American Politics, Progressive News, Human Rights, Civil Disobedience, Foreign Policy, Current Events, Cultural Activism, and Social Justice.
http://www.dustcircle.com | http://www.facebook.com/dissentingheretic | http://www.twitter.com/dustcirclenews
Showing posts with label alternet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternet. Show all posts

Monday, July 30

5 Ways Churches Get Preferential Treatment and Benefit from Legal Loopholes


comments_image 103 COMMENTS

 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 
Many conservative religious leaders insist that houses of worship in America today struggle under intense persecution. To hear some of the Catholic bishops tell it, religious freedom may soon be a memory because they don’t always get their way in policy debates.
It would be highly ironic if the United States, the nation that perfected religious liberty and enshrined it in the Constitution’s First Amendment, had become hostile to the rights of religious groups.
But that’s not what’s happening. In reality, U.S. law is honeycombed with examples of preferential treatment and special breaks for religion. Some of these practices may grow out of the First Amendment command that the “free exercise” of religion must not be infringed. Others are traditions or were added to the law after lobbying efforts by religious groups.
Here are five ways American law extends protections and preference to houses of worship.
1. Tax Policy
Tax exemption is given to a variety of religious and secular groups, but in the case of houses of worship, they get one huge advantage: They are tax exempt by mere dint of their existence. They don’t have to apply for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, nor, absent highly unusual circumstances or blatant law-breaking, can they lose it.

Friday, July 20

Religion’s Biggest Threats

AlterNet

Our economy runs on the fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal, but our society runs on the fossil fuel of religion


Religion's biggest threats(Credit: Kzenon via Shutterstock)
This article originally appeared on AlterNet
Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from Adam Lee’s new bookDaylight Atheism.
Beneath our advanced 21st-century economy lies a smoke-belching 18th-century economy. For all our sophistication, we still depend on fossil fuels dug from the earth to power our homes and offices. And it is now abundantly clear that this dependence is becoming a lethal threat. From the burning of coal and gasoline, we release into the atmosphere toxic mercury, acidic sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter that produces choking smog and causes asthma and other respiratory sicknesses. But more dangerous, because less noticeable, is the invisible gas carbon dioxide, which is released in vast quantities, billions of tons per year, by the burning of all fossil fuels.
AlterNet
Rising into the troposphere, carbon dioxide accumulates in a stifling blanket, trapping the rays of the sun and warming our planet as surely as a hot car left in a parking lot. In the past, feedback mechanisms in the biosphere prevented excessive warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: the oceans absorb it, green plants drink it, rain dissolves it, carbonate rocks sequester it. But we’re pumping it into the atmosphere at a prodigious rate, burning through millions of years’ worth of hydrocarbon reservoirs in decades, driving the climate system relentlessly out of equilibrium. And decade by decade, global temperatures tick upwards, glaciers recede, habitats dwindle, ice caps fragment, sea levels rise, storms gain strength, the extremes of flood and drought worsen, desert spreads, and the powerful and wealthy special interests who stand to profit by mortgaging the planet attempt to denigrate and marginalize the voices crying in the wilderness to warn humanity of the danger.
But combustible hydrocarbons aren’t the only product of the Middle East that shapes the face of the world today. From those desert sands comes another fuel. Like oil and coal, this fuel has its origins in the distant past; unlike oil and coal, this one is invisible, intangible. Rather than being transmitted through drills and pipelines, it travels through the air, leaping from one mind to the next, igniting conflagrations figurative and literal. Our economy runs on the fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal, but our society runs on the fossil fuel of religion.
Instead of the compressed remains of long-dead living things, the religions that dominate our world today are made up of fossilized dogmas, shaped in the cauldron of a long-gone world and compressed by time and tradition into a rock-hard mass. Religion, too, has its impurities, but instead of sulfur and mercury, humanity’s beliefs are contaminated with impurities of tribalism and xenophobia, fractions of hate and fanaticism and glorification of martyrdom. And when they burn in human minds, instead of smog and acid rain, they give us suicide bombers exploding in crowded streets, the suffocating darkness of fundamentalism, bloodthirsty mobs in the streets screaming for holy war, armies marching forth to conquer under the red banners of crescent and cross, the Twin Towers collapsing in flame.
I’m not claiming that religious belief is uniformly harmful. At its best, religion can inspire human beings to perform acts of great charity and compassion and create works of wondrous beauty. But these good works have been endlessly reported and praised, and they need no additional documentation from me. If anything, people who report on religion have a tendency to only report its good effects, while sweeping the bad ones under the rug or blithely dismissing them as perversions of “true” faith. I seek to provide some balance to these choruses of praise by reminding people that religion has also directly caused many acts of terrible bloodshed, cruelty and destruction.
Worse, many of these evil deeds come about not by twisting or distorting the teachings of scripture, but by obeying them. There is much material in every religious tradition that teaches violence, intolerance and hatred of the infidels. Modern theologians who recognize the savagery of these passages have either ignored them altogether or else have elaborate schemes of reinterpretation aimed at convincing themselves and others that these verses don’t mean what they say. Unfortunately, there will always be believers who see through this charade and interpret the violent verses with the frightening simplicity which their context suggests. These people are a threat, and so long as we persist in believing in books that contain these sorts of dangerous messages, they will always be a threat. It will be one of the major themes of this chapter that people become irrational and dangerous to the precise degree in which they truly believe their religion and take its claims seriously.
I’m well aware that the majority of individual believers are not hate-filled fanatics, but ordinary, decent people. However, as I hope to show, decent people do not need religion to justify their actions, whereas the fanatics do. Good people would be good with or without their religious beliefs, but religion has far too often been used to inspire and promote acts of great evil and cruelty against others who believe differently, and lends itself far too easily to that use. As the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg put it a few years ago:
With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Monday, July 16

The New Totalitarianism: How American Corporations Have Made America Like the Soviet Union


comments_image 160 COMMENTS

Free-market capitalism was supposed to save us from the tyranny of faceless apparatchiks. But that's not what happened.
 


Photo Credit: Viajar24h.com
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

The great power struggle of the 20th century was the competition between Soviet-style communism and "free-market" corporatism for domination of the world's resources. In America, it's taken for granted that Soviet communism lost (though China's more capitalist variant seems to be doing well), and the superiority of neo-liberal economics -- as epitomized by the great multinational corporations -- was thus affirmed for all time and eternity.
There's a small problem with this, though. An old bit of wisdom says: choose your enemies carefully, because over time, you will tend to become the very thing you most strongly resist. One of the most striking things about our victorious corporations now is the degree to which they've taken on some of the most noxious and Kafkaesque attributes of the Soviet system -- too often leaving their employees, customers, and other stakeholders just as powerless over their own fates as the unhappy citizens of those old centrally planned economies of the USSR were back in the day.
It's not just that the corporations have taken control over our government (though that's awful enough). It's also that they've taken control over -- and put serious limits on -- our choices regarding what we buy, where we work, how we live, and what rights we have. Our futures are increasingly no longer our own: more and more decisions, large and small, that determine the quality of our lives are being made by Politburo apparatchiks at a Supreme Corporate Soviet somewhere far distant from us. Only now, those apparatchiks are PR and marketing executives, titans of corporate finance, lobbyists for multinationals, and bean-counting managers trying to increase profits at the expense of our freedom.

Wednesday, July 4

The Revolution Will Be Handheld


comments_image COMMENT NOW!

My daughter’s world revolves around whatever small screen she happens to be holding in her hand. Until recently, this seemed to me a sign of the coming apocalypse.


 
Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 

Did I mention that I’m a screenwriter?
I proudly call myself a progressive but as a parent of school-aged kids, I’m often surprised by how culturally conservative I’ve become. I scoff at my thirteen-year-old’s full-body obsession with the British boy band, One Direction. And when she calls the recent movie Think Like a Man or any film starring Kate Hudson a “great film,” I lecture her for probably longer than the movie lasts on why the popular culture she claims to have been moved by -- in point of fact -- is absolute and total crap.
Although I also write in other genres, writing for and about film and television has always been the focus of my writing career. Both socially and culturally, the movie theater has served as the climate-controlled center of my universe. My daughter’s world, on the other hand, revolves around whatever small screen she happens to be holding in her hand. Until recently, this seemed to me a sign of the coming apocalypse. But I’m beginning to realize that it might actually represent something more positive -- something big and revolutionary in the smallest possible package.
The road to this realization has been difficult and humbling, and is hardly complete. It's depressing to realize that a proudly middle-aged progressive is not immune to garden-variety, middle-aged malaise.
Nevertheless, as school ends and summer begins, nostalgia hits me hardest. I can’t help but reminisce about how for me summertime always meant gorging myself on two, maybe three movies per week.
The moment my friends and I were paid for mowing a lawn or washing a car, we’d hike a mile under and aggressive sun to the independent movie theater next to the duck pin bowling alley in the shopping plaza in our little town of Hamden, Connecticut. When everything went multiplex, this small theater simply cut the room in half lengthwise without adjusting the seats, so we were now aimed at the right or left corner, depending on which theater we were in.       
But still, it was dark, cold as hell, and magical.
We saw pretty much everything that came out all summer long. Then by late August, we’d started jonesing for TV Guide’s “Fall Preview,” as thick as a paperback. We’d study and debate the then three network’s offerings as seriously as any network execs.
I’m realizing that what we craved back then in the 70s was interaction. On some level we understood that culture came to us piped in on a few channels at home and a few films every week. We yammered at each other and even talked back at the screen because we were powerless to comment in other ways.
My thirteen-year-old daughter, despite her taste for British boy bands and forgettable rom-coms, is a much more active participant in the culture she consumes. I may complain about her disappearing into her room to watch a half-dozen episodes of Monk on her netbook, then Skyping her BFFN (Best Friend For Now), whom she saw all day at school, but she takes agency for what goes before her eyes in ways that when I was her age, I could only envy.
When I was a kid, wrestling for the remote was the closest I ever got to controlling media. Today, the device my daughter holds in her hand can control not just the TV but her entire known world.  She take a picture with her phone, and with Instagram or Camera + she can edit, frame, caption and send it. She can record herself singing Maroon 5 and then autotune it. I can’t call her a couch potato if while watching Design Star she’s designing a new couch on an app on her phone.
Yes, the major studios dump badly recycled garbage on us every summer (everyone involved in Adam Sandler’s recent That’s My Boy should be tried in The Hague). The difference now, though, is that this level of crappy disposable cultural production is where it deserves to have landed all along – where my daughter and I can take it or leave it. Buy the headphones on the plane or not. Watch the middle third months later on cable while we’re folding clothes or not. The choice is now wholly ours.
My daughter can personally regulate the culture she consumes from the electronic rock in her hand -- she can join the cultural conversation herself at a level frighteningly close to that of the professionals.
I’ve been writing films for years, and in the seven years since I started teaching filmmaking, I’ve seen the cost of indie film production reduce precipitously. Seven years ago it was common to see a student spend $30,000 on a twenty-minute film and not uncommon for them to spend $60,000. Today my teenager cuts a video for a school project on iMovie as casually as she texts her friends. I tell her how Lena Dunham began with YouTube shorts in college that blossomed into her micro-budget features, Dealing and Tiny Furniture, before her explosion onto HBO with Girls.
My daughter just nods. She’s not amazed. For her, that revolution has already been won. Why should she waste her time feeling nostalgic for success on the big screen when she’s got a brave new universe in the palm of her hand?
Trey Ellis is a novelist, screenwriter, playwright and Associate Professor at Columbia University’s School of the Arts.

Friday, June 22

Security Agency Won't Release Number of Americans it Spied On Because it Would "Violate Their Privacy"


Outrageous: 

Last month, Democratic Senators Ron Wydon and Mark Udall asked the National Security Agency how many U.S. residents were spied on under Bush’s 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allowed for warrantless eavesdropping. But on Monday, the agency told the Senators that they couldn't know how many Americans it spied on because that kind of oversight would violate people’s privacy. 
Wired.com acquired Charles McCullough’s response to the two senators, who are members of the Senate’s Intelligence Oversight Committee. McCullough, Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, wrote that the NSA “agreed that an IG review of the sort suggested would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”
Wyden said that he and Udall simply wanted a “ballpark estimate” of the number.
But McCullough wrote that the agency was incapable of providing such a number, and an attempt to calculate the number would hamper intelligence missions.
He stated:
I defer to [the NSA inspector general's] conclusion that obtaining such an estimate was beyond the capacity of his office and dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA’s mission.
Coincidentally, the House Judiciary Committee voted 23-11 yesterday to reauthorize the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. The Act allows for warrantless wiretapping on U.S. residents if either they or the person they’re talking to is outside of the country. According to the Act, interception is permitted so the government can acquire foreign intelligence information.
The Committee’s vote now extends the Act until Dec. 31, 2017 — otherwise, it would have expired at the end of the year. The measure will be moving to the House for a full vote. The Obama administration supports the Act and has pushed for the five-year extension.
By Alyssa Figueroa | Sourced from AlterNet 

Saturday, June 9

14 Rules For Revolt


comments_image 2 COMMENTS

Or What I Learned from the Front Lines of the 1960s

In 2011, a new wave of global citizen activism, fed in part by Occupy Wall Street, helped reveal a link between the sixties and the present.
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 
 
Many veterans of the sixties joined Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. We felt a distant echo from our past in the remarkable burst of citizen activism that Obama unleashed. I felt great personal closure. My son, Nico, four years a lawyer, spent two months running the Obama campaign’s election protection operation in a three-county area northeast of Cleveland. Working under him for the last ten days were his mother, Joan, a member of Yale Law School’s class of 1968, and his sister, Emma, forty years behind her mother as a member of that same school’s class of 2008. That our family’s combined legal skills helped protect the integrity of the vote for Barack Obama in Ohio, four years after Republican-sponsored voting irregularities there had deprived my own campaigning of a victory in 2004, was a special delight.
The progressive activism that brought Barack Obama to power in 2008 captured the spirit of the sixties. We have yet to see if his victory becomes the enduring legacy of those turbulent times. In 2011, a new wave of global citizen activism, fed in part by Occupy Wall Street, strengthened my belief in the links between the sixties and the present. Conservative pundits deny such ties. They see the sixties as a brief historical detour that debased our culture and had little effect on the ongoing political life of the nation. Their analysis is wrong.
The question we now face is not whether America is on the threshold of a new progressive era—it is—but rather whether we can use the legacy of the sixties and the new activism unleashed in 2011 by Occupy Wall Street to push ourselves off the threshold into a full embrace of progressive ideals. I am convinced that citizen activism is now the only way to do that. But as I learned in the sixties, activists are not revolutionaries, even though their objective might be a revolutionary transformation of society. Activists achieve incremental gains, not massive and immediate upheavals. If those gains are sufficiently widespread, transformations can occur even when the activists themselves are unaware of how their work combines with that of others to affect the overall sweep of history.
In 2011, Occupy Wall Street aroused our citizenry. For the first time in almost 100 years, the lop-sided distribution of our income and wealth was elevated to the center of political debate, an enormous and potentially far-reaching accomplishment. Occupy Wall Street’s message, that our nation is divided into “the 99%” and “the 1%,” is a critical first step that will animate the class-consciousness needed to correct our obscene economic inequality.
Occupy Wall Street achieved a second triumph. It created an “Occupy” franchise that allowed activists across the country to organize related protests anywhere and everywhere. Under this universal banner activists began to address a broad spectrum of issues and institutions. Hopefully, these actions will proliferate. The task going forward is to forge them into a coherent national crusade capable of achieving a progressive transformation.
As a lifelong activist and a professional political strategist, I know that there are many pitfalls that await the building of such a crusade. Therefore it seems fitting to me to end this book by erecting a few warning signs for future activists who will build on the Occupy events of 2011 and carry forward the battles for core values that we fought in the sixties.
1. STAY A FRANCHISE; DON’T OPEN A STORE. Don’t take a position on every issue. Don’t try to be all things to all people. Stay on message. You are nimble and creative because you are not tied down. Resist the temptation to institutionalize yourselves by becoming an organization or prematurely launching a political party. That will drown your spirit in internal affairs and fund raising. Other progressive organizations are available to play this role. We need you to stay a wild card, able to act quickly and without warning.
2. NEVER LOSE THE MEME OF 1% VS. 99%. It exposes the ultimate weaknesses of our society and our enemies. Don’t allow those weaknesses to be papered over. A constant emphasis on how we are all part of the 99% keeps our side together and can reunite us after disagreements. Your focus should be on those with extreme wealth who do not pay their fair share, ultimately the nub of many other problems. That will allow you to recruit unlikely allies. And don’t anyone label this class warfare; it isn’t. Our demand is only that the 1% pay their fair share.
3. DON’T BASH BIG GOVERNMENT. It’s a Republican trap. In the years after the sixties, conservatives made exaggerated complaints about government waste and inefficiency. These distortions undermined public confidence in Washinton, which then allowed the Republicans to dismantle government regulations on finance put in place after the Great Depression. That deregulation brought on the Great Recession of 2008. Remember, it is unchecked bureaucracy that is wasteful and inefficient, not government in and of itself.
4.  GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE OUR TOOL, NOT THEIRS. Without stronger financial regulation than was previously in place, our standard of living will decline further. Americans now face the iron law of unregulated capitalism: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Government is the only means by which working Americans can protect themselves on a capitalist playing field heavily tilted toward the wealthy, the only means by which the 1% can be forced to pay their fair share, the only way to break the power of the oil companies and create a clean energy future.
5. UNREGULATED CAPITALISM IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. A compelling vision of a progressive society will emerge in the course of the struggles still ahead. Meanwhile, you are stuck with market capitalism and you should focus on bringing its worst aspects under control. Occupy Wall Street helped put financial regulation at the center of political debate. Keep it there. If financial regulation remains a central demand of the 99%, you can keep your focus on extreme income differences and effectively isolate the 1%.
6.  BE THE OWNER, NOT THE REPAIRMAN. Apologists for the 1% will put you on the defensive by insisting that you tell them exactly how to regulate Wall Street or secure the healthcare system. Don’t respond. You own the national house. If they built it for you without beds for everyone or a kitchen big enough to feed all the people, they’ve got to come up with a plan to fix it. Your job is to approve the plan and supervise the construction, not draw up the blueprints.
7. BE NICE TO DEMOCRATS. Democrats are not your allies or even your friends. But you need them. Like Republicans, they depend on big money for campaign contributions, so even if they take complete control of government, they will never enact transformational change on their own. But a popular movement can develop enough power to force elected Democrats to support reform. In the future, you will need elected Democrats to pass your reforms just as the
civil rights movement needed them to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
8. DON’T GET SO UPSET ABOUT VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS. Hold your nose and do it. It’s necessary. Republican governments do far more damage than Democratic governments, both to people in poverty and to the rest of us. They spread false consciousness and make it more difficult for us to organize. Stop fussing about Democratic flaws. They are who they are. Real change will only be driven by citizen activism, not elections. So, when an opportunity comes along to put a Democrat into office instead of a Republican, take it, and then go back to movement building.
9. STOP WORRYING ABOUT “THE SYSTEM” CORRUPTING YOU. Debates about working inside or outside the system waste your time. Both are necessary and neither is enough. Most progressive goals can only be achieved with the power of government (taxing the rich, neutralizing the oil companies, etc.), but these goals will not be achieved until rebellious activists force government to accept them. Activism and legislation, while different, are equally essential for progressive reform.
10. YOUR MISSION IS TO DESTABILIZE SOCIETY. Only in times of crisis will those with power relinquish some of it to forestall losing all of it. You need to create these crises. Since transformational reform cannot be achieved by working inside government, a mass movement must first destabilize the political and economic status quo. The demands made by that movement must be based on common sense, so average Americans can support them, but they must also be unattainable within the status quo. That’s what makes for a crisis.
11. BE MILITANT BUT NONVIOLENT. The 99% are turned off by violent tactics, but to get their attention you must break through the news cycle by being militant. Take over public land, block access, prevent foreclosures, get arrested. You’ve got to prove you are serious and are not going away, and you need the press coverage to communicate. But rely on activism. It emerged worldwide in the sixties, but has now spread across the globe and become exponentially more powerful because of the Internet and social media. In 2011, the Arab Spring provoked Occupy Wall Street, which then inspired protests against austerity in the European Commonwealth and a corrupt election in Russia. The genie of citizen activism is out of the bottle. It’s not going to be stuffed back in any time soon.
12. BE PROMISCUOUS. Get involved with everyone. Of course racists, homophobes, and their ilk must be isolated, but almost everyone else is a potential friend. Reach out to conservatives, cops, businesspeople. The enemy is that portion of the 1% who aggravate and benefit from the current extremes of economic inequality. They have the government, the money, and the guns. Your only asset is the people. So never let battle lines be drawn that leave you with less than 99% on your side.
13. THINK STRATEGICALLY. Too often we pursue goals because we desire or deserve them rather than because we have the ability to attain them. Strategic thinking means clearly assessing strengths and weaknesses on both sides of a fight before engaging, developing credible plans for organizing the resources needed to complete the tasks you undertake, delineating clear milestones that allow you to realistically measure your success or failure, building new alliances while simultaneously disrupting those of your opponents, and choosing tactics not because they are comfortable or dramatic but because they are most likely to get the job done.
14. DREAM UP NEW TACTICS. Occupations are effective, but you need new ways to engage the 99% you want to represent. Militant actions on your part will always be necessary, but since most of the 99% have neither the time nor the willingness to risk arrest, other tactics must also be employed. I am reminded of 1971 when the antiwar movement had become too militant for the millions of Americans ready to oppose the war. By developing more inclusive tactics like Medical Aid for Indochina and the congressional lobbying done by the Indochina Peace Campaign we gave people a forceful and subversive way to express their opposition to the war without exposing themselves to personal jeopardy. We had to discover new nonviolent ways to mobilize people in the past; now you have to do it for the future.
Bill Zimmerman is a political consultant with Zimmerman & Markman, Inc. in Santa Monica. He is the author of Troublemaker: A Memoir from the Front Lines of the Sixties (Doubleday), just released as an Anchor paperback.
Bill Zimmerman is a partner in Zimmerman & Markman, Inc., a national political consulting firm based in Santa Monica. The firm has won numerous ballot initiative campaigns, including historic first victories for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, state-funded elections in Arizona, medical marijuana in California, drug treatment instead of incarceration in California, and a 1% surtax on California income over $1 million, the proceeds of which fund community mental health programs.
submit to reddit

Friday, June 8

6 Government Surveillance Programs Designed to Watch What You Do Online


ALTERNET / By David Rosen 

If you are a user of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Craigslist or another popular site, the U.S. security state is watching you.


 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 
 
President Eisenhower was right on point about the military-industrial complex, but he could not have predicted the emergence of the massive surveillance state -- combining the government and private sector -- that bolsters it.
Sadly, neither President Obama nor his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has the desire or moral courage to fight the growing power and influence of the Corporate Security State. We are witnessing the integration of spying on two levels, the government level (federal, state and local) and the corporate level (via telecom providers, web services and credit card companies).
If you are a user of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Craigslist or another popular site, the U.S. security state is watching you. An increasing number of federal agencies are employing sophisticated means to monitor Americans' use of social networking sites. Federal entities from the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Department to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are involved in developing programs to track the American public online.
Here is a brief summary of some of the other programs.
1. Justice Department. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released a report from the DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section, "Obtaining and Using Evidence from Social Networking Sites," that describes how evidence from social networking sites can reveal personal communications that might help "establish motives and personal relationships."
It reports that monitored data from such sites can provide location information and "prove and disprove alibis." Perhaps most illuminating, it advises agents that “going undercover” on social media sites can enable law enforcement to communicate with suspects and targets, gain access to nonpublic information and map social relationships. The DOJ document notes that Twitter retains the last login IP address, but does not preserve data unless legally required to do so. 
2. The IRS uses a variety of social media sites like Facebook, Google, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and Second Life to investigate taxpayers. It seems to have started this practice in 2009, providing agents with special training on social networking. The EFF posted the IRS’ 38-page training that offers detailed tips to agents on how to conduct searches, locate relevant taxpayer information, narrow down and refine results. 
3. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is seeking a tool that integrates all online information, including web searches, Wikipedia edits and traffic webcams.
4. The Defense Department has solicited proposals through DARPA for a $42 million “Social Media Strategic Communications” (SMISC) program, a tool that tracks social media and weeds out information. It has set four goals for the project: (i) to detect, classify and measure the development of ideas, concepts in hidden social media messages; (ii) specify the structure of the campaign and influence in social media sites and the community they create; (iii) identify the participants and intention in conducting a social media campaign of persuasion and measure its effect; and (iv) develop an effective counter-message to an identified campaign carried out against the enemy. 
5. The FBI is soliciting a bid for a program that seems very similar to the DHS social-network monitoring program. Dubbed the "FBI Social Media Application,” the program would have "[the ability] to rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence ... to quickly vet, identify and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats."
In the FBI’s 12-page solicitation, it requests a program that can quickly identify, display and locate alerts on geo-spatial maps and enable users to summarize the "who, what, when, where and why" of specific threats and incidents. Going further, it seeks to not simply detect “credible threats,” but to identify those organizing and taking part in gatherings and to predict upcoming events. According to the FBI, "Social media will be a valued source of information to the SIOC [i.e., Strategic Information and Operations Center] intelligence analyst in a crisis because it will be both eyewitness and first response to the crisis."
An FBI spokesperson insisted, "[We] will not focus on specific persons or protected groups, but on words that relate to 'events' and 'crisis' and activities constituting violations of federal criminal law or threats to national security. Examples of these words will include lockdown, bomb, suspicious package, white powder, active shoot, school lockdown, etc.” Rest assured, much like the assurances voiced by the DHS, the FBI insists that its monitoring won't be used to focus on specific individuals or groups.
6. Department of Homeland Security. A more aggressive monitoring program was recently revealed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) when it secured from the DHS a list of approximately 380 keywords that the agency tracks. The allegedly threatening terms were found in the DHS’ Analyst Desktop Binder, part of its 2011 Media Monitoring Capability (MMC) program. 
These terms are organized into nine categories:
Agencies – 26 terms, including “DHS,” “FBI”, “CIA,” “Air Marshal,” “United Nations” and “Red Cross”;
Domestic security – 52 terms, including "assassination," "dirty bomb," “crash,” “first responder,” “screening” and “death.”
Hazardous materials – 34 terms, including "hazmat," “nuclear," “leak,” “burn” and “cloud.”
Public health – 47 terms, including "ebola," "contamination," “wave,” “pork” and “agriculture.”
Infrastructure security – 35 terms, including “AMTRAK,” “airport," "subway," “port,” “electric” and “cancelled.”
Southwest border violence – 65 terms, including "drug cartel," "decapitated," “gunfight,” “marijuana,” “heroin,” “border” and “bust.”
Terrorism – 55 terms, including “Jihad,” “biological weapons,” “suicide attack,” “plot” and “pirates.”
Emergencies and weather – 41 terms, including “disaster,” "hurricane," "power outage," “ice,” “storm” and “help.”
Cyber security – 25 terms, including “cyber terror,” “malware,” “virus,” “hacker,” “worm,” “China” and “Trojan.”
The DHS has been engaged in monitoring social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube and LinkedIn as well as blogs since at least 2010. Its effort is run through the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), National Operations Center (NOC), and is entitled “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness (Initiative).” Its ostensible purpose is to provide situational awareness and strengthen its common operating picture. 
The scope of DHS’ practice of social monitoring was unexpectedly revealed in a special congressional hearing, the House Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Intelligence, headed by Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA), in February. Two DHS officials, Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan and Director of Operations Coordination and Planning Richard Chavez, raised the representatives' ire by appearing to be deliberately stonewalling on the scope and practice of the agency's social media surveillance.
Most disturbing, the DHS reps appeared unsure about the monitoring program’s goals, how the gathered information would be used and whether it would be shared with other agencies. In an unusual show of bipartisan unity, Reps. Billy Long (R-MO), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) joined Rep. Meehan in chastising the DHS officials.
Under intense congressional probing, DHS reps revealed that the keywords chosen for monitoring were drawn from commercially available, off-the-shelf database programs that were customized to meet its specifications. The agency was particularly interested in determining first witnesses to breaking events like the 2011 Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others and the January 2012 bomb threat at an Austin school.
The DHS reps insisted that data gathered was only used to confirm other news reports and that information on private citizens was not being collected. In addition, they claimed that that all personally identifying information was regularly scrubbed from the agency’s servers.
Few should feel comforted by the DHS assurances. At the House hearing, it was also revealed that the agency was involved in what appears to be an ongoing campaign to monitor the actions and beliefs of individual Americans engaged in community-based political activism. It compiled a report, “Residents Voice Opposition Over Possible Plan to Bring Guantanamo Detainees to Local Prison-Standish MI,” that tracked community reactions to the proposed location of Guantánamo detainees in a local Michigan prison.
The DHS report is part of the EPIC documents acquired through a Freedom of Information request. It details that information was gathered from a variety of sources, including newspaper articles and responses, blogs by local activists, and Twitter and Facebook posts. 
The House hearing also shed light on the DHS practice of outsourcing keyword tracking of social media through a sole-source contract to the giant defense contractor, General Dynamics. In 2011, General Dynamics had revenues of $5.5 billion of which 84 percent ($4.6 bil) came from government contracts. Earlier this year, it’s Advanced Information Systems division was awarded a $14 million DHS contract to (in the words of a press release) “provide constant and continual watch operations for critical communications to the agency's National Coordinating Center.” In addition, it will “identify the possible impacts of potentially disruptive events. 
In keeping with the prevailing ethos of corporate unaccountability, it turns out if the General Dynamics employees are found to have misused the information garnered from a social network user, including a journalist or public figure, the employee must take a training course or, worst case, lose his/her job. No criminal penalties are specified.
A word to the wise, Big Brother is watching you.

submit to reddit
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...