US Navy Wants 350 Billion Social Media Posts (bbc.com) 109
The US Navy is seeking to create an archive of at least 350 billion social media posts from around the world, in order to study how people talk online. From a report: The military project team has not specified which social media platform it intends to collect the data from. The posts must be publicly available, come from at least 100 different countries and include at least 60 different languages. They should also date between 2014 and 2016. The details were revealed in a tender document from the Naval Postgraduate School for a firm to provide the data. Applications have now closed. Additional requirements included: the posts must come from at least 200 million unique users; no more than 30% can come from a particular country; at least 50% must be in a language other than English; location information must be included in at least 20% of the records; private messaging and user information will not form part of the database.
USN: Signals intelligence since 1882 (before radio (Score:3)
The US Navy Office of Signals Intelligence (ONI) was created in 1882, to watch the communications of other countries.
After usable radio was invented, Navy ships carried long-distance receivers designed by Marconi himself, in order to communicate between ships and to shore. It just so happened that the same receivers could listen to radio transmissions from the *other* guy's ships, and the *other* country's land-based stations.
So for over 130 years now the US Navy has been paying close attention to the commu
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, them Marconi long-distance receivers never get old. Nice leap from 1882 to today, could you please fill us in on what they've done since 1882?
I know it will come as shock to you, but every branch of every military has their own intelligence service, except, strangely, Tuvulu.
Re: (Score:2)
> could you please fill us in on what they've done since 1882?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it will come as shock to you, but every branch of every military has their own intelligence service, except, strangely, Tuvulu.
That's exactly what they want you to think ;)
If so, they are really, really bad at it (Score:3)
If that's what they've been trying to do, they must be really, really bad at it. They've had all these thousands of missiles, even nuclear missiles, for decades, and have hardly fired any.
The US military has about twice the capability of all of the European countries combined; the USN represents approximately half of the naval power on the entire planet, yet they hardly ever kill anyone - just a few dictators and scare the shit out of some pirates.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the US military protects about half the world too....if we stopped that, our allies would have to start footing more of their own military bills, and might start finding it hard to provide all those "free" social programs they have and complain that the US does not have.
True, and only half of the story (Score:2)
That's true. It's also true that (depending on the administration), we expect our friends to be friendly to us. US military protection one-sided, there is an unwritten obligation to help us out, to stand with us. Friends help each other.
When US leaders understand that, it can be a powerful tool of international relations. When US leaders go on an "apology tour", or make us appear weak or afraid, it sabotages a significant US asset.
Re: (Score:2)
the US military protects about half the world too....
"Protects" as in "That's a nice country you've got there, be a real shame if anything bad happened to it".
But sure. Carry on believing you're the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the countries we bomb are the countries we were protecting, though.
They're generally countries disliked by the countries we're protecting.
If you ask our allies, they'll tell you we're the good guys. If you ask our enemies, they'll tell you we're not.
I know which you are!
Re: (Score:2)
The US military has about twice the capability of all of the European countries combined; the USN represents approximately half of the naval power on the entire planet, yet they hardly ever kill anyone - just a few dictators and scare the shit out of some pirates.
That's the point. No one will fight with an adversary they know they will lose against. It keeps the peace.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary purpose of the U.S. Navy is to keep the sea lanes open so the Russkies and the Chinese don't own them. Jeezes, get out of the 60's.
Re: (Score:2)
People forget that in a major war the ships would get sunk, and wouldn't be that helpful. All the major countries have satellites and know where all the warships are.
As long as they're still sailing around unchallenged, we know we're at peace!
Fighting carrier strike group is harder than findi (Score:2)
That might be true I fifty years.
The major major nations can find the US carrier strike groups, and the US Air Force bases. Finding them is one thing, getting past not only 70 aircraft deployed aboard, and the many, many guns defending them, but also the other nearby US assets (including other carriers) is quite a different thing.
I can *find* Dwayne Johnson. Beating him up is another matter entirely.
For China specifically, the US wouldn't park a strike group right on the Chinese coast because China *might*
Re: (Score:2)
I can *find* Dwayne Johnson. Beating him up is another matter entirely.
If he doesn't know you want to fight until you spray his eyes with mace, you might even have the advantage!
If you're so far from the coast that you're safe, you're not projecting very much power. Especially if they have a larger number of land-based aircraft.
None of the important sea lanes to protect are very far from land.
In a real war, the US Navy saves most of their ships by hiding them until the war is over. During the war, they're not patrolling those sea lanes. Submarines, maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the NPS being part of the Navy is like saying the Ministry of Funny Walks is part of the British selective service.
I wonder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://help.twitter.com/en/ru... [twitter.com]
For facebook it is generally anything posted to the public but can vary.
https://www.govtech.com/public... [govtech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Violation of Canadian and EU law (Score:2, Informative)
Such a collection is expressly a violation of the EU GPDR and the Canadian Constitution, both of which apply to all citizens worldwide and to residents in those regions.
And the State Constitution of Washington State.
I could go on.
Expect lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You signed those treaties. You deal with the consequences.
Re: Violation of Canadian and EU law (Score:1)
Say that when your aircraft carrier is seized.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Navy is not the EU Navy.
Which section is that? (Score:3)
Do you think Twitter is a violation of the Canadian Constitution? Which part?
Twitter is, of course, a collection of Twitter posts, so if a collection of Twitter posts somehow violates the constitution, that would include Twitter itself.
As to GDPR, almost every list that involves people is *technically* a violation of GDPR, if it's used for any business or professional purpose. I suppose USN could argue it is for a military purpose, not a commercial purpose. However GDPR also explicitly applies to each indi
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter has freely given, opt-in permission from every user to store and display those tweets. The US Navy does not.
In fact it would be a GDPR violation for Twitter to allow the Navy to harvest tweets in bulk in that manner.
Good point. But where is the real Ami? (Score:1)
That might be the smartest thing you ever posted here on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks?
Sorry, I was rude (Score:2)
I shouldn't have said that like I did. You're right on the consent thing.
On anything political you and I pretty much disagree on everything. If I came from your background and read the media you read, I'd probably think the same way you do. A reasonable, intelligent person reading CNN all day would see a certain view of the world and come to believe certain things. Coming from my background and reading what I read, your conclusions often seem ridiculous to me. Not because you're not smart, but because what
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that, and don't worry about it. It's really refreshing to meet someone who thinks that way.
I don't watch CNN. Maybe you can get it here on cable, I don't know. For news I mostly use the BBC, Guardian, Independent, NHK and i. Well, I don't check the Indy much these days because of the auto-play videos.
But I also tend to think that my political philosophy is less a reflection of those (I often disagree with them) and more just as a result of applying my philosophical beliefs (mostly humanism) and o
Guardanista, eh? ;) (Score:1)
Sounds like the same concept, different country.
I don't read the British press as much as I should, so I don't have a great example of what you might see, but perhaps an analogy of what I see in the US will make sense. Nearly every day, Fox News has a story about a firefighter or cop who saved someone, or did some great unselfish act. Also nearly every day, CNN will have an "update" about some cop who did something bad two years ago. Both stories are true. There really is a hero cop, and really is a bad a
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I see your point but I'd be careful with assumptions there. For example I read the Indy but the rather obvious bias is a bit grating. They definitely put a spin on things. I mostly read it to pick up on a few things the others don't report, and to see how the People's Vote campaign is going as they report (in a biased way) on that quite often.
It's sad that people find other points of view "trolling" and can't stand to hear them. Usually the same ones moaning about their free speech being curtailed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly true that my mere name triggers are Pavlovian response in some people.
Re: (Score:1)
Twitter has freely given, opt-in permission from every user to store and display those tweets. The US Navy does not.
In fact it would be a GDPR violation for Twitter to allow the Navy to harvest tweets in bulk in that manner.
The US Navy is not collecting the tweets. Twitter, if that turns out to be the supplier, did. The US Navy is buying the database from Twitter. Not collecting. Not scraping off the net. Not "harvesting".
Second, the GDPR covers PERSONAL data. The RFQ explicitly excludes personal data from the purchase. If you have put personal data into your tweet, then that was YOUR choice and YOUR option, and your act in tweeting it to the public is an implicit agreement for them to see it.
Third, by POSTING the tweets
Re: (Score:2)
The privacy violations would have been committed by Facebook, Twitter, etc. collecting and not protecting that information, not by the US navy harvesting it. Besides which, the US government has sovereign immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you sign an international treaty that says you respect the privacy rights of the EU and Canada, treaties are higher than laws, it's LITERALLY IN THE US Constitution.
Do none of you people take Civics anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
The US Navy can do what it wants globally within US law.
US law is not EU law.
The US mil is not the gov of Canada.
The US would never sign any "international treaty" that would hold back the collection ability of the US mil.
Re: (Score:2)
What has ever held the UN Navy, NSA, GCQH, MI5, MI6 back over the past decades?
The UK and USA always ensure they can do what they want with mil/gov actions.
The "EU" and "Canada" are not the US Navy. Not the USA AC.
That's so cute (Score:2, Troll)
Your internet privacy is so far down the totem pole the Chinese saw it when it tunnel through the Earth and came out the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
What part of "private messaging and user information will not form part of the database" can you not understand?
Re: (Score:1)
Such a collection is expressly a violation of the EU GPDR and the Canadian Constitution,
Utter nonsense. If this were true, why has the EU not taken Twitter or other social media company to court to sue them out of existence? Or Canada sued anyone over this?
Here's the facts that are being ignored in this manufactured broo ha ha:
Re: (Score:2)
I see you haven't been paying attention to the record fines in the UK and EU for social media firms recently, over just this thing. Or in Canada.
Yes, their laws for their citizens data, EVEN IF COLLECTED FROM A US SITE, apply here, it's part of the Data Privacy Agreements, and there will be actions taken under the treaties.
Thanks for playing. Next time read the parts of the US Constitution about how Treaties are suzeraint over Congressional Laws.
Re: (Score:1)
The US Navy isn't gathering anything, and they aren't creating any database. They're buying an existing corporate collection. The responsibility for GDPR or the Canadian Constitution (which does not apply the the US Navy because it is the CANADIAN CONSTITUTION) falls upon the corporation already collecting the data.
I don't care if there are "record fi
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The USN, just like the USAF my dad and grandpa served in, is subject to Treaties.
Nice try.
Re: (Score:1)
If there is one that applies, you would have responded to any of the other requests for info on what treaty you think is involved, but you have not. Stop spreading nonsense and chill out. The big bad US Navy isn't going to drop a bomb on your head because you tweeted something bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No US law, no problem for the US Navy.
Nations in the EU and Canada are not the USA so that is of no legal issue to the US mil.
The "EU GPDR" is a problem in EU nations gov/mil and the EU bureaucrats.
What the Canadian Constitution says is a problem for the mil/gov of Canada to work within.
The USA mil is not the EU/Canada.
1970: The Ministry of Silly Walks . . . (Score:3)
2019: The Ministry of Silly Posts.
Hmmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"The US Navy is seeking to create an archive of at least 350 billion social media posts from around the world, in order to study how people talk online"
Nothing creepy or ominous there.
I'm scared to even imagine what kind of automated goal-seeking surveillance project this might be used for.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Perhaps it will be used to better understand how leftist elements used social media platforms to disseminate nonsense about the false ''Russia'' narrative that has disrupted American politics for a few years now.
And perhaps you are a brainwashed tool who worships a clown.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Mostly to support the CIA and MI6 do better color revolutions using social media.
2. To give the CIA and MI6 the ability to look back over any persons past.
Can they ever be used in another nation is any role if they have a complex online/scoial media past that would never fit with their created "spy" story with created a NGO/business/political/trade/faith "role".
3. To look over all US s
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers 2 and 4 seem the most likely to me.
It's the same reason as to why the NSA stores reams of encrypted data that they've intercepted but can't read.
They can't read it today, but they'll probably be able to someday and the insights would/will be invaluable.
And yes, the Earnest Voice thing (or something like it) is also a very likely application. Maybe to train bots to be truly indistinguishable from real people. Feed in the slant of the news or platform you want (or don't want) and let it run, flooding
Re: (Score:2)
No more political anthropologists needed. They can do it with real data sets.
Detecting the result in real time is the fun part
how do they talk? (Score:2)
Boats (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US Naval Intelligence is kind of like the NSA and CIA except they have aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines. They also seem to screw up less.
Probably they want to develop tools to gauge political stability in a region and possibly push it one way or another. Stable for places near where your boats are floating, unstable for places your boats are bombing.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Navy is returning to their past skill sets as the new NSA is now too busy with different tasks.
Tracking the worlds communications is a task that is returning to the US Navy.
Supporting missions globally from US ships.
A container ship in some port in China. Collect it all.
All the "people talking online" unaware of what the US Navy is doing with its collecting.
Until a CIA backed color revolution starts.
Save your waste fats (Score:2)
Type like the wind. Smash the Axis.
We can do it.
Just ask the NSA! (Score:1)
:)
Selection bias (Score:3)
They should also date between 2014 and 2016.
Is this *another* attempt to pretend Clinton didn't lose in 2016 on her own merits (or rather lack thereof)?
The military....? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any system will always have a human at the very end of any US mil system.