don't want Big Sis getting your stuff off the Interwebs, don't post your stuff on the Interwebs.

    Funny how folks think, and complain about, that the stuff they toss out into the public 'Matrix' should be regarded as private data.
    Are you also ok with the government posting cameras at every corner, on every street lamp?


    Posted using my HTC Evo

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Posted using my HTC Evo
    Are you OK with your Carrier IQ rootkit phoning home with your most recent OCDO posting from your HTC Evo?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Are you OK with your Carrier IQ rootkit phoning home with your most recent OCDO posting from your HTC Evo?
    The rootkit doesn't work like that, and can be disabled. And no, I'm not ok with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Interesting segue from a person voluntarily posting data on a public Interwebs site to government installed video cameras on every light pole. If that works for you....
    The argument's basic tenants are the same. Your argument is no different than the pro big brother arguments used to justify surveillance cameras.


    Posted using my HTC Evo

  5. #5
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The rootkit doesn't work like that, and can be disabled. And no, I'm not ok with it.

    Posted using my HTC Evo
    Some do, and without rooting the phone and running a custom ROM, there is no way to disable such things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The rootkit doesn't work like that, and can be disabled. And no, I'm not ok with it. Posted using my HTC Evo
    It is good that you know how Carrier IQ works. (Said Chief Ten Bears, Dances With Wolves)

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...er-iq-profiles

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/1...q-architecture

    https://www.eff.org/mention/eff-want...lly-monitoring

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Strangely, as anti-government as I am, I have no issue with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The argument's basic tenants are the same. Your argument is no different than the pro big brother arguments used to justify surveillance cameras.
    The camera argument is not the same. I have no control over the camera or facial recognition scans. I do control what information I choose to disseminate and whom I share it with. If the government overrides those settings I have issue.
    Last edited by sharkey; 12-22-2011 at 06:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    I think that most social networks are semi-public. If I want to gather 100 of my closest friends and family and tell them something don't mean that it should be public record.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Strangely, as anti-government as I am, I have no issue with this.



    The camera argument is not the same. I have no control over the camera or facial recognition scans. I do control what information I choose to disseminate and whom I share it with. If the government overrides those settings I have issue.
    One could say that you choose to go into public much like one chooses to use the public domain. Both the cameras and the social networking monitoring at their base level revolves around the government gathering information on the general public in a public location and without a warrant, probable cause, or even any prior suspicions of a crime.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    If it is in the public domain....tough toenails. You don't want Big Sis getting your stuff off the Interwebs, don't post your stuff on the Interwebs.

    Funny how folks think, and complain about, that the stuff they toss out into the public 'Matrix' should be regarded as private data.
    This view looks at only one angle of the issue, and skews the responsibility.

    While the person who knowingly puts sensitive info into a system that can be monitored electronicly is responsible for putting it there, this in no way absolves snooping government who shouldn't be looking in the first place. It is one thing for government agents to attend a rally and just listen, it is something else for government to actively monitor all electronic communications looking for "key words."

    Privacy only speaks to one aspect of the issue. Information is power. If the government is getting information it formerly had no legitimate access to without a warrant, it has gathered to itself more power.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    One could say that you choose to go into public much like one chooses to use the public domain. Both the cameras and the social networking monitoring at their base level revolves around the government gathering information on the general public in a public location and without a warrant, probable cause, or even any prior suspicions of a crime.

    Nah, that would be the argument if you said I could choose to stay off of social networking sites. The camera argument is only relevant if I can choose to shut off the camera's or have them blur my image when I enter an area and they are run by private citizens vs. the government. Totally different.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    "the DHS has stated that it will routinely monitor the public postings of users on Twitter and Facebook."

    My postings on Facebook are not public. They're shared only with my friends. I have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as I would if I and my friends were discussing the issues in a close room. They're free to re-post, as they would be free to repeat what I'd said to others outside the room.

    The DHS's approach is akin to putting spies inside the room, thereby violating my reasonable expectation of privacy.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    What is the latest "reasonable expectation of privacy" in regards to email?

    I know that on a company 'puter/server it is not private as the company owns the units, but what about a privately held organization such as OCDO and their privately "bought and paid for server hosting"?

    IIRC, it is the same as the privacy granted to a phone call?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    "the DHS has stated that it will routinely monitor the public postings of users on Twitter and Facebook."

    My postings on Facebook are not public. They're shared only with my friends. I have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as I would if I and my friends were discussing the issues in a close room. They're free to re-post, as they would be free to repeat what I'd said to others outside the room.

    The DHS's approach is akin to putting spies inside the room, thereby violating my reasonable expectation of privacy.
    Umm, no. Unless someone at DHS is on your friends list they won't see anything. If you allow friends to tag you in a post and said friend shares information publicly or you allow friends of friends to see content then there is potential for a breach.

    So anyways, in your situation the spies aren't in the room, they're in the restaurant listening to your friends talk after the fact. OPSEC.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I think that most social networks are semi-public. If I want to gather 100 of my closest friends and family and tell them something don't mean that it should be public record.
    In your example it's not public unless one of the 100 friends and family works for DHS.

    Public means you share with everybody or have the misfortune of having a government agent as one of the people you voluntarily agreed to share with.

    They are not hacking you or making (as far as we know) social networks hand over this information. They're getting it from you. If you have your settings correct and don't friend strangers you should be fine.

  16. #16
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Well, Sharkey, that is part of the problem ... my friends on facebook are generally all associated with a craft I participate in, so very little off topic discussion - I should be good to go there. The real problem lies with the family members I have friended ... some of my family are FBwhores and will friend ANYONE without really knowing anything about them ... one niece has over 1000 friends and I know she has never met many of them face to face. I won't friend her or several others, but one's I have friended are friends with them, so there is a back door that I simply cannot control. Ugg, it is worse than a blabbermouth! I do keep my profile "private" and rarely post anything ... occassionally I will chat with someone, but mostly I pick up the phone and call.

    Now, the other security hole I may have is the organization FB pages that I have friended/joined ... or the yahoo groups that require membership approval ... how are those to be classified: public or private?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  17. #17
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    OKboomer, you can put your settings to friends only instead of friends of friends.
    As far as friending the FBI well ....... oh, you can change them to acquaintance and when you post something incriminating, I mean private, make sure to choose share with close friends only. FB has great settings. I don't know about any other service like linked in or twitter, I don't use them.

    "The only secure computer is one that's unplugged" and with the cloud even that's not true.

    Edit: I thought you said FBI not FB. Group the organizations into acquaintances. Don't use any apps like farmville etc. They all want way more information than they need. Why does every app want access to my posts and pictures?
    Last edited by sharkey; 12-24-2011 at 07:05 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    "The only secure computer is one that's unplugged" and with the cloud even that's not true.




    I don't think you understand what Cloud means. But I'm not really sure what the point of bringing that up is. If you're suggesting that a computer doesn't literally have to be plugged into a communication device/port(be it a phone line, modem, router etc) in order to have net access, you're correct. There are wireless methods for which one can connect to the internet. But that isn't a cloud. Nor is that what the quote means. A computer is insecure whether it is connected to a network or not. If you're using the true meaning, as in a computer not plugged into a power source, that is true. A computer is only fully secure when it has no power. But you're wrong that a Cloud can affect it then. As that would require the Cloud power the device and that simply isn't possible. Nor is that how a cloud functions anyway.
    Last edited by Jack House; 12-24-2011 at 11:03 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    DHS plans to create fictitious user accounts and scan posts of users for key terms
    Gee, isn't having a fake account against FB rules?
    (Yes, I know it's laughable to expect DHS or any other alphabet soup agency to follow laws, let alone the rules of private companies.)

    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey
    The camera argument is only relevant if I can choose to shut off the camera's or have them blur my image when I enter an area and they are run by private citizens vs. the government.
    Wouldn't that be a cool & completely maddening (to gov't agents) superpower?
    Being able to cause any device to not be able to get a clear picture of you... if you wanted, of course.
    School or family pictures wouldn't be affected.
    Depending on how well controlled it was, it might be possible to selectively blur only certain parts of your body / the image.

    As for the topic at hand, use those privacy settings, check them occasionally to make sure FB hasn't pulled a fast one, & be careful not only who you friend, but what you post. Never post anything that could possibly in any way be twisted & used against you.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post

    I don't think you understand what Cloud means. But I'm not really sure what the point of bringing that up is. If you're suggesting that a computer doesn't literally have to be plugged into a communication device/port(be it a phone line, modem, router etc) in order to have net access, you're correct. There are wireless methods for which one can connect to the internet. But that isn't a cloud. Nor is that what the quote means. A computer is insecure whether it is connected to a network or not. If you're using the true meaning, as in a computer not plugged into a power source, that is true. A computer is only fully secure when it has no power. But you're wrong that a Cloud can affect it then. As that would require the Cloud power the device and that simply isn't possible. Nor is that how a cloud functions anyway.
    Lets's use an iphone as an example. In the past if it was turned off there was no access to the data. Now that data is synced to the cloud. My linux computer syncs to the cloud. Now I have devices that were formally secure if off that can be compromised now because the data has been uploaded to a server on the internet.

    I know what cloud means. Was that example simple enough to understand?

    ETA: Technically you're correct as the device can not be compromised if there is no power but we're really talking about data and you're splitting hairs.
    Last edited by sharkey; 12-24-2011 at 02:55 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Lets's use an iphone as an example. In the past if it was turned off there was no access to the data. Now that data is synced to the cloud. My linux computer syncs to the cloud. Now I have devices that were formally secure if off that can be compromised now because the data has been uploaded to a server on the internet.

    I know what cloud means. Was that example simple enough to understand?

    ETA: Technically you're correct as the device can not be compromised if there is no power but we're really talking about data and you're splitting hairs.
    The device can not be compromised, only the information which is stored in a cloud. I wasn't splitting hairs, I was addressing your statement for what it was. I'm still not sure how thus argument ties into the overall discussion about whether or not the government should be allowed to datamine.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Umm, no.
    Umm, yes. You're misunderstanding my post. I'm not explaining the way FB works. I'm saying that's the sort of access DHS wants.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •