Here is the actual DHS report mentioned (but not cited -- that would be journalism, shudders RT) : https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_privcomr...
As you will note, should you care to read it, the above is actually about placing constraints on the data mining operations of DHS.
We Americans certainly have valid reasons to be quite concerned regarding the surveillance society that is now being overtly foisted on our civil society.
But it is /of utmost importance/ of us to be vigilant and careful readers and resist efforts by highly interested global actors to shape and direct the narrative and political discourse of the thinking Americans.
1) Be inundated by something on FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Comedy Central, C-SPAN and the Weather Channel 2) Go hunt up something that you know is going to have a different bias I've heard it argued (convincingly) that AJE has less bias than American media. I'm not going to make that argument, nor am I going to rely on it. What I will point out is that it is far more common for Americans to reactively go to RT or AJE than it is for them to actively go to RT or AJE. Further, the saturation of American news sources in the United States inoculates all but the most biased against most anti-American propaganda. News is never digested in solitude. It is always digested as part of The Commons. When The Commons is 99% the sources listed above, 1% of the craziest, most moon-batty propaganda is, for all intents and purposes, a drop in the bucket. Speaking of moon-batty...
To keep things in perspective, you can be certain that a certain subset of the conversations that we have here on Hubski would simply not be tolerated in the nations afflicted with the regimes that fund and operate these organs. I know this to be true for a fact at least for Iran. Also note: The Library of Congress already is archiving the entire tweet stream and that in fact is well within their mandate:
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-081.html (kinda takes the steam out of the whole story, doesn't it?)
Interesting read. I saw it as a way of establishing an institutional voice. Further note: It is also easier to replace "journalists" who may (God forbid) get the religion of truth speaking and decide to get off the ideological boat of the said institution. "Our man in Washington". Gotta hand it to them .. they are a clever bunch over at The Economist ;)