Justice Department Studying ‘Far-Right’ Social Media Use

[Judge Roy Bean]

I was sitting here and just thought how what I was working on would be loved by the people doing these studies. Sitting here cleaning my shotgun, listening to Ted Nugent and thinking about the new Diesel pickup I want to buy to replace my truck (Dodge of course, sorry Gregg). Gonna get arrested for being a terrorist.

If you say that a dog as a mammal with four legs and a tail, is a cat a dog? How about a horse, is it a dog too?

The point is, they're all mammals but depending on the shape of public opinion, some might be made more equal than others.

[JamesVincent]

Not only JRB's excellent response I was trying to show absurd some of these studies are. You know, like when the SPLC decided the NRA was a hate group? The activities used as criteria in other studies, and the ones used by most of the agendaists (is that a word?) describe normal people, like me, doing ordinary things, having ordinary things, and having ordinary beliefs. It doesn't just describe an extremist it describes someone they don't like, period, with no justification for that dislike, other then they don't like them. Ted Nugent was hated by the Left looong before Obama was around because he advocated hunting, talked about hunting, had hunting shows, owns a hunting refuge, is a right to carry advocate, is an avid and outspoken hunter, etc. It wasn't any of his personal scandals, it was just the fact that he did what they disliked. Others like him, same thing. There are people out there with untarnished records who are hated because they have different beliefs. All because the person with the hate knows better then anyone else what's right and wrong.

Seems to me that we're going back to the bad old days when people are going to be judged, not on crimes or things they actually do, but because they hold a different belief.

[The Observer]

The other point is that people tend to be oblivious to how slippery the slope is that they are treading on. As an example, I was not making the point that violent anti-government groups and their adherents should not be put under surveillance. Indeed they should be, for they have taken affirmative steps to put themselves square in the cross-hairs of law enforcement.

Yet this is where the thrust of subsequent posts went, and beyond, in trying to justify surveillance. So much so that evidence was offered up about several different groups that were formed by current and former military, the implication being that the military is a dangerous source of these types. But that kind of logic is faulty, one can simply look at the background of any violent person and come up with a wide variety of vocations, interests, education, religion, ethnicity, politics, etc to establish a profile that meets their particular axe for grinding. But for every violent person who comes from a particular background, you are going to find a vast number of people who come from the same background who have no violent tendencies or extreme beliefs.

But to lump these people in just because they fit a profile is wrong and dangerous. This is exactly what happened during World War I and II when people were profiled based on their race or nationality and were interned. Not because they presented a specific threat or danger to the country, but because they sounded or looked dangerous due to their accents and color of their skin.

In all likelihood, the news article that is the subject of this thread got it wrong, and indeed the surveillance is limited to those groups who are actively promoting a violent or anti-law agenda.

[notorial dissent]

My problem with it is that, while I have seen people put things on social media sites that used to be they wouldn't even tell their priest about. I find that the things tend more towards the realm of resumes and dating profiles in that they are often more fiction than fact. I find the dichotomy of someone telling 10,000 of their bestest friends every boring detail of their love lives, and yet somehow have the perception that what they are saying is in the strictest of confidence totally mind numbing. I think these sites tend to bring out the Walter Mitty in a great many people, particularly the types that gravitate towards to sovcit loon variation of the spectrum. I'm not saying that some of it isn't true and shouldn't be watched, but that more of it isn't than is. As witness the sites of Hendrickson and Rod Class. If you take their delusions at face value, they are bringing down the system and have an unbroken stream of victories in their path, when we know for a fact that is simply not the case. The problem, AISI, is that of separating the wheat from the chaff when there is more chaff than than anything else, and the Feds do seem to be very good at chasing things that aren't there and missing the ones that are right in front of them, again, witness the TP's who were putting their illegalities on line for all to see. This is what concerns me the most with something like this.

[JamesVincent]

If you say that a dog as a mammal with four legs and a tail, is a cat a dog? How about a horse, is it a dog too?

Just gonna answer this one real quick. If you do not define a horse or a cat as a mammal with 4 legs, and only define a dog as one, then to someone who doesn't know the difference then, yes, a horse would be a dog. All about how you define what you are talking about. By using generalizations you are not defining what can or cannot be, you are defining what is. And to someone who doesn't know the real definition, that will be the definition they use.

[Demosthenes]

The indicator list for sov cits is just a starting point for law enforcement, a "proceed with caution if you see and hear certain things" type of thing.

If I hear on the news that a serial rapist is on the loose, and he's described as a tall, skinny, white guy with glasses, that doesn't mean that all tall, skinny, white guys with glasses are serial rapists. It means that if I'm walking down the road and a guy matching that description is walking behind me, I'm going to pay a bit more attention to my surroundings.

To give a practical example, had the two policemen serving the warrant yesterday in Canada known that the suspect was a sovereign citizen, they might have taken further precautions, or it might not have mattered at all. Sad stuff. The sovereign nutjob shot both officers through his closed front door then set his home on fire with himself in it. One LEO died, the other survived.

[Burnaby49]

The indicator list for sov cits is just a starting point for law enforcement, a "proceed with caution if you see and hear certain things" type of thing.

If I hear on the news that a serial rapist is on the loose, and he's described as a tall, skinny, white guy with glasses, that doesn't mean that all tall, skinny, white guys with glasses are serial rapists. It means that if I'm walking down the road and a guy matching that description is walking behind me, I'm going to pay a bit more attention to my surroundings.

To give a practical example, had the two policemen serving the warrant yesterday in Canada known that the suspect was a sovereign citizen, they might have taken further precautions, or it might not have mattered at all. Sad stuff. The sovereign nutjob shot both officers through his closed front door then set his home on fire with himself in it. One LEO died, the other survived.

Do you have information showing that he was a sovereign? I'm asking because I've been trying to find information on exactly that issue which is why I haven't posted about him yet. He was certainly a vile unpleasant individual and probably mentally ill but I have nothing yet to show that he was a Freeman/Sovereign type. He was being investigated for hate crimes, I'm guessing a racist issue. However that, in itself, isn't a sovereign indicator.

[Demosthenes]

In all likelihood, the news article that is the subject of this thread got it wrong, and indeed the surveillance is limited to those groups who are actively promoting a violent or anti-law agenda.

Good point. The article was written by Elizabeth Harrington for the Free Beacon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

Here's the actual description of the study in question:

Description of original award: There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence. The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements. We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement. The content appearing across all of these sites will be imported into the qualitative software package NVivo and coded using techniques derived from grounded theory methods. The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement. In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally. We will also engage in a qualitative analysis of the use of technology by members of each movement to assess the scope of technological skill and variations in access to computers and the Internet within and across groups. Social network analyses will be conducted using Pajeck software to identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities. We will also assess the effect that ideological message creation and promotion has on an individual's position within a network and the movement generally. Finally, we will use incidents of violence and failed plots over the last four years from the Extremist Crime Database to identify patterns of communication in various forms of CMC. This analysis will assess both the volume of posts and the nature of content during the 90 days prior to and after these violent acts are committed. The findings from the proposed study will be developed into multiple manuscripts for submission to criminology and practitioner journals. A webinar will also be created for delivery to the general public, and developed into presentations to practitioner audiences at conferences across the US. All data will also be prepared for archiving through ICPSR and NACJD. ca/ncf

[Judge Roy Bean]

... We will also assess the effect that ideological message creation and promotion has on an individual's position within a network and the movement generally. ... The findings from the proposed study will be developed into multiple manuscripts for submission to criminology and practitioner journals. A webinar will also be created for delivery to the general public, and developed into presentations to practitioner audiences at conferences across the US. All data will also be prepared for archiving through ICPSR and NACJD. ca/ncf

Allow me to interpret:

Big Brother is going to be watching certain "networks" and "movements" using automated tools and "practitioners" will be informed.

What that means to those on the edges of popular thought - be careful what you express and where you express it, just in case you have been classified as some kind of a threat.

Given the complete absurdity of any expectation of privacy in communications, does anyone still believe we're not paving the way for thought crimes?

[Duke2Earl]

Actually, I believe that thinking something, anything, is not and will not ever be illegal. It's acting on those thoughts that can be illegal. And anyone expecting that putting something on the internet is private is kidding themselves. It's exactly the same as posting a billboard in the town square.

[Demosthenes]

... We will also assess the effect that ideological message creation and promotion has on an individual's position within a network and the movement generally. ... The findings from the proposed study will be developed into multiple manuscripts for submission to criminology and practitioner journals. A webinar will also be created for delivery to the general public, and developed into presentations to practitioner audiences at conferences across the US. All data will also be prepared for archiving through ICPSR and NACJD. ca/ncf

Allow me to interpret:

Big Brother is going to be watching certain "networks" and "movements" using automated tools and "practitioners" will be informed.

What that means to those on the edges of popular thought - be careful what you express and where you express it, just in case you have been classified as some kind of a threat.

Given the complete absurdity of any expectation of privacy in communications, does anyone still believe we're not paving the way for thought crimes?

If being on the "edge of popular thought" and tracking "thought crimes" means being stupid enough to discuss an upcoming terror plot on Twitter in the months leading up to an actual terrorist attack, then yes, then evil Big Brother is going to hire a college to notice.

[The Observer]

Let's throw a little more fuel on the fire smoldering here...

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ah, yes - the crux of the matter - what is a "threat?"

With Elonis reversed, we're now faced with getting into the threat actor's head instead of being able to rely on the threat target's perception for prosecutorial determination.

IMHO, if one were to consider engaging in such a crime, there are some factors that would preclude making any kind of a public utterance, including the one where you'd alert the Marshall's service ahead of time which would result in elevated security measures. And of course since you have no actual promise of anonymity on the 'net you quickly identify yourself as a prime suspect if anything were to happen.

It seems monitoring sites that amount to little more than public rant forums may not be a "reasonable" way to accurately assess danger. And even if the site is a known hangout for fringe-element activists, because of the above factors, you'd probably have to start looking at the regular visitors as well as the posters.

And if you get enough data pretty soon you can start correlating and building predictive models and profiles. You can answer questions like, "how many males between the ages of 23 and 41, that live in XYZ county and are self-employed (non-professionally) and own firearms, have purchased ammunition recently, purchase liquor routinely, didn't finish college, served in the military, are divorced and separated from their children, routinely visit the "we hate judges" web site, makes phone calls to others sharing the same profile, ... etc., etc.

Big Brother now has Big Data to make those lists.

[NYGman]

Let's throw a little more fuel on the fire smoldering here...

Saw this in the morning, I am torn between this being stupid Internet trolling an not a threat, to it being a threat, but that the threat isn't enough to charge someone with.

[bmxninja357]

i wonder if the gov also keeps such statistics on folks from the other side of the coin using things such as threatening comments made against freemen and other such groups in places like news comments and social media? many are pro gov but also very threatening, some to the point of being questionably legal. would be interesting to see those stats and reports; that is if they exist and if the ptb actually watch those who are 'on their team' so to speak.

peace,
ninj