The FBI ‘Can Neither Confirm nor Deny’ That It Monitors Your Social Media Posts

In recent years, the federal government has significantly ramped up its efforts to monitor people on social media. The FBI, for one, has repeatedly acknowledged that it engages in surveillance of social media posts. So it was surprising when the bureau responded to our Freedom of Information Act request on this kind of surveillance by saying that it “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.”

The six other federal agencies we submitted the FOIA request to haven’t produced a single document. The request, filed last May, seeks information on how the agencies collect and analyze posts from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites.

 

Today we sued the agencies to get some answers, because the public has a right to know about the exact nature of social media surveillance — especially whether agencies are monitoring and retaining social media posts, or using surveillance products that label activists and people of color as threats to public safety based on their First Amendment-protected activities.

Based on what little information is publicly available, it’s clear that the federal government routinely tracks domestic social media users, with a particular focus on immigrants.

For example, according to official government websites, the FBI has sought to create an application that would enable it to “instantly search and monitor” information on social media platforms. It completed detailed documentation stating that it intended to contract with Dataminr, a data analytics and machine-learning vendor that we previously called out for sharing data with federal “fusion centers,”  to obtain “the mission critical social media monitoring needed by the FBI.” And it contracted with Pen-Link, another big data analytics firm, for “software that parses and analyzes social media data.”

Meanwhile, the State Department has announced plans to collect usernames from nearly all of the 14.7 million people who annually apply for work or tourist visas. And the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies have repeatedly expanded their manual and automated social media surveillance in efforts that include the misguided “extreme vetting initiative.”

Federal law enforcement surveillance of social media associated with Black Lives Matter has already been exposed, continuing a decades-long pattern of government monitoring of minority activists and communities. 

The government could be using commercial surveillance software to conduct this surveillance:  Documents obtained by the ACLU of Northern California in 2016 revealed how companies marketing this software had built products specifically for law enforcement monitoring. The disclosure of the documents resulted in policy changes from Twitter and Facebook.

Social media surveillance raises a number of red flags. First, it discourages people from speaking freely — a phenomenon that research and studies bear out.

Indeed, in its letter responding to our FOIA request, the FBI said that simply acknowledging its use of social media surveillance would “risk circumvention of the law.” The bureau seems to be saying that if people knew that the government is monitoring what they’re saying on social media, they’d be less likely to say it. That looks like an admission of the chilling effect that the First Amendment aims to prevent. But because almost all online speech is lawful, it doesn’t make sense to argue that social media users are “circumventing” the law if they limit what they say online.

Aside from chilling expression, government monitoring of social media raises the risk that innocent people will be wrongly investigated or put on government watchlists based on that speech.

It’s clear from already public information that all of the agencies we’re targeting in our FOIA lawsuit engage in manual and automated surveillance of social media users and their speech, and it’s unacceptable for the government to withhold details about this domestic spying. The public needs to know how the government is watching us — and we shouldn’t have to think about self-censoring what we say online.

View comments (35)
Read the Terms of Use

Lauren Deluca -...

My organization regularly has its media content on Instagram “hacked” with the likes being removed from content that is starting to trend. I have photos with 213 likes and a caption then I when I woke up the following morning the likes we done to 13 and the Caption was changed. And the new caption did appear to be something I would say. This has happened several times and I feel it is suspect to say the least given I am the president of a Organization leading a controversial political cause.

Anonymous

For those who wonder why this is a big deal: If you are a potential or attempted whistle blower you can become "monitored indefinitely". Your FOIA requests for proof will go ignored. It becomes creepy and can debilitate every area of your life. Imagine not only being " monitored " unlimitedly, but also being intimidated and controlled socially, financially, psychologically. If you think ALL of your local, state, federal authorities have integrity not to weaponize intel against you, use it to fabricate propaganda, and create evidence against you (discrediting you "painting a picture"), well you are wrong. Don't be uniformed and oblivious to what is going on. People are suffering just because they KNOW things. Example think about how vulnerable an Ex-wife of a law enforcement officer would be: in a local, state, and federal level to such actions. Then ask yourself, what if she knows things? Think of a concerned employee (with ethics) within your local court house, what if they know disturbing things? Then image the REAL guilty parties "indefinitely " MARKING and MARKETING them as political hostiles. Every time they enter a government building, pulled over, apply for a job, try to relocate, other authorities are notified nefarious information "advisories" about them. Its real and its hell in earth.

Anonymous

This is the worst thing ever how FBI goes about finding their so called criminals by labeling them based on their race. I am facing and dealing with this today as my son has been detained all because of social media. Proving his first case not being guilty...on his release they rearrested my son on two more serious crimes. I'm so over whelmed and I'm glad ucla bringing justice and making our voices heard! My son continues to fight his case and If anyone can advice me on what I can do about this...please...

Anonymous

This is the worst thing ever how FBI goes about finding their so called criminals by labeling them based on their race. I am facing and dealing with this today as my son has been detained all because of social media. Proving his first case not being guilty...on his release they rearrested my son on two more serious crimes. I'm so over whelmed and I'm glad ucla bringing justice and making our voices heard! My son continues to fight his case and If anyone can advice me on what I can do about this...please...

khalil spencer

Oh, yes, the Glomar Response. Sue them, damn it. That's why the ACLU gets my annual check.

Pages

Stay Informed