16 million to private contractor General Dynamics to monitor social
networks, blogs, and news media sites for "public reaction to major
governmental proposals with homeland security implications.
---
GD agreed to pay $4 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the US
Government claiming a GD unit fraudulently billed the government for
defectively manufactured parts used in US military aircraft and
submarines
While CEO of General Dynamics in 2008, Nicholas D. Chabraja was paid
$17,962,579
On Jan 25, 9:53 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> DHS Paid Contractor $1.16M to Monitor Social Networks, News Media, Blogs &
> Comments for Dissent
> Jan 13, 2012 by Joel Zand (@jzand)http://techlaw.justia.com/2012/01/13/dhs-contracted-with-general-dyna...
> 16m-to-monitor-fb-twitter-blogs-news-comments/#.Tx8_bDwvsgA.twitter
>
> A Freedom of Information Act ('FOIA') lawsuit (below) by the Electronic
> Privacy Information Center ('EPIC') reveals that the U.S. Department of
> Homeland Security paid contractors to monitor Facebook, Twitter other social
> networks, blogs, and comments on news media websites.
>
> The documents (below) disclose that the federal government paid at least $1.
> 16 million to private contractor General Dynamics to monitor social
> networks, blogs, and news media sites for "public reaction to major
> governmental proposals with homeland security implications." That's
> government bureaucratic-speak for public dissent.
>
> The legal implications of U.S. social networking surveillance programs
> tracking dissent of its own citizens, even with open source tools, are
> deeply disturbing.
>
> The DHS activities are one of the key reasons why the U.S. Senate created
> the Church Committee in the 1970′s to investigate why federal agencies were
> investigating political dissent, spying on American's who disagreed with U.
> S. policies.
>
> Frank ChurchMore than 35 years ago, the Church Committee, headed by Idaho
> Democratic Senator Frank Church (Inset; Source: U.S. Senate) concluded that
> Americans had a "need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence
> community" to prevent similar unlawful monitoring of Americans in the
> future. This resulted in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a
> Committee that should have oversight of the kinds of wrongs that EPIC found
> DHS's lawsuit found out have been perpetrated DHS and contractors at
> General Dynamics
>
> What are some of the things that DHS paid and tasked General Dynamics to
> monitor? Take a look:
>
> ¶ 4.1.1 The Contractor shall perform a broad open sources search
> for information on breaking news stories. The contractor shall:
>
> 4.1.1.1 Monitor major broadcast networks
> 4.1.1.2 Monitor and review all Associated Press (AP) stories
> generated within the U.S. by each state's AP bureau
> 4.1.1.3 Monitor and receive alerts on local and regional broadcast
> news via categorized/focused text/video feeds
> 4.1.1.4 Monitor and receive alerts on other wire service stories via
> categorized/focused Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds
> 4.1.1.5 Monitor appropriate Internet web sites on breaking
> situational events
> 4.1.1.6 Monitor and receive full motion video (FMV) or other
> streaming media
>
> If an "incident" occurred - a "National Security Situation /
> International Security Situation (NSS/ISS)" - General Dynamics had to
> continue working on the six items above, in addition to:
>
> 4.1.2.5 Query and search the Internet using other search engines
> such as Google and Yahoo
> 4.1.2.8 Continue to monitor/review reports available via above open
> sources for information on other breaking news stories
>
> Here are some of the documents disclosed in EPIC's FOIA litigation against
> the DHS:
>
> DHS Responses to EPIC's FOIA Request
>
> Here is the complaint (below) and case docket in EPIC's FOIA lawsuit
> recently filed against DHS:
>
> Complaint: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland
> Securityhttps://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftechlaw.justia.com%2Fw...
> nt%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2Fdhs-epic-foia.pdf&docid=ab7b6423ee9403afaeb432497
> 9da06c9&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=547
>
> No related posts.
>
> ==========================================
> (F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
> message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
> these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
> within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
> "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
> The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
> Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
> permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
> if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
> teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
> for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
> as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
> criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
> determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
> substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
> copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
> must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
>
> THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
> PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment