Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Spied On Porn Habits As Part Of Plan To Discredit 'Radicalizers'

[WillyT]

Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Spied On Porn Habits As Part Of Plan To Discredit 'Radicalizers'
Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Gallagher, & Ryan Grim
Posted: 11/26/2013 11:20 pm EST | Updated: 11/26/2013 11:48 pm EST

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as “exemplars” of how “personal vulnerabilities” can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target's credibility, reputation and authority.

The NSA document, dated Oct. 3, 2012, repeatedly refers to the power of charges of hypocrisy to undermine such a messenger. “A previous SIGINT" -- or signals intelligence, the interception of communications -- "assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent,” the document argues.

Among the vulnerabilities listed by the NSA that can be effectively exploited are “viewing sexually explicit material online” and “using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

?6

The Director of the National Security Agency -- described as "DIRNSA" -- is listed as the "originator" of the document. Beyond the NSA itself, the listed recipients include officials with the Departments of Justice and Commerce and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"Without discussing specific individuals, it should not be surprising that the US Government uses all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalize others to violence," Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence, told The Huffington Post in an email Tuesday.

Yet Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html

[randome]

1. Six foreign individuals who were already targets for investigation.

Let me guess: you take from this that the NSA is watching everyone's porn habits, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

2. Click through to read the entire thing.

This was used on six (6) individuals. It's important to understand scale here.

The NSA is not interested in the porn-viewing habits of people in general, so nobody needs to worry about the NSA knowing about a person's browsing. Of course, others do keep track of where people go on the Internet. If a person visits a lot of porn sites, that information is stored, but not by the NSA. Think Google.

[Scuba]

4. So it's OK to spy on and then discredit people you don't agree with if it's only six (6)?

"... nobody needs to worry about the NSA knowing about a person's browsing."


Thanks for that reassurance.

[randome]

6. If there are legitimate investigations opened into these individuals...

...why would you expect a spying agency to not spy on them and find something to use against them? And this has nothing to do with our constitution, no matter how large a font size you use.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

8. They may have reason to spy, but publicly smearing them to discredit them is dishonest.

[randome]

12. If they are targets of an investigation, absent evidence to the contrary...

...I'll assume they are legitimate targets of an investigation. Which can mean anything from calling for stonings of adulterers to active terrorism. Which means I, for one, would be in favor of exposing hypocrisy if it would make a dent in their public manipulations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

13. You must mean right after they're convicted, not just accused, right?

Or are you either a) are in favor of smearing innocent people, or b) believe that one is guilty until proven innocent?

[randome]

18. The U.S. does not CONVICT a radical Islamist who wants to stone women to death.

But if they can undermine his violence toward women, I say more power to doing that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

19. What if he's advocating peace? Then is it OK?

[randome]

24. Of course not. That's a ridiculous question.

It's the CIA that does the manipulations of foreign events, more often than not to everyone's regret. But that has nothing to do with the NSA's investigations, at least so far as we know.

The NSA is tasked with monitoring foreign communications for the purpose of stopping international money laundering, child porn rings, drug cartels and, yes, terrorism. If they have legitimate investigations opened on individuals responsible for these acts, I have no problem at all with trying to stop them any way possible.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

25. Hardly ridiculous. Who's to say they're not advocating peace? Some guy at NSA with MIC incentives?

You seem to be missing the whole point. Try to think about this a little more and see what you come up with.

[randome]

30. You know, there are probably thousands of LE investigations going on right this moment.

Probably even thousands of investigations just relating to foreign individuals. Why would I want to personally approve or disapprove of every one? Absent evidence to the contrary, I, like most people, will assume that LE knows what it's doing.

Probably a more realistic viewpoint is that LE knows what it's doing and there will always be some 'cheating' or 'over-reach' or 'egregious behavior' around the borders.

No LEA is perfect because they are composed of imperfect individuals. But most of us don't spend time worrying about the imperfections until something is brought to light.

This HP article, to me, isn't much to get excited about but the headline, which conveniently leaves out the pertinent facts, implies enough to get some excited.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

31. So "just trust them"? No thanks.

[hootinholler]

91. Um, I don't think you understand the role of the NSA

When you state:

The NSA is tasked with monitoring foreign communications for the purpose of stopping international money laundering, child porn rings, drug cartels and, yes, terrorism.

I have to wonder a couple of things. First, where is that in the mission statement of the NSA? Also, I have to marvel at the incompetence of implementing your alleged tasking.

[randome]

94. When Snowden first ran to Hong Kong, the NSA's website was different.

It listed several responsibilities other than terrorism. The website appears to have changed and now it only lists terrorism front and center.

Maybe someone else can find a better list of these other activities but every search I try so far turns up recent news stories, not a list of responsibilities.

Anyways, we don't really know how good or bad the NSA is at what they do because they release so little information. That should change so we have a better idea of whether or not they are worth the money and effort.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[hootinholler]

100. There might be a reason you can't find it

http://web.archive.org/web/20090619012512/http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

Looks pretty similar to me and no mention of catching kiddie touchers as part of their mission.

[randome]

101. They apparently do, on occasion, corral some 'kiddie touchers'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2388197/Eric-Eoin-Marques-NSA-cyber-attacks-took-Dark-Web-used-online-pedophiles.html
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

103. And there's this controversial program.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/NSA-handing-over-non-terror-intelligence-4706227.php

The NSA referrals apparently have included cases of suspected human trafficking, sexual abuse and overseas bribery by U.S.-based corporations or foreign corporate rivals that violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

So, yes, they have multiple responsibilties.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hootinholler]

114. ROFL

You forgot the leading sentence of that paragraph:

Current and former federal officials say the NSA limits non-terrorism referrals to serious criminal activity inadvertently detected during domestic and foreign surveillance.

Emphasis is mine. It is not part of their mission. Rest assured if some heineous crime was discovered that disclosure also threatens their techniques or some other aspect of their mission, it will never see the light of day.

The NSA is not our friend, nor is it the friend of the DOJ.

[randome]

117. From the NSA's FAQ.

http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/about_nsa.shtml#about4

4. What is Signals Intelligence?

SIGINT involves collecting foreign intelligence from communications and information systems and providing it to customers across the U.S. Government, such as senior civilian and military officials. They then use the information to help protect our troops, support our allies, fight terrorism, combat international crime and narcotics, support diplomatic negotiations, and advance many other important national objectives.

Still not the passage I saw in June but it's close enough. Maybe what I saw wasn't even the NSA web site but I thought it was.

My point remains: the NSA's monitoring is for much more than 'simply' terrorism.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Dont forget all the drug users, that they've referred to the DEA!

YAY!!!!

[randome]

137. I would think a small-time user isn't worth their time, only dealers.

Like the guy who ran Silk Road and contracted out for murder.

But, again, we know little about what criteria they use.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Thus rendering the 4th Amendment totally meaningless.

I guess if they think, say, a dime bag pot deal or a cancer granny talking about how she's going to fire up the bong is considered a "serious enough crime", it is.

[SidDithers]

33. Leave the jihadists alone!!!....

/crocker.

Sid

[MineralMan]

7. Did you read the entire article?

I did.

[Scuba]

10. And your point is?

[MineralMan]

16. My point is the same as it was in the reply above.

The United States has a legitimate mission to discredit foreign terrorists. That's what this was about, not spying on Americans who are accessing porn.

The NSA is not tasked with spying on U.S. Citizens in the United States. In fact, it is forbidden for them to do so. The FBI does that, not the NSA. Is that OK? Not really, but the NSA has its hands full dealing with international stuff.

In any case, commercial interests are far more involved in looking at what Americans do with regard to porn. Google wants to know what porn you're viewing. The NSA doesn't give a shit about the porn habits of people in the United States. That's the FBI's responsibility.

Personally, I don't use porn. Others might, and should be aware that people know what they're viewing. Mostly corporations know. If folks are comfortable with that, no problem. But the NSA doesn't care if you look at porn. Really.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

130. So let's pretend 2013 didn't happen. It will help your post make sense.

Do you realize how hopelessly naive it is for you to be talking about what the NSA is permitted to do and what they're prevented from doing? Hint: NSA has proven about 47 times this year that they're liars, and that they don't give a damn what laws are in place. I know you're very well aware of this, so I'm not sure what your agenda is, but your fairytale won't go unchecked.

[penultimate]

21. My question has been how much of Mr/Ms.Nobody's data is stored and archived somewhere for future use

though? I'm sure most us are of little concern to the NSA and no one will ever take a look at any information in any depth, but what happens if some day we somehow become relevant because of something we do? (I don't mean illegal activities, but legitimate thing) Do they have huge archives of information on that person in which they can go back and search through in order to dig up information? Or even if it doesn't directly affect us, how about politicians/activist/whistle blowers whose actions have an indirect affect on our interests?

The difference between google storing that information is that is that most people opt into that when they use the services and accept the agreements. And in theory, google probably would not actively use that information to discredit people who oppose it. Google can be sued, but suing the NSA or other such group seems much harder.

[MineralMan]

34. I have no idea, actually.

Between Google and people's predilection for posting every thought that comes into their heads on social media, I suppose that somewhere, enough information is available to satisfy any agency, if they had any reason to dig into it. We appear to worry about privacy, but don't behave as though we gave it any thought at all.

The NSA's mission is international and there is a prohibition against using its technology to collect information domestically. The FBI is under no such constraint. We focus on the NSA because Snowden has released a bunch of classified information regarding the NSA's activities. Mostly, though, we don't read that information carefully, so there are lots of misconceptions about it.

The FBI is the agency with a mission inside the United States. We have no idea what they're up to, because there is no Snowden for the FBI. What do they have, in terms of surveillance on people in the United States? We don't know.

The two agencies, along with the CIA, and even more crucial, the DIA, are highly competitive and guard their mission carefully. They're all competing for money, and are very intent on making sure that other agencies aren't encroaching on their little bailiwicks. That has been so since WWII ended, and continues to be so.

In the meantime, corporate surveillance and data storage has actually become the real intruder on our privacy. It's economically useful to know what individuals are up to on the Internet. Very useful. There are no prohibitions on this, and people willingly give up their privacy to gain access to the services corporations provide. So, collection of data is ongoing and pervasive by corporate interests. And here's the kicker:

All it takes is a court order and that data collected is available to government agencies. This is the real issue that nobody is talking about. Let's take DU as an example. People post all sorts of stuff on DU. It's all stored publicly, and can be searched and viewed by anybody with a device that can access the Internet, including government agencies, if they choose to look at it.

People think they are anonymous on DU. They are incorrect. Even if a bit of Internet sleuthing couldn't reveal who a DU screen name actually is, which it usually can, a simple court order to the owners of the website will result in the handing over of whatever information is available about that person. That's pretty much limited to a valid email address, of course, but another court order to the email provider will provide more information.

Bottom line is that everything we do on the Internet is stored, archived, tracked, and cataloged. Government agencies can demand that that information be turned over to them by getting a court order. That is the real hole in privacy, not NSA or FBI collection of metadata about communications between individuals. If the government wants to know if an individual is checking out porn, they can get that information from the corporations who are tracking whatever people do on the Internet.

I make a habit of reading TOS and Privacy Statements of services I use on the Internet. It's a matter of curiosity for me. If you do the same, you will see that every one of those statements includes language saying that your information will be delivered to government agencies if a proper court order demands it. Every one of them. Go have a look for yourself, and you'll see that I'm correct.

[arely staircase]

46. That was a great post MM

"Between Google and people's predilection for posting every thought that comes into their heads on social media, I suppose that somewhere, enough information is available to satisfy any agency, if they had any reason to dig into it. We appear to worry about privacy, but don't behave as though we gave it any thought at all."

That paragraph should be preserved forever for future generations to understand what we were like. Oh, wait I guess it already is - and that's the point.

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks. I await differing opinions, though.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer one.

[SidDithers]

63. "People think they are anonymous on DU. They are incorrect."...

Absolutely correct.

Sid

[MineralMan]

64. Oh, well...there are many inconsistencies in thinking

going on in the world. People think many things that are not true.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

128. Fucking creepy, dude. Abnormal. I know you like to brag about investigating DUers

...but you're going a little too far. It feels bad to have this sort of sickness running loose here.

[SidDithers]

129. WTF are you blathering on about now?...nt

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

131. About your stalking of other DUers, about you bragging about it, and about your unhealthy

...obsession with DUers' private lives. I had thought I was clear about that. In case I wasn't, I was referring to your post in this thread, along with lots of other threads in which you posit what sock you think belongs to which user, what people are saying on other websites, the purity tests you conduct on a regular basis, that sort of thing. I'll repeat: this is abnormal and creepy behavior, especially given your small position of authority here--call it the mall cop syndrome if you want, but no matter how insignificant your official role at DU, you're doing your best to abuse it.

THAT is what the fuck I'm blathering about.

[SidDithers]

132. ...

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

133. Asked and answered. But you're on the floor again. Thought you'd want to know.

[SidDithers]

134. ...

Sid

[davekriss]

104. There is a difference between use of court orders ...

... and NSA data-mining. An investigative agency going to a judge, saying they have probable cause, and requesting a court order for information commercially collected is quite different than an agency possessing such information themselves and using it to publicly discredit individuals that same agency judges to be enemies of state.

The first contains at least a degree of checks and balances on use of state power, the second does not. Massive data collection and subsequent mining for dirt just begs for abuse by corrupt power. We as a citizenry should not allow such potentially corrupt means to exist.

[woo me with science]

85. "Collect it all." And store it.

Former AF intelligence agent and whistleblower, Tice, has already said they are collecting and storing it all, including telephone, computer, and email content.

"NSA, today, is collecting everything -- including content -- of every digital communication in this country, both computer and phone, and that information is being stored indefinitely," Tice said. "And that's something that they're lying about."

So has former counterterrorism agent, Clemente:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

"Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not," he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the "intelligence community" -- an apparent reference to the NSA -- "there's a way to look at digital communications in the past.""

Dianne Feinstein has already let slip that they can access content after the fact.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."

Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.
"I don't think so," Mueller replied.

"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."

More here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/

"The Washington Post disclosed Saturday that the existence of a top-secret NSA program called NUCLEON, which "intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words" to a database. Top intelligence officials in the Obama administration, the Post said, "have resolutely refused to offer an estimate of the number of Americans whose calls or e-mails have thus made their way into content databases such as ­NUCLEON."

Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls -- in case an analyst needed to access the recordings in the future. A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established "listening posts" that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, "whether they originate within the country or overseas." That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.

William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency's worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more. "They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that's what they record," Binney said.
Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved.

NSA's annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion.

Documents that came to light in an EFF lawsuit provide some insight into how the spy agency vacuums up data from telecommunications companies. Mark Klein, who worked as an AT&T technician for over 22 years, disclosed in 2006 (PDF) that he witnessed domestic voice and Internet traffic being surreptitiously "diverted" through a "splitter cabinet" to secure room 641A in one of the company's San Francisco facilities. The room was accessible only to NSA-cleared technicians.

AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It's a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.

That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.
A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States." A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically -- on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to "target" a specific American citizen.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA's surveillance process involves "billions" of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.

We have been lied to brazenly and incessantly. Anyone throwing out bombast that "it's only metadata" at this point is either willfully ignorant or working the propaganda hard. The upshot is:

"Collect it all."

The Crux of the NSA Story in One Phrase: 'Collect It All'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023261311

The NSA's massive new $2bn data center in Utah - built to spy on EVERY American--Capacity: 2,097 Internets
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022998690


YT: Broader Sifting of Data Abroad Is Seen by NSA (Vast Dragnet of Americans' Int'l Emails/Texts)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560257

White House Sees 'No Alternative' to NSA's 'Collect It All' Approach
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023982006

[L0oniX]

3. When repukes talk about out of control big gobmint this is where I can agree.

How can anyone trust this government?

[Autumn]

5. Six people that we know of huh?

Bet it's a lot more than that . "the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one."

[randome]

9. Except that 'targets' to the NSA means foreign individuals for whom an investigation is opened.

So your "it's a lot more than that" is based on...what?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

11. Only foreign individuals based on your trust of the NSA?

You trust, I'll pass.

[randome]

14. I don't trust them but I need to see evidence to mistrust them.

In this case, the article talks about a half dozen legitimate investigations but carefully implies that the NSA is spying on everybody.

They are forbidden by law from spying on U.S. citizens. If there is evidence they are violating this law, we should see it. But we won't and that's probably because they aren't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

17. Okay, "They are forbidden by law from spying on U.S. citizens."

Great because we know they will NEVER do what they aren't supposed to do.

[G_j]

45. If you ask me, that is a dangerous choice..

"I need to see evidence before I mistrust them"

we are talking about the NSA, correct?

[randome]

50. Always absent evidence to the contrary, of course.

Baker said that until there is evidence the tactic is being abused, the NSA should be trusted to use its discretion. "The abuses that involved Martin Luther King occurred before Edward Snowden was born," he said. "I think we can describe them as historical rather than current scandals. Before I say, 'Yeah, we've gotta worry about that,' I'd like to see evidence of that happening, or is even contemplated today, and I don't see it."

I don't try to approve or disapprove of every LE investigation in the world before I can sleep at night.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[G_j]

56. and then there is Clapper, though

the NSA has a culture of lying

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/nsa-reform-fire-officials-lied

[randome]

66. You know how that argument goes, though.

Clapper was forbidden from answering such questions but he did it anyways in an artless manner.

Congress doesn't seem to count that as 'lying'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. They don't do FOIA so we will never know

how many.

Either way, it's exactly this kind of activity that has so many people concerned about the NSA. They're clearly not just spying on terrorist communications for the sake of preventing an attack.

Now they're directly talking about using private information, like the fact that someone surfs porn or is "attracted to fame" to do character assassinations of people they dislike.

The ability to abuse such a power is vast, and it's laughable to think that the NSA is so full of perfectly virtuous people that it would never make use of such powers.

[Autumn]

20. You got it right.

Only an idiot would think that our government and the NSA is so full of perfectly virtuous people that it would never make use of such powers. Or believe they wouldn't abuse those powers.

[cbdo2007]

22. If any of you think they are NOT watching you....

you got a lot to learn! Especially if you are any kind of a public figure, they are tracking everything you do online!

[G_j]

23. how soon before opponents of Monsanto

or Keystone are targeted?

[BelgianMadCow]

116. already labeled "eco-terrorists", already targeted

Monsanto had a professional outfit target activists, iirc.

Here's a bit about the labeling:

What began under George Bush continues under Barack Obama – targeting dedicated activists with “one of today’s most serious domestic terrorism threats,” according former FBI Deputy Assistant Director of Counterterrorism John Lewis before a Senate panel in May 2005. Called “eco-terrorism,” it grew out of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that created the federal crime of “domestic terrorism” and applied it to US citizens as well as aliens.

In his February 2002 testimony before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, James Jarboe defined eco-terrorism as:

“the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

from here. Just an ixquick result, mind you.

[Capt. Obvious]

26. We have DUers that would like this program expanded

to include DUers.

[seabeyond]

28. who?

[Capt. Obvious]

36. LOL!!!

[seabeyond]

37. mmm. ya. figured. just throwing shit out to see if anything sticks on the wall

[Capt. Obvious]

47. Speak of the devil

[seabeyond]

52. talk about immature.

[Upton]

41. Mirrors are cheap..

[seabeyond]

44. so, you can accuse/insult/lie for no reasons what so ever. brilliant

[Capt. Obvious]

48. so, you can accuse/insult/lie for no reasons what so ever. brilliant

[Upton]

54. "accuse/insult/lie"...is that it?

You might as well get right to the crux of the matter and charge me with the most heinous transgression of them all...that of watching pornography..

[Katashi_itto]

106. LOL!!!

[Upton]

39. Yep...

[Capt. Obvious]

58. Like moths to a flame

[seabeyond]

27. girl takes naked picture, someone hacks in her puter and puts out web. duers say.... meh, she should

know better. never take a naked. never give a naked. this is the net. what happens. nothing private.

nsa investigate 6 people and look at porn users....

OMG... not fair, so wrong, bad bad bad

really?

[randome]

32. That's an interesting perspective, too.

And these were foreign individuals for whom an investigation was opened. May as well get all hot and bothered by what Anonymous might do to us because, you know, they might.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Romulox]

40. The NSA is *our government*. That's the difference. Hope this helps. nt

[seabeyond]

49. i thought about it. no, it does not really help. seems the same at the basic level. nt

[Savannahmann]

65. OK, it's six this time.

How many next time? How many the time after that? When is it too many? Are we going to go with percentages of the public on the internet? Or are we going with a nice round number, like 5 Million?

[randome]

67. Six. Foreign. Individuals. Under. Investigation.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Savannahmann]

72. That. We. Know. About. Now.

But here is the question. Why would we worry about discrediting someone who is under investigation for national security issues? Is that one of the first tools we grab these days? Also, doesn't it bring into question the whole story of Patraeus? He was first disgraced about an affair that was learned about from his online activity. Was he speaking off the record to someone and disagreeing with something that we as a nation were doing?

Six this time, how many next time? How many of us have files started because we were critical of the Bush Admin? They did it to MLK, they did it to many others, how many of us have discrediting information in a computer because we said Bush Lied Kids Died?

How much is in a computer about me because I said that President Obama disappointed me when he did not veto the PATRIOT ACT?

Don't downplay this. This is not a part of an investigation. This is not a part of a legitimate effort to identify people who hope to harm this nation. This is part of an effort to discredit those who don't sing the praises the way we want. If a guy is plotting a terrorist attack does it matter if he views midget bondage porn when he's not actively working on his attack? If a chemist is brewing up some Ricin, does it matter if he is watching gay porn while it cooks?

DOES IT MATTER? IS it an issue that reveals more or less about an attack? No, it is part of an effort to assassinate the character of an individual who says that Non Muslims are bad. So don't give me this investigation crap. This is underhanded, immoral, dirty pool. I am ashamed that my nation is still involved in this crap after the MLK nonsense, which I had previously believed to be as low as we could go. Apparently, we can go much lower.

[randome]

75. Spy games. We never worried about them before, why now?

Baker said that until there is evidence the tactic is being abused, the NSA should be trusted to use its discretion. "The abuses that involved Martin Luther King occurred before Edward Snowden was born," he said. "I think we can describe them as historical rather than current scandals. Before I say, 'Yeah, we've gotta worry about that,' I'd like to see evidence of that happening, or is even contemplated today, and I don't see it."

Also see arley staircase's post#59.

Who said this is one of the first tools? It's just one of many that we can use to undermine those who want to brutally stone women for the 'crime' of being raped or want to 'kill all foreigners'.

The article says these individuals were targets, which implies an open investigation. Of course living in the Information Age means any LEA can spy on its citizens if they wish. But this article is not evidence of that happening.

Anonymous has just as much ability to spy on you as the NSA but at least the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on you.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[seabeyond]

71. nowhere did i put up a position. that is not the point. i expect everyone to say, the net, nothing

private. that is how we so easily dismiss it with or girls and women

no. i do not see this as anything different

that is ALL i am pointing out

i was all for going after ATT and NSA way back when at the beginning. havent taken a flight because of TSA

that is not what my post is about

[BeyondGeography]

29. Shocking

[SidDithers]

35. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Romulox]

42. Civil liberties violations....LOL!

Great post, as always.

[FSogol]

43. Just yesterday, I was going to post a "Where's Greenwald" Post. Now it's too late.

[SidDithers]

60. Well, he's between gigs right now...

having left The Guardian, but the new startup, with all that sweet, sweet Omidyar money, hasn't yet launched.

Sid

[SidDithers]

38. "Charging an exorbitant amount of money for their speaking fees"...

That's shameful of the NSA to use that information to denigrate someone. I mean, something like that would never happen at DU, right?

Sid

[ThoughtCriminal]

51. I wonder if the NSA actually owns some porn sites

Think about it. Easier to track who's on, can target "tastes", blackmail opportunities. And on top of all that, a perfect revenue source for really dark money.

[warrprayer]

98. you win

this thread

[MadrasT]

102. I would be shocked if they *don't*.

[xchrom]

55. du rec.

[peace13]

57. I'm certain that they track the habits of our Congress critters as well.

Blackmail ...the gift that keeps on giving!

[MineralMan]

78. That is done by the FBI, not the NSA.

The FBI is our domestic intelligence agency.

[arely staircase]

59. Mullah Fazlullah

is the man whose thugs shot Malala Yousafzai in the head for having the audacity to promote education for girls. If the NSA is monitoring his porn watching habits in an effort to humiliate and discredit him, I say good.

[SidDithers]

62. +1...nt

Sid

[G_j]

61. where does it say ONLY six?

Definition of exemplar in English
exemplar

Syllabification: (ex·em·plar)
Pronunciation: /igˈzemplər, -ˌplär/
noun

a person or thing serving as a typical example or excellent model:
he became the leading exemplar of conservative philosophy
Origin:

late Middle English: from Old French exemplaire, from late Latin exemplarium, from Latin exemplum 'sample, imitation' (see example)

[woo me with science]

82. +100000

[G_j]

86. as some leaks in the past, this appears

to be a document meant to instruct or train.

[woo me with science]

123. +1

[woo me with science]

68. This is indefensible except to propagandists and fools.

This is the mechanism of fascism and tyranny. This is an infrastructure that can and will be used against any inconvenient citizen. And, no, the GOVERNMENT is not a human criminal defendant entitled to presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

No, the government is a system that wields vast power and control over human lives and is highly corruptible, as history amply shows.

The Founders knew this, which is why the Bill of Rights focuses above all on what the government may NOT do. Rather than "innocent until proven guilty," the mantra for dealing with governments must ALWAYS be constant vigilance and preventing opportunities for abuse before they occur.

That's why we have a Fourth Amendment that prohibits fascist garbage like mass spying on citizens in the first place.

[randome]

69. Six. Foreign. Indivduals. Under. Investigation.

Bill of Rights does not apply to 'spy games'. It never has.

Anonymous has just as much opportunity to spy on your porn habits but at least the NSA is forbidden by law from doing so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheSarcastinator]

83. as woo me said:

"This is indefensible except to propagandists and fools."

[SidDithers]

84. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[randome]

88. Evidently we need to work on eliminating spying across the world, then.

Feel free to get that process started.

But for radical Islamists who want to stone women to death for the 'crime' of being raped, or who want to 'kill all foreigners', I have no problem trying to take them down.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheSarcastinator]

108. yes, it is obvious that you feel

civil rights are flexible.

This is the same argument that was used by HUAC to spy on and smear innocent Americans; it was communists then, now it is "islamic radicals". I suppose you think the FBI spying on MLK's sexual habits in order to shame him into suicide was just an unfortunate side effect of the Cold War.


As I posted below, these tactics are already being used by corporations against activist groups her in the US.

You exhibit a remarkable level of intentional ignorance: I think you may be my very first DU ignore.

[randome]

112. Our civil rights laws, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, do not apply to the rest of the world.

No one is so much as implying that anyone is being 'smeared' or 'blackmailed'. The document states that these are already targeted individuals.

When you have a crazed cleric advocating for death to women, I don't see the problem with 'smearing' this idiot by showing the public that he regularly visits porn sites. That's not inventing evidence, that's putting the truth out there, something we regularly applaud when Anonymous or Snowden does it but apparently not when a law enforcement agency does it.

Granted, we don't know who the NSA is targeting but that's the problem with selective leaks -no context.

If I'm as 'ignorant' as you think, then don't give up trying to show me the error of my ways.

And I have regularly stated on DU that I have never put anyone on Ignore and I never will because I want to know everything and miss nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[arely staircase]

73. do you use some sort of cliche generator when creating your posts?

I swear the word/platitude ratio is astounding. "fascism, tyranny, propagandists" it is rather amusing.

[MineralMan]

70. Top-Secret Document Reveals NSA Doing Its Job of Foreign Intelligence Gathering

That's the headline I'd use.

The NSA is charged with gathering intelligence using technology about people outside of the United States who are involved in activities that might adversely affect the United States. Based on the released document, it appears that they are doing that job, creatively and successfully.

[woo me with science]

74. States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.

You can tell the level of importance and perceived threat of revelations about a corrupt government by the relentlessness of the propaganda swarm that materializes to mock it.

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

It will continue to get worse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

[MineralMan]

76. Every Nation Does Both

Every nation collects intelligence.
Every nation uses propaganda.

Does this come as some sort of surprise to you?

[TheSarcastinator]

109. ah yes, the old ad populum argument

A favorite of teenagers and the ethically challenged everywhere.

[MineralMan]

111. Do you know of a state that doesn't engage

in intelligence gathering? Propaganda?

It is one of the functions of every state I'm aware of. That's not ad populum. It's fact.

[NuclearDem]

77. Wow, it finally happened.

An NSA thread was smashed in a supercollider with a porn thread.

[randome]

79. No one could predict the result until the experiment concluded.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

80. ROFLMAO !!!

[BelgianMadCow]

118. "An NSA thread was smashed in a supercollider with a porn thread." and from that crash

the first ever Wankons were observed. Though longtime theorised about, these short-lived particles glue the universe together.

[Rex]

121. The govt tried to hide the big secret for decades, but now the truth is out.

[TheSarcastinator]

81. Apologist for this make me sick: you are disgusting

"It's only six people!" No, it isn't: the FBI has been doing this shit in various forms for decades. J.E. Hoover loved this kind of domestic spying and even tried to use it to get MLK to commit suicide:

http://firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-letter-to-martin-luther-king-telling-him-to-commit-suicide/

"Letters of Note published an interesting piece of correspondence this time last year. It is a letter from the FBI, written in 1964, trying to convince Martin Luther King Jr. to commit suicide.

In November of 1964, fearful of his connection to the Communist Party through Stanley Levison, the FBI anonymously sent Martin Luther King the following threatening letter, along with a cassette that contained allegedly incriminating audio recordings of King with women in various hotel rooms — the fruits of a 9 month surveillance project headed by William C. Sullivan.

Unsurprisingly, King saw the strongly worded letter as an invitation for him to take his own life, as did an official investigation in 1976 which concluded that the letter “clearly implied that suicide would be a suitable course of action for Dr. King.”

But hey, it was just the most important civil rights leader in modern history, so I'm sure all you apologists can invent plenty of excuses for it now, right?

[woo me with science]

87. Governments that turn authoritarian

find people by the hundreds who do not hesitate to sell their morality and human decency in order to shill for policies that exploit, imprison, impoverish, or murder human beings by the millions for the profit and power of a few.

Some may eventually find their conscience and regret their complicity. In general, though, I suspect that this line of work attracts those who rarely struggle with such internal voices in the first place.

[Marr]

93. Give it some time. Once there are more, they'll downshift into "it's pragmatic".

I've seen it about a thousand times here now. Always the same names.

[TheSarcastinator]

95. ..and its already bleeding into corporate spying on citizen groups

http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/25/wal-mart-coca-cola-mcdonalds-spying-on-nonprofits-allegedly-with-former-nsa-cia-hackers/

"A new report from corporate watchdog Essential Information titled “Spooky Business” details how American corporations such as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Bank of America, McDonalds, and Shell are allegedly spying on nonprofits in the environmental, consumer safety, pesticide control, gun control, and animal rights areas.

That could even include hacking into private networks and computers, wiretaps, and infiltrating the groups with spies. (...) Perhaps the most sinister accusation of the report is that corporations are employing former NSA, CIA, and FBI agents to surveil nonprofits, work that Democracy Now says is “often illegal in nature but rarely — if ever — prosecuted.”

“Even active-duty CIA operatives are allowed to sell their expertise to the highest bidder,” the report states.

[woo me with science]

115. +1 Let's see. We already have sexual blackmail, fabrication of evidence trails for drug arrests,

spying for corporate interests, use of the NSA (in tandem with corporations) against peaceful dissent...

I'd say that pivot by the same names should be happening any moment now.

[Blue_Tires]

89. Now we're getting to the good stuff...

took them long enough....

[Coyotl]

90. This is what our highest paid officials do? And they get pensions too! Meanwhile crumbs for poor.

How is this NOT political warfare?

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said these revelations give rise to serious concerns about abuse. "It's important to remember that the NSA’s surveillance activities are anything but narrowly focused -- the agency is collecting massive amounts of sensitive information about virtually everyone," he said.

"Wherever you are, the NSA's databases store information about your political views, your medical history, your intimate relationships and your activities online," he added. "The NSA says this personal information won't be abused, but these documents show that the NSA probably defines 'abuse' very narrowly."

[randome]

92. Why would Jaffer say this without offering any evidence to support this claim?

The NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American citizens. If someone can find they are breaking this law, that would be a noteworthy discovery.

But if, as the article states, they are monitoring six foreign individuals who are already under investigation, why should anyone be upset about that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheSarcastinator]

96. Yes, why should we be upset

that the federal government is using sexual blackmail tactics? Another brilliant ethical analysis, sir.

And again, the material does not say "only" six or "only" foreigners. Not that either of those things should really make a difference to anyone.

[randome]

97. Why would a news story use the word 'only' when they don't know if there are others?

So what if they are monitoring more than six? So long as those individuals are legitimate targets, meaning part of a legitimate investigation. I have no problem highlighting the hypocrisy of some idiot cleric who wants to stone women to death for the 'crime' of being raped.

And who says anyone is using sexual blackmail? The stated purpose was to discredit some of these monsters.

Do we know they are only targeting 'monsters'? No, we don't. But we never know that about any law enforcement agency.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[TheSarcastinator]

107. Appeal to ignorance

Try again.

[Marr]

124. That's why you were so supportive of Snowden, right? Oh, wait...

It seems like you say two things-- "they've got no evidence so ignore it", or "releasing this evidence is despicable-- so ignore it".

So I guess it's really only one thing.

[randome]

125. Snowden has released evidence that the NSA monitors foreign communications.

That's their job.

The metadata issue has long been ruled valid by the courts so if Snowden or Jaffer or anyone else has evidence that the NSA is willfully and flagrantly violating the laws that regulate them, I would have no problem putting it out there for all to see.

I've never said that releasing evidence is despicable. But Snowden seems to think he -and only he- has the right to decide that the NSA should not be doing the job they are assigned. That's not 'evidence', that's his opinion. It's a valid opinion but Snowden is not the center of the Universe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[warrprayer]

99. This has been going on forever

Sexual blackmail was J. Edgar Hoovers stock in trade. A good rule of thumb is they will do anything they can until they get caught, and even then most of the time they will get away with it. Best bet and amazingly so many activists seem to forget this history is to keep your zipper up, assume they are watching. The electronic version is just an expansion of the battlefield.

[TheSarcastinator]

110. Yup

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[SidDithers]

126. ...

Sid

[Katashi_itto]

105. Should make the Anti-Porn crowd on DU happy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. Gives "Make Love, Not War" a whole new meaning if just watching it is "Terra!".

[Rex]

120. Tactics used forever, just not with this technology.

I would say back to still pictures, used for blackmailing purposes. Hoover's FBI did all this stuff back in the day, without using computers. They 'snooped' on certain people and developed dossiers on the habits of some particularly interesting characters. I think today they call them 'person's of interest'.

I have to say this shocks me none, since we all know now that the NSA/FBI/CIA share information.

[AnnieBW]

127. Well, if they're gonna brag about it in e-mail...

The NSA is probably going to pick it up. After all, what is the Internet for, kids?

The Internet is for PORN!
The Internet is for PORN!
Why you think the Net was born?
Porn, porn, porn!

- Trekkie Monster, "Avenue Q"

[upi402]

135. They got no business

Obama vowed to have transparent government. Yet it's only the whistleblowers that get the truth out - at great personal cost.

[woo me with science]

139. kick