The government may be watching.
Pentagon Reportedly Tracking Web Searches Including Phrase ‘The Truth About Black Lives Matter’
Do you believe this?
If it is true, who is holding these people accountable?
I would expect the government to monitor my searches if I was in communist China. I do not expect that in America, nor should we tolerate it.
If it is true, it is about domestic terrorism, which is indeed a very real danger. I do, however, have concerns about government invading people’s private lives. I remember that issue arising when the Patriot Act was on the table. I also remember Republicans arguing that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
Republicans and Democrats just trade talking points, depending on whose ox is being gored. When Republicans want to spy on you, they say “if you have nothing to hide ….” and then when Democrats want to spy on you, they say it. Same with debt ceilings, deficits, etc. There’s just some page in the Capitol who runs around the halls handing out the “for it” / “against it” memo, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
QUOTE: If it is true, it is about domestic terrorism, which is indeed a very real danger. I do, however, have concerns about government invading people’s private lives.
Ditto! Given the context, this seems like an “appropriate” place for government intervention.
That said, sometimes it’s hard to understand the code some use relative to government intervention. For instance, the same people who felt it was essential for the government to investigate and spend millions on Benghazi are the same who express it’s a waste of government resources and time to investigate the events of January 6…where some of the alleged goals were to subvert the functioning of the government and to do bodily hard to government officials. You’d think government intervention in this case would be a no-brainer…guess not.
Besides being an invasion of privacy, it seems like ludicrous investigative techniques. It’s a ridiculously wide net to cast, to look for everyone who thinks there are truths that need to be told about Black Lives Matter, when you’re trying to look for people who might be involved in domestic terrorism. While someone who believes there are truths that need to be told about BLM is clearly more likely to commit right wing terrorism than left wing terrorism, I find it a highly dubious proposition that they are significantly more likely to commit terrorism at all, taken in the aggregate. You might as well investigate everyone who bought American cars this year.
Or I should say, not “investigate everyone who bought American cars,” since that’s obviously not what they’re doing to everyone who searches “the truth about BLM”, but “consider the purchase of an American car a useful flag to detect potential domestic terrorists.”
On the face of it, I would agree that a search for the truth about BLM would not sufficiently indicate domestic terrorists. However, the FBI has more data on such matters than I do. Maybe they found a very strong correlation between these two factors. Moreover, a lot of domestic terrorists seem to be finding each other through codes. The search phrase in question could serve as such a code.
That would be a very odd code to use, since it’s a pretty innocuous phrase and one likely to be used very frequently by people who have absolutely no interest in terrorism, but think there is some truth about BLM that they want to learn about that is not widely publicized. A code that’s likely to be used by vast numbers of people who have no desire to transmit a coded message would be rather pointless.
It’s possible, I just think it too unlikely to shake my opinion that it’s not a reasonable measure. I think it’s more likely that there’s some political bias within the FBI that motivates the idea that people who delve into BLM from a standpoint of suspicion are likely enough to become involved in acts of terrorism that it’s worth flagging that particular phrase.
I disagree. I think that when people talk about the truth of such and such they have in mind some evil truth. But of course they may not. Hence the appearance of innocence. For a code you do want something that can take on such an appearance. Another possibility is that the FBI could have simply found an empirical correlation here, however it might be explained. There world, after all, is full of such correlations. But the explanation that seems most likely offhand is not a bias in the FBI (a bias for which there is no evidence), but rather the terrorists who stormed the Capitol or the ones who attempted to kidnap and kill the governor of Michigan are seething with hatred towards BLM. That’s at least the vibe I am getting from Kentucky, not because I am brainwashed by Them Dirty Liberals (now called “hard left”) in the media.
QUOTE: Besides being an invasion of privacy, it seems like ludicrous investigative techniques.
What is an invasion of privacy relative to government data collection? The public typically accepts government data collection in very personal areas such as marriage, driving, taxes and even educating children. Just look at what’s asked on the census. Yet, there’s not typically a mass protest to end the government’s access to such personal data. Could it be, the issue is more political than privacy oriented…especially in articles like the one Crowhill cited, where the author sounds like a hyperventilating partisan alarmist?
Besides, there is no “true” privacy on the internet. In fact, the government can collect web browsing and internet search history without a warrant under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Seems it wasn’t so long ago it was people like the author who were supportive of measures such as the Patriot Act to enhance security. At one point, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was pushing a bill to make the law permanent (without any significant revisions) and backed by most Senate Republicans.
That said, what’s ludicrous about the investigative technique? I suspect that’s one of the methods investigators used to foil the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and gain intelligence on activities like storming of the Capitol Building in January. So, for me, the technique seems legitimate and reasonable. Yet, I question how the information is managed. How do they determine what’s benign from what’s a legitimate lead? After all, I’d hate to see investigators implicate truly innocent people who were simply curious about the subject.
QUOTE: It’s a ridiculously wide net to cast, to look for everyone who thinks there are truths that need to be told about Black Lives Matter, when you’re trying to look for people who might be involved in domestic terrorism.
Indeed it’s a wide net. So what? The search may be a way of identifying potential leads…especially if they have cooberating evidence. I don’t think the investigators believe that “every” search will lead to criminal/terror activity. But, it can be a starting place. As long as they have a fairly accurate process for whittling down the data to a reasonable pool of legitimate suspects and it’s not unnecessarily costly, having a wide net is not of issue.
When I apply for a marriage license or a driver’s license, or enroll a child in a government-operated school, I am consciously interacting with a government entity for the purpose of receiving some kind of government service.
When I’m sitting at home Googling things to satisfy my own curiosity, there’s no such relationship at all.
If harvesting the Google searches of people without probable cause is not an invasion of privacy, the expression invasion of privacy doesn’t have any meaning that I can work out.
The reason that it’s a ludicrously wide net is the second issue you brought up, and what I mentioned in my paragraph that came right after the ludicrous comment. There are way too many people who might seek “the truth about” something that don’t remotely have an interest in committing any violence in connection with that thing. Investigative agencies don’t have infinite time to search through every innocuous commonality between harmless little old ladies with a rightward tilt in their politics, and genuinely potentially violent people. The whole point of gathering information for investigation is to weed out what’s worth investigating and what’s not.
QUOTE: If harvesting the Google searches of people without probable cause is not an invasion of privacy, the expression invasion of privacy doesn’t have any meaning that I can work out.
How is it an invasion of privacy when users of online resources are not guaranteed data privacy? Consumers should read the fine print and educate themselves about how their online activity can be used. As I said previously, the government can lawfully collect web browsing and internet search history without a warrant under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
GOOGLE SAYS…
For legal reasons —we will share personal information outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation, or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
*Meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process, or enforceable governmental request. We share information about the number and type of requests we receive from governments in our Transparency Report.
*Enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
*Detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, or technical issues.
*Protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users, or the public as required or permitted by law.
QUOTE: The reason that it’s a ludicrously wide net is the second issue you brought up, and what I mentioned in my paragraph that came right after the ludicrous comment.
Indeed, it may be ludicrous to you. Yet, it’s apparently not ludicrous to trained investigators…given they’ve successfully identified suspects using such methods.
“If harvesting the Google searches of people without probable cause is not an invasion of privacy, the expression invasion of privacy doesn’t have any meaning that I can work out.”
Right.
Again, how is it an invasion of privacy when users are not guaranteed data privacy? In fact, users must agree to the terms and conditions set forth by Google when they use their platform.
Google – Accepting the Terms
2.1 In order to use the Services, you must first agree to the Terms. You may not use the Services if you do not accept the Terms.
2.2 You can accept the Terms by:
(A) clicking to accept or agree to the Terms, where this option is made available to you by Google in the user interface for any Service; or
(B) by actually using the Services. In this case, you understand and agree that Google will treat your use of the Services as acceptance of the Terms from that point onwards.
2.4 Before you continue, you should print off or save a local copy of the Universal Terms for your records.
When you use your phone, do you expect it to be scanned? There’s a reason I don’t have an Android phone which is closely allied with the reason I try to use Firefox when I can to browse.
Apple just announced they are going to start scanning our phones “because of the children.” They are going to be searching their clients’ images against a known database of child pornography. ISTM, that if a person has one of these known photos, they aren’t hurting any children because since it’s a “known” image, the damage was already done long ago. Now, I have nothing to worry about on my phone or computer…not my thing. However, I do object to this.
And it’s not hard to imagine this being abused. A political operative or government official would have no problem acquiring the phone number of some politician or other powerful person. Operative buys an anonymous pay as you go phone. While the target is sleeping, text him a photo in the database. Have an inside contact at Apple. Have the contact start a scan on the target’s phone. “Oh, what do we have here?” Better contact the FBI and the NY Times…or better yet TMZ.
Snowden from 2019:
The lie is that everything happening today is okay because ten years ago, you clicked a button that said “I agree.” But you didn’t agree to the 600 page contract: none of us read it. You were agreeing you needed a job; agreeing you needed directions, email, or even just a friend.
QUOTE: When you use your phone, do you expect it to be scanned?
Actually, I would, if it’s a part of the terms and conditions. Whether I like it or not, is another matter.
ISTM, that if a person has one of these known photos, they aren’t hurting any children because since it’s a “known” image, the damage was already done long ago.
Yes and no. Indeed, some damage has been done with the initial taking of the photo. Yet, if the image is continually shared, then the subject could have perpetual damage…especially if the identity of the subject becomes known. As most things are never truly deleted on the Internet, there’s a possibility the photo could show up years later and open old wounds and/or create some new ones.
QUOTE: And it’s not hard to imagine this being abused.
I suspect it is abused. That’s one of the downsides of having laws and policies that permit such legal access.
QUOTE: The lie is that everything happening today is okay because ten years ago, you clicked a button that said “I agree.”
Unfortunately, users do not typically read the “fine print”. Yet, they are still bound to them “if” they indicate they agree and/or use a given platform. So, legally, there is no invasion of privacy because they’ve technically agreed with the terms and conditions, whether the user “actually” read them or not. Interestingly, Google advises users to print or save a copy of the terms. Yet, I suspect a very high percent of users ignore such fine print.
From Edward Snowden a few years ago (full tweet storm):
I agree with Snowden.
In 2008 I found myself out on the street. I lived a few weeks in your low rent motels, and then a few more in my priest’s house that was under construction. It became clear that I needed to get an apartment. So, I found a cheap place and signed the contract. It looked ok, more or less. A few times I renewed my lease. The last time it was up for renewal I went month to month because I was looking for a house. So after I found and closed on my house, I gave them thirty days notice. Things were ok, so I thought. After I moved out, they told me I owed another month’s rent because I had only given them 30 days notice and the contract said 60 days notice. Seemed like bullshit. Went and read the contract, sure enough 60 days but seemed like bullshit.
Then I went and read Oklahoma tenant / landlord statutes. Turns out the law said a 30 day notice is the maximum required and that any requirement above that is unenforceable. So, after redoing the math, and the amount of deposit they did not return to me, I wrote back and said that they were the ones that actually owed me money. It was a little more or less than $100. I was just going to let it slide. It slid for a few months. But, then they sicced a collection agency on me and it was reported to the collection agencies. So, I wrote to the attorney of the apartment complex trying to resolve. He told me to shove off. So, I filed paper with the city in small claims court to get my measly $100. The point wasn’t the money, but to get a judgment in my favor so they would have to call back the collection agency and my credit history would get cleared up. So, the court set a date about a month or two away. The day before the hearing I get contacted by the apartment attorney and he says to me, hey, can we make a deal? I tell him, sure. Pay me what you owe. Pay me the court costs of making the petition. Revoke the collection agency. So, my attorney and friend had her paralegal write up a dismissal which we settled on the next day and I went to court to the judge and told him we had settled the suit.
My favorite part. Beating that snot nose lawyer being just a lowly engineer.
What I can’t believe is how these predatory landlords can openly defy the law and probably get away with it most of the time. The landlord was a property group that had multiple properties across the city. They knew the law. And the f*cking attorney of theirs certainly knew the law.
Snowden makes good points and philosophically I can agree. Yet, there is a practical need for the government to have some level of access to data for security.
It would be interesting to see if government and private industry could create laws and policies that strike a healthy balance between security and privacy. I suspect it’s not in their interest to do so. As long as they have legal access to personal data, it gives them power. We all know that people nor institutions don’t relinquish power easily. So, that raises the question…what is the citizen/consumer to do to provoke the government/industry to strive towards such a balance?
Should I even bother reading the article? It’s worded like a bunch of bullshit. “Pentagon REPORTEDLY …” Are they or not? Too chickenshit to say? It’s like orang bozo saying, “People are saying…” …and then he just makes something up.
It reads like a tabloid. One good thing…it’s fairly short.
Journalists are always saying “reportedly” and “allegedly” because of the lawyers.
But I don’t know if it’s true or not. If we had any decent Congressional oversight,maybe we’d find out.
QUOTE: If we had any decent Congressional oversight, maybe we’d find out.
They are probably still exhausted from gratuitously pursing whistleblowers and inspector generals during the previous administration.