NSA: Illegal Data Mining To Affect Elections
The NSA is involved in illegal data mining to affect the elections. Various contractors and phone companies are involved. This explains how data mining is used to target voters and affect the election outcome.
The number of personnel is involved is substantial. This illegal activity is well known in the Senior Ranks of the Administration, Department of Justice, RNC, and the National Security Agency.
Action: Share this link: Ref; learn how the RNC voting vault works. Ref
The Department of Justice has illegally threatened the state representatives with lawsuits for asking questions about the illegal activity. It is not lawful for prosecutors to litigate against those who are attempting to lawfully inquire into illegal activity; nor is it lawful for the DoJ Staff to classify something that is related to illegal activity.
Public statements asserting the data mining is related to a surveillance program are false, materially misleading, and designed to thwart lawful investigation by the states into illegal activity.
Seymour Hersch explained that phone numbers were selected and monitored.Ref He did not explain how the phone numbers were selected; or how the transcripts were then matched with demographic data.
USA Today confirms that the phone companies are working to provide billing information. Ref USA today has not reported on how the phone companies are working with the NSA on non-classified, illegal activity; and that the phone companies have violated ORCON by unreasonably assenting to "classification" for something that is illegal.
NewsMax [Aug 2006, page 42] explains how demographic data is aggregated to affect voters. [Ref ] NewsMax has not explained how the data is quickly gathered; or how government resources are illegally used to quickly target voters who are at the notes of key communication hubs. NewsMax did not discuss the details of how the NSA-gathered information is matched with demographic data; or how the NSA-related aggregated information is matched with voter data.
Individual phone numbers are broken down into two groups:
It is a violation of the law to use the National Security Agency to gather information on American civilians with the express objective of gathering personal information, or use that information for purposes unrelated to national defense.
Monitoring is done on specific dates related to specific events.
NSA contractors are told the phone numbers are related to terror. This is misleading. Numbers are picked not on the basis of a concern with illegal activity, but because of this person's uncertain response. This person is a key indicator and a trend setter. The goal is to monitor how this person reacts to orchestrated events, then shape the government statements to influence these key decision makers.
Specific numbers are called and monitored after specific types of events. The objective is to analyze content, how the demographically-identified voter is responding, and what public messages will most favorably affect that voting demographic group.
The monitoring is done in many locations. The demographic data is not necessarily understood to have been gleaned from illegal monitoring. The Senior leadership within the Administration knows, or should know, that they are in some cases misleading the contractors on how the data was acquired; whether the conduct is lawful; and the full range of illegal activities.
The phone companies have been incorrectly told that the monitoring is part of the domestic surveillance program. However, this is a ruse. The phone companies have agreed to lie about the nature of the activity; but they know or should know that [a] the activity was not lawful; [b] the required warrants were not secured; [c] that the activity was known to be illegal; [d] the program was not a bonafide classified program; and [e] the monitoring was not solely directed at suspected terrorism, but was also directed at targeting, monitoring, and gathering non-criminal demographic information.
The results have implications for the legal community, American Bar Association, and the State Bar Disciplinary Boards.
A reasonable General counsel would have investigated and gathered more information. The phone company general counsels have a duty to report illegal activity, and otherwise remove themselves from criminal enterprises. The DoJ Staff has worked closely with the phone company general counsels to induce them to cooperate with the illegal activity.
There is also an issue of procurement fraud and illegal, unenforceable contracts. Funds are being expended on illegal things, in violation of Article 1 Section 9.
The DoJ Staff has threatened the phone companies with potential loss of contracts if they discuss the illegal activity. This is a subsequent violation. It is not lawful for anyone to threaten the loss of something of value for refusing to participate in illegal activity.
It is not lawful to classify information related to illegal activity. It is known that the overall conduct -- not simply the narrowly-defined program -- is illegal. Gonzalez and the President have admitted that FISA warrants have not been secured as required under the statutes.
Gonzalez has also indicated that actual activity was merely hypothetical. The attorney General has also lied when he said the DoJ Staff were busy with other things. Rather, at the time when the Attorney General said there were more pressing matters and the known, required warrants were not obtained the DoJ Staff was not, as the Attorney General has said, working on other things: They were engaged in non-official business.
DoJ Staff Attorneys are complicit in the illegal activity. This exposes them to 42 USC 1983 liabilities.
Under 42 USC 1983, American civilians are able to work with their attorneys to broaden their investigation, and act as "private attorney generals" to broaden the investigation and gather evidence of civil rights violations.
NSA contractors and personnel on assignment for election consulting have bypassed the privacy statutes. They are aggregating open-marking information, with information gleaned from the social marketing tools.
They use an approach related to "event driven marketing." This is a system by which a specific event is fabricated, then the NSA will monitor the public reaction. For example, one approach is to test media messages by issuing commercial numbers for the public to watch.
The messages are different in different demographic regions.
Once the public responds, additional information is collected. This demographic information is then applied to actual voter-data, and RNC personnel are directed at that specific voter.
NSA transcripts have been reviewed to collect non-national security related information. Under the minimization procedures, the identifying information is stripped away.
However, the voter-related concerns are aggregated, then matched with other demographic data.
The illegalities are:
Summary
The numbers collected related to those voters are affected by specific events and media messages.
Media messages are issued to trigger public responses, whereby additional demographic data is collected.
Online activity and voter responses to events are monitored in real time aggregated; the summary comments are matched with identifying demographic data.
It is possible to aggregate online searches, aggregate this data to find demographic data, then match events with voter attitudes: Events can be shaped, commented on, and fed back into the voters to get them to respond.
Rather than just mobilize new RNC voters, the goal is to increase the DNC voter turnout; then strip from the DNC those who might vote for the RNC.
Questions For Grand Jury
Where did the NSA and telephone companies get the numbers used for targeting?
How has the NSA addressed 42 USC 1983 litigation on this matter?
How was demographic information used when selecting NSA targets?
How was demographic data used to select the phone numbers?
How are the NSA intercepts then transcribed and used to review content?
After NSA intercepts are stripped of identifying information, what methods do the various civilian contractors use to aggregate the results, then reassign the data to ranges of voters?
How are public events used as a catalyst for increased monitoring?
How are public responses to media messages used to test the effectiveness of various messages?
Once an event occurs, what ensures that the event is real, rather than orchestrated to target specific voters?
How are the follow-up surveys, questions, or other demographic data-aggregation done to link [a] voter demographic data with [b] voter attitudes expressed in the NSA transcripts?
How are media messages tailored to specific events?
How are media messages used to solicit public responses, not just for a specific product, but for the purposes of gathering voter demographic data?
How are events shaped in the media to trigger discussion on issues that are more or less favorable to a specific voting objective?
What You Can Do
Send letters to your state bar disciplinary board. Look for the Senator Kennedy Memo related to concerns with DoJ Staff Attorney Conduct. Ref Provide a copy of the letter to the American Bar Association, DC Bar Disciplinary Board, and the state-level officials.
Encourage Members of Congress to provide in writing their concerns with the DoJ Staff Attorney. This written concern is something the American Bar Association needs to address: Why are personnel, involved in illegal DoJ Activity, being presented to the Senate for placement on the federal courts?
Learn the lessons of the 9-11 Commission. They had reservations about what they were being told, and suspected illegal conduct. However, they did not investigate nor provide that information to the FBI. The issue going forward: Do Members of Congress reasonably review the public information related to NSA involvement with domestic spying; and is there a reasonable effort to challenge the DoJ Staff assertions that the illegal activity is "classified"?
posted by Constant @ 8:17 AM
<< Home