oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/homeland-security-database-would-track-journalists-media-influencers-report/ar-AAvzXl3?ocid=spartanntp The article doesn't mention if domestic journalism is affected, nor any first amendment concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, oldtimer said: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/homeland-security-database-would-track-journalists-media-influencers-report/ar-AAvzXl3?ocid=spartanntp The article doesn't mention if domestic journalism is affected, nor any first amendment concerns. Let 'em monitor. I'd like to see how they would censor any alleged "fake" news. When an article pops up claiming global warming isn't occurring, I'd like to see the fake news police do something about that. It seems logical to be concerned at some level, except for the fact that we don't culturally adhere to a system of elders who tell us what we can and cannot say and hear. Censorship is very limited in our culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Just now, Jeff Matthews said: Let 'em monitor. That is the slippery slope now innit? This is the first amendment, so let's just go suggesting letting them monitor the second amendment rights...I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, oldtimer said: That is the slippery slope now innit? This is the first amendment, so let's just go suggesting letting them monitor the second amendment rights...I don't think so. What's to stop them? There is no issue regarding "search" because the writings are posted to the public, so there is no expectation of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 9 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said: If you are truly interested (which you claim to be), stop listening to headlines without appropriate skepticism. "Influence" is a meaningless word. "Fake" is also meaningless. Psychological profiling also is not a crime. Look for the laws that were broken. See if anyone adequately can explain to you how the laws were broken. I have made some attempts to find out by reading a NYT article and a Vox article - both to no avail. There is absolutely zip in them, other than a bunch of connecting the dots that "this guy worked for that group, etc." I'm sorry I missed this earlier because you assumed I haven't done my due diligence and feel that isn't true. I gave you the link explaining what has already been filed: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download I'm not sure what more needs to be "adequately explained" to me but I understand the words in the document and it seems pretty straight forward to me. Those listed individuals are being charged with specific crimes that are spelled out in the Indictments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said: I'm sorry I missed this earlier because you assumed I haven't done my due diligence and feel that isn't true. I gave you the link explaining what has already been filed: https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download I'm not sure what more needs to be "adequately explained" to me but I understand the words in the document and it seems pretty straight forward to me. Those listed individuals are being charged with specific crimes that are spelled out in the Indictments. But that's not Cambridge, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Two different things. Public writing vs. monitoring (searching) all other activities. Freedom of speech and press do not carry a burden of extravagant exposure, at least for citizens. 5 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: What's to stop them? There is no issue regarding "search" because the writings are posted to the public, so there is no expectation of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, oldtimer said: Two different things. Public writing vs. monitoring (searching) all other activities. Freedom of speech and press do not carry a burden of extravagant exposure, at least for citizens. I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, but again, there is no privacy right in things you post publicly. Therefore, the 4th Amendment is not applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 It becomes a question of just how much big brother we will allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: But that's not Cambridge, is it? No. As I mentioned earlier, the 13 person indictment came out before the Cambridge Analytica scandal came to light. Fwiw, the new revelations coming out about them compared to what has already been submitted in indictments makes me feel the Mueller team isn't done on this front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Just now, Zen Traveler said: No. As I mentioned earlier, the 13 person indictment came out before the Cambridge Analytica scandal came out and with the new revelations compared to what has already been exposed feel the Mueller team isn't done on this front. That's my point. You are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Cambridge. Cambridge is likely not the same facts and likely involves entirely different laws. You should make no judgment concerning Cambridge at this point. As I said, not even the NYT or Vox articles offer any insight as to why anything Cambridge did might be criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, but again, there is no privacy right in things you post publicly. Therefore, the 4th Amendment is not applicable. There is no privacy right in things you post publicly. But you say that because of what you post publicly you also give up any other right such as in the fourth amendment? Or in other words, because you post something publicly, as a first amendment right, you then forfeit your fourth amendment rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Just now, oldtimer said: There is no privacy right in things you post publicly. But you say that because of what you post publicly you also give up any other right such as in the fourth amendment? Or in other words, because you post something publicly, as a first amendment right, you then forfeit your fourth amendment rights? No. You have 4th Amendment rights. Gathering data posted publicly is not a "search" within the purview of the 4th Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: No. You have 4th Amendment rights. Gathering data posted publicly is not a "search" within the purview of the 4th Amendment. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, oldtimer said: Exactly. And so I see nothing, short of the election polls (ha ha), stopping them from gathering and analyzing any of this public data they want - just the same as you and I and Trivago and Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said: That's my point. You are quick to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Cambridge. You seem too focused on Cambridge Analytica and not on the actual indictments. I brought up Cambridge and Facebook at the beginning of this discussion because it dealt with the actual topic of Anonymity vs Privacy vs Security. Fwiw, on this front we are not talking about broken laws but instead the danger of neglecting those aspects of our TREMENDOUS communication we have access to in the Information Age. I also have stated that I'm not sure any laws need to be addressed insofar as Cambridge and Facebook are concerned but it should shock folks on how sophisticated any aspect of the weaponized propaganda campaign was and I contend it appeared to work out for those engaging in it....Unless of course it gets exposed for what it is and then next time it won't be so easy. I also will add again Mark Zuckerberg will be in front of Congress next week and hopefully we can gain some more insight in what was done and what they plan on doing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said: I also have stated that I'm not sure any laws need to be addressed insofar as Cambridge and Facebook are concerned but it should shock folks on how sophisticated any aspect of the weaponized propaganda campaign was and I contend it appeared to work out for those engaging in it... OK. I must have missed that. Sure, it's good to know what they can do. As to the specifics and details, I bet they even have trade secrets which you and I will not ever get to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said: And so I see nothing, short of the election polls (ha ha), stopping them from gathering and analyzing any of this public data they want - just the same as you and I and Trivago and Google. It's subtle, but different. Just by being a journalist, blogger, etc., you are now targeted for anything you do that can be gleaned from any camera, etc., public surveillance (or targeted surveillance). Because by speaking out in whatever way, a government official might not like it, and you have made yourself a target. Simply by exercising first amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 Just now, oldtimer said: It's subtle, but different. Just by being a journalist, blogger, etc., you are now targeted for anything you do that can be gleaned from any camera, etc., public surveillance (or targeted surveillance). Because by speaking out in whatever way, a government official might not like it, and you have made yourself a target. Simply by exercising first amendment rights. Yep. Same as it always was - only more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 yep. And perhaps even more capricious. Notice the job is being contracted to a private firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts