NSA collecting porn activity to discredit “radicalizers”

posted at 9:01 am on November 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Does the latest NSA revelation show the agency creating newer and more humane efforts to defuse potential terrorist situations through discrediting their leaders — or a dangerous new direction for government snooping? Perhaps this might be a little bit of both.  The NSA collected data on six potential targets about their online porn habits as a way to undermine their credibility, according to a new document leaked from the Edward Snowden cache. But were these efforts limited to legitimate counter-terrorism targets?

The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims, as “exemplars” of how “personal vulnerabilities” can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target’s credibility, reputation and authority.

The NSA document, dated Oct. 3, 2012, repeatedly refers to the power of charges of hypocrisy to undermine such a messenger. “A previous SIGINT” — or signals intelligence, the interception of communications — “assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent,” the document argues.

Among the vulnerabilities listed by the NSA that can be effectively exploited are “viewing sexually explicit material online” and “using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

Actually, a better question might be if any of them are legitimate counter-terrorism targets.  The NSA admits that none of them are accused — so far — of terrorist activities, and that at least one of them qualifies as a “US person.” That status requires a much higher degree of scrutiny for surveillance, but no explanation appears in the story to say whether NSA provided that or not.

One former NSA official defended the program by pointing out that discrediting terrorist leaders by exposing (so to speak) their hypocrisy is a lot cleaner than drone-bombing them:

Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one. “If people are engaged in trying to recruit folks to kill Americans and we can discredit them, we ought to,” said Baker. “On the whole, it’s fairer and maybe more humane” than bombing a target, he said, describing the tactic as “dropping the truth on them.” …

According to the document, the NSA believes that exploiting electronic surveillance to publicly reveal online sexual activities can make it harder for these “radicalizers” to maintain their credibility. “Focusing on access reveals potential vulnerabilities that could be even more effectively exploited when used in combination with vulnerabilities of character or credibility, or both, of the message in order to shape the perception of the messenger as well as that of his followers,” the document argues.

Well, that’s possibly true, but it seems largely theoretical.  That argument ignores the fact that American intelligence is probably not going to carry a lot of weight with these targets’ audiences, even if the data showed the men patronizing JDate.com or something. Radicals would claim that the US falsified the data, and while it might put a few lingering doubts in the minds of some, most will just end up scoffing.

Besides, the NSA isn’t exactly hitting pay dirt here:

One target’s offending argument is that “Non-Muslims are a threat to Islam,” and a vulnerability listed against him is “online promiscuity.” Another target, a foreign citizen the NSA describes as a “respected academic,” holds the offending view that “offensive jihad is justified,” and his vulnerabilities are listed as “online promiscuity” and “publishes articles without checking facts.” A third targeted radical is described as a “well-known media celebrity” based in the Middle East who argues that “the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack.” Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead “a glamorous lifestyle.” A fourth target, who argues that “the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself” is said to be vulnerable to accusations of “deceitful use of funds.” The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about the individuals could undermine their perceived “devotion to the jihadist cause.”

Oh, my! A celebrity lives a glamorous lifestyle!  An academic publishes articles without checking facts! So … he’s basically the New York Times. I kid, I kid ….

The issue here isn’t so much that the NSA tracks the online activities of foreign radicals suspected of involvement in terrorism, although perhaps it should be that they have so little to show for it.  The issue is that the mechanisms in the hands of the NSA could easily be turned against other “US persons” for the exact same purpose the NSA expresses in their document but aimed at political activists here at home.  I’m not saying that either the Bush or Obama administrations have done or do this — but the possibility exists, and with the NSA’s trawling of domestic communications, it’s possible for those inside the intel community to go rogue and do this on their own, too.

Update: My friend Olivier Knox wonders in jest if the “program” wasn’t a backfill for internal activity:

You’ve just made the list, pal. Your frequent visits to the Hello Kitty gift shop will be noted.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They’re collecting it because they can; it’s the ultimate voyeur activity.

Mr. Bingley on November 27, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Jdate.com huh?

Scandalous.

What are the other offensive sites?

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 9:10 AM

They’re collecting it because they can; it’s the ultimate voyeur activity.

Mr. Bingley on November 27, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Agree. The NSA has no justification, not to mention authority, for 95% of the surveillance they are doing online. They are doing it because they can, and power is the most addicting narcotic there is. It’s why the founding fathers chose to take the approach of not giving the government power, rather than the approach of giving it and trusting that it be used judiciously.

Shump on November 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM

One former NSA official defended the program by pointing out that discrediting terrorist leaders by exposing (so to speak) their hypocrisy is a lot cleaner than drone-bombing them

But not nearly as permanent.

Bishop on November 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I’m guessing that every Congress Critter has been shown a folder of their internet (personal and business-related) searches and activities. Their shopping habits, communications, entertainment preferences, etc… Only those with nothing to hide dare poke their heads up, like Cruz and Lee.

Fallon on November 27, 2013 at 9:16 AM

If the NSA wants to “get” someone, they will get them. In this day and age you can pretty much pin almost anything on any person who uses the internet whether they did it or not.

Johnnyreb on November 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM

This is why I try not to pretend to be holier than I actually am. So that when I run for Governor, when the midnight phone-call comes and I’m threatened with exposure — I can laugh.

. . . probably shouldn’t have gone to that Japanese site, though.

. . . maybe it was “research.” Yes — “research.” I’ll just remember to write about it before I run. FIFM.

. . . not sure how I can explain the weird Tori Spelling searches, though.

. . . will think of something.

Or they could just stop spying on me.

Axe on November 27, 2013 at 9:19 AM

So, the NSA’s secret weapon is the prog “shame” tactic?

Yeah. Sure.

This is the ultimate portfolio because you know they’re not following individuals, but the metadata associated with the activity.

Combine with Google’s current participation with cracking down on child pron and the recent dark web takedowns, and it’s not hard to figure out where the info is coming from.

Tough issue.

On one hand, it’s pron and these are the only cats who can stop the child/slave market that operates through file servers and encryption.

On the other hand, we’ve got the poster kids for bureaucratic party opposition in Lois Lerner and Friends of Barry.

budfox on November 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM

The idea of shaming terrorist leaders out of attacks is absurd. You really think that somebody willing to strap on a suicide bomb for Allah is going to care about the online habits of their leader? Or maybe they will be deterred when it is learned that Akmed doesn’t always wash his hands after using the restroom!

And if they are doing this to foreigners with the flimsiest of excuses, how many ex-spouses of NSA employees are also being monitored?

Happy Nomad on November 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Brainfree thankful he’s on the NSA’s side.

NotCoach on November 27, 2013 at 9:22 AM

One former NSA official defended the program by pointing out that discrediting terrorist leaders by exposing (so to speak) their hypocrisy is a lot cleaner than drone-bombing them

But not nearly as permanent.

Bishop on November 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM

No fair throwing out a winner so early in the thread! LOL

Happy Nomad on November 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

One former NSA official defended the program by pointing out that discrediting terrorist leaders by exposing (so to speak) their hypocrisy is a lot cleaner than drone-bombing them

But not nearly as permanent.

Bishop on November 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Indeed

workingclass artist on November 27, 2013 at 9:26 AM

“using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

How exactly is this going to “discredit” a radicalized devotee of a religion that worships a man who routinely raped a nine-year-old girl?

Fabozz on November 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

The Islamokazis who are the supposed targets already have a ready-made excuse for each of their 47 wives – “I had to blend in with our targets.”

The Jimmy Swaggarts, on the other hand,….

That tells me everything I need to know about the program.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:31 AM

And the collection of any and all internet activity to discredit any republican candidate for any office anywhere to begin..3..2..

HumpBot Salvation on November 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

And the collection of any and all internet activity to discredit any republican candidate for any office anywhere to begin..3..2..

HumpBot Salvation on November 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

It began at least 3 years ago.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

“using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced young girls.”

Cue Jimi Hendrix.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM

John Roberts?

GaltBlvnAtty on November 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

It began at least 3 years ago.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

We still haven’t had a reasonable explanation why Harry Reid supposedly had such detailed information about Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

Happy Nomad on November 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Well, a similar tactic worked on a guy named Roberts, apparently.

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Yeah, and I am pretty sure when one of these terrorists is caught logging on to a porn web site it probably generates a leisurely investigation of said site by the NSA tracker – if you get my drift. Weren’t these the clowns who were caught surveilling their exes?

DaveDief on November 27, 2013 at 9:40 AM

GaltBlvnAtty on November 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Obviously, you read faster than I. :)

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:40 AM

We still haven’t had a reasonable explanation why Harry Reid supposedly had such detailed information about Mitt Romney’s tax returns.

Happy Nomad on November 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I thought we settled on Jon Huntsman’s dad as being the source. Of course, there is no reasonable explanation, but we are talking about the Manchruian candidacy.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM

DaveDief on November 27, 2013 at 9:40 AM

yeah, but let’s face it, there’s no greater terror than an ex.

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM

AwwwCRAP ! . . . . . . . . . . . now I’ve got to browse thru my IE, FireFox, and Chrome ‘favorites/bookmarks’, and delete roughly half of them.

Damn, dang, ding, darn, ding, darn, darn, dang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Tor.

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

How exactly is this going to “discredit” a radicalized devotee of a religion that worships a man who routinely raped a nine-year-old girl?

Fabozz on November 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

See, there you go again, always quoting history.

That makes you a racist, sexist, xenophobic homophobe you know!

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM

You can’t affect a Mohammed Atta by reporting on his loose lifestyle. He’s entitled to that; he’s a Muslim Martyr in the making.

You can affect the other “terrorist” types the government focuses on: right-wingers suspicious of government, who are trying to be credible in order to sway (= “radicalize”) people in the same illicit direction.

That is how this information is most likely to be used in the long run.

David Blue on November 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Is this how they got John Roberts on the Obamacare case?

jlemieu1 on November 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Awww … CRAP ! . . . . . . . . . . . now I’ve got to browse thru my IE, FireFox, and Chrome ‘favorites/bookmarks’, and delete roughly half of them.

Damn, dang, ding, darn, ding, darn, darn, dang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

WAIT!!! I’ll send you my e-mail address!

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Dear NSA Operations:

What goes around comes around.

Cheers,

Former Operator

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM

That argument ignores the fact that American intelligence is probably not going to carry a lot of weight with these targets’ audiences, even if the data showed the men patronizing JDate.com or something. Radicals would claim that the US falsified the data, and while it might put a few lingering doubts in the minds of some, most will just end up scoffing.

The fact that they willfully ignore this points to the obvious conclusion that these techniques will be used to embarrass domestic “enemies” of this administration. Using it on international terrorists is the cover needed to implement this against everyone they don’t like. I hope Rush doesn’t watch porn.

goflyers on November 27, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Awww … CRAP ! . . . . . . . . . . . now I’ve got to browse thru my IE, FireFox, and Chrome ‘favorites/bookmarks’, and delete roughly half of them.

Damn, dang, ding, darn, ding, darn, darn, dang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

L2G -> [Hub] -> Site,
Site -> [Hub] -> L2G.

No need to delete bookmarks. :)

Comrade.

The issue is that the mechanisms in the hands of the NSA could easily be turned against other “US persons” for the exact same purpose the NSA expresses in their document but aimed at political activists here at home.

I haven’t heard any explanation up till now about how they could possibly not gather information on people other than the intended target.

Axe on November 27, 2013 at 9:53 AM

And the collection of any and all internet activity to discredit any republican candidate for any office anywhere to begin..3..2..

HumpBot Salvation on November 27, 2013 at 9:32 AM

.
It began at least 3 years ago.

Steve Eggleston on November 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

.
I’m sure they’ve been collecting internet browsing habits and histories of ALL politicians for many years, now. But there’s less cause or need to use this data against ‘progressives’. Non-’progressives’ are the real issue they’re trying to overcome with this tactic, so it will only be politicians that most Hotair commenters like, who will be publicly attacked with this data.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I’m sorry for asking this even before I ask this…

… what is JDate?

The Schaef on November 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM

“Un, honey, it’s not what it looks like. I’m only on these sites to do some free lance vigilante counter-terrorism.”

Great new excuse.

rbj on November 27, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Welp

There goes my political career :P

Defenestratus on November 27, 2013 at 9:57 AM

AwwwCRAP ! . . . . . . . . . . . now I’ve got to browse thru my IE, FireFox, and Chrome ‘favorites/bookmarks’, and delete roughly half of them.

Damn, dang, ding, darn, ding, darn, darn, dang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM

.
WAIT!!! I’ll send you my e-mail address!

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM

.
. . . . . : )
.
Uh oh … you may have just painted a ‘bulls-eye’ on yourself.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Be sure to go to the article, then scroll down to the chart under:
“Arguments for which radicalizers are being targeted:”

This is big brother spying on innocent people at its worse.

The undocumented arguments they use for spying; such as:
“Well-known media celebrity – The US perpetrated the 9-11 attacks”

And once one is on the list, how does one know and how does one get off it?
I bet the operators of HotAir are on the list.

Shut it down. Shut it down Shut it down.

albill on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Frankly, as long as it’s a tactic that is ONLY used against muslims, I not only have no problem with it, I applaud it. Let’s not mince words. islam has declared war upon the civilized world. Repeatedly and loudly. And not just recently, but since its misbegotten inception. They declared war upon us, NOT the other way around. I’m so tired of politically correct bullsquat when it comes to that evil cult. The only muslims that don’t directly or tacitly support islamic imperialism are those who would be called “non observant” in any other faith. islam COMMANDS its adherents to wage war upon, enslave and or convert other cultures. It has no place in the civilized world, and has never contributed a single thing to it, unless you call strapping a backpack full of explosives to a child and sending him into a crowd “civilized”.

SteveThomas on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Sounds like a new CBS series, NSA: Porn Division.

Flange on November 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM

I’m sorry for asking this even before I ask this…

… what is JDate?

The Schaef on November 27, 2013 at 9:55 AM

.
Oh my Lord ! . . . . . . I don’t know, either.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM

. . . . . once one is on the list, how does one know and how does one get off it?
I bet the operators of HotAir are on the list.

Shut it down. Shut it down Shut it down.

albill on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

.
Too late … all of us registered here at Hotair are already in the data banks in ‘that building’ out in Nevada.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I guess I’m in real trouble. Sorry about the criticism of The One. Forgive me for I like John Roberts whose iron searches you archived, have sinned.

philw1776 on November 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Too late … all of us registered here at Hotair are already in the data banks in ‘that building’ out in Nevada.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM

But at least now we know we won’t be drone bombed.

Happy Nomad on November 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM

that’s “porn searches”

philw1776 on November 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Seems like it would be effective. I know I’d be too embarrassed to post anything if you guys knew about my midget porn collection.
Hmmm, wait a minute…. Doh!

MechanicalBill on November 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM

. . . . . : )
.
Uh oh … you may have just painted a ‘bulls-eye’ on yourself.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I have to assume that once the full apparatus is up and running, I will be amongst the first wave to “disappear.

Might as well be on as many lists as I can get.

Now stop delaying and send me the info!

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Seth Halpern on November 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Those are some seriously high necklines!

WryTrvllr on November 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Porn? Anything can be made into a political liability (or in Nobel peace prize winning Obamaspeek – “truth bomb”)

Wanna keep your democrat party members in line? Post their amazon history of reading capitalist books or Rush Limbaugh. Heaven forbid we should entertain rational discussion and understanding of the other side’s opinion.

More frighteningly its just a pen stroke away from enforcing the banning of reading contraband ideas which, I note, the PM of the UK is already advocating.

Skywise on November 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Hmm… didn’t I suggest a while back that this might explain John Roberts’ sudden change of heart on Obamacare?

PersonFromPorlock on November 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Frankly, as long as it’s a tactic that is ONLY used against muslims, I not only have no problem with it, I applaud it.

Fair enough, but as has already been argued in this thread, this tactic specifically won’t work against Muslims, for multiple reasons. So since it’s ineffective against the ostensible target, the actual target must be someone else.

Fabozz on November 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

How exactly is this going to “discredit” a radicalized devotee of a religion that worships a man who routinely raped a nine-year-old girl?

Fabozz on November 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM

What makes you think that this is aimed at muslims? More likely aimed at evangelicals and other “moral types”, who would certainly be more intimidated.

In fact, just putting the story out there (whether true or not) could accomplish a great deal of suppression of “folks” that were thinking of speaking up, but now suddenly have thought better of it.

bofh on November 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

And for that matter, if they want to discredit someone, who’s to say that their records of porn-site visits aren’t total fabrications anyway? Someone checking on the accuracy of their totalitarian oversight? I don’t think so…

bofh on November 27, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Of course, they are doing the same thing to every American. This way they can control who gets to get into political office and which government employees get to remain. It also gives them leverage over those that remain.

astonerii on November 27, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Does anyone besides me find this kind of…………….creepy?

tngmv on November 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

The issue is that the mechanisms in the hands of the NSA could easily be turned against other “US persons” for the exact same purpose the NSA expresses in their document but aimed at political activists here at home. I’m not saying that either the Bush or Obama administrations have done or do this — but the possibility exists

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I guess you’re saying that we shouldn’t have an NSA because the “possibility exists” that there might be some bad behavior.
It must be a really slow news day.

Vince on November 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

And once one is on the list, how does one know and how does one get off it?
I bet the operators of HotAir are on the list.

Shut it down. Shut it down Shut it down.

albill on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

This site has become so “moderate” as of late I doubt they are on anyones tracking list. You actually have to have ideas that are counter to the authority to get their attention for direct instead of blanket surveillance. Outside of Obamacare, what exactly are they at odds with Obama on these days?

astonerii on November 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM

NSA collecting porn activity to discredit “radicalizers”

Really? Considering the sophistication of hacking these days, the plausible defense for the “radicalizer” is (similar to Congresswoman Shirley Lee’s) ‘it’s doctored/planted’.

Good thing there is nothing more pressing this administration…

socalcon on November 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

In the interest of ‘transparency’, the gov’t should publish the site URLs… my explorer history must have cleared.

socalcon on November 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Nope… using Tor paints a bulls-eye on your back.

http://www.eweek.com/security/snowden-leaks-show-nsa-targets-tor.html

CPT. Charles on November 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Frankly, as long as it’s a tactic that is ONLY used against muslims, I not only have no problem with it, I applaud it.

Fair enough, but as has already been argued in this thread, this tactic specifically won’t work against Muslims, for multiple reasons. So since it’s ineffective against the ostensible target, the actual target must be someone else.

Fabozz on November 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

It’s been argued but not proven. I don’t know whether something like this would discredit someone involved in terrorist leadership or not. I don’t think like they do but I would assume our spies try a lot of things and some work and some don’t.

They don’t seem to mind killing others of their own religion so maybe the whole faith thing is a lie. They rule by fear so I don’t think pornography will stop their killing.

Vince on November 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Well, a similar tactic worked on a guy named Roberts, apparently.

OldEnglish on November 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Yes, that and the Regime’s use of the security apparatus for oppo research on Romney and others. I have little doubt that both of these things occurred, especially since almost all the other things that some of us have been “paranoid” about have been confirmed over the past years or so.

forest on November 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Who defines “radicalizers”? Probably incudes political enemies of those in charge.

But this would have no effect on terrorists (I only know of Islamic terrorists so it does not have to be specifically stated). Those who know Islam knows that ‘sin’ is external and not the fault of the believer. It is the environment the terrorist is in. They take the “When in Rome do as the Roman’s do.” to the next level.

TerryW on November 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM

PersonFromPorlock on November 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Kinda sorta… with Roberts, there’s a rumor that he ‘illegally’ adopted a pair of Irish orphans via a certain S. American country (the Irish have very strict rules on adoption by non-nationals).

That was the hammer Teh Won held over him, supposedly…

CPT. Charles on November 27, 2013 at 10:51 AM

In 1967, Hoover listed the SCLC as a black nationalist hate group, with the instructions: “No opportunity should be missed to exploit through counterintelligence techniques the organizational and personal conflicts of the leaderships of the groups … to insure the targeted group is disrupted, ridiculed, or discredited.”

From MLK jrs Wikipedia page. This is nothing new Ed, nor is it humane.

Smiles on November 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Dear NSA Operations:

What goes around comes around.

Cheers,

Former Operator

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Now…now…

Remember…you’re dealing with a bunch of REMFs,

They’re liable to wet their panties – all over their spit-shined jungle boots.

(and it would probably take the crease out of their starched jungies/Tiger Stripes.

;-)

Solaratov on November 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM

The underlying premise itself is moronic.

Watching infidel porn isn’t “discrediting” to Muslims.

It merely reaffirms Islamo-supremacist doctrine.

See also, Huma Abdedin supporting her sexting hubby.

Terp Mole on November 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM

As we all know now, NSA collects everything on everyone just in case.

Since DHS and the military academies have published documents that label white Christian prolife war vets as potential terrorists, I’m sure that the domestic application of this kind of knowledge is already well developed and waiting in the wings.

Akzed on November 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM

And now we learn (dear children) why Justice Roberts affirmed Obamacare.

The End

Terp Mole on November 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM

In 1967, Hoover listed the SCLC as a black nationalist hate group, with the instructions: “No opportunity should be missed to exploit through counterintelligence techniques the organizational and personal conflicts of the leaderships of the groups … to insure the targeted group is disrupted, ridiculed, or discredited.”

From MLK jrs Wikipedia page. This is nothing new Ed, nor is it humane.

Smiles on November 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM

“The late Bayard Rustin was a proud Black gay man who was an indispensable architect of the Civil Rights Movement. His most noteworthy achievements include serving as chief organizer of the historic 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, mentoring the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and helping to form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the A. Philip Randolph Institute.”

And last week he got the Medal of Freedom from 0b00ba.

Akzed on November 27, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Stuff like this always makes me wonder what Obama’s NSA have on the squeaky clean appearing Chief Justice John Roberts.

marybel on November 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

The (alleged) underlying MSA premise itself is moronic.

Watching infidel porn isn’t “discrediting” to Muslims.

Islam and Sexual Perversions

It merely reaffirms misogynistic Islamo-supremacist doctrines.

See also, Huma Abdedin supporting her sexting hubby.

If there are terrorist targets in this strategy, they clearly aren’t “jihadists.”

Terp Mole on November 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Stuff like this always makes me wonder what Obama’s NSA have on the squeaky clean appearing Chief Justice John Roberts.

marybel on November 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Child trafficking. His adopted children are from Ireland, which does not allow non citizens to adopt their children. He had the mothers traffic the children to latin America and bought them from them.

astonerii on November 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Well, now I’m screwed.

RandallinHerndon on November 27, 2013 at 11:40 AM

The best thing they can do when confronted is to say, “Hell yeah I like porn”, list their preferred sites, favorite kinks and for good measure make up a few that no one’s ever heard of.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 27, 2013 at 11:44 AM

And the American people say…..meh….

What has happened to our country!?!?

KMC1 on November 27, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Does anyone besides me find this kind of…………….creepy?

tngmv on November 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

.
Yes … for years, now.

Welcome aboard.

listens2glenn on November 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

“exploited to undermine a target’s credibility, reputation and authority”

Bwahahahahahahahaha

REALLY….. May I introduce the NSA to Billy Clinton…. one of the biggest sexual deviant low life to occupy the Oral Orifice Oval Office

that giant flushing sound is your money being flushed down the toilet

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Now, the unedited White House version:

The National Security Agency has been gathering records of online sexual activity and evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency Obama Administration are radicalizing others through incendiary speeches believes are spreading Conservatism, according to a top-secret NSA document. The document, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, identifies six targets, all Muslims Conservatives, as “exemplars” of how “personal vulnerabilities” can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target’s Conservatives credibility, reputation and authority.

Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security KGB/GRU official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets Conservatives is a sound one. “If people are engaged in trying to recruit inform folks to kill spread Conservatism, and we can discredit them, we ought to,” said Baker. “On the whole, it’s fairer and maybe more humane” than bombing doing the full-Alinsky on a target Conservative, he said, describing the tactic as “dropping the truth Michelle Obamas fat ass on them.” …

According to the document, the NSA believes that exploiting electronic surveillance to publicly reveal fabricate online sexual activities can make it harder for these “radicalizers”Conservatives” to maintain their credibility. “Focusing on access reveals potential vulnerabilities that could be even more effectively exploited when used in combination with vulnerabilities of character or credibility, or both, of the message in order to shape the perception of the messenger as well as that of his followers Conservative movement,” the document argues.

One target’s offending argument is that “Non-Muslims Conservatives are a threat to Islam Obamas fundamental transformation of the U.S.,” and a vulnerability listed against him is “online promiscuity anti-Obama rhetoric.” Another target, a foreign citizen U.S. Service member the NSA Obama Administration describes as a “respected academic right-wing extremist tea-bagger,” holds the offending view that “offensive jihad liberty is justified,” and his vulnerabilities are listed as “online promiscuity” and “publishes articles without checking facts.” A third targeted radical Conservative is described as a “well-known media celebrity evangelical Christian” based in the Middle East racist South who argues that “the U.S perpetrated the 9/11 attack Obama is shredding the Constitution.” Under vulnerabilities, he is said to lead “a glamorous middle-class lifestyle.” A fourth target, who argues that “the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself Obama is restricting Constitutional liberties” is said to be vulnerable to accusations of “deceitful use of funds love of country.” The document expresses the hope that revealing damaging information about blackmail of the individuals could undermine their perceived “devotion to the jihadist cause a growing reverance for the Constitution.”

RandallinHerndon on November 27, 2013 at 12:24 PM

NSA collecting porn activity to discredit “radicalizers”

So Anthony Weiner is a Radicalizer??

ToddPA on November 27, 2013 at 12:34 PM

What a joke. Like Muslims – who adhere to a religion of perversity – care about damning internet activity.

This is either a lie or yet another indicator that the people running our country are complete idiots.

WhatSlushfund on November 27, 2013 at 12:34 PM

The reality is that this sort of thing is mostly going to catch the unwary. The suggestion that this is a cover for internal porn activity in the agency is possible but only if the agents are extremely sloppy or incompetent.

Actual security experts know of dozens of ways to encrypt, encapsulate, and anonymize their traffic. Its the difference between some stupid 16 year old knocking over a liquor store and a 45 year old 20 years of experience wall street broker expertly gaming regulators.

The NSA does have some exceptionally talented security experts. If they wanted to watch porn without it being logged they could do that pretty easily.

Karmashock on November 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM

NSA collecting porn activity to discredit “radicalizers”

You mean blackmail political enemies, don’t you?

Porn is a reprehensible evil, but I doubt this “collecting” will be done to catch terrorists or criminals. The radicalizers are in the WH, and in all probability this will be used for fodder for twisting the arms of people for the WH’s radical political purposes.

INC on November 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Frankly, as long as it’s a tactic that is ONLY used against muslims,

SteveThomas on November 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Good luck with your wishful thinking. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is little reason to believe this would even work against foreign Muslims for reasons that Ed and others have already pointed out. The people most susceptible to this tactic are our own citizens, especially members of the government or those with power and influence and a lot to lose, who would have a harder time dismissing the allegations of the US government as a deceitful plot to discredit and embarrass them. A foreign terrorist would just shrug and say their enemies are making it all up, whereas somebody like John Roberts, on the other hand, who is part of the US government and borrows his own legitimacy from the government, would have a harder time claiming the allegations are a nefarious plot.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM

I’m just surprised that they were targeting “radicalizers” in the muslim faith. I for sure figured that King Barky the Liar would be targeting his real enemies (& not the country’s) conservative leaders.

I bet he is and using the muzzies as a smokescreen.

jukin3 on November 27, 2013 at 1:07 PM

WOW, who would of thunk it, Justice Roberts is a Muslim and into porn.
We need to have better vetting on the Supremes.

DDay on November 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM

It sounds like an unworkable tactic because as soon as you announce it, there is the assumption that the NSA has put the stuff on the guy’s computer. You’d never convince anyone that they don’t have the technology for that.

Buddahpundit on November 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM

A foreign terrorist would just shrug and say their enemies are making it all up, whereas somebody like John Roberts, on the other hand, who is part of the US government and borrows his own legitimacy from the government, would have a harder time claiming the allegations are a nefarious plot.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2013 at 1:04 PM

In our modern, sex-obsessed, porn-filled society, would the fact that John Roberts watches porn on the Internet even have any discrediting effect on him what-so-ever? Would the average American even care?

Shump on November 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Spy away on foreigners outside the US. But, not in the US, or on US citizens.

besser tot als rot on November 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I would expect that since we are in a war, disinformation campaigns (or, in this case information campaigns) are par for the course.

I do know that any weapon wielded by our troops can be turned against our own troops (so to speak), but there’s no sign that this one has.

I’d expect that everyone here would love to see some Islamic radical take friendly fire because he lived up to the reverse of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4: Failed to live by his own moral code.

Think about what would happen if this were turned against John Roberts. Do you think that he would waste even a moment bringing it to the attention of the rest of the court? After all, the best defense is a good offense — hey, these guys manufactured evidence, and then tried to blackmail me with it. Do you think that any court in this land would issue a search warrant to the executive branch for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Now, lesser officials may not have the defenses that Justice Roberts has, but hey, when conspiracy theorists are going wild, they think great thoughts.

unclesmrgol on November 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

In our modern, sex-obsessed, porn-filled society, would the fact that John Roberts watches porn on the Internet even have any discrediting effect on him what-so-ever? Would the average American even care?

Shump on November 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM

You need to think outside the box. What if that porn happened to be child porn? Then what?

DDay on November 27, 2013 at 1:40 PM

unclesmrgol on November 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

What a retard…

I would expect that since we are in a war, disinformation campaigns (or, in this case information campaigns) are par for the course.

Followed by…

Think about what would happen if this were turned against John Roberts. Do you think that he would waste even a moment bringing it to the attention of the rest of the court? After all, the best defense is a good offense — hey, these guys manufactured evidence, and then tried to blackmail me with it. Do you think that any court in this land would issue a search warrant to the executive branch for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

The Chief Justice, just like the president himself can be forced to give evidence to congress. It has happened many times in our past. Looking at Roberts obamacare is a tax argument pretty much already destroys your argument that he cannot be blackmailed.

astonerii on November 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

In our modern, sex-obsessed, porn-filled society, would the fact that John Roberts watches porn on the Internet even have any discrediting effect on him what-so-ever? Would the average American even care?

Shump on November 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM

It hypothetically depends on what he’s been looking at. Maybe somebody in the government with access to his NSA file, or access to data provided by a foreign spy agency or private sector entities like Google or Microsoft that are in bed with the government, could show the world precisely what kind of porn he prefers, image by image. Or maybe he’s been sexting or engaging in hanky panky in view of hidden cameras. Also, if they’ve been monitoring his porn habits then they’ve probably been gathering information on everything else he’s been doing as well. And even if they might not be able to ruin him in the eyes of the public, they may still have enough to destroy his family.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Roberts was used as an example by Floating Rock.

There are R’s in Congress and Red State D’s whose constituents would throw them out if a porn habit came to light. Not to mention if any activities were criminal.

Don’t think for a minute that this administration wouldn’t hesitate to strong arm anyone they could.

There are few in D.C. who have the character to tell the truth and shame the devil.

INC on November 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

And even if they might not be able to ruin him in the eyes of the public, they may still have enough to destroy his family.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Petraeus.

DDay on November 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Petraeus.

DDay on November 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

CIA Director too stupid to encrypt messages. He deserved to lose his job for nothing else than the fact he was a complete idiot that should not be entrusted with secrets.
Do not get me wrong, I think the Administration was blackmailing him to keep quiet about Benghazi, but once the election was over he was replaceable and this is BAD for the nation. The people who have power in this nation should not be blackmailed by our government. It takes away any method for us to be able to have representative government.

Petraeus was incompetent to be a Director of the CIA.
Our government is corrupt using blackmail against those in power.
Our people are corrupt with welfare buyouts and stupid on Marxist educations.

astonerii on November 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM

INC on November 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

When you consider the fact that politicians and others in the ruling class are generally among the most corrupt in our society, or any other society, they are theoretically the most susceptible to being blackmailed by spy agencies. It serves them right for being corrupt, of course, but unfortunately the side affect is that we lose control of our government and our own destinies. In this case we already have lost control of our government, but whether it’s due to blackmail by the NSA or other agencies, or if it’s just old fashioned corruption, is still a question. John Robbert’s suddenly switching sides in favor of Obamacare at the last minute after he wrote the opinion against Obamacare is mighty suspicious. The last Pope suddenly up and quitting, to be replaced with the new Marxist Pope, (and just the kind of Pope that Obama would pick), is also pretty odd, and both of them happening in a fairly short period of time. I don’t recall any previous instances of these sorts of odd occurrences happening in years prior….. and just after these two instances Edward Snowden exposed just how fascist our government has become. It’s hard not to wonder if it’s a coincidence or something more, and I’m not one who believes in conspiracy theories, just a concerned citizen.

FloatingRock on November 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2