Feds can fuse together data from credit card companies, telecommunications providers and social media
When it comes to investigative reporters probing the activities of the rich and powerful, we are the virtual “canaries in the coal mine.”
And nothing points to the current state of surveillance powers as our current investigation, the details of which will become known to all of our members and readers in due time.
So far, there is little doubt that from the National Security Agency and its meta-databases down to small town police departments that have the capability of fusing data from such law enforcement networks as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) with private data from credit card companies, telecommunications providers, and social media, a reporter on special assignment cannot remain anonymous for very long.
Moreover, such surveillance power for local police departments has been available for 13 years. According to one retired police officer who mastered the data fusion system, the systems were provided to local authorities by the federal government in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The surveillance capabilities have leapfrogged in their effectiveness in the interval between 9/11 and now.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
2 comments:
Keep cheering. Even after they tell you that your privacy and rights mean nothing to them, YOU STILL CHEER!
That is the most unbelievable thing of all....
Who's cheering? I would more call it wimpy acceptance. I heard Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday morning state a few months back he had no problem with the NSA surveillance of every citizen because "he had nothing to hide". Problem with that is what was normal yesterday becomes politically incorrect tomorrow. Under the first amendment we can express political disagreement with the powers that be. How about if the powers that be could care less about the first amendment and determine that you are the enemy because you disagree with them. That’s what makes Brit's statement stupid. He who supports security over liberty deserves neither.
Post a Comment