Previous month:
September 15, 2022
Next month:
September 17, 2022

IS FACEBOOK ACTING AS THE GOVERNMENT'S SECRET SURVEILLANCE AGENTS?

Fb-screwed

Once again, we are finding that the progressive communist democrats and embedded former intelligence and law enforcement agents at Facebook pose a clear and present to the U.S. Constitution.

Ordinarily, private organizations are generally not subject to prosecution for violating the constitutional provisions safeguarding free speech. However, if they act in concert with the federal government, they may be deemed government agents and thus may be held liable for constitutional violations.

Is Facebook an agent of the government, specifically the Obama-Biden Administration?

Ny-post-logo

Facebook spied on private messages of Americans who questioned 2020 election

Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of American users and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments — or question the 2020 election — according to sources within the Department of Justice.

Under the FBI collaboration operation, somebody at Facebook red-flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the past 19 months and transmitted them in redacted form to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, without a subpoena.

It was done outside the legal process and without probable cause,” alleged one of the sources, who spoke on condition of ­anonymity.

Facebook provides the FBI with private conversations which are protected by the First Amendment without any subpoena.”

These private messages then have been farmed out as “leads” to FBI field offices around the country, which subsequently requested subpoenas from the partner US Attorney’s Office in their district to officially obtain the private conversations that Facebook already had shown them.

But when the targeted Facebook users were investigated by agents in a local FBI field office, sometimes using covert surveillance techniques, nothing criminal or violent turned up.

The Facebook users whose private communications Facebook had red-flagged as domestic terrorism for the FBI were all “conservative right-wing individuals.”

“They were gun-toting, red-blooded Americans [who were] angry after the election and shooting off their mouths and talking about staging protests. There was nothing criminal, nothing about violence or massacring or assassinating anyone.

“As soon as a subpoena was requested, within an hour, Facebook sent back gigabytes of data and photos. It was ready to go. They were just waiting for that legal process so they could send it.”

Facebook denied the allegations yesterday.

Agency doublespeak

In a statement Wednesday, the FBI neither confirmed nor denied allegations put to it about its joint operation with Facebook, which is designated as “unclassified/law enforcement sensitive.”

Responding to questions about the misuse of data only of American users, the statement curiously focused on “foreign malign influence actors” but did acknowledge that the nature of the FBI’s relationship with social media providers enables a “quick exchange” of information, and is an “ongoing dialogue.”

“The FBI maintains relationships with U.S. private sector entities, including social media providers. The FBI has provided companies with foreign threat indicators to help them protect their platforms and customers from abuse by foreign malign influence actors. U.S. companies have also referred information to the FBI with investigative value relating to foreign malign influence. The FBI works closely with interagency partners, as well as state and local partners, to ensure we’re sharing information as it becomes available. This can include threat information, actionable leads, or indicators. The FBI has also established relationships with a variety of social media and technology companies and maintains an ongoing dialogue to enable a quick exchange of threat information.”

Facebook’s denial that it proactively provides the FBI with private user data without a subpoena or search warrant, if true, would indicate that the initial transfer has been done by a person (or persons) at the company designated as a “confidential human source” by the FBI, someone with the authority to access and search users’ private messages.

In this way, Facebook would have “plausible deniability” if questions arose about misuse of users’ data and its employee’s confidentiality would be protected by the FBI

‘None were Antifa types’       

“The most frightening thing is the combined power of Big Tech colluding with the enforcement arm of the FBI,” says one whistleblower. “Google, Facebook and Twitter, these companies are globalist. They don’t have our national interest at heart.” <Source>

Mark Zuckerberg’s “Zuckerbucks” scheme…

Considering Mark Zuckerberg’s deliberate interference in the 2020 presidential election with selective grants to entities controlling elections, I believe Zuckerberg should be investigated, prosecuted, and penalized for his provocative actions.

Zuckerberg’s election spending was ‘carefully orchestrated’ to influence 2020 vote: ex-FEC member

A former federal election official on Thursday called the $400 million-plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent to help finance local elections a “carefully orchestrated attempt” to influence the 2020 vote — and recommended that all states ban private funding of election offices.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member, said the billionaire Facebook founder’s donations to a pair of nonprofits that doled out the cash to nearly 2,500 counties in 49 states “violated fundamental principles of equal treatment of voters since it may have led to unequal opportunities to vote in different areas of a state.”

“My reaction is that this was a carefully orchestrated attempt to convert official government election offices into get-out-the-vote operations for one political party and to insert political operatives into election offices in order to influence and manipulate the outcome of the election,” said von Spakovsky, a Republican who now runs the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative. <Source>

Bottom line…

In fairness, these allegations may be coming from individuals in a corrupt organization seeking to cover their ass in the upcoming congressional investigations and the potential reform and reorganization of their organizations.

What is needed is a digital bill of rights that covers the use of unilateral “take it or leave it” user agreements, the ownership of data, a definition of the bounds of prohibited speech (speech calling for specific individual harm, inciting a riot, etc.), the prior notification of takedowns (not including those related to imminent threats), a resolution path for takedowns, rules regarding collaboration with government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, protections for whistleblowers, and organization and individual penalties for egregious violations that cause reputational harm or collateral harm such as the loss of employment.

We must realign digital realities with our analog laws.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

P.S. For those wishing to take action, I suggest you participate in the activities of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, “the leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation.” 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS