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.

So much obfuscation points to Bart being one of the minders, but not so sophisticated as law dawg.

:D

You certainly do wiggle a lot. Well, that's par for the course. The question was whether or not FlyerTalk has DHS minders, you seem to believe that it does yet cannot seem to back that up with anything other than supposition. I question you about it, and your responses are "that's not what I said, but I'm still right." OK. You win. :rolleyes:

Your data-mining link is not the same thing. Data-mining is an indirect methodology for collecting data; it focuses on the information itself rather than the producer and/or consumer of that information; it's a tool used to pick out certain rather specific bits and pieces. If such specific information is collected from FlyerTalk, it is not because this is FlyerTalk but because certain bits and pieces of information met the search parameters; that's it, plain and simple. The same information could be gleaned from a site titled "CakeTalk."

There's a huge step between collecting the bits and pieces of information, sorting through it for relevance and then linking it to individuals for the purposes of criminal prosecution. You seem to credit the government with being so powerful that it could take such actions outside the scope of the Constitution. Makes for a grand conspiracy theory and juicy reading but is very short on reality.

Of course, any technology that involves the collection of information is something that we as citizens ought to be concerned about in terms of protecting our privacy and, more importantly, constitutional guarantees of due process. It's a matter of who uses the tool and for what purpose. I'm the last one to say that we should blindly trust government; however, I'm not going to give in to the type of fear you seem to espouse.

At any rate, this was an interesting discussion string even though you avoided stating a position and sticking to it. :D

Bart,

I did not wiggle one bit or even change my position. DHS, and it's not the only part of the US government to do this, pays contractors to monitor websites. They've done so before and they continue to do so -- whether you want to call it data mining or not. They also do it themselves.

Whether you know it or not, what I said is very much reality and has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. What I said has to do with paid-for government contractors but not only that. Don't believe me? Do you think it bothers me? Not really, and that is why I limited myself by pointing those who may care in the right direction a few times now so that any such capable person could start the search for knowledge on their own if they really were so inclined to learn rather than be spoon-fed an entire meal. In any case, the government can and does take actions outside the scope of the Constitution even while not all monitoring does fall outside the scope of the Constitution.

By the way, why all your concern about criminal prosecution by way of the government monitoring websites, some more than others? Usually it doesn't get that far just by way of "DHS minders" (including contracted parties) monitoring websites. "I'm not going to give in to the type of fear" of criminal prosecution "you seem to espouse"; why should you?

What do you think it would take to get "DHS minders" (including contracted parties) and other DHS employees to freak out over their porn-browsing habits outside of work too? Obviously my post is not needed for that discomfort to be exhibited. :D

I would say yes.

It's called "open source intelligence" these days, and yes, most agencies use outside contractors to monitor a variety of websites (and newspapers, and other public sources).

You can count on Flyertalk being one of those sources.

Any agency (or corporation for that matter) that is concerned about the PR they receive engages in such monitoring.

Certain FT'ers have given sufficient descriptions of themselves both through their writings and self-provided physical descriptions that it would not be hard for DHS to determine who they are, if the need arose.

Do you think someone else here may try to tell you that your post too "[m]akes for a grand conspiracy theory and juicy reading but is very short on reality" and so they are "not going to give in to the type of fear you seem to espouse"? :D

You are correct.

Yes, and as was mentioned earlier that would be the case unless "taking some extraordinary steps in ... online-related activities".

Focus groups
 

I would be nice to think that the TSA uses what most other industries utilize, and that's Focus Groups. If the TSA would get a group of randomly selected travelers, and ask them honestly what their experience was at the airport, and solicit suggestions, wouldn't that be nice? But alas, that will only happen in the part of Disneyland called FANTASYLAND.

In organizations plagued with bad management -- for example DHS/TSA -- such an exercise is likely to strengthen bad management and lead to no systematic improvements in the near-term. They will cherry pick, and the fruits they are picking from are not going to be the best fruits of the bunch. Some outside consultants who donate to the right politicians will collect their paychecks and DHS/TSA will merely carry on until the same outside contractors or another set are chosen to do a follow-up or some other such study after making another contribution to the right politicians.

As GUWonder points out, such is not the way that government agencies work.

Quite on the contrary, one characteristic of a bureaucracy is to insulate and defend itself against criticism. Included in that defense is identifying and discrediting (or punishing, as the case may be) anyone who questions the policies and decision-makers.

Back in a previous life, let's say I was aware of an OSINT activity during the early days of "chat rooms" and "message boards." One lesson we learned was that it was a dead giveaway that you were being monitored if a "person" was doing a lot of posting and writing during Mon-Fri normal business hours because nobody was supposed to do this type of thing while at work. The way to blend in was to do your thing at night and on weekends just like everybody else. We really shot ourselves in the foot when we contracted for "surfing" because the contractors would do this during normal business hours because that was their job. So much for OPSEC.

So, if we want to "rat out" somebody, I'd suggest we look for someone (i.e. screen name) who only posts after normal business hours. I doubt the TSA is any better at OPSEC than we were.

I think the key is "if the need arose". If FT became the hub of an international conspiracy to launch terrorist attacks then I'm sure the resources of the government (and its private contractors) could and would be brought to bear to lock people away in Guantanamo or wherever.

But do we really think those resources are focused here now? Does any three-letter agency really care that some guy in his parents' basement didn't have his upgrade clear or thinks that Kip Hawley is an idiot? I certainly don't discount the possibility that Flyertalk -- a public message board -- is subject to "data mining". I suspect that the reality is that the "data" being "mined" is simply dumping the public posts into a giant database, where it might be searched in the future.

Part of the alleged "strength" of data mining is its ability to locate connections. But the reality is that the vast majority of this stuff is useless even to someone trying to make heads or tails out of it. And it causes lots and lots of privacy concerns.

So even if Flyertalk is being "mined" the idea that any "action" would be taken as a result of posts -- i.e., getting on certain lists because you deride Kip Hawley, or getting visits from LE, etc. -- strikes me as attributing more skill and capability to the data miners than actually exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Agreed

Since when did privacy concerns get in the way of the current administration?

Since when have privacy concerns gotten in the way of most of the administrations of the 20th and 21st centuries?

:D

FlyerTalk is PORN?

OMG. What will my mama say?

There are more than plenty of people from United who monitor (note spelling) of Untied.com.

The TSA cherishes its PR department (it's the only thing that holds them up). I am extremely confident that they look at this and other (TSA Screener) sites as well, whether in an official or unofficial capacity.

No, but apparently some others have porn coming up on their screens when browsing the internet, FlyerTalk or not. Can't speak for what comes on your screen.

.... depending on how your browsing habits are monitored and what you are browsing, who knows.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not defending the notion of data mining; I think it's hugely problematic and a violation of privacy.

But the issue came up in the context of whether Flyertalk has DHS "minders". I think the fact that Flyertalk may be subject to (hypothetical) data mining by government contractors (or others) doesn't rise to the level of "minders", because actually doing something with the data being mined here strikes me as ridiculously difficult.

And, self-importance aside, how many people on Flyertalk arise to the level of someone on Hoover's "enemies" list?

;)

We are not talking just about automated trolling and fishing bots. ;)

Why ask questions that cannot be definitively answered or whose answers you may be incapable of verifying?

They would tell you, but then they'd have to kill you:D

:: still looking up words in my handy-dandy Webster's ::