Project Vigilant

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Don't listen to Parky man Cid. His BBC link is from 12 days after the attack. There was confusion at the time, but in the 9 years since that case of mistaken identity has been cleared up.

 

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

 

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

 

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

 

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

 

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

 

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...y_theory_1.html

 

Cheers. Back on my original horse then of the government doesn't need to collect personal info as they already collect enough data on the "bad guys" to get them identified, etc. etc.

 

And Parky, if you don't think four guys could take over a plane in 18 minutes, you severely overestimate the average American airline passenger's intestinal fortitude/ underestimate the power of shouted commands by scary brown people with box cutters prior to 9/11. These were cubicle dwelling stooges for the most part on another business trip- not special forces or hell even firefighters. These were people who for the most part did exactly what they've been told to do for God knows how long in their lives. I'm not mad at them, but being mad at people like that for not fighting back is like being mad at a lesbian for not wanting to kiss you- it's just not in their nature.

[sniffer 0]

Don't listen to Parky man Cid. His BBC link is from 12 days after the attack. There was confusion at the time, but in the 9 years since that case of mistaken identity has been cleared up.

 

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

 

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

 

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

 

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

 

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

 

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...y_theory_1.html

 

Cheers. Back on my original horse then of the government doesn't need to collect personal info as they already collect enough data on the "bad guys" to get them identified, etc. etc.

 

And Parky, if you don't think four guys could take over a plane in 18 minutes, you severely overestimate the average American airline passenger's intestinal fortitude/ underestimate the power of shouted commands by scary brown people with box cutters prior to 9/11. These were cubicle dwelling stooges for the most part on another business trip- not special forces or hell even firefighters. These were people who for the most part did exactly what they've been told to do for God knows how long in their lives. I'm not mad at them, but being mad at people like that for not fighting back is like being mad at a lesbian for not wanting to kiss you- it's just not in their nature.

 

And you are different how?

 

Good job for the hijackers that you weren't on the plane, eh? Then all those months of planning would've just gone tits up.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Don't listen to Parky man Cid. His BBC link is from 12 days after the attack. There was confusion at the time, but in the 9 years since that case of mistaken identity has been cleared up.

 

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

 

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

 

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

 

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

 

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

 

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...y_theory_1.html

 

Cheers. Back on my original horse then of the government doesn't need to collect personal info as they already collect enough data on the "bad guys" to get them identified, etc. etc.

 

And Parky, if you don't think four guys could take over a plane in 18 minutes, you severely overestimate the average American airline passenger's intestinal fortitude/ underestimate the power of shouted commands by scary brown people with box cutters prior to 9/11. These were cubicle dwelling stooges for the most part on another business trip- not special forces or hell even firefighters. These were people who for the most part did exactly what they've been told to do for God knows how long in their lives. I'm not mad at them, but being mad at people like that for not fighting back is like being mad at a lesbian for not wanting to kiss you- it's just not in their nature.

 

And you are different how?

 

Good job for the hijackers that you weren't on the plane, eh? Then all those months of planning would've just gone tits up.

 

Where did I say I was any different? Point is- it's foolish to think that a bunch of regular people are suddenly going to risk life and limb in a hijacking situation, pre- 9/11. Nowdays, sure, I'm sure a lot of people would jump them knowing that you're probably going to die anyway, but at that time, I don't think there had ever really been a hijacking in the US- at least not one in the air that I can recall.

[sniffer 0]

It's the whole tone and implications in your post. Very common in your threads because you pander to the anti-American sentiment on here. You remind me of Smithers. Fucking pathetic, tbh.

[Park Life 71]

It's the whole tone and implications in your post. Very common in your threads because you pander to the anti-American sentiment on here. You remind me of Smithers. Fucking pathetic, tbh.

 

That would be the same anti-American sentiment that's prevalent throughtout the world I guess.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

It's the whole tone and implications in your post. Very common in your threads because you pander to the anti-American sentiment on here. You remind me of Smithers. Fucking pathetic, tbh.

 

So I should just blindly support bullshit wars, bullshit bailouts, and bullshit self-serving politicians because of where I was born? I think that's infinitely more pathetic.

 

EDIT: And for the record, what am I implying in this thread other than 1) the government collects tons of data on us already- they just don't know what to do with it, and 2) the average everyday run of the mill American isn't going to jump up and try to stop a plane hijacking pre-9/11.

 

What's pathetic and pandering about that? Christ, it's way more pathetic to think that everyone who stepped on a plane regardless of experience, physical prowess, cunning or whatever could and would stop an in-flight hijacking like they were in an action movie.

 

This is real-life, man. People generally do what they're told. They stop at red lights even when no other traffic is coming. They wait in line instead of rushing up to the counter, and if armed terrorists tell you to stay in your seats or they'll kill you, they'll do that. My point about office people is that maybe, maybe if the plane were filled with people who regularly operate outside of societal bounds (that is, again- special forces/ military, firefighters, cops, etc.), they might not have listened, but office people most likely will listen as that's the world they live in.

 

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Cid_MCDP

[peasepud 59]

Aye but those profile are anonymous, aren't they?

 

Nope. Advertisers don't give a toss and pay for the anonymous data. The government are interested in linking your IP to a name and monitoring use which Project Vigilant are happy to do for them to circumvent privacy law.

 

The emergence of a private market that sells this data to the Government (or, in the case of Project Vigilance, is funded in order to hand it over voluntarily) has eliminated those obstacles [The Law]. As a result, the Government is able to circumvent the legal and logistical restrictions on maintaining vast dossiers on citizens, and is doing exactly that. While advertisers really only care about your online profile (IP address) in order to assess what you do and who you are, the Government wants your online activities linked to your actual name and other identifying information. As Calabrese put it: "it's becoming incredibly easy for these companies to link your IP information to who you really are, by, for example, tracing it to your Facebook page or other footprints you leave with your identifying information." As but one example, The Washington Post recently began automatically linking any visitors -- without their knowledge or consent -- to their logged-in Facebook page. The information turned over to the Government is now easily linkable -- and usually linked -- to the citizens' actual identity.

 

So they are using facebook profiles to link IP addresses and real people?

 

Well that me off to spend two hours updating my Dennis Wise account while subsequently reading numerous sites on how to make your own shoe bomb.

[Guest alex]

I bet sniffer's got one of those stars and stripes ties.

[Happy Face 29]

Uber's claims about his group are wildly exaggerated, rendering my concerns about it largely misguided and unwarranted.

 

In a follow-up post, Kerr points to and tentatively endorses this analysis from Richard Bejlitch, who makes a persuasive case that Project Vigilant is "largely a publicity stunt, meaning it was just invented and its so-called 'history' is an extension of someone's imagination." I also had several email exchanges with Cato's Julian Sanchez, who spent the last several days investigating Project Vigilant and Uber's claims and -- for reasons he will detail in a piece he is writing -- also concluded that concerns about this group are largely unwarranted. Numerous, knowledgeable readers -- both in the comment section to that post and via email -- have also offered compelling arguments as to why it's far more likely than not that Uber is basically engaged in a self-aggrandizing, attention-seeking campaign (not unlike Adrian Lamo), and thus, to put it mildly, is seriously hyping the importance of his group and what it does.

 

Anyone with even minimal credibility knows not to believe uncorroborated, fantastical claims simply because they are publicly touted. What persuaded me of the authenticity of Uber's claims -- aside from their being reported in the above-mentioned credible publications by reporters who regularly cover surveillance issues -- were two articles from last month in The Examiner by Mark Albertson, covering Project Vigilant at length. Indeed, the second one was specifically devoted to addressing doubts about its seriousness:

 

It’s tempting to look at a secret group of cybercrime "monitors" and dismiss them as a group of lightweights trying to play cops and robbers in the Internet world. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

The article identified numerous, sophisticated Internet experts -- former officials of the DOJ, DHS, the NSA and the New York Stock Exchange -- who were purportedly working with them. All of this evidence together led me to conclude that the group was real and credible. I interpreted my inability to gather more information about them -- including by speaking that morning with surveillance experts who had never heard of them, and attempting to find out background information about them and the corporation which "funds" it only to come up largely empty -- as simply a reflection of how covertly they operated. In retrospect, I should have been more skeptical of these claims.

 

In sum, the dangers of the growing private surveillance industry and its increasing commercial relationship with the U.S. government are every bit as real and severe as I described. But "Project Vigilant" is probably not an example of that.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...ance/index.html

 

[Happy Face 29]

On an tenuously related note....

 

 

A conservative group calling itself Digg Patriots has been caught gaming Digg in a big way. What a bunch of dirty teabaggers.

 

Gaming Digg and its algorithms for delivering the correct news and content to the top of the pile is wrong whatever the underlying reason for doing it may be. But doing it in order to push a particular political agenda? That’s just about as bad as it gets, because it goes against the very idea of the site, of democracy, and of free speech.

 

Digg works by people digging or burying, voting up or down, stories submitted by Web users. If a story gets lots of diggs it moves up and eventually on to the front page of the site. Lots of buries and it moves down and is eventually removed from the site never to see the light of day. A front page hit on Digg can generate lots of traffic for a website, which means lots of people viewing the content.

 

This means many people have gamed or attempted to game the site for their own ends, usually driving traffic to their website to make more revenue. But the same thing can also be done for political reasons, as shown by an extensive and well-written post over at AlterNet.

 

The group allegedly responsible for this effort is Digg Patriots, who are thought to have organized via Yahoo and used multiple accounts to avoid rousing suspicion. And what content did the group attempt to bury? Anything which basically didn’t agree with their right-wing ideology.

 

They hate Obama. They hate progressives. They hate the UN, diplomacy, and peace/disarmament efforts. They hate reforms of health care, Wall St., and immigration. They hate science, in fact many are creationists, and some even blog about it. They hate the secular nature of our nation. They hate environmental protection, requiring polluters to be responsible for their own cleanup, and especially hate climate efforts. They hate unions and any attempt to level the playing field to give all Americans economic opportunities. They hate the government, except the military-industrial complex. They hate abortion rights. They hate public schools and really hate higher education. They hate anyone in the media except far right personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin. They hate anyone who doesn’t think Obama is a secret islamist and/or marxist who was born in Kenya. They just love to hate.

 

I would assume Digg will now take action against the alleged members of this group. No doubt they’ll pop up again in the future using different aliases to wreak havoc once again, but it should take them some time to regroup.

 

Digg told ReadWriteWeb that the new Digg should stamp out this issue anyway, as the bury feature is being removed. That won’t, however, stop pro-conservative news stories being dugg and dugg and dugg.

 

People are DIGGing this story so much that Alternet is running like a dog, but here's the link...

 

http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010...digg-uncovered/

[sniffer 0]

Shut that cunt up anyway.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

On an tenuously related note....

 

 

A conservative group calling itself Digg Patriots has been caught gaming Digg in a big way. What a bunch of dirty teabaggers.

 

Gaming Digg and its algorithms for delivering the correct news and content to the top of the pile is wrong whatever the underlying reason for doing it may be. But doing it in order to push a particular political agenda? That’s just about as bad as it gets, because it goes against the very idea of the site, of democracy, and of free speech.

 

Digg works by people digging or burying, voting up or down, stories submitted by Web users. If a story gets lots of diggs it moves up and eventually on to the front page of the site. Lots of buries and it moves down and is eventually removed from the site never to see the light of day. A front page hit on Digg can generate lots of traffic for a website, which means lots of people viewing the content.

 

This means many people have gamed or attempted to game the site for their own ends, usually driving traffic to their website to make more revenue. But the same thing can also be done for political reasons, as shown by an extensive and well-written post over at AlterNet.

 

The group allegedly responsible for this effort is Digg Patriots, who are thought to have organized via Yahoo and used multiple accounts to avoid rousing suspicion. And what content did the group attempt to bury? Anything which basically didn’t agree with their right-wing ideology.

 

They hate Obama. They hate progressives. They hate the UN, diplomacy, and peace/disarmament efforts. They hate reforms of health care, Wall St., and immigration. They hate science, in fact many are creationists, and some even blog about it. They hate the secular nature of our nation. They hate environmental protection, requiring polluters to be responsible for their own cleanup, and especially hate climate efforts. They hate unions and any attempt to level the playing field to give all Americans economic opportunities. They hate the government, except the military-industrial complex. They hate abortion rights. They hate public schools and really hate higher education. They hate anyone in the media except far right personalities like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin. They hate anyone who doesn’t think Obama is a secret islamist and/or marxist who was born in Kenya. They just love to hate.

 

I would assume Digg will now take action against the alleged members of this group. No doubt they’ll pop up again in the future using different aliases to wreak havoc once again, but it should take them some time to regroup.

 

Digg told ReadWriteWeb that the new Digg should stamp out this issue anyway, as the bury feature is being removed. That won’t, however, stop pro-conservative news stories being dugg and dugg and dugg.

 

People are DIGGing this story so much that Alternet is running like a dog, but here's the link...

 

http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010...digg-uncovered/

 

These volunteer organizations are sorta like using contractors in business or government- they don't have to play by the same rules you're beholden to, and its an extra layer of blame if it all goes bad when the lights come on.

 

That Digg stuff and the items (Yahoo's Buzz, etc.) like it are one of those things I just don't get- I understand that news is all about ratings now like any other network show, but it creeps me out to know that a few people with Nielsen boxes, or in this case, an army of people willing to Digg articles or whatever is controlling the media. I mean, its obviously not an ideal situation when something like 6 companies control it, but somehow it's worse when it's a bunch of pissed off volunteer lapdogs eagerly seeking scraps from their masters' table.

[Rob W 0]

the problem for them is that if they collect every message then they're getting a load of s*** liek this board - who goes through it all?

 

The Russians had the same problem in the Yevhovchina in the '30's

 

Every suspect had to name at least 6 others (otherwise the interrogator was a spy of course)

 

Once you threw in the the number of guards, they were a couple of arrest cylces of having the whole country either in the slammer, guarding them or declared as taritors

 

It had to stop for that reason alone

 

same with monitoring the internet - they can listed but they can't track everyone (a Mr Bin Laden pointed that out to me the snug at the BlueBell the other night)