Facebook has been intercepting the private messages of users in the United States and forwarding them to the FBI if they contain statements that are deemed to be “anti-government or anti-authority.” These statements may include calling into question the veracity of the election that will take place in 2020.
“In accordance with the FBI collaboration operation, someone at Facebook red-flagged these ostensibly subversive private messages over the course of the previous 19 months and then forwarded them in redacted version to the domestic terrorism operational unit at FBI headquarters located in DC, without a subpoena,”
Under the condition of maintaining their anonymity, one of the individuals who blew the whistle on the organization said, “It was done outside of the judicial procedure and without probable cause.” “Without a subpoena, Facebook makes it possible for the FBI to access private communications that are shielded from public view by the First Amendment.”
One of the Post’s sources said that “They [Facebook and also the FBI] were hunting for people who had conservative or right-wing views. None of them were members of Antifa.”
“Conservative right-wing people” best describe all of the Users on Facebook whose private messages were reported to the FBI as potentially being related to acts of domestic terrorism on Facebook.
“They were furious Americans with guns and red blood who were firing off their lips and talked about holding demonstrations after the election,” the author writes. “They were red-blooded Americans with guns.” There was nothing illegal, nothing regarding violence, and nothing that included murdering or otherwise taking the life of another person.
Some of the people who were targeted were Americans, and some of them had uploaded images of themselves online in which they seemed to be “firing weapons and whining about what’s occurred” (after the election of 2020). Only a few people belonged to armed groups, but the Second Amendment made it legal for them to do so… -NY Post
After being detected, the private communications were sent as “leads” to FBI field offices located around the nation.
These offices would then get in touch with the US Attorney’s Office in their respective regions to lawfully get the private talks they had previously been shown.
“As soon as a subpoena was given, Facebook immediately responded with terabytes of data and photographs inside an hour. They just needed that legal procedure to be completed before they could transmit it “explained one insider.
Having said that, the federal government isn’t uncovering very much to prosecute.
“It was a waste of our time,” said one person acquainted with the “frenzy” by the FBI to find domestic terrorism cases to match the language of the Biden administration following the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021. “It was a waste of our time,” added the source.
Facebook has issued two contradictory responses, each of which was delivered an hour apart, denying the claims.
“These assertions are not true because they are based on a misunderstanding of the way in which our systems protect individuals from danger and the way in which we interact with law enforcement. We give every government request for user information a thorough review to ensure that it complies with applicable laws and is as specific as possible, and we often reject such requests. We comply with legal demands for information in line with the relevant legislation and our agreements, and we notify users whenever it is permissible to do so “a representative for Facebook’s parent company, Meta, named Erica Sackin, made this statement.
After that, in a second “updated statement” that was released 64 minutes after the first one, Sackin modified her terminology to imply that the assertions were “wrong” rather than “false.”
“These assertions are completely false. “The suggestion that we seek out people’s private texts for anti-government dialect or questions about the authenticity of past elections and then proactively deliver those to the FBI is plainly inaccurate, and there is zero evidence to support it,” said Sackin, a crisis response expert based in Washington, DC, who worked previously for Planned Parenthood and “Obama for America,” and who now leads Facebook’s communications on “counterterrorism and dangerous organizations and individuals.” Sackin currently leads communications on “counterterrorism and dangerous organizations” (via NY Post)
However, the FBI did agree that it has a partnership with social media sites that enables a “rapid exchange” of information and an “ongoing discussion.” The FBI would not confirm nor reject the accusations, but they did accept that the relationship exists.
“The FBI maintains contacts with businesses that are part of the private sector in the United States, including suppliers of social media platforms. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has given businesses foreign threat indicators in order to assist these businesses in protecting their clients and platforms against exploitation by foreign malicious influence actors. In addition, information of investigative value pertaining to foreign hostile influence has been provided to the FBI by corporations based in the United States. In order to guarantee that we are sharing information as it becomes available, the FBI maintains tight working relationships with partners from other federal agencies, as well as partners from state and local governments. This may consist of information about potential threats, actionable leads, or indications. In addition, the FBI has built ties with a number of different social media and technology businesses, and it has ongoing communication with these partners in order to facilitate the rapid transmission of threat information “a statement released by the agency stated.
If it were true, Facebook’s denial that it proactively would provide the FBI with private user data without the need for a subpoena or search warrant would indicate that the preliminary transfer was done by a person (or persons) there at a company designated as a “confidential human source” by the FBI. This is someone who had the authority to access and search users’ private messages. If Facebook’s denial is true, this would indicate that the initial transfer was done by a person (or persons) at the firm designated
In this manner, Facebook would have “plausible deniability” in the event that issues emerged regarding the exploitation of its customers’ data, and the FBI would preserve the confidentially of Facebook’s employees.
According to one of the people working for the Department of Justice (DOJ), “They had access to searching and they were able to target it, to find these talks among millions of discussions.”
Remember that in late August, Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, acknowledged to Joe Rogan that the FBI had sent a warning to the firm about “Russian propaganda” immediately before the Hunter Biden story broke, which the company promptly banned in a very harsh manner.
We would be grateful if you could donate a few $$ to help us keep operating. https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/
The freedom of speech and alternative media face challenges from powerful entities. Real News Cast relies on reader support to flourish and endure. Your contribution matters greatly. Every dollar aids in maintaining the site's vitality and assists the author, including covering medical expenses. https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/