Are your comments online influenced by possible monitoring?

[Babsbrain]

Do you feel free to say what you would really like to say? Do you think what you say is being monitored?

[Atman]

1. Abo-freakin'-lutely.

I definitely check my words here.

[Bandit]

32. What Atman said

Abso-freakin-lutely

[Lars39]

2. I've been self-censoring for a few years now.

[caligirl]

Is the sky blue? Is W a fascist with an even worse VP ?

[Cerridwen]

3. I can't say.

:hide:

[Raven]

4. Rarely. Once and a while when I would like someone to drop dead

I refrain from saying it but otherwise, no.

[lutefisk]

5. Yes....and I feel that's all I should say about this.....n/t

[Buzz Clik]

6. I tend to crank it up a notch to entertain those who watch.

Hells bells, it must be boring. Might as well give them something to read.

In reality, I love Bush and think Rumsy was the greatest orator of our time. Heavens to fucking Betsy!

[Flarney]

7. I worry about the do-not-fly list thing...

...sending too much money to Democrats (providing aid and comfort to Bush*Co's enemies) might catch up with me soon...

[dorkulon]

8. Yes, on occasion.

:scared:

[ieoeja]

9. No. I honestly do admire our beloved commander in chief.

And that Dick Cheney. I didn't know a human being could radiate such a sense of calm compassion.

:evilgrin:

[Babsbrain]

27. And I fervently hope that the polyps were benign n/t

[NeedleCast]

10. I feel pretty safe

I don't censor myself based on who might be reading what I write. To steal from Dune and the Bene Gesserit - "Fear is the mind killer...it is the little death that proceeds total oblivion."

Or, to quote Bone Crusha "I ain't scared, I ain't scared motha fucka!"

[BlooInBloo]

11. You mean DU-mod monitoring? Or tinfoil hat monitoring?

Yes/Not always/Yes if the former, No/Yes/Don't know, don't care if the latter.

[Babsbrain]

13. Agent Mike monitoring

[sandnsea]

12. oh good god never

The only reason one would need to monitor what they say is if they planned to hurt someone. This kind of shit is so fucking stupid.

[bryant69]

14. I do edit myself more for the sensibilities of DU than for hypothetical Agent Mike

But given the nature of this website, so that's just good sense.

Bryant

[napi21]

15. I feel free except for making threats. I know my comments would

only be words, but I would never make any threatsonline or on the phone. You never know who's watching or listening.

[mmonk]

16. I don't care. I don't advocate violence or anything of that nature.

If what I say is punishable, then the 1st amendment is gone.

[Babsbrain]

18. Would you feel safe calling for impeachment?

That is non-violent but gets the point across.

[mmonk]

20. I am for impeachment.

Impeachment is not violent.

[sandnsea]

35. Impeach Impeach Impeach!!!!!

Holy fuck I'd yell it from the rooftops if I thought it would change anything. What in the world do you think is going to happen??? Sure, you might get the occasional jerk who keys your car or eggs your house. Hell, you might even lose business as has already happened to me. The government might label you a subversive? Maybe if you affiliate yourself with groups advocating violence, as has happened for a hundred years now. Nothing new. This thread is the same kind of terra terra terra fearmongering that the right wing uses. I fucking hate it.

[Babsbrain]

37. This thread is not about fearmongering

[Madspirit]

41. Yeah, it pretty much is

When they start hauling off members of DU I will believe we have something to worry about.

Lee

[Babsbrain]

43. Help me understand what you are saying

You are saying that we have nothing to worry about?

[Madspirit]

44. Not in an immediate sense

I don't think most of us have anything to worry about in an immediate sense. No. Unless you are plotting someone's death or are an active pedophile, I don't think, AT THIS POINT, we have anything to worry about. If you are plotting someone's death or are an active pedophile, I hope to hell they are monitoring you, they catch you, they lock you up.

I've seen some people on different groups I am on, including this one, say some pretty far out things and not a thing has happened to those people.

In the future, if Bush refuses to leave office or something...martial law, THEN I would worry.

Lee

[Madspirit]

46. PS

One of the problems of paranoia: It would be awfully labor intensive for the government to be spying on every word said by the approx. 250 million people living here. How could they possibly sort through all that.
Lee

[stirlingsliver]

49. How?? Here's How!

"How could they possibly sort through all that."

In a word: COMPUTERS.

NSA Computers, to be exact.

There is NO LIMIT to what the Bush regime will do to spy on the ciitzens of the USA.

They have computers in NSA looking and listening -- and alerting human beings -- for ANY sign of dissent.

It's coming, folks. The REAL repression is coming.

[Madspirit]

64. PLEASE PEOPLE

You don't think I know about the bots? ...about the filters checking for certain words? They still have to use real humans to do something about it.

Let's see:

MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER...KILL KILL KILL KILL...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM.

I will let you guys know if THEY show up at my door. Okay? Deal?

Lee

[stirlingsliver]

68. They Will Come At Night

They will come at night.

But first, they will use the resources of the American Government to stage some sort of crime.

You, of course, will be implicated in that crime.

Planted evidence. Just enough "probable cause" to take you into custody.

If you fail to heed THAT warning, more will come.

It's how thug regimes work.

And Bush runs the thuggiest of all thug regimes.

[Madspirit]

71. OK

I will be sure to tell my neighbor to let you know when they come and get me. Mwahahahahaha

Lee

[stirlingsliver]

86. Do NOT Trust Your Neighbor!

Please -- I beg you -- do NOT trust your neighbor.

It's possible -- or even likely that your neighbor, unbeknownst to you, is already cooperating with the regime.

It's what happens in fascistic police states.

Like the one we are living in now.

[TroglodyteScholar]

87. I notice a phrase you omitted...

...that might involve harm AND a certain important person. Worried THEY might show up if you actually threaten a certain someone?

I know that I would never type/speak a threat against such a person, even jokingly. And apparently you won't either.

Don't take this as bait--I seriously don't want anyone showing up to talk to you or me.

[Babsbrain]

51. They have bots looking for keywords

[Madspirit]

65. PLEASE PEOPLE

You don't think I know about the bots? ...about the filters checking for certain words? They still have to use real humans to do something about it.

Let's see:

MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER...KILL KILL KILL KILL...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM.

I will let you guys know if THEY show up at my door. Okay? Deal?

Lee

[warren pease]

58. It's pretty simple...

They monitor for character strings and/or key words. In just about any language.

Everything that goes through a cell, telco or cable switch, or bounces off a satellite is easily picked off with the right tools. And they have software applications like Echelon that are specifically designed to look for key words, as well as voice recognition capabilities, to determine which electronic conversations they want to look at more closely.

Here's a better description of Echelon:


The ECHELON system is fairly simple in design: position intercept stations all over the world to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic, and then process this information through the massive computer capabilities of the NSA, including advanced voice recognition and optical character recognition (OCR) programs, and look for code words or phrases (known as the ECHELON “Dictionary”) that will prompt the computers to flag the message for recording and transcribing for future analysis. Intelligence analysts at each of the respective “listening stations” maintain separate keyword lists for them to analyze any conversation or document flagged by the system, which is then forwarded to the respective intelligence agency headquarters that requested the intercept.


More here: http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html

And a good overview from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON


So it's not at all labor intensive given the right tools. And, because this administration is all about irony, your tax dollars paid for them.


wp

[Madspirit]

67. PLEASE PEOPLE

You don't think I know about the bots? ...about the filters checking for certain words? They still have to use real humans to do something about it.

Let's see:

MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER...KILL KILL KILL KILL...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I HATE BUSH...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM...I LOVE SOCIALISM.

I will let you guys know if THEY show up at my door. Okay? Deal?

Lee

[warren pease]

77. The real humans are in plentiful supply...

How tough do you think it would be to simply treat dissenters as a police problem? Deputize the locals, have them pay a late-night visit, plant a little meth or coke, and drag your ass off to prison for 10 or 20 years.

Then there's the troops, who we're supposed to support. They're not all in Iraq or Afghanistan. Will they support us, or will they just follow orders?

If that doesn't work, there are mercs and para-military orgs in abundance who love killing people so much that they've made a career out of it. The DEA, which is simply the full-employment act for ex-military careerists who didn't want to stop shooting people just because they left the service.

The national guard killed four at Kent State, and federal troops have killed US citizens without question when ordered to break up various strikes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

There's US marshals; there's the DIA; there's the ONI. Maybe they could just outsource it to the Israelis or the Chechens. They're good at social control, and they can shoot the eyes out of an owl at 1000 yards.

Too many options, too many fascist incubators, not enough dissenters to keep all of them busy. And you only have to round up the leaders, which eliminates tens of millions of US citizens right off the bat. The rest will just roll over and be good little consumers again.

But that's just pure speculation, and in these enlightened times only a crackpot would concern him or herself about such things. But do let everyone know if they show up at your door. I hear you still get one phone call, but that's probably not going to last much longer.


wp

[Madspirit]

79. There aren't enough troops in the world

There aren't enough troops in the world or enough prisons built to arrest and jail everyone who says something offensive online. They can't even keep the pedophiles in check or the real threats let alone people who just say anti-government stuff. Give me a break.
Lee

[warren pease]

81. As I said, just get the leaders and the rest will crumple like a cheap suit. n/t

[Babsbrain]

50. In the immediate sense,

If only ONE person in this once-great country is afraid of recrimination if they post something on the internet, critical of the current government...then we have a GREAT problem - NOW!

[stirlingsliver]

54. We Have A HUGE, ENORMOUS Problem

"If only person in this once-great country is afraid of recrimination if they post something on the internet, critical of the current government...then we have a GREAT problem - NOW!"

Thousands, if not MILLIONS, of people in this ocuntry are afraid of recrimination if they post something critical of the current regime.

The problem we have is not just great -- It's HUGE and ENORMOUS.

[sandnsea]

57. Even if its unfounded??

I know people who are absolutely terrified of having Hillary as President. She's going to give away even more secrets to China, not fight the terrorists, take away even more of our rights. They're fucking nuts. And I don't even like Hillary. So who counts when we talk about that ONE person being afraid of recrimination from politicians??

[Babsbrain]

61. If ONE is afraid, we ALL will soon be afraid

[sandnsea]

62. Of Hillary???

You're saying we should listen to nutballs who would actually be AFRAID of Hillary??

You are fearmongering. It's revolting.

[Babsbrain]

63. Stay with me.

This has nothing to do with Hillary.

[sandnsea]

66. If ONE is afraid

That's what you said. Right?

[checks-n-balances]

85. Unfortunately, there'll be no way of knowing when that happens

They're not going to do this in one fell swoop, at once in a dramatic fashion (I don't think). They've done pretty much everything else in a stealth manner.

[Maat]

88. O.K., Sandnsea, now I know that you are threatening the economic stability in Iraq ...

so, off to the detention center with you.

Just jokin.'

:hide:

[Madspirit]

17. Nope

Not really. I pretty much say everything on-line. I say I am a lesbian. I say I have a history of mental illness. I say I smoke weed. The thing is, being anti-death penalty, I rarely wish anyone dead and since all my other transgressions, the weed, are misdemeanors, I don't really worry about it. If I promoted violence or something, I might be careful but I don't.

Also, I think if the government wants info on us, they already have the technology to get it without even spying on the Internet. Anything they get from the Internet would just be icing on the cake for them. They can sit down the street, in a van and hear everything I say, if they really want to hear a middle-aged hippie woman talking to her cats and dogs.

Lee

[bdamomma]

19. well what I wish I could say, may not advisable,

but once our dissent is squashed they have won.

[datasuspect]

21. tos self censorship? big time

self censorship in the light of potential federal surveillance, yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. I've assumed all I do is monited

the lovely police state

And no, they are not influenced, I choose to live free, fully congnizant of the possible consequences

[RevolutionStartsNow]

23. Haha. Thought of that just a second ago as I was posting...

in the "Are you for impeachment of Cheney" thread.

Is "someone" reading this? (Probably). Do they know who I am? (Easy enough for them to find out.)

But what the hell, I'd rather speak out and be heard than live in fear. I have the right to say that I think this administration sucks and should be impeached.

[cutlassmama]

24. Yes. eom

[leftofthedial]

25. I hold back certain thoughts

[quinnox]

26. No

I usually say what comes to mind, but I'm not some crazy potential psychopath either. I imagine if you were then you would have to censor yourself rather heavily.

[bemildred]

28. I would never think of violating any of the established verbal taboos.

Everything you say and do on the internet can be, and sometimes is, "monitored". Although many suffer from illusions about this, anonymity is not what the internet is about.

[slackmaster]

29. I have no delusion about security on these forums

Anything I write may be brought to light, in or out of context, and associated with my real identity at any time in the future.

[lies and propaganda]

30. completely. especially my Myspace

I watch my blogs disappear all the time. Murdoch is most certainly censoring...

[melody]

31. I take the fifth on that ... oh, wait, that doesn't exist anymore. never mind. n/t

[debbierlus]

33. No.

[catmandu57]

34. No, hell no

I've been cussing these bastards online for six years now, we still have the first ammendment right to speak our minds, I can say that babs bush is a stinky old alcoholic shit eating witch and she shit her moran son out of her dingleball encrusted asshole if I want. Now, if i said what I really thought and would love to see happen they'de probably kick my door down some night when I'm asleep.

[Zywiec]

36. Of course not, and by the way,

what could you possibly say within the rules on DU that someone in the government would get excited about?

[Vinca]

38. Not really - I haven't had a Caribbean vacation in a decade. nt

[woo me with science]

39. BWAH!!!!!

Yeah, DU-er's here are terribly inhibited about posting what they think. That's gotta be the funniest thing I've seen here all day.

[warren pease]

40. I have something like Tourette's of the fingers, so...

I really don't tend to hold back much. I've pointed out that high-treason in time of war is a capital crime, and listed several BushCo crimes that meet that standard. Never thought that was advocating violence, but I've also noted that, absent the gallows, I'd like to see them rot in Abu Ghraib under the tender ministrations of our taxpayer-supported official sadists. Is that advocating violence?

I also sign off personal emails that are political in nature with this:


In closing, it wouldn't be 21st century Amerika if I didn't pause to deliver a special message to our home-grown Hitler Youth: If you're listening in, you miserable NSA snitches and voyeurs, fuck you, your mothers, your mother's mothers, and every single one of the women in your families down through the generations, even unto the Middle Ages, and hopefully that grand tradition will continue into the future as we evolve into Amerika v2.0: Where Fascist Boot meets Dull-Eyed, Uninformed Amerikan Face, thanks in part to your ability to swallow BushCo's horseshit and lock your morals and conscience in an impenetrable vault for the duration of the Fourth Reich.


Which always makes me feel a little better for some reason.

Do they know who I am and what I think of them? (Reads like I'm channeling Rumsfeld.) Of course they do. I would hope they're at least that efficient. Do I give a shit? I surely will if the hammer falls. However, when I'm sitting in my dog kennel at Gitmo, at least I'll know I spent as much time as possible flipping them off.

And if for some weird reason congressional democrats decide to do their goddamned jobs and impeach these swine, I'll feel like I've gotten a reprieve from the Gulag and life will be a little more joyful just knowing they're in jail and I'm still at large, laughing my ass off at them.


wp

[WinkyDink]

42. No. I don't post some wishes because of Karma, not Big Brother.

[stirlingsliver]

45. Of Course.

Am I free to say everything I would like to say?

Absolutely not.

I know my comments are being monitored.

All of You: Be Careful. BE VERY VERY CAREFUL.

You might be next.

[H2O Man]

47. No.

Never.

[cgrindley]

48. by what?

do you honestly think that the evil elements of the government give a shit about DU? really? you honestly think that?

[Babsbrain]

52. Abso-freaking-lutely

This is a vital pulse of the majority of the country

[cgrindley]

53. Are you serious?

I didn't see any sarcasm smiley thing. You're not serious, right? 'cause Du is just an online forum and no one in the real world really gives a shit. Especially not like elected officials or appointed stooges.

[Babsbrain]

55. Then why are you here?

What do you hope to accomplish.

As an example, someone posted this a.m. that FOX news had inadvertently left a photo site open on their website. Within a short time it was closed. I attribute that to someone monitoring DU. Maybe I'm wrong, but I guarantee that this place is a valuable resource to some.

[Madspirit]

72. We are here

We are here to share opinions with like-minded people. That's what it actually states its purpose to be.

You need one of those fancy tinfoil hats.

Lee

[tammywammy]

74. Indeed

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

56. Yes

[KansDem]

59. Nah...Agent Mike has me on "ignore"

;)

on edit: one of the benefits of blabbering incessantly without adherence to logic or reason...

[JeffR]

60. Nah

My comments are influenced by the rules of the site. Beyond that, I say what I want to say.

[MrSlayer]

69. I feel more restricted by the rules here than by possible government monitoring.

I have a dark sense of humor that I simply cannot display on this site. And people get offended so easily by things I often write a post and just delete it. But I like it here so it's not that big of a deal. I have other boards to be politically incorrect on.

As far as government monitoring, so what? I don't say anything worthy of their attention. I don't believe we're so far gone that simply criticizing or making fun of the administration will get me into any trouble. I'm certainly no threat to them.

[Feron]

70. My personal online policy is to not say anything..

online that I wouldn't say out loud in public.

I certainly don't feel intimidated to keep controversial opinions to myself, but I do use common sense when expressing them.

And my posts really aren't worth the effort to monitor.

[Xenotime]

73. Here are my views.

I think it is very important that
My thoughts count for something.
Plain and clear speech should
Echo through the land.
And, those who have the
Courage to say what they want should be
Heard from sea to shining sea.

Never again should we allow
Our way of life to be handed over
Willingly to the power of the state.

[karlrschneider]

75. No, yes, maybe.

:D

[tammywammy]

76. No, for multiple reasons

1. I don't think that we're being "monitored."
2. We do still have free speech in this country.
3. I'm here to read and converse with fellow like-minded people. I really could care less if Rove is watching. Plus, he must not have a life if he's monitoring me. :)

[bamacrat]

78. 9.9 times out of 10 I say what I feel.

On a few things I hold back a bit, just in case.

[yardwork]

80. No.

The only topic I wouldn't post online is wishing harm on someone, and I wouldn't do that anyway, as it's against my beliefs.

[trashcanistanista]

82. Yes, of course! n/t

[Annces]

83. No

I figure there are too many of us to keep track of. If someone here had a huge following, or was running for office, then the Bush eavesdroppers might take an interest.

[Hekate]

84. Yep. I'm doing it now.

;-)

Hekate

[shadowknows69]

89. I should more than I do

I've warned several friends they may be on a no fly list somewhere for associating with me.