FBI reveals it uses CIA and NSA to spy on Americans

a reply to: Maxmars

It's one thing to remotely turn on a person's cellphone cameras and mics to spy on them.

It's another thing to hire a person's neighbor to spy on them or worse.

When people's neighbors can be hired and authorized to commit crimes that will likely be covered up, there's no telling what's possible, and that should be highly concerning.

Are some Americans being targeted for there ideologies, political leaning, and religious beliefs? I think it's likely, but how would we ever find out about it?

a reply to: IndieA

Are some Americans being targeted for there ideologies, political leaning, and religious beliefs? I think it's likely, but how would we ever find out about it?

That is a valid concern.

Truthfully, we are left with little other than speculation. But to be honest, I have a difficult time trying to imagine that direct surveillance has value unless there is a benefit to it. For the agency we are considering it has become evident to me that ''optics" are the highest order of public concern.

This 'alarm' of a report is a not new. The 'revelation' is framed against fears of a big brother being deployed against citizens with no check or balance in place. However, it is not the DOD that makes those actions... it is however 'law enforcement' that does this - in particular, political law enforcement - namely, the FBI.

Sadly, any idea that they would require the CIA (unlikely) or even the NSA (even less likely) to provide them with their capabilities to achieve this is out-of-date. Those capabilities are now within the hands of free commerce, that 'master' up and downstream capability is now in the free market, and as is par for the course, the free market now features the ability to provide the service...

Rather than fear the government, I fear the private enterprise that now has the same access and capability to exploit private communications. There are no strings on that puppet. And they will do anything for money, and by extension, power.

This is a multidimensional issue; it is not realistic to simplify it without looking at precisely "who" is doing "what."

Removed Spam

a reply to: Maxmars

If third parties are involved with intelligence work, I wonder if information is still being compartmentalized, and if so by who. The agencies? Third party "masters"? Fusion Centers?

If multiple 3rd parties are involved, who keeps them from getting in each other's way? Or is it like the "wild west" where it's every bounty hunter for themself?

a reply to: Maxmars

You are right. The only time there is direct surveillance, is when the person has shown themselves to be a possible legitimate threat, or has triggered an alarm. Even then, a lot falls between the cracks. Otherwise it just blind mass surveillance.

I would tell you how I know this to be the way it works, but then I would have to kill you.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Maxmars

You are right. The only time there is direct surveillance, is when the person has shown themselves to be a possible legitimate threat, or has triggered an alarm. Even then, a lot falls between the cracks. Otherwise it just blind mass surveillance.

I would tell you how I know this to be the way it works, but then I would have to kill you.

That's some flexible wording you got there. What constitutes a "legitimate possible threat"?

Everyone is a possible threat. I imagine that "legitimate threats", are clearly defined, but whistle blower reports suggest a lack of oversight and possible abuse of the system.

Are people being labeled as "legitimate possible threats" based on their ideology, political, or religious beliefs?

What constitutes "triggering an alarm"?

originally posted by: IndieA

... What constitutes a "legitimate possible threat"?

Everyone is a possible threat. I imagine that "legitimate threats", are clearly defined, but whistle blower reports suggest a lack of oversight and possible abuse of the system.

Are people being labeled as "legitimate possible threats" based on their ideology, political, or religious beliefs?

What constitutes "triggering an alarm"?

I can guess what a 'triggering alarm' could be...

"I planted the bomb."
"We are ready to kill him/her now."
"We know where the targets will be and are prepared to take them out."
"Many will die when we execute our glorious plan."
"During the riot, we will escalate the violence to exploit the situation."

But of course, these are ridiculous utterances that figure in on-line fiction and fanciful conversations all over the place.

But perhaps that, in addition to other factors, like known activities and associations, previous intelligence indications, such utterances become attention worthy. Maybe algorithms can "alert" reviews to ascertain the likelihood that something dangerous might happen.

We allow the press and the public-relations people to use words like "legitimate" without question. Maybe they don't want to explain just how they determined the "legitimacy" because it would reveal something about how they work, where they get their information, or... that they are just 'making it up as they go,' or worse still... this is in fact their own plan to 'show' their heroic capabilities in 'saving lives.' It is all speculation.

Oversight used to be a business I was very experienced in (It is real, although that was decades ago.)

Nowadays, we see how political appointees and political party 'operatives' abuse the system to establish "legitimacy." And yes, they have, can, and will continue the abuse... because: "The Big Show."

There was a reason that politics never was allowed to factor in "intelligence" activities and in fact, criminal charges were often the only thing that kept them from inserting themselves and their political motives into this kind of thing. I can say that we have been cursed with the dissolution of that restriction ever since... well at least the 60's.

I don't think it would serve anyone to single out a person for their ideology or belief and use a vitally important intelligence tool 'just to teach them a lesson about how to think, or what to say.'

This process involves a huge apparatus and massive coordination... why use it this way... for what? So that Joe and Jill Doe can be what? Put on a list? How much wasted effort and resources will be resolved when we find out that it was 'in error?' What will actually be achieved? Will we eliminate dissent? Do you think any of them so naive as to believe this is how dissent is "controlled?"

I know privacy is tantamount to freedom. But outside of commercial exploitation and disingenuous reporting I see no true incentives to doing it. Which is why I fear the private sector... they now have these capabilities... and not only are we not watching them... they are doing all the reporting.

a reply to: Maxmars

Thank you for the detailed and thought provoking reply.

originally posted by: Maxmars

I know privacy is tantamount to freedom. But outside of commercial exploitation and disingenuous reporting I see no true incentives to doing it. Which is why I fear the private sector... they now have these capabilities... and not only are we not watching them... they are doing all the reporting.

Anyone who uses google's tracking service is serving third parties their patterns on a silver platter. Shopping, eating, clubbing, work, hobbies, politics, beliefs, etc
Not just google either, apple, man they're wearing tracking bands on their wrists for "convenient technology" that they don't even need, but they sure are lead to believe they do! Serving patterns on a silver platter.
1960s people were worried about their phones being wiretapped.
Now people pay to put "wiretap" gadgets in their home.. car.. body..

I was never concerned about gov't databasing/surveillance etc. It was always the third parties that gave me the willies.

Execution for treason is the only solution I see.

originally posted by: Maxmars

originally posted by: IndieA

... What constitutes a "legitimate possible threat"?

Everyone is a possible threat. I imagine that "legitimate threats", are clearly defined, but whistle blower reports suggest a lack of oversight and possible abuse of the system.

Are people being labeled as "legitimate possible threats" based on their ideology, political, or religious beliefs?

What constitutes "triggering an alarm"?

I can guess what a 'triggering alarm' could be...

"I planted the bomb."
"We are ready to kill him/her now."
"We know where the targets will be and are prepared to take them out."
"Many will die when we execute our glorious plan."
"During the riot, we will escalate the violence to exploit the situation."

But of course, these are ridiculous utterances that figure in on-line fiction and fanciful conversations all over the place.

But perhaps that, in addition to other factors, like known activities and associations, previous intelligence indications, such utterances become attention worthy. Maybe algorithms can "alert" reviews to ascertain the likelihood that something dangerous might happen.

We allow the press and the public-relations people to use words like "legitimate" without question. Maybe they don't want to explain just how they determined the "legitimacy" because it would reveal something about how they work, where they get their information, or... that they are just 'making it up as they go,' or worse still... this is in fact their own plan to 'show' their heroic capabilities in 'saving lives.' It is all speculation.

Oversight used to be a business I was very experienced in (It is real, although that was decades ago.)

Nowadays, we see how political appointees and political party 'operatives' abuse the system to establish "legitimacy." And yes, they have, can, and will continue the abuse... because: "The Big Show."

There was a reason that politics never was allowed to factor in "intelligence" activities and in fact, criminal charges were often the only thing that kept them from inserting themselves and their political motives into this kind of thing. I can say that we have been cursed with the dissolution of that restriction ever since... well at least the 60's.

I don't think it would serve anyone to single out a person for their ideology or belief and use a vitally important intelligence tool 'just to teach them a lesson about how to think, or what to say.'

This process involves a huge apparatus and massive coordination... why use it this way... for what? So that Joe and Jill Doe can be what? Put on a list? How much wasted effort and resources will be resolved when we find out that it was 'in error?' What will actually be achieved? Will we eliminate dissent? Do you think any of them so naive as to believe this is how dissent is "controlled?"

I know privacy is tantamount to freedom. But outside of commercial exploitation and disingenuous reporting I see no true incentives to doing it. Which is why I fear the private sector... they now have these capabilities... and not only are we not watching them... they are doing all the reporting.

If the system you described is being used, we are talking about the systematic targeting of Americans for enhanced surveillance "assessments", and God knows what else, based on algorithmic profiling with little to no oversight. What could go wrong?

Maybe this is one of the reasons so many whistleblowers have being coming forward on a number of issues, including the possible political weaponizing of governmental and judicial power. Remember this?



And this?

FBI manipulating domestic terror stats – whistleblowers

The FBI is instructing its agents to reclassify cases as ‘domestic violent extremism’, Republican Representative Jim Jordan has claimed, citing agency whistleblowers. Jordan argued that the FBI may be inflating the statistics to satisfy the Biden administration’s crackdown on the supposed threat of homegrown terror. “From recent protected disclosures, we have learned that FBI officials are pressuring agents to reclassify cases as ‘domestic violent extremism’ even if the cases do not meet the criteria for such a classification,” Jordan wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday. 

“One whistleblower explained that because agents are not finding enough DVE [domestic violent extremism] cases, they are encouraged and incentivized to reclassify cases as DVE cases even though there is minimal, circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification,” Jordan continued, adding that the agent in charge of one field office offered awards and promotions to subordinates who could reclassify the most cases as domestic extremism. “This information … reinforces our concerns regarding the FBI’s politicization under your leadership,” Jordan told Wray. Citing an alleged “purge” of FBI employees with conservative views, the Ohio Republican argued that the FBI seems “more focused on classifying investigations to meet a woke left-wing agenda” than addressing his committee’s concerns. 

a reply to: IndieA

A most important element of the post you offered here is that it addresses specifically of FBI potential malfeasance.

NSA, CIA are not part of this "reveal."

The thrust of the OP is about how the FBI "uses" NSA and CIA assets to undertake FBI surveillance. Which I maintain is not easily acceptable as truth (Unless an executive order exists subordinating these DOD agencies to the FBI - which I find very dubious.)

In regard to the DHS, well... I have said what I believe before... the DHS is just a military industrial complex "contract" farm for private enterprises undertaking "government" operations and support (mostly for the DOD.)

a reply to: Maxmars

I agree that the DOD agencies are most likely not subordinate to the FBI by any means, but I think it's likely that all of the agencies share information between themselves these days. They are all under the DNI, for example, which creates a centralization of national intelligence.

It seems possible that the FBI could "assess" someone because of intel passed on from the DOD, or for other reasons, then pass their assessment back to the DOD, DHS, and or the private sector.

If people are being labeled violent, because analysis are being encouraged, through bonuses, to label them such, doesn't it seem plausible that other agencies could get caught up in this malfeasance and injustice?

Perhaps there are bigger problems within the other agencies as well. That seems plausible also.

a reply to: IndieA

There is a precedent which supports your theory linking the DOD agencies with other non-DOD agencies in regard to intelligence sharing between military and civilian institutions. It began when there was an explosion of new threats which were generally considered "Narcoterrorism."

The task embraced civilian law enforcement's efforts to cope with the flow of drugs into our country, and the money it produced being "invested" in terrorist organizations and their exploits. That reality offered several challenges, one of which was how to "break the wall" between national security efforts (strictly military concerns) and narcotic trafficking (which was traditionally handled by local or even federal law enforcement agencies.)

But this was no simple "phone call" and "cooperations" matter. It took a lot of consideration and high-level review to make it possible to create a class of information sharing that addressed both without compromising either.

To do the same with simple "let's monitor Joe and Carol Q. Public" for thought crimes and general disaffection would be tremendously daunting. Security is not a casual game; information sharing is fraught with peril to the legal aspects of surveillance. I wouldn't trust the FBI to keep secrets... ever. Their entire political existence precludes them from the trust I would need to see them added to a national security operation.

If there is one thing many have learned over the years, it is that political appointees are NOT automatically trustworthy, and even less so when they are politically "protected" from responsibility.

Don't get me wrong though... I share your hesitancy to accept that things are "as they should be." I can only say that - in my day - you would have been safe from this kind of abuse... today though? I can only hope that those who accepted the oath to serve the constitution do so faithfully... (except for politicians and the thespians who occupy their roles... they'll swear to or say anything.)

a reply to: 1947boomer

If you read that and only think but trump... you need to reassess.

They are now openly admitting to violations which to me means they feel its hit the untouchable stage for them and thats bad news for regular folks.