Words To Avoid Using Online

[Lancewen]

The following quote was an email I received and I know that I've used some of those words in the list in online forums such as this one. Does that mean I'm on a government watch list somewhere?

 

With so many computer articles referring to computing “in the cloud”, I just hope they’re having fits trying to keep up with analyzing it all…

 

Revealed: Hundreds of words to avoid using online if you don't want the government spying on you (and they include 'pork', 'cloud' and 'Mexico')

 

• Department of Homeland Security forced to release list following freedom of information request
• Agency insists it only looks for evidence of genuine threats to the U.S. and not for signs of general dissent

By Daniel Miller

 

PUBLISHED: 04:32 EST, 26 May 2012 | UPDATED: 12:46 EST, 26 May 2012

 

• Comments (174)

 

 

 

 

Revealing: A list of keywords used by government analysts to scour the internet for evidence of threats to the U.S. has been released under the Freedom of Information Act

 

The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.

 

The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as 'attack', 'Al Qaeda', 'terrorism' and 'dirty bomb' alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like 'pork', 'cloud', 'team' and 'Mexico'.

 

Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats.

 

The words are included in the department's 2011 'Analyst's Desktop Binder' used by workers at their National Operations Center which instructs workers to identify 'media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities'.

 

Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government.

 

However they insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.

 

More...

 

• Thanking his drug dealer in his yearbook and inventing the best ways to inhale: Book lifts lid on 'Barry' Obama's marijuana-smoking school days
• Passengers restrain man on an American flight from Jamaica after 'he tried to rush the cockpit after landing'
• Undercover US agents brought down our new Superjet: Russia’s extraordinary claim about crash which killed 45

As well as terrorism, analysts are instructed to search for evidence of unfolding natural disasters, public health threats and serious crimes such as mall/school shootings, major drug busts, illegal immigrant busts.

 

The list has been posted online by the Electronic Privacy Information Center - a privacy watchdog group who filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act before suing to obtain the release of the documents.

 

In a letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counter-terrorism and Intelligence, the centre described the choice of words as 'broad, vague and ambiguous'.

 

Scroll down for full list

 

 

Threat detection: Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats

 

They point out that it includes 'vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters.'

 

A senior Homeland Security official told the Huffington Post that the manual 'is a starting point, not the endgame' in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats and denied that the government was monitoring signs of dissent.

 

However the agency admitted that the language used was vague and in need of updating.

 

Spokesman Matthew Chandler told website: 'To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program.'

 

 

 

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE: THE LIST OF KEYWORDS IN FULL

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1wYUOEhAn

[Turtle]

The following quote was an email I received and I know that I've used some of those words in the list in online forums such as this one. Does that mean I'm on a government watch list somewhere?

 

if you weren't on the list before, you most certainly are now. :lol: we know who you are & we know what you read.

 

how about a contest to compose an otherwise innocent letter that contains all the trigger words. oooops! i said trigger. :doh:

[Lancewen]

if you weren't on the list before, you most certainly are now. :lol: we know who you are & we know what you read.

 

how about a contest to compose an otherwise innocent letter that contains all the trigger words. oooops! i said trigger. :doh:

 

Fortunately all those words are listed in 3 pictures .jpg format and shouldn't cause the trigger event you mentioned. But I do like your contest idea.:woohoo:

[Guest MacPhee]

Fortunately all those words are listed in 3 pictures .jpg format and shouldn't cause the trigger event you mentioned. But I do like your contest idea.:woohoo:

Notice that in the "Weather/Disaster/Emergency" section of the vocabulary, "lightening" is listed as suspicious. Is that incompetence - or an insight into the likely poor spelling of potential plotters.

 

And that raises the thought:

 

Supoze teroristz deliberuhtley myspeled orl ov thair werds wen droring upp therr pheendish skeems, wud thay eskaype detekshun?

[Lancewen]

Notice that in the "Weather/Disaster/Emergency" section of the vocabulary, "lightening" is listed as suspicious. Is that incompetence - or an insight into the likely poor spelling of potential plotters.

 

And that raises the thought:

 

Supoze teroristz deliberuhtley myspeled orl ov thair werds wen droring upp therr pheendish skeems, wud thay eskaype detekshun?

 

Very bad spelling is a suspicious behavior in and of itself. Also, not recommended for use on a science forum.:blink:

[Guest MacPhee]

Very bad spelling is a suspicious behavior in and of itself. Also, not recommended for use on a science forum.:blink:

 

Wouldn't that throw out at least half the posters on Hypography?

[CraigD]

Supoze teroristz deliberuhtley myspeled orl ov thair werds wen droring upp therr pheendish skeems, wud thay eskaype detekshun?

Very bad spelling is a suspicious behavior in and of itself. Also, not recommended for use on a science forum.:blink:

'/34|-|! d0|\|'7 j00Z |<|\|0\/\/ 7|-|@ 7|-|3 0|\|L'/ 4((3P74BL3 5(13|\|(3 - 0R @ L3457 73(|-||\|0L09'/ - 933|< 4L73R|\|473 5P3LL1|\|9 15 L337? ;)

 

Seriously, though, I share MacPhee’s curiosity as to how well tools used to crawl the web, emails, etc to find suspicious words and phrases, handle “alternate” spelling.

 

I don’t think it would take too much sophistication to translate misspelled but human-readable text to correctly spelled text – “just” convert the cipher (or, I should say, misspelled) text to speech, then convert to speech back to text, for which there are many old, mature programs.

[C1ay]

There's a message hidden in this post. Can you find it?

[Lancewen]

There's a message hidden in this post. Can you find it?

 

No, how about a hint? Okay I'll guess if you don't write anything you have nothing to worry about.

[CraigD]

No, how about a hint? Okay I'll guess if you don't write anything you have nothing to worry about.

Hint: It's Leet (L337). Notice there's a link in the last word (L337) in the cryptic-looking text, to a wikipedia article that'll ruin your chance of experiencing the thrill of figuring it out yourself, as will prematurely googling Leet/L337.

 

It's in English, so just try looking at it "from a distance", as you might messy handwriting, and it should come to you. :)

[Ken]

 

 

:rolleyes:

[Turtle]

there is just no accounting for human error. i've typed "spammer" so many times in the last several months they are bound to be onto me.

 

anyway, without quoting everyone, you know who you are.

 

perhaps "lightening" was misspelled by who made the list, and not a proper entry with the misppeliing attributed to terro....erhm... those people. :ebomb: :lightning:

 

the hidden message is stego.

 

ken; how did you get my photo?

 

i would say more, but then i'd have to...well, you know.

[belovelife]

well, if its hazordous to the nuclear detection office, and dirty bombs were involved, the i suppose that a hoe grown organization could potentially

 

shootout, or spread something like ecoli or worse national security could be in a state of emergency for a hacker causing a brown out in the

 

emergency broadcast systym, because if a leak or a biological spill, industrial spill or white powder were to happen, then tellecommunications

 

, and the critical infrastrucute could be in jepordy

who knows

 

i would say,

 

watch me, and learn,

 

since imho,

 

it is great to teach, but greater to learn

 

thats mho

 

but what if, lol, the rofl became hazordous to our stomach muscles

 

just saying, sometimes a tool can build, sometimes it can be dangerous

 

therefore

 

i am nuetral

 

Edited June 23, 2012 by belovelife

[C1ay]

No, how about a hint? Okay I'll guess if you don't write anything you have nothing to worry about.

This post from the past should get you started...

[jab2]

I find the list rather curious, or rather the choice of words. My training is analytical chemistry and I worked for a number of years making, or rather testing, military explosives and propellants. I'm not in the trade anymore, but still have a healthy interest in the subject. My other interest is nuclear physics, and the history of nuclear weapons. So I have a long history of Google searches on these subjects.

 

Have I triggered a response somewhere yet? I'm positive of that, but since a background check would most likely ID me as not being a threat (OK, one never know with the stories one read about the rather disjointed thinking of your TSA), I cannot believe the number of words which is missing from that list. There are no reference to any chemical name of a major explosive, indeed it does not even have the general name of the explosives, and the worst, it does not even have the word, explosives, by itself. Really, this can't be the correct list, or some people are dead at their desks. :blink:

[Lancewen]

I find the list rather curious, or rather the choice of words. My training is analytical chemistry and I worked for a number of years making, or rather testing, military explosives and propellants. I'm not in the trade anymore, but still have a healthy interest in the subject. My other interest is nuclear physics, and the history of nuclear weapons. So I have a long history of Google searches on these subjects.

 

Have I triggered a response somewhere yet? I'm positive of that, but since a background check would most likely ID me as not being a threat (OK, one never know with the stories one read about the rather disjointed thinking of your TSA), I cannot believe the number of words which is missing from that list. There are no reference to any chemical name of a major explosive, indeed it does not even have the general name of the explosives, and the worst, it does not even have the word, explosives, by itself. Really, this can't be the correct list, or some people are dead at their desks. :blink:

 

I did find "explosion (explosive)" in the first grouping. But I do see your point. They do not mention specific chemicals. But in thinking about it, if you were talking about specific chemicals, how many other trigger words would be in the document and give it away. Also, this was a public list and I would think there might be a secret list not for publication.