J_RaD
msg:4458845 | 3:50 am on May 29, 2012 (gmt 0) |
but but but....... if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about right?
Did I just use a monitored word in this post......... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
its ok to let the gov monitor and block illegal p2p downloads right? hello chinese internet... so nice to meet you.
:-(
|
graeme_p
msg:4458866 | 5:23 am on May 29, 2012 (gmt 0) |
It is clear that this is mostly not aimed at terrorists: even a lot of terrorism related words are ones the rest of us would use to talk about them, rather than they would use to talk about themselves.
The article says:
"analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government."
I guess the aim is to look for comment critical of security policy. It would explain the use of the word pork (as in pork barrel), for example. Islamic (or even other types) of terrorist are unlikely to be discuss pork.
|
lucy24
msg:4458878 | 6:08 am on May 29, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government |
|
Oh, right. The First Amendment only says "Congress shall make no law". It doesn't say anything about "Homeland Security shall not snoop."
Hey, better than the North Korean version. I discovered while looking for something else that the entire country has a single /22 block allocated to it. That's right around 1000 IP addresses for a country of 25 million. Or, more to the point, one per carefully screened top government official. Even the Antarctic has more.*
* /19. Don't take my word for it; look it up. It's under RIPE. You'd expect LACNIC wouldn't you?
|
jecasc
msg:4458884 | 6:43 am on May 29, 2012 (gmt 0) |
The thing about laws against terrorism is, that once in place all you have to do is change the definiton of terrorism.
|
|
