241 Words Not to Say on the Internet
241 Words Not to Say on the Internet
By
Gary Primo
Jan. 22, 2013
The following was posted in the UK’s Daily Mirror. It is the complete list of words not to use on the internet if you don’t want Homeland Security breathing down your neck.
Revealed: Hundreds of words to avoid using online if you don't want the government spying on you (and they include 'pork', 'cloud' and 'Mexico')
Department of Homeland Security forced to release list following freedom of information request
Agency insists it only looks for evidence of genuine threats to the U.S. and not for signs of general dissent
PUBLISHED: 09:32 GMT, 26 May 2012 | UPDATED: 17:46 GMT, 26 May 2012
Revealing: A list of keywords used by government analysts to scour the internet for evidence of threats to the U.S. has been released under the Freedom of Information Act
The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.
The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as 'attack', 'Al Qaeda', 'terrorism' and 'dirty bomb' alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like 'pork', 'cloud', 'team' and 'Mexico'.
Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats.
The words are included in the department's 2011 'Analyst's Desktop Binder' used by workers at their National Operations Center which instructs workers to identify 'media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities'.
Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organizations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government.
However they insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.
As well as terrorism, analysts are instructed to search for evidence of unfolding natural disasters, public health threats and serious crimes such as mall/school shootings, major drug busts, illegal immigrant busts.
The list has been posted online by the Electronic Privacy Information Center - a privacy watchdog group who filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act before suing to obtain the release of the documents.
In a letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counter-terrorism and Intelligence, the centre described the choice of words as 'broad, vague and ambiguous'.
Threat detection: Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats
They point out that it includes 'vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters.'
A senior Homeland Security official told the Huffington Post that the manual 'is a starting point, not the endgame' in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats and denied that the government was monitoring signs of dissent.
However the agency admitted that the language used was vague and in need of updating.
Spokesman Matthew Chandler told website: 'To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program.'
I could not copy the list from the original web page so go to the following link for the list.
Site Manger’s Comments:
I am sure that most of you that have read through this list are scratching your heads (as am I) as to why some of these seemingly innocent words are on the list. I suppose that Homeland Security has their reasons. And, after all, they are there to “protect” us all from whoever they deem as terrorists (including patriots, gun owners, parents, religious zealots, 15 year old boys, etc.).
No matter how you slice it, this is a gross infringement on our constitutional right to privacy. Are true terrorists really stupid enough to plaster their intentions all over the internet? The only terrorists we should be afraid of are the ones that are passing all these Internet laws (the UN).
According to this list, they must be checking out my sites by now, but then I want to get in their face. I am trying to enlighten others to what dirty tricks they are pulling. I want them to know that nothing short of killing me is going to stop me from getting the truth out about the New World Order and their agenda. Bring it on Homeland Security, the FBI or any of the U.S.’s other fascist/communist agencies. You do not scare me!
What we should be concerned about is not the words on the list but the audacity of these agencies to openly invade our privacy and trample our constitutional rights.
By now 70% of Americans, as well as millions around the world, are totally convinced that 9-11 was a U.S. government-staged, “red flag” event. That is, an event staged by the government and blamed on someone else, for the sole purpose of inciting the American people to support going to war. Other events such as at least some of the recent school and theater shootings were also government inspired red flag events designed to stir the people up in support of their proposed changes to current gun laws and eventually all out gun confiscation.
My answer to this problem is to flood the Internet with these key words so that we drive the powers that be crazy trying to trace them all. They will be so busy that we hopefully can tax their computer systems so much that we fry them all. At the very least, it will keep them so busy that they have to utilize all their available resources to investigate all the incidents. They will eventually get the hint.
The question I would like to ask is, “How many true ‘terrorists’ have they actually caught employing these type of surveillance tactics? Again, if I were truly a terrorist and wanted to keep my intentions a secret, I certainly would not use the Internet to convey my intentions. Therefore, the most prominent purpose of these methods that I can see is to suppress free speech and spy on the common population. Of course, another prime motive is to generate tax revenue for the U.N. Hell, don’t we pay enough taxes to our own government? This is what the Carbon Tax is all about as well.
For those of us who wish to retain our Canadian sovereignty, along with our constitution and charter of rights and freedoms, we need to get stirred to action now and make some tough and bold decisions. We have to let the global elite know that we are not all as stupid as they think we are and that our power is in our numbers and in our voices. If we have enough people saying “No more”, what can they do?