Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Your comments infer that:
- There's no "right to privacy" on public internet forums. On this, we agree.
- Its OK for law enforcement agencies to review public internet posts. We agree on this one, too.
- Absent any open investigation into a particular person or specific organization, it is OK for Federal Law enforcement agencies to monitor specific messages. On this, we do not agree. This is one step closer to 1984.
- The FBI and DHS are not just monitoring posts. They're obtaining software used to data-mine for certain types of posts. They're using the data that they obtain and, sometimes under false pretenses, using the imprimatur of their FBI or DHS credentials, getting to owners of these sites to do what they can't do: take down these messages. On this, we do not agree.
To the extent that your point about "it depends whose ox is being gored" informs who complains and when, your point is well taken. These types of free speech-crushing actions should matter to anyone, regardless of politics.
However, it also shows me that you didn't read the article. Not surprising, as reading it does require an attention span.
The article does talk about the high-level FBI agents using their back-door communications with Facebook that lead to the removal of links to stories in the NY Post. The content of many aspects of these stories was later authenticated by the NY Times. The FBI used the "Russian disinformation" trope to get Facebook to do their dirty work for them. So, it's not just about social media posts. The FBI and DHS are actively involved in monitoring news organizations and countering their reporting with either outright removal or their own "disinformation".
Does that sound like a legitimate function of the Federal Gov't? Sure sounds like one or more Bill of Rights amendments are being thrown under the bus.
|
First and foremost, the plan that has you freaked out was from a DHS Advisory Committee, an independent body whose advice DHS has absolutely zero obligation to implement (and they didn't). I've worked closely with several
federal advisory committees during my career and never once saw any of their advice wholly adopted. It just doesn't (and can't) happen. It's intended for input that subsequent notice-and-comment rulemaking (in strict accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act) is needed to implement, should the agency intend to pursue it and the wording of resulting rulemaking is never what the advisory committee recommends (they have no knowledge of the rulemaking process).
In other words, all of this spooky stuff you attribute to the Biden administration was started by the Trump administration and was recommended by an outside advisory group and the Biden administration did not take their advice and implement it. This happens all the time in nearly every agency in DC. Indeed, taking and implementing the advice is the rare exception, not the rule. IOW, what you say is so frightening
never actually happened and the board who recommended it was disbanded.
This line from the article
"Meeting records of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, the main subcommittee that handles disinformation policy at CISA, show a constant effort to expand the scope of the agency’s tools to foil disinformation" shows clearly that the authors of this piece have zero understanding of federal policy-making practices. Indeed, the enabling legislation for such advisory committees says that they provide for
"a useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Government" and goes on to say
"the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved." IOW, the group that The Intercept says "handles disinformation policy at CISA" does no such thing and indeed is legally precluded from doing so.
This is all a tempest in a teapot from those whose livelihood depends on their ability to propagate lies and misinformation, something near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, even if it is dangerous to the American people and their democratic form of government.