It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI releases plans to monitor social networks

page: 3
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I just deactivated my facebook the other day so im not scurrred. I get tired of reading," Going to < insert meaningless place here> "
edit on 26-1-2012 by mojo2012 because: typo




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't get it, supposedly they already do?

Why is this repeatedly stated?

It's like they are the troll staying just outside the gate to constantly remind you they are there.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I really do fail to see why people get so up in anger once it's revealed that a government's intelligence agency possesses the ability to check the outflow of social networking and personal communication. I mean c'mon, do you really think a government would spent its time spying on a bunch of teens posting and blogging about how wasted they were the previous night? No.

Let's jump to the most serious and extreme example that's in the mind of every paranoid internet user these days: Terrorists. Say Mr. Jihad was going about organising his very own personal ascent to paradise, and happened to use Facebook or some other form of internet communication to orchestrate his little mission, would you really be against that?

Most people are concerned about people spying on them, such as reading private emails and messages. So, the men in black know that you pulled that lass before finding out she had the old meat and veg down there, and are now having a laugh at your expense. Hmmn, so what? It's really not going to impact your life in any noticeable way whatsoever. You've got to understand that this will never be the case, it'll be suspects of security matters or something similar that are targeted, or maybe people who happen to have the words of 'mailbox', 'nitroglycerine' and '72 virgins' strung together in an outgoing message that are targeted.

Though, I do understand people's privacy concerns. Personally I wouldn't mind if an intelligence agency was spying on my messages. I don't send anything discriminating or embarrassing about myself, but even if I did I'd remain apathetic to the fact that it's being monitored.. Actually, I'd be peeved that time and tax payers' money is being wasted, but I wouldn't be bothered about my privacy being particularly breached. I know to most people it's an outrageous and unacceptable breach of privacy, and respect that point of view entirely. I just think it's a bit silly to exaggerate the effect it will have on your lives.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bambobo
 


Do you mean like Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul at the Airpot
though not internet examples it is the same infringement on rights of privacy
Or a mothers 7yrs old daughter
or the little old lady next door
or for that matter the Governor Jesse Ventura and his junk toss

Do these examples fit the terrorist profile?
I am all for conducting ones self in an appropriate manor and consequences for misconduct but at some point we as citizens of this country have to demand not to be treated as Terrorists first and Questioned Later

edit on 26-1-2012 by rebellender because: just can not get it right today



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Well Guess the only non traceable way of communication left is telepathically..



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by Bambobo
 


Do you mean like Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul at the Airpot

Or a mothers 7yrs old daughter
or the little old lady next door
or for that matter the Governor Jesse Ventura and his junk toss

Do these examples fit the terrorist profile?


I don't really get your point with the senator. He set off a security scanner and refused to be frisked, which is hardly the same at all. That's about a guy who thought he was too high and mighty to be frisked, whilst the topic at hand is about agencies being able to spy on social networks...

I'm not sure if those scenarios you set out are actual examples or fabricated to prove a point. If they're true, then did anything bad actually happen? No one ever decided that the little girl was an active threat to security or social wellbeing. She would've just been an unintended target of a screening programme, misleading intelligence or other reasons. Whatever the case, it was no doubt just disregarded as soon as it was discovered with absolutely no disruption to the little girl's life.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
These are public forums, and anyone can join. Honestly some of the comments made on this site are frightening.
There have been some very angry threatening comments by people that need to be investigated for their own safety and the greater good. Threatening to overthrow the government is treason, and for heavens sake look what happened to Gifford, shot in the . by a mad man. If someone is venting their anger in a pubic forum in a threatening way, they do need to be investigated before they they commit a truly heinous crime. Most all problems can be corrected non-violently. There are many elections in all facets of government chose one that best represents your needs not just along party lines. This is a great nation built by great men, just don't give it away. Elections are a serious matter and needs to be investigated before you vote. If you vote for a candidate represented by the rich expect policies that benefit the rich bankers and investors that legally allow them to pilfer a nation wealth. Vote for a candidate representing the average Joe and policies will benefit everyone. Ask questions, demand from candidates to stand by their promises, volunteer, Join a party so you have a say.
Anyway I'm off topic and to sum it up I encourage the monitoring of public forums as no privacy should be expected. Emails and text are another matter and search warrants should be expected to invade private matters.
Just my opinion.
Thanks for reading my rant,
brice
edit on 26-1-2012 by brice because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Checked their list of searches, pretty much every post I have made will be read by the FBI. Did you read the privacy conditions signed off by the chief privacy officer? They are saying that since you have shared information on facebook with friends and family you obviously don't mind sharing it with the FBI. Yeah right


I think if a battle was to be joined over this, the issue needs to be placed again before Mary Ellen Callahan at the department of homeland security, the girl isn't doing her job! She is surposed to fight for our right for privacy



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bambobo
 





I don't really get your point with the senator. He set off a security scanner and refused to be frisked, which is hardly the same at all. That's about a guy who thought he was too high and mighty to be frisked, whilst the topic at hand is about agencies being able to spy on social networks...


It is more than disingenuous to dismiss arguments about Rand Paul while you gleefully take a swipe at him for simply exercising that once great American attribute known as non-acquiescence.

All People are high and mighty and all People are holders of the inherent political power, and all People possess certain unalienable rights, among them, due process of law.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bambobo

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by Bambobo
 


Do you mean like Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul at the Airpot

Or a mothers 7yrs old daughter
or the little old lady next door
or for that matter the Governor Jesse Ventura and his junk toss

Do these examples fit the terrorist profile?


I don't really get your point with the senator. He set off a security scanner and refused to be frisked, which is hardly the same at all. That's about a guy who thought he was too high and mighty to be frisked, whilst the topic at hand is about agencies being able to spy on social networks...

I'm not sure if those scenarios you set out are actual examples or fabricated to prove a point. If they're true, then did anything bad actually happen? No one ever decided that the little girl was an active threat to security or social wellbeing. She would've just been an unintended target of a screening programme, misleading intelligence or other reasons. Whatever the case, it was no doubt just disregarded as soon as it was discovered with absolutely no disruption to the little girl's life.

so you dont pay attention to MSM and how laws or Exectutive Orders that make way disturb the lives of a Nation? You dont travel by Air ? Ok its all good !! have a nice day



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join