Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Homeland Security Is Monitoring Journalists

It's unclear exactly why, but the Department of Homeland has been operating a "Social Networking/Media Capability" program to monitor the top blogs, forums and social networks online for at least the past 18 months. Based on a privacy compliance review from last November recently obtained by Reuters, the purpose of the project is to "collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture." Whatever that means.

Malor, any time you want to retract the "Robear is okay with lies" bit, I'm open to that. It'd be a gentlemanly touch.

93_confirmed wrote:

Homeland Security Is Monitoring Journalists

It's unclear exactly why, but the Department of Homeland has been operating a "Social Networking/Media Capability" program to monitor the top blogs, forums and social networks online for at least the past 18 months. Based on a privacy compliance review from last November recently obtained by Reuters, the purpose of the project is to "collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture." Whatever that means.

Did you go to the source? Because "Whatever that means" was explained.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...

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."

I did go to the official source but I refuse to take anything the gov says at face value. Not every "official explanation" is 100% truthful but I suppose that's a debate for a different thread.

93_confirmed wrote:

I did go to the official source but I refuse to take anything the gov says at face value. Not every "official explanation" is 100% truthful but I suppose that's a debate for a different thread.

So you play like CNN and support posting just part of a document to make the point that the government is evil. That is really rich.

Jayhawker wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I did go to the official source but I refuse to take anything the gov says at face value. Not every "official explanation" is 100% truthful but I suppose that's a debate for a different thread.

So you play like CNN and support posting just part of a document to make the point that the government is evil. That is really rich.

I didn't say anyone was evil nor did I post part of an article. I gave a link to the full article and a quote for other people to draw their own conclusions through their own research. Why do you bother coming to this thread if all you do is vehemently argue against those of us who are discussing the reasons why we believe we are in or headed towards a police/survelliance state?

You didn't link the full article. You linked to a blog that linked to a full article. The blog did EXACTLY what you complain about CNN doing.

And I come to this thread because I have an opinion on the matter. Just like your post, this thread has long since stopped being just about how to hide from Big Brother, and there is a new thread for that. This thread has become the place where people post "Oh noes!!!" stories to support the notion that this is a police state.

That's what you did. It was a flawed example. I pointed that out. You made it clear that you only believe stuff that confirms your preconceived belief.

In more uplifting news, the Obama Administration has explicitly stated that the right of citizens to record police officers is derived from the 1st Amendment, and wants the Baltimore PD to do more than provide some of their officers with formal training and send out a department-wide email on the subject. Link. Being able to record officers while they violate your other rights may be small comfort, but it's nice to see that Obama Administration isn't as gung-ho about covering up or even approving of police misconduct as some people think.

Jayhawker wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...

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..."

Ha, I wonder if this happened after that dude tweeted the bin Laden raid as it was happening and is government speak for "oh god--imagine if we were foiled by Twitter." Talk about a fail whale.

Malor, any time you want to retract the "Robear is okay with lies" bit, I'm open to that. It'd be a gentlemanly touch.

But it still appears to apply. We said we'd do one thing to the UN, and then turned around and did something completely different. We lied to get our way, and you appear enthusiastically supportive of that.

Do you disagree with this assessment?

Yes. We differ on how widely UN Resolution 1973 can be interpreted. I believe we stayed within the given parameters; you don't. I can make the argument without asserting that you're lying about the situation; it would be nice to see the same applied to me. I am *not* okay with lying; I simply don't believe it occurred here, and that's a different thing.

When you make it personal, you're really adding insults and slurs where they don't belong. It denotes a lack of respect that's frankly puzzling after all this time. I can't disagree with you without being a liar, a Nazi (you still have not retracted that, even after I pointed out the personal meaning of that slur), a dupe of the Administration, a fascist, and so forth. It's tiresome. And it seems I have to remind you of this stubbornness every time you pull something like this out of your hat, and it's *still* pulling teeth to get you to back off the personal stuff.

If you want to argue the resolution, at least cite *where* exactly the US lied. As I read it, as long as we didn't put an "occupying force" into Libya, pretty much everything else was open.

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Tell me how what we did was not authorized. And please, do it without calling me names.

Did we do what we *said*? Here's our UN Mission response to 1973:

This resolution demands an immediate cease fire and a complete end to violence and attacks against civilians. Responding to the Libyan people and to the League of Arab States, the Security Council has authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his intelligence and security forces, and his mercenaries.

No, I don't think we lied, or exceeded the UN mandate. And anyone who knows me personally knows I'm tiresomely honest. Can't we disagree without the insults? In essence, I'm just asking you to show some of the respect I show you. Seems like a fair request to me.

Edwin wrote:

Cop or Soldier?

12 out of 21 correct! I did pretty well on the ones that looked like they were in the Middle East. Not so well on anything else.

I got 10 out of 21, mainly because camouflaged fatigues = military and solid color fatigues = police to my mind.

Edit - doublepost

16 out of 21 - the biggest giveaway (thanks, Paleo's thread) was conditioning, or lack thereof.

This is an oldie but a goodie - police officer goes absolutely ballistic when a motorist exercises his constitutional rights to not have his car searched for no reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4Rs...

My apologies if this has already been posted - couldn't find it in an earlier thread but I'm a bit of a dirty skimmer.

jdzappa wrote:

This is an oldie but a goodie - police officer goes absolutely ballistic when a motorist exercises his constitutional rights to not have his car searched for no reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4Rs...

To be fair, I'm sure the cop was being pressured by his superiors to meet quota before month's end... That was probably his last chance to prevent reprimand.

How is that "to be fair"? Sure, he may have some downward pressure (all cops do), but that's not a legitimate reason to verbally abuse the populace he's sworn to protect. Though he sounds stoic, dude in the SUV had probably shat his pants at that point.

To be fair, he was just yelling at a citizen, not a uniformed official with any real power. You also have to notice that this citizen was arrested for committing a crime in the past, so he's obviously scum that deserves no civility or respect, and yet he has the audacity to hide behind a right that was actually meant for real Americans, like Reagan, and Police Officers, and George Washington.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic and cynical. Forgot the smiley. It isn't fair by any means, and the fact that police forces have a quota to meet monthly is absurd for multiple reasons. I wouldn't doubt that something along those lines was the reason for the cop's outburst.

WipEout wrote:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic and cynical. Forgot the smiley. It isn't fair by any means, and the fact that police forces have a quota to meet monthly is absurd for multiple reasons. I wouldn't doubt that something along those lines was the reason for the cop's outburst.

Ah. Of course.

Yonder wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Cop or Soldier?

12 out of 21 correct! I did pretty well on the ones that looked like they were in the Middle East. Not so well on anything else.

18/21. Most cops look quite foppish in tactical gear.

As to the ones I got wrong:

The MP5SD threw me for a loop. I debated what a given LEO would need with such a specialized weapon but the body armor, balaclava, and eye pro just looked too impractical for a modern military. I guess the dude must be from some South American narco unit.

The one listed as a cop with the M60 and Javelin on top of the HMMWV is probably wrong. It looked like an SF operator in Afghanistan circa 2003.

Reaper81 wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Cop or Soldier?

12 out of 21 correct! I did pretty well on the ones that looked like they were in the Middle East. Not so well on anything else.

18/21. Most cops look quite foppish in tactical gear.

As to the ones I got wrong:

The MP5SD threw me for a loop. I debated what a given LEO would need with such a specialized weapon but the body armor, balaclava, and eye pro just looked too impractical for a modern military. I guess the dude must be from some South American narco unit.

The one listed as a cop with the M60 and Javelin on top of the HMMWV is probably wrong. It looked like an SF operator in Afghanistan circa 2003.

18/21. The one with the security contractors sort of threw me. I didn't know what to call them since they were neither soldiers nor cops. I was also thrown by the M60 as well and wonder whether it is a terribly useful exercise if it wasn't an American department.

The cops/police quiz was way too depressing to finish.

I can't believe law enforcement in this country looks like that. That's not policing anymore, that's enforcement of subservience.

We're also no longer the land of opportunity btw.

Paleocon wrote:

We're also no longer the land of opportunity btw.

Well, we wouldn't want to be accused of inconsistency.

Kraint wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

We're also no longer the land of opportunity btw.

Well, we wouldn't want to be accused of inconsistency.

Shall we examine whether or not we are the Home of the Brave?