Does FlyerTalk have DHS minders?
 

As one of the largest transportation related on-line discussion groups, do we have Federal minders?

Some airlines participate here, as do hotel programs. Why not DHS?

Curious minds want to know. ;)

Do I count?

And if so, can have a raise?

;)

Absolutely. Is that an official declaration?

15%. As of your next paycheck. Tell your boss I said so. ;)

I am honored to accept this nomination. I'd like to thank the little people who have made this all possible...;)

Even if someone was reading FT I doubt they'd be in a position to post in an official capacity. After all Kip Hawley was aware of his http://www.kiphawleyisanidiot.com website. I'm sure they've discovered FT and likely dismissed it as simple ineffective whining.

Gubbamints are so predictable
 

The answer to your question is, of course, without a doubt, SSI. :D

I wouldn't accept anyone here claiming they were "official". Having "law" in your handle or "screener" in your location doesn't make you any more reliable than some 15yr old punk in his parents basement offering security tips pretending to be a TSA agent here on FT. If someone were to claim to be "real" I'd only trust them if they proved their identity to the board management.

How do *you* know that? :mad:

I have a great idea!! Tell DHS that you should be given 10% of the tax decuction which the airlines get for providing the FAM seats. (You know, from being here, that it is $000, but your bosses apparently think it is millions, so it should worry them.)

HAH! So you're saying I'll be rich! !0% of millions!!!

Oh, wait a minute......;)

DHS pays contractors to monitor websites.

I'm curious what you base this on.

No doubt that DHS/TSA IT system administrators monitor DHS/TSA computer network systems to ensure compliance with appropriate federal regulations and policies such as making sure no one uses government computers to access pornography; that they're used for official use only; that SSI is not compromised; etc. And this is pretty standard stuff.

However, if you're suggesting that DHS pays contractors to intercept private computer networks and/or monitor DHS employees who access certain sites outside of duty hours, then please offer some reliable sources.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I was referring to the former but the latter is the case too, but don't worry, DHS employees looking at porn at their homes is not what I was talking about. Maybe if it was illegal pornography (i.e., child pornography) then it could be a different story, but that's distinct from what I was referring to.

DHS pays contractors to monitor websites. Some at the agency mentioned here http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....11&postcount=9 know it, but if that doesn't lead you places then just shop around with some private parties retained to monitor websites for the federal government.

That mentioned here http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html is not a one and only, "dead" or alive through that window of opportunity that comes through obscuring "public-private partnerships".

I'm not always or generally going to put up URLs, so consider this a start to point interested persons in the right direction to try to discover things on their own; in any case not everything is on the internet and somethings come by way of far more material dealings, including remunerative relationships.

I still don't follow you. As a general rule, anyone can visit any website generally accessible to the public. However, things get pretty complicated whenever someone wishes to take action against a person who visits an undesired website. That's why government agencies aren't necessarily taking action against a government employee because that person visited a porn website. The action is based on violating policy that governs the proper use of government-owned computers and computer networks. However, if that person uses a private computer and private internet service provider, then the government cannot take any action against the individual.

Same rationale applies to visiting FlyerTalk. While there may be DHS managers and/or even private contractors who are paid to perform data-mining for the government, they cannot take action unless certain legal parameters are met. In other words (and I don't know what those parameters are, but for the sake of argument I'll give an example), if data-mining uncovers a potential terrorist plot being discussed online, then measures can be taken to pursue. Even then, this is still relatively new and relatively untested in the courts; I don't think there are that many federal magistrates willing to authorize search/arrest warrants based purely on data-mining surveillance. And for those who insist on getting wrapped around the axle whenever topics like this come up on FlyerTalk, no, I'm not a lawyer, and no, this is not legal advise nor legal opinion. However, as one who has conducted numerous intelligence collection/surveillance/investigative activities over a 20 year period, including what was then emerging online internet information, I've had to stay within a very restrictive legal framework that is basically no different than the collection of any other form of criminal evidence or intelligence information. So my experience shouldn't be too far off the mark with respect to current policy.

Yeah, the Administration would certainly like more latitude; however, Congress and the Supreme Court are very resistant, and with good reason. This is all still relatively new; nobody wants to open a Pandora's Box that will infringe upon our privacy.

So in a very indirect way, you could say that DHS monitors this website. But if you believe that DHS specifically monitors my posts or keeps track of my online activities just because I'm a TSA employee, then your statement if way off the mark. The only time DHS can directly monitor my online activities is when I use DHS computers and/or networks to access the internet.

So much of the above is inaccurate in how things go today that I won't even start to tear it apart; that is, it's misleading in so many regards that it would take hours upon hours to show all the different ways in which it is not representative on so many levels.

I never claimed that, so I'm not way off the mark. The only one here who has presented such a belief as being a done-deal vis-a-vis you is you.

This is not accurate either unless you are taking some extraordinary steps in your online-related activities.