Forum Thread

Homeland Security to monitor journalists

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 11 Posts
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Week, April 8, 2018: Homeland Security will start collecting data on hundreds of thousands of journalists

    The Department of Homeland Security is reported to be planning on compiling a database to monitor hundreds of thousands of news outlets and journalists around the world.

    "Bloomberg Law reports that DHS is looking for a contractor to help build the database and keep track of more than 290,000 news sources, collecting data about each source’s "sentiment," influence, language, and circulation. The data would allow the agency to identify "any and all" coverage related to a particular event, DHS officials told Bloomberg Law.

    "The tracking would apply to online, print, broadcast, cable, and radio sources — essentially, any journalist, editor, blogger, or correspondent deemed a possible "media influencer" could be included. DHS also wants to follow social media activity and hopes to be able to instantly translate coverage in more than 100 languages to English to add to the database."

    "Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers," DHS said in a statement. The service would fill "a critical need to incorporate these functions into [DHS] programs in order to better reach federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners."

    Does this raise any eyebrows? What me worry?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Like any program it will have to prove it is worth the money spent. I find it hard to believe that data will be collected an evaluated in an objective manner. DHS will find data to justify the expenditure .
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The Week, April 8, 2018: Homeland Security will start collecting data on hundreds of thousands of journalists

    The Department of Homeland Security is reported to be planning on compiling a database to monitor hundreds of thousands of news outlets and journalists around the world.

    "Bloomberg Law reports that DHS is looking for a contractor to help build the database and keep track of more than 290,000 news sources, collecting data about each source’s "sentiment," influence, language, and circulation. The data would allow the agency to identify "any and all" coverage related to a particular event, DHS officials told Bloomberg Law.

    "The tracking would apply to online, print, broadcast, cable, and radio sources — essentially, any journalist, editor, blogger, or correspondent deemed a possible "media influencer" could be included. DHS also wants to follow social media activity and hopes to be able to instantly translate coverage in more than 100 languages to English to add to the database."

    "Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers," DHS said in a statement. The service would fill "a critical need to incorporate these functions into [DHS] programs in order to better reach federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners."

    Does this raise any eyebrows? What me worry?

    Just another Cambridge Analitica like "cover up"; thus another expensive tool (paid by the tax payer) to be able to influence or suppress the media.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The Week, April 8, 2018: Homeland Security will start collecting data on hundreds of thousands of journalists

    The Department of Homeland Security is reported to be planning on compiling a database to monitor hundreds of thousands of news outlets and journalists around the world.

    "Bloomberg Law reports that DHS is looking for a contractor to help build the database and keep track of more than 290,000 news sources, collecting data about each source’s "sentiment," influence, language, and circulation. The data would allow the agency to identify "any and all" coverage related to a particular event, DHS officials told Bloomberg Law.

    "The tracking would apply to online, print, broadcast, cable, and radio sources — essentially, any journalist, editor, blogger, or correspondent deemed a possible "media influencer" could be included. DHS also wants to follow social media activity and hopes to be able to instantly translate coverage in more than 100 languages to English to add to the database."

    "Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers," DHS said in a statement. The service would fill "a critical need to incorporate these functions into [DHS] programs in order to better reach federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners."

    Does this raise any eyebrows? What me worry?

    Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get me.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Control or suppress the media, including bloggers ? ! ? !

    This is twisted and bad on several levels. Don't trust those who haven't earned trust.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Bloomberg Law reports that DHS is looking for a contractor to help build the database and keep track of more than 290,000 news sources, collecting data about each source’s "sentiment," influence, language, and circulation. The data would allow the agency to identify "any and all" coverage related to a particular event, DHS officials told Bloomberg Law.

    I would think the CIA has been doing this for decades for anything outside of US boarders. So is an effort to do the same thing within US boarders?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What I find even more scary is that they are including bloggers and average citizens who state their opinions every once in awhile in this surveillance. It's like a slow-moving crackdown happening before our very eyes and we are powerless to stop it.

    I'm not prone to conspiracy theories and this may be much ado about nothing, but I can't help but thinking about what potentially happens next. Will the government go after a journalist or blogger they deem a threat to national security? Will they charge "enemies" who question the government's actions?

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Regardless of the "official purpose" of the surveillance, it sounds an awful lot like Nixon's "enemies list".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%27s_Enemies_List

    To quote John Dean,

    "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies. "

    Since Trump seems to think that the REAL news sources (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN etc) are "fake news" , it's not difficult to imagine what kind of nonsense he will force DHS to engage in.

    I've already sent a clip of the link that Schmidt posted to a local newspaper columnist, in hopes that a column from him will broadcast how scary this whole idea is.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As reported in the Daily Beast in January, Trump's war on the press follows the Hitler and Mussolini playbook:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-war-on-the-press-follows-the-mussolini-and-hitler-playbook

  • Independent
    California
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The establishment didn't like 2016. Two anti-establishment candidates did far better than was in the script, and one of them is President.

    A major problem is that, where the spectrum of acceptable opinion was once defined by a relatively small number of well behaved media outlets, located here in the USA, these days there are too many off-narrative voices on the internet. People get their opinions not only from international journals and networks that include Chinese, Russian and Saudi controlled sources, but even from youtubers for heaven's sakes. And there is currently no efficient way to marginalize and discredit such a wide scattering of content creators. It is not only making elections unpredictable, it is causing increasing polarization, division and social unrest.

    Some steps, however, have already been taken. Awareness of fake news is up, even if certain people have hijacked the term for their own purposes. Journalists working for nations the US regards as adversarial have been forced to register as foreign agents. Youtube has helpfully started labeling content from state sponsored outlets. It has also demonetized those making political videos, unless the videos come from Youtube-approved sources, thus stopping ordinary people from making money by questioning official messaging. Youtube has also kindly reconfigured its algorithms so that acceptable opinion makers like CNN and FOX appear first in searches, and so that its autoplay and recommend features more often redirect users to the official truth.

    The next natural step is to log the various opinion leaders in a register, trace the influence networks behind them, and identify the hubs. Don't worry, conspiracy theorists, it isn't for anything drastic! There won't be any arrests in the USA just for having the wrong opinion. The idea will merely be to infiltrate and disrupt these networks, turn them against themselves, associate them with racists and extremists and otherwise discredit them. It might be a little unfair at times (most of the time, to be honest) but social control will be re-achieved without putting dissidents in prison.

    Don't worry if you have a conventional opinion. Your opinion will still fall within the ambit of permissible discourse. The Democratic arm of the establishment will ensure that those with mainstream Democrat opinions will be okay, and the Republican arm of the establishment will do the same for mainstream Republican opinion makers.

    It's the other opinions that should, if the program works, be increasingly relegated to the fringes and beyond. Crazy-haired iconoclasts like Donald Trump, Al Sharpton and Bernie Sanders, and dissident gnomes like Dennis Kusinich and Ron Paul will once again have no genuine shot at getting within shouting distance of the Oval Office. They can be prudently returned to muttering from the far end of the debate stage and being ridiculed by the pundits, and the people who support them can once again be safely dismissed as extremist kooks.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The Week, April 8, 2018: Homeland Security will start collecting data on hundreds of thousands of journalists

    The Department of Homeland Security is reported to be planning on compiling a database to monitor hundreds of thousands of news outlets and journalists around the world.

    "Bloomberg Law reports that DHS is looking for a contractor to help build the database and keep track of more than 290,000 news sources, collecting data about each source’s "sentiment," influence, language, and circulation. The data would allow the agency to identify "any and all" coverage related to a particular event, DHS officials told Bloomberg Law.

    "The tracking would apply to online, print, broadcast, cable, and radio sources — essentially, any journalist, editor, blogger, or correspondent deemed a possible "media influencer" could be included. DHS also wants to follow social media activity and hopes to be able to instantly translate coverage in more than 100 languages to English to add to the database."

    "Services shall provide media comparison tools, design and rebranding tools, communication tools, and the ability to identify top media influencers," DHS said in a statement. The service would fill "a critical need to incorporate these functions into [DHS] programs in order to better reach federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners."

    Does this raise any eyebrows? What me worry?

    So Schmidt, do you think any lawmakers might charge this administration with being unethical? I am also wondering what the purpose of this data collection might lead to? We've already had our privacy invaded during the Bush and Obama years by the NSA. I'm concerned our government is overreaching it's legal authority.