Air Force used Twitter to track NY flyover fallout

You show a poor understanding of the military or intelligence gathering. Many links on social networking sites do lead to compromised sites containing viruses.

Furthermore, if the military can use twitter of fb to track social events, it just proves how it could be used by foreign intelligence services to track postings by military members.

The article clearly says the military is aware of the power of the internet and uses these sites to gather information -- but not to dispense information.

Clearly, you've under estimated what was stated. Personally, somewhat skilled as basic programming and think myself fundamentally adept in electronics (blowing my own horn). I'm very much aware of protocols in various aspects of the security matter.

As I read the article above 0415 this morning, I gathered simply, "that the Marines were going to STOP using/monitoring sights like, Twitter; because as we've both stated, they are able to become the hunted as easily as they were the hunters."

My point in the statement was simply to point out, "It's not reason enough with all the inherent problems of the Internet, to stop monitoring those sort of sights. It would hurt them should some terrorist organization decides after seeing articles, to use the sights after; thus, the cutting off the nose to spite their faces, or rather to secure their @$$%$.

This is the Marine Corp, Pentagon system, using super encrypted files etc., with modem speeds so fast, should they decide to enter into the usual server system at the average shadowing fifty times faster speeds, most servers, PC, or systems wouldn't have known they were hacked, unless they themselves had comprobable machinery, well?

Why should they be worried about the A typical radicals off the Internets( hackers, viruses,etc.), it's more than their saying? Purpose information leaks in their futures I suspect. Now I can understand being worried about other nations with proficient hackers of their own, getting into the nations /marines system, but if they are as smart as their geeks should be; they would have known and trust me, do know; certain systems for certain information's, thereby limiting and or controlling the amount if any Intel that gets out, if any when and need be. There's more to that article that we're reading, bud.

Wasn't there some issue about, Bush & Cheney, giving Intel the go ahead to do taps, despite laws, claiming it was for the nations very own good? I could swear over the years I've heard various reputable talk shows debate that subject.

dsan.. On the open forums , it was to be seen as a ,"We're Not!", but according to sources like PBS, Link and NPR, "They Are/Were!" They have ordered wire taps and other so called,"illegal" things to be done.

Long-winded.. well you said it, not me.

The case in point had nothing to do with investigating criminal activity -- it was an immediate and ongoing event. Given the criticism directed toward the military's reponse to the 2001 attack, I am glad they were tracking this event involving aircraft in the skies over new york.

Monitoring twitter, facebook or other internet sites during such an event is not illegal -- anymore than reading a newspaper or other public document would be illegal. That was the point of the article -- and I disagreed with the comment made that the military and other intelligence branches were overlooking such an immediate and accessible source of information. Not using available sources to monitor potential threats would be a deriliction of duty.

I was addressing the laws which limited intelligence gathering against potential threats inside the us -- absolutely that is the jurisdiction of the fbi. But the fbi, cia, nsa, military and other intelligence agencies must be able to share information about possible threats.

I really believe you need to do a great deal more research into what you are offering. There is however an entire body of law and regulatory writing on the subject that is available in the public domain should you wish to pursue it.

Comparing "tracking this event involving aircraft in the skies over new york (sic)”, by the military who actually owned and launched the aircraft" is a rather simplistic and nonsensical view. Would you have had them launch a preemptive strike on Air Force 1. Maybe have them send tanks or troops into the NYC streets to “settle down” the scared citizenry? Perhaps I should equate this to you stabbing me with a knife and then expecting me to thank you for taking me to the hospital.

Should Obama be using DoD to monitor people’s concerns about his Healthcare Bill or carbon emission program - they could also cause dissent. Would that be an abuse or a practical use of the military information gathering organizations? You will have to answer that to your own satisfaction. US laws and policies answer it to mine.

By law DoD agencies are not even allow to collect, store, process or disseminate about possible threats by US Persons unless it poses a direct and actual threat to a military facility or resource. Even then, it is subject to extensive review and stringent rules and timetables for retention. In the event unauthorized information is received or inadvertently obtained it must be processed for review and removal. It is the law.

Yes, "monitoring twitter, facebook or other internet sites” during such an event and extracting information “from newspaper or other public document" for information on US Persons by the military would be illegal.

Legal domestic public opinion, views and activities and information on US Persons are not the domain of the military.

I'm not overly paranoid about military intelligence reading my mail, so studying the matter further does not interest me.

But I believe, and hope, that the patriot act would give the military the ability to monitor and, with proper orders, intervene in another potential terrorist act on us soil. A plane striking another plane, helicopter or any other target could easily be an indication of terrorist activity. If the military is not authorized under current law to monitor such activity, then the laws should be changed.

Have trouble with a few words. Those words forces America to rely on their wits when it comes to the one bring up the cases; and they are...

Subversion:: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within

Sedition; incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Stands to reason, anyone speaking out against any practice, law, organization of the government, in la man any one of these forces, directed by their leaders or leader, could land themselves in front of some sort of judiciary committeeof sorts. This is the part where you say, you have the right to freedom of speech and where I ask, so why are still so many innocent people still in jail; to of which you say, what or who do I mean, where I then turn and say, oh I don't know, how about the remaining off shoots of the Black Panthers for starters, just to throw a name out there; to which I will hear you say?

Leo:

When I was drafted in 1966, I was selected for Military Intelligence and served as a Counterintelligence Agent, as did my fellow Agents who were accused and chastised by Congress. Fortunately, or unfortunately, my time was served in Vietnam and not in the domestic arena

Counterintelligence: organized activity of an intelligence service designed to block an enemy's sources of information, to deceive the enemy, to prevent sabotage, and to gather political and military information

So in essence, you're admitting to having your wits so well understood before you, that you've harnessedthe art of deception and redirection, so much so to comment on a very controversial topic? Interesting.

Agreed! Within the times we are living in, the arena is merely out side of social use is really nothing more than their arena, regardless.