'Secret' DHS Twitter Account Isn't Following Anyone Interesting, So Why Is It Secret?
from the looks-like-a-pretty-boring-feed dept
It's no secret that various law enforcement and government agencies "monitor" Twitter, and sometimes to do that properly, they need to have an actual Twitter account. Apparently for Homeland Security, that Twitter account is @DHSNOCMMC1, which (as you might imagine) is a "protected" account, so you can't see its tweets. However, Carlton Purvis noticed that this account followed a few hundred other Twitter users, and wondered who they were. Purvis filed a FOIA request, asking for the follower list, but also for any authorized apps and widgets that DHS uses. It took a while (and many, many followups), but DHS finally sent back the list, and it's basically just a big list of news media (CNN, Al Jazeera English, ABC, etc.) and various government and law enforcement agencies (FEMA, FDNY, Chicago Police, etc.). The response notes that "in acordance [sic] with DHS Privacy direction, DHS NOC MMC follows only authorized accounts and never follows accounts of private individuals."
In terms of apps used, they admit to using TweetDeck and TweetGrid to monitor the service, so it's likely that they've set up some searches, for which you don't have to be following any individuals directly. But it still makes you wonder how effective the whole process really is. Perhaps DHS thinks that's what it needs to do, ever since Twitter told the feds to take a hike when it came to PRISM.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: foia, homeland security, private, secrecy, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can imagine that if you're working at DHS, you've got a mindset of "Do Not Disclose unless you have no other choice".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrecy
/sarc, (but only when the three letter agencies that read this).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More from DHS+Twitter
https://twitter.com/NTASAlerts
It has 20k followers and ZERO tweets.
Translated: DHS has yet to come across a single Terror Threat dangerous enough to merit a tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from DHS+Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from DHS+Twitter
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=6523
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More from DHS+Twitter
"The Emergency Broadcast System was established to provide the President of the United States with an expeditious method of communicating with the American public in the event of war, threat of war, or grave national crisis."
——The New York Times, October 5, 1963 (via Wikipedia)
What did you expect Mr Bush would have said? That is, if Mr Bush had fired up the good ol' Emergency Broadcast System on 9/11?
“Duck and cover.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More from DHS+Twitter
A couple of things about the EBS: it gets activated regionally. The EBS transmissions would only have happened in the affected area.
Also, there may have been no need to activate it for 9/11. 9/11 was not a "massive attack", nor even something on par with a big deal like a hurricane. There was no need to do anything that you'd need the EBS for, for example, announcing evacuations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More from DHS+Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More from DHS+Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More from DHS+Twitter
In a The New York Times article (correction printed January 3, 2002) "No president has ever used the current [EAS] system or its technical predecessors in the last 50 years, despite the Soviet missile crisis, a presidential assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, major earthquakes and three recent high-alert terrorist warnings...
N.B. EBS was replaced with EAS in 1997.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from DHS+Twitter
*wink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MMC is Media Monitoring Capability.
source: http://publicintelligence.net/dhs-mmc-privacy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While transparency in how they operate would be nice, it doesn't mean they have to reveal every little thing they're doing. I doubt anything dastardly is going on using their private twitter account, nor is millions of dollars of funding being spent on it.
In fact I'd even apply the "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide..." faulty logic to this. They can decide to NOT share something like this if they don't want to.
God knows when I sign up for sites that I don't care for I maximize my privacy on everything, just for the hell of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is VERY easy to imagine a business or organization keeping multiple twitter accounts private simply due to it being used for certain internal communications or simply as a variety of aggregators of different kinds of news information posted by other twitter accounts.
Neither of which would benefit the public much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And unlike a business, individual or private organization, governmental agencies are wholly financed by taxpayers and therefore accountable to us.
One can imagine all sorts of things but imagination isn't very solid ground to build public policy.
If we put imagination and things that aren't government aside, this comes down to "How is the public best served?"
And one of the default answers to that question is:
"With transparency, openness and a dedication to be accountable to the people who pay for your existence."
In real life that translates to:
"No Secrets. No hiding one's actions. No unavoidable delay in informing the public."
That's where we always start. The VERY rare exception to that rule should always be very, very difficult to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TOTAL transparency would be useless, and would significantly undermine an organization from doing anything useful at all. It would also inundate the public with fairly useless information.
These businesses should be held accountable, but in a functioning world, the courts would limit the power of these agencies that violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.
A company wishing to keep a twitter account private for whatever reason, or its internal communications private is NOT the same as the NSA surveillance program, which they DO need to be held accountable for.
Being paid by taxpayer dollars does not give the taxpayers carte blanch on everything every agency does in the government. It would not only be impractical, it would be useless for such minor things.
They should be accountable, definitely for their projects and programs, but a twitter account?
Accountability and transparency are not the same thing. They should be accountable, but it doesn't mean they need to be 100% transparent about everything they do. The idea of 100% transparency is just as faulty as the idea of 100% security. Nothing would get done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whats the difference
so if you have nothing to hide in all your personal communications why not make it public, or allow anyone to view it ?
see how you want to have it both ways, it's ok for you to do it, but not for anyone else ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: whats the difference
Interesting this is coming from an anonymous commenter.
No one is saying it's not OK for anyone else to do it. It's OK for others to do it as private citizens. but there is a difference between someone acting as a private citizen and a tax funded government employee acting as a government employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]