Already history: Facebook asssination poll, CIA 'aware'

[RBM]

Pam's House Blend (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) makes note of 'social media assignation poll'. Scroll down for updates and some embedded links by Pam.

The poll is/was 'tied' to the health care debate.

[alrightgame]

"Should he" isn't the same as clicking
"I'm going to kill"

[RBM]

You are quite right, but since I'm not CIA, I sure wouldn't try to guess how the syntax is interpreted.

[Hamburglar]

So I was astonished to learn that there was a facebook poll that asked if the President should be killed with the answers:

Yes,
Maybe,
If he cuts my healthcare,
No

7-hundred some odd people voted and now the SS is investigating the poll creator and likely the voters who selected any of the first three options. Are people really so stupid to post this in public?

[timetraveler]

Here are some quotes from angry Americans who can't stand Barack Obama.

"Unless you have a white womb you cannot produce a son that will then be a president of these United States." by Anonymous

"His [Obama's] father was a Kenyan student who came here from Kenya to study, and a man, if you will, of low morals and of racial sexual lust. This sexual lust of this African-American man has been discussed in African-American folklore for years that it is common knowledge that African men coming from the continent of Africa especially for the first time do diligently seek out white women to have sexual intercourse with, and generally, the most noble of white society choose not to intercourse sexually with these men so it’s usually the trashier ones who make their determinations that they’re going to have sex." By Anonymous

These are real posts taken from a specific forum expressing the anger towards President Barack Obama. It is important to read the posts and listen to the angry voices of people who hate Barack Obama. They are all over the internet posting on forums.

If you want to understand why people hate Barack Obama just watch this video To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and this To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[RedIrish]

This kind of thing makes the case for abolishing internet anonymity.

You gotta wonder how much of this crap people would spew if they had to account for their words.

[RBM]

This kind of thing makes the case for abolishing internet anonymity.

You gotta wonder how much of this crap people would spew if they had to account for their words.

My suspicion is most on the net would still spout this crap in real life. Just look up some of the racism related threads on this board for a feel for what goes on.

Just a couple of days ago I had a customer who was a 84 yo female Caucasian carrying on about Mr. O's birth certificate, in middle class Lincoln NE.

[Causa Mortis]

Why would the CIA care? The CIA's focus is on external threats. This is Secret Service/FBI territory.

[RBM]

Why would the CIA care? The CIA's focus is on external threats. This is Secret Service/FBI territory.

My mistake - I lumped 'em together. I've been reading a lot about foreign relations.

All the links indicate Secret Service: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The United States Secret Service is a federal law enforcement agency with headquarters in Washington, D.C., and more than 150 offices throughout the United States and abroad. The Secret Service was established in 1865, solely to suppress the counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Today, the agency is mandated by Congress to carry out dual missions: protection of national and visiting foreign leaders, and criminal investigations.

[jesse]

Timetraveler, I was unable to not laugh while watching the "honorable" pastor ranting and raving about Obama and his family roots. I'm sure this would count as politically correct because it's an african hating another, $DEITY forbid a non-african were saying this. I don't think i've ever witnessed such hatred, not even from the most avowed Obama haters prior to this.

This kind of thing makes the case for abolishing internet anonymity.

You gotta wonder how much of this crap people would spew if they had to account for their words.

While you're at it, please declare the Bill of Rights and every and all forms of civil liberties null and void. No one has to agree with what you say, all they mean is that you are allowed to share whatever your views are if you choose to do so.

There will always be people who will spew lies and filth like there's no tomorrow.

[Hamburglar]

As much as I hate to admit it, Jesse is right.

Taking away the ability to object anonymously could degrade freedom of speech in a number of situations. As if, "I'm John Doe, and I wanna kill X political leader" would make any difference from "I wanna kill X political leader"? They are both protected forms of speech until they become demonstrated action or undeniable intent (i.e. making inflammatory statements, buying a gun, and purchasing a bus ticket to the capitol and selling all worldly possessions). Sometimes people need to be protected for the information they reveal, and otherwise they would be killed or discredited, etc....

None the less, it's in bad taste to espouse such hateful speech. If you hate a person so much that you want to kill them, you have a less than developed set of tools with which to handle adversity.

[timetraveler]

This kind of thing makes the case for abolishing internet anonymity.

You gotta wonder how much of this crap people would spew if they had to account for their words.

No it doesn't make that case. If you abolish anonymity on the internet nothing stops individuals from using direct mail. Through direct mail they'd be even more anonymous. It's generally very difficult to track individuals and this isn't an internet issue but an security issue in general.

With the amount of surveillance this government has on it's citizens, it's very very unlikely that anything anyone says anywhere whether on the internet or off is anonymous. But if I'm wrong about what I'm saying, the gov can always build more surveillance cameras, more satelites, more listening devices, and most importantly good old fashioned undercover agents will uncover any real security threats. As far as the internet goes, anything anyone says online is probably monitored at the ISP level so everyone who voted is probably tracked down the instant they click send.





timetraveler added to this post, 11 minutes and 39 seconds later...

This kind of thing makes the case for abolishing internet anonymity.

You gotta wonder how much of this crap people would spew if they had to account for their words.

What makes you think they don't have to account for their words? Do you really think the NSA and Secret Service can't see what goes on online? The FBI has a device which records every email and every thing a user says. It gets saved in a database at the the ISP. There is no reason to ruin the internet, just let people talk and datamine it. More importantly though the internet isn't where crimes get committed, you need undercover agents to detect who the threats.

People say a lot of BS online, or even in person, but most people aren't going to do anything but talk. The people who are doing more than talk are the terrorists, and terrorists typically don't care about accountability. They are prepared to die for whatever cause they see themselves fighting for. So if you get rid of semi anonymous behavior on the internet you'll only drive the terrorists underground and off the internet and that wont make the job any easier.

Finally there needs to be a place for anonymous communication somewhere. If an individual cannot communicate anonymously for something bad they also cannot communicate anonymously for something good. If the cops or FBI is average some criminal the same people who want to get rid of anonymous communication are then the ones asking for tips. Nobody is going to talk of course because theres no anonymous communication. So you end up in a situation where you have law enforcement complain that no on talks on one hand, and on the other hand theres too much anonymous chatter and we have to put an end to it. Both sides have a political agenda in my opinion and the solution for both sides is to give the gov increased surveillance powers, while also letting people have anonymous communication. If only the government/NSA can de-anonymize(is that a word?) the communication by law, and only in cases of terrorism, then I'd support the surveillance. I don't support letting the NSA and local cops join forces and spy on the American citizen.