Dept of Homeland Security wants to create a database of journalists, bloggers and social media creators.

[DickieIam]

The Department of Homeland Security wants to create and monitor a database of journalists, bloggers and content creators.

 

DHS did reply via Twitter saying this is normal, run of the mill surveillance and that any suggestion otherwise is conspiracy theory BS...

 

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/homeland-security-to-compile-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/

[Crunchy Dragon]

Please edit your post to match Tech News posting guidelines or it will be moved out of Tech News. If it doesn't match Tech News posting guidelines in 24 hours, then it will be moved or removed.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Land of the surveilled.

 

How eager will people feel to speak freely and honestly when their views are being monitored by their government? How much of Western society's liberties were achieved through dissenters that could have been silenced before they started making a big impact, if their government had known what they were saying and doing? Privacy is essential for a healthy and evolving society.

 

 

I'm pretty sure Alex isn't logging personal contact information about the authors of the content he browses on the web - unlike what the DHS aims to do:

 

"The chosen contractor should be able to “present contact details and any other information that could be relevant including publications this influencer writes for, and an overview of the previous coverage published by the influencer”."

[ARikozuM]

So... they can't just ask the IRS for tax documents... 

[Canada EH]

24 minutes ago, DickieIam said:

The Department of Homeland Security wants to create and monitor a database of journalists, bloggers and content creators.

 

DHS did reply via Twitter saying this is normal, run of the mill surveillance and that any suggestion otherwise is conspiracy theory BS...

 

 

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/homeland-security-to-compile-database-of-journalists-and-media-influencers/

Yeah I wouldnt trust what they are saying, that that is normal, they are known liars.

 

It goes beyond taxes, they want to see what the content creators and users of forums are saying/typing. I bet Google hands over info on Youtube video usage. Especially that east indian content and stuff that are militia type within the usa, skinheads and such.

[Radium_Angel]

"Safety" is a tyrants favourite weapon. No good man can stand up and oppose "safety".

"For the children" is the next in line.

 

Between these two, this country will fall.

 

[leadeater]

Why would anyone not think this was happening, it's been a thing since forever. As the DHS spokesperson said

 

Quote

Despite what some reporters may suggest, this is nothing more than the standard practice of monitoring current events in the media. Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists. 

 

It's not a conspiracy, they are and were already doing it. As tech gets better the tools evolve and can do more, this is what is happening.

[captain_to_fire]

This is the same DHS who wants a database of social media accounts of tourists visiting America https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/dhs-social-media-visitors-proposal/

[2FA]

CIA/NSA already have their own lists since they are interested in intelligence no matter how small. DHS compiling their own is weird since they are a law enforcement agency.

[DickieIam]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Why would anyone not think this was happening, it's been a thing since forever. As the DHS spokesperson said

 

 

It's not a conspiracy, they are and were already doing it. As tech gets better the tools evolve and can do more, this is what is happening.

It's not like we didn't know DHS has been surveiling us since 9/11 but given this particular administrations disdain for "mainstream media" and other dissenting groups or organizations, it's troubling that this leak would surface now. And again, it is common knowledge that DHS actively surveils people and organizations but for this to come out as new news right now. Given the attention being focused on Facebook and other social media platforms it's hard not to think the worst.

 

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, DickieIam said:

It's not like we didn't know DHS has been surveiling us since 9/11

More like since WWI, but even before then. Journalism and public sentiment is always tracked by governments democratic or dictatorships alike. It's more how it's done, privacy acts, and what's done with that information that is of importance.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, 2FA said:

CIA/NSA already have their own lists since they are interested in intelligence no matter how small. DHS compiling their own is weird since they are a law enforcement agency.

Probably has to do with making that information more court system acceptable, if you had information sharing between those agencies and something like DHS or other law enforcement there's always that question of if that information was legally obtained, well more so.

[2FA]

21 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Probably has to do with making that information more court system acceptable, if you had information sharing between those agencies and something like DHS or other law enforcement there's always that question of if that information was legally obtained, well more so.

That would be more of a Department of Justice thing if they were going that angle. DHS's main intelligence target is potential and known terrorists if they're going by their mission statement. None of their other sub-branches really deal with anything needing a huge list of journalists.

 

Also, check out opensource.gov. That website is the CIA's open source intelligence arm where anyone can contribute intelligence such as translating foreign news articles. That's actually the successor to their division that tracked news and journalists before open sourcing it.

[leadeater]

46 minutes ago, 2FA said:

That would be more of a Department of Justice thing if they were going that angle. DHS's main intelligence target is potential and known terrorists if they're going by their mission statement. None of their other sub-branches really deal with anything needing a huge list of journalists.

Thing is even for the most part, particularly domestic, terror suspects still go through the justice systems so the DHS still needs evidence that can actually be used in court. As for why journalism is specifically of interest now, more so than the past, then I think we can all agree there has been a very clear change in what journalism is and how it's consumed.

 

Gone are the days of tea time news that deliver the news in an un-opinionated way. That's not to say that news organisation has no opinion and select what news to cover but there used to be no place for rhetoric in the actual delivery of that news to the camera or on paper.

 

News flash, pure news is boring 

[Yoinkerman]

Ya ok there dhs 

[yian88]

This will be happening everywhere in every form, everyone will be forcefully be monitored and controlled.

[AresKrieger]

Why would they need to monitor something they already control most of the info flow of

 

Regardless this isn't new, the CIA and NSA has files on far more than just media influences any one of note in the public sphere likely has a file, the only reason they might be more monitored than previously is that they have become less about news and more about manipulation which means they've entered the direct sphere of politics.

 

You reap what you sow in this case anyway

[asus killer]

when my country were a dictatorship we had this. Thank god we evolved.

[Guest The Viking]

the funny part is here

 

Quote

The request comes amid concerns regarding accuracy in media and the potential for U.S. elections and policy to be influenced via “fake news.”

 

but... isn't the government the one spreading fake news? I have a better idea, make a database tracking US politicians to check whether what they say is true or not, problem solved.

 

somedays...

[laminutederire]

15 hours ago, leadeater said:

Why would anyone not think this was happening, it's been a thing since forever. As the DHS spokesperson said

 

 

It's not a conspiracy, they are and were already doing it. As tech gets better the tools evolve and can do more, this is what is happening.

I think what people don't realise is that in basically every country this is being done. The line not to be crossed is about whether to put people in jail for what they say or not.

 

It's standard practice to keep an eye on the media's to see if one of them is being instrumentalized or used to influence the people in an illegal way. It's like secret services in many countries will keep an eye on people with high technical skills because they could be manipulated to get info and so on.

 

I'm personally pretty sure the secret services of my country looked at me at some point because I know people who may know things (which they don't even tell me, but that's not the point), just because I could eventually get to those infos.

That same reasoning applies for the media as well because they usually are well connected, and you don't want them to use their contacts to feed infos to other countries or something.

[AresKrieger]

4 hours ago, The Viking said:

I have a better idea, make a database tracking US politicians to check whether what they say is true or not, problem solved.

In theory that would help in some manner, but in practice that would result in a 1 party system or a complete disregard to said info due to biases.

 

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The line not to be crossed is about whether to put people in jail for what they say or not.

 

Jokingly make a Nazi reference in the UK or Germany (among other countries) and see how non-existent that line is

[johnukguy]

If you are online and have expressed any dissent against the US government in the last few years, you are already being monitored on some level. It might indeed be 'run of the mill,' but there is nothing normal or healthy about it in a supposed representative democracy, or any civilized nation come to that.

[laminutederire]

8 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

In theory that would help in some manner, but in practice that would result in a 1 party system or a complete disregard to said info due to biases.

 

Jokingly make a Nazi reference in the UK or Germany (among other countries) and see how non-existent that line is

I'm from France, and looking at how nearly all reccent terrorists were under surveillance but weren't all arrested right away, I guess I feel confident that putting people under surveillance does not mean arresting people without cause and extensive verification that they present real danger with actual proof of that. It does seem that the US might be more arbitrary on who they'll arrest, but that has more to do with the American obsession on preventing crimes in their country which the World trade Center attack has only made stronger.

[AresKrieger]

34 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

US might be more arbitrary on who they'll arrest, but that has more to do with the American obsession on preventing crimes in their country which the World trade Center attack has only made stronger.

Well the way US law works they can't actually arrest you for what you say unless it falls under a threat or the causing chaos variety (yelling bomb in an airport for instance). Now the grounds for investigation and suspecting someone are low however the protections to arrest require an arrest warrant or such, this looking into journalist has more to do awareness and mitigation than legal action.

[Guest The Viking]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

I think what people don't realise is that in basically every country this is being done. The line not to be crossed is about whether to put people in jail for what they say or not.

 

It's standard practice to keep an eye on the media's to see if one of them is being instrumentalized or used to influence the people in an illegal way. It's like secret services in many countries will keep an eye on people with high technical skills because they could be manipulated to get info and so on.

yes, i know it's done in most countries. Except it's a dedicated governmental organism, while here it's... a "secret" organization.