DHS Hires General Dynamics to Collect Information on Bloggers Who Are Critical of Government

Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda

From Washington’s Blog:

As part of recent disclosures related to the EPIC suit, it is revealed that the DHS has hired and instructed General Dynamics to monitor political dissent and the dissenters. The range of websites listed as being monitored is quite impressive. Notably, jonathanturley.org is not on this list [Howington’s essay is a guest blog on constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley’s website], but equally of note is that this list is by the DHS’ own admission “representative” and not “comprehensive”

Some of the more high profile and highly trafficked sites being monitored include the comments sections of The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News. In addition, social networking sites Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are being monitored. For the first time, the public not only has an idea who the DHS is pursuing with their surveillance and where, but what they are looking for as well. General Dynamics contract requires them to “[identify] media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities.” The DHS also instructed General Dynamics to generate “reports on DHS, Components, and other Federal Agencies: positive and negative reports on FEMA, CIA, CBP, ICE, etc. as well as organizations outside the DHS.” In other words, the DHS wants to know who you are if you say anything critical about the government.

Read the full article.


  • Skyler Collins

    Where do we go to submit our website to their list? ^_^

    • Chip Camden

      We should give them a hashtag to help them out.  #dhssucks

      • I would spam them non-stop links to my blog until their servers exploded.

        Hopefully some of those knuckleheads will actually read what I’m writing and change their wicked ways because of it.

  • > Do you have a right to anonymous political free speech?

    First off, I hate the term “free speech.” The Constitution says nothing about free speech, but rather a freedom of speech… not that The Constitution is perfect. The problem I have with the term is that it starts a slippery slope where people can be punished for their speech rather than THE CONSEQUENCES of their speech.

    Secondly, I don’t believe you have a right to anonymity period. You have a right to TRY to conduct your affairs anonymously, and to enter contracts with others barring them from divulging information. You have a right to conduct affairs on your own property and to keep others off of your property. You have a right to use technology and other means to make discovery of your actions difficult. You have the right to keep your mouth shut. But, if I discover something about another without trespassing or breaching contract or otherwise using force, threats of force, or fraud, then that other has no right to prevent me from acting on that information or divulging it.

    If the government is not cracking servers or using false credentials to gain access, then they aren’t doing anything wrong. However, I think what they’re doing is dangerous and inasmuch as they work for “the people” (laughable I know), they should be made to cease compiling such information.

    • Tony

      They are collecting private information from people they actually force to pay taxes, with which they then fund their snooping activities.
      It is rather odd to say that it is not doing anything wrong, when their activities could never be funded without stealing the money to fund it from you first.