"The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no
one has ever seen before in life," Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.
"That's going to be very, very powerful," Waters said. "That database
will have information about everything on every individual on ways that
it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the
Democratic ticket has to deal with that. www.liveleak.com...
This is parralell to The Time magazine article written up in which they promised
The Administration they would wait to publish it, after the election, they
said that the campaign keeps this Ultra Secret, and refers to the data
mining as "Nuclear Codes".
Here are two reports, one from Time Magazine, and the other from Canada Free Press.
Here is the TIME article.
Photo Credit: Daniel Shea for TIME
"The cave" at President Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago
Around the office, data-mining experiments were given mysterious code names such as Narwhal and Dreamcatcher.........
...campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political
instincts might not be the means. “We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign,” he said after taking the job. He hired an
analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official “chief scientist” for the Chicago headquarters named
Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.
Exactly what that team of dozens of data crunchers was doing, however, was a closely held secret. “They are our nuclear codes,” campaign spokesman
Ben LaBolt would say when asked about the efforts.
So just how is The Administration doing this? Aside from facebook , this article in
The Canada Free press has more details, albeit an unnamed source.
Well, thats ok, as The Time magazine article says the same thing.
"Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities"
"There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases."
"There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most
effective use of Twitter."
"there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to
discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy. "
At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name
“Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or
“warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these
“assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two
dozen supervisors who make substantially more.
Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.
It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” ............
..........RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to
resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt
without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.
There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.
Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective
methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.
I totally agree with the assertions being made - though I do have caveats to that belief:
1) In her quote she speaks in different tenses. She makes the statement in the present tense ( IE it exists ) - then she goes on to speak of it in a
2) Laying it at Obamas feet is misleading IMO. He is just the guy at the wheel of the ship right now. This is basically an upgrade to the same engines
previous administrations created, adapted, improved, and used - and future administrations will also do the same with.
There are some very amazing things being done with massive data sets currently. Specifically in the realm of predicting trends, from the financial, to
cultural, even down to what the next pop superstar may look like. Game theory has really changed the, well, the game. Applying it, and its derivatives
to massive data sets yields remarkable results.
One potential misuse is that if trends can be predicted, then they can also be manipulated and shaped to conform to agenda.
There is a safety valve in place, however. The larger the data set gets, the less apparent individual anomalies become. IE the days of looking for
keywords are waning. That is an improvement in individual liberty... less of a chance that a random FB post is going to get one visited by men in
sunglasses and cheap suits. The trade-off is that an already pliable public becomes exponentially more pliable now.
It's simple. Those in power cherish it like a 7 year old's new puppy on christmas day. You step out of line and they will now have a plethora of
digital ammo against you and your character. Wouldn't want anyone uniting the masses now would we?
Think about it. Imagine you had the knowledge and charisma to do something that they condisered unappropriate. (EX. Uniting 2nd amendment rights
advocates unto one entity, well capable of doing quite some damage to TPTBs hold on power) "Oh.... Look everyone!!! Mr. Charisma did 'insert
embarrasing or criminal activity here' way back in 2006. Looks like hes not the awesome guy people thought." Then with our short attention spans we
completely forget about Mr. Charisma and what he stood for, even though all the people stood for the same thing.
I've seen this coming for a long time and theres no way to hide from it less you want to live out in BFE with no neighbors for 20 miles.
I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying. Just used common sense and knowledge of current and past events.
Power hungry tyrants will go to great lengths to insure that they keep their power.
Heff, I appreciate your response, and yes I would agree.
One only has to look at my posting history (hahah yes thats an inivitation)
to see I am not partial to laying the weight of this on any one leader.
Although, I could hardly title it any different, since it is Obama's cyber army,
I am sure the NSA has their own.
I would think in Waters admission, she was aware that this has been going on,
and then she cuts to some future tense, she was aware of the implicatioins,
she makes it seem like a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.
Just my take on it....
edit on 14-2-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)
Google received a record number of requests to disclose user information to governments and law enforcement bodies in 2012. Requests have rocketed
by 25 per cent in the last year, with the US leading the field by far in calls for data disclosure.
The search giant published its findings in its annual transparency report, detailing the number of requests for user information by country. Since
Google began documenting figures in 2009, there has been an increase of over 70 per cent in disclosure requests. The company says it has complied with
66 per cent of recent cases.
Google complied with almost 66% of requests from the government and i found myself asking this question: Are we at risk to further scrutiny by
government via our online searches and trends?
Government involvement in social media Is becoming ever more pervasive. The digital world seems to be no longer a safe haven for those wishing to
maintain a semblance of privacy and freedom
I am sure past and current administrations have teams of people locked behind those doors in the darkened hallways that stretch on forever analyzing
every trend and every development they can capitalize on.
Or perhaps i am little paranoid
edit on 14-2-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Google Hangouts: Obama's Tech Savvy Presidency www.breitbart.com...
Oh, wow Storm, that article you posted, and in light of what waters say...
I guess people who fall for that must realize they are being data mined?
Calling it a "Fireside Hangout," the President will answer pre-submitted questions and videos from Americans.
Tech savvy moves like this have been a hallmark of this President and it is one of the reasons that he has been able to zoom ahead of Republicans who
appear practically Luddite by comparison.
Taken individually, Obama's Twitter sessions, Google Hangouts, email exchanges, and YouTube videos, all reach only a small number of voters. But
taken together, taken as a whole they are just of a piece with his constant voter outreach, his permanent election campaign.
Well yes, its quite disconcerting.
If fact its very disconcerting, since its seems this is really blurring the lines
between national security and political party lines.
Indeed it does. In my opinion one things transcends political differences and is common to all parties, the desire and need to monitor/analyze and
trend the population.
Which leads back to Heff’s and I’s original opinion that these types of groups have always existed and will continue to exist as they are
paramount to the success of political figures. While we operate under the guise of a pseudo democracy ofcourse
The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life," Representative Maxine Waters told
Roland Martin on Monday. "That's going to be very, very powerful," Waters said. "That database will have information about everything on every
individual on ways that it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that.
It´s called facebook, and it is already public knowledge.
The alarming thing is not that it's being done, it's that we aren't privy to the details and methods in which data is being collected, stored and
Yes, and somehow I doubt that the Dems and Repub are going to share info
This is beyond national security, ( well that is unless they plan to outlaw Libertarian thoughts)
and for that reason I find it exceptionally offensive.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2016, The Above Network, LLC.