Skip to main content

I believe there may be a way effectively to subvert NSA/CIA/FBI domestic-spying programs that target innocent U.S. citizens. It requires a form of civil protest that is perfectly legal (as far as I know). In simplest terms, it asks protesting citizens to fill their emails, blog posts, social-media entries, and web searches with red-flag words and names that will demand the attention of the data-mining computers, overwhelming them with distracting information.

Here is a link to a blog post that explains this form of civil protest in more detail. How to Gum Up the Spyworks

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And then they find a way to charge people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, erush1345

    Perhaps with some kind of obstruction of justice.

    Or maybe a few public cases of people who go through hell because of these red flags, with others nodding their heads sagely saying "If you didn't want to be targeted, you shouldn't have faked looking for info to make bombs".

    Or they'll simply create smarter algorithms to try to filter out that noise, and at greater expense to the rest of us to develop and maintain that.

    Anyway, I understand the sentiment and the goal of trying to make the data useless to them, but I have serious doubts about its efficacy.

  •  Nice try (0+ / 0-)

    but I would not want to try to outsmart NSA.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:23:40 AM PDT

  •  as far as I see it, "they" already understand this (0+ / 0-)

    technique. Seems to me if you wanted to have an internet conversation about a big day coming up you might couch it in terms of "Uncle Fred had a heart attack and we had to call 911." 'Course writing the month before the day, well that's an Americanism, so I must be wrong, eh?

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 10:55:42 AM PDT

  •  I had thought about posting about this... (0+ / 0-)

    There is one important thing that should be added to this idea.

    I, for one, believe that some good can come from NSA activities.  There is a legitimate role for them in reading everything and looking for terrorist plots etc.  The problem is: Where do we draw the line?

    They say that it is just for terrorism.  It truly is the governments role to actively seek information about planned terrorist acts.  Who else is going to do that?  (However, we shouldn't be nearly as paranoid about this as we currently are).

    Let's go down a list of things.  Question: Should they take action based on learning that...
    1.  people are planning a terrorist act?  clearly yes
    2.  people are planning a violent bank robbery? I'd say yes!
    3.  people are involved in human trafficking/child abductions etc.? I have no problem at all with them searching every bit of information on the web to track down those people.
    4.  people are embezzling $100,000? I don't know.
    3.  people are setting up a Meth Lab? probably
    4.  a hooker is making arrangements with a customer? No!
    5.  people are arranging a marijuana purchase? That should be legal even though I've never inhaled the stuff.

    But those are my sensibilities.  The advantage of a plan like this is that we can all take action based on what our beliefs and principles are.

    Assuming that the vast majority of people that would participate in this are reasonable well intentioned folk, what we do is flood the internet with stuff we believe should not be targeted by the snoopers.  The more of us that put up references to marijuana the more noise they get and the less able they are to use internet obtained information to act on it.

    We run the risk of this becoming a self-reporting mechanism.  If the only people that post information about marijuana into cyberspace are themselves producers or consumers of that, then it becomes a problem.  But if enough non-consumers like me participate there would not be a problem.

    In a way, it would be like voting for those things that are illegal that we think shouldn't be.

    I guess if enough people believe that child trafficking/prostitution is OK and they put up stuff about that, then the snoops would have difficulty using internet obtained information for that - but that won't happen.

    What we should not do, is put up bogus information about C-4 and crap like that (as Ed Weathers is proposing on his blog).  

    Someday soon Republicans are going to drown Grover Norquist - in a bathtub.

    by nuketeacher on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:14:50 AM PDT

  •  Or (0+ / 0-)

    Somebody could write a virus that inserts those words at random into social media and emails, and instructs captured computers to search Google for information on explosives, the locations of embassies, pressure cookers, etc.

    Not that I am advocating doing something like that because it would be, you know, illegal.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:21:42 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site