Does the IRS monitor this forum?

[ivan salis]

well I can not state for a fact about this site * but I can for a fact state that facebook is def monitored * some time back my niece (about 15 at the time ) foolishly posted a photo off her cell phone of her and her girlfriend of about the same age finding 3 pot plants in some plant containers in the woods behind my cousin's house .... a few days later a "swat team" dressed batch of cops showed up at my cousins house "demanding" that she show them where the POT FEILD was located on threat of jail if she didn't ---of course she complied and showed them --thankfully it was not her plants and she wasn't charged --but they as "proof" that she knew where the plants where showed her --- her "posting' on facebook. --so yes indeed they are watching..

remember just because your not interested in politics or the govt doesn't mean their NOT interested in you....as well.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red James Cash]

remember just because your not interested in politics or the govt doesn't mean their NOT interested in you....as well.

Bingo,another nice stogie handed out.

 

[Dave Rishar]

well I can not state for a fact about this site * but I can for a fact state that facebook is def monitored * some time back my niece (about 15 at the time ) foolishly posted a photo off her cell phone of her and her girlfriend of about the same age finding 3 pot plants in some plant containers in the woods behind my cousin's house .... a few days later a "swat team" dressed batch of cops showed up at my cousins house "demanding" that she show them where the POT FEILD was located on threat of jail if she didn't ---of course she complied and showed them --thankfully it was not her plants and she wasn't charged --but they as "proof" that she knew where the plants where showed her --- her "posting' on facebook. --so yes indeed they are watching..

The question is, did the police figure that out all on their own, or did someone see this on Facebook and call them? I suspect that the latter scenario is what actually occurred.

Imagine an organization where a human being looked over every piece of electronic communications that I generate each day. How many people like me could this person track? Twenty? Thirty? I don't text as much as most people do, so let's say thirty. Hell, let's bump that up to one hundred to get a nice round number, even though I don't think that's possible. But that's an eight hour shift, so you'll need two more people to cover the rest of the day. And because those people don't work seven days a week, you'll need a few more people to cover weekends and holidays, plus a few more to cover sick days and vacations and such. You're now looking at six or seven people to monitor the hundred of us, so about one monitor per 16 people being monitored. Let's crunch the numbers: 314 million people in the US (give or take a few thousand either way), divided by sixteen...yeah, they're going to need 19,625,000 monitors - and that's just to cover US citizens; never mind the terrorists overseas that they're supposed to be watching. This would pose a problem for the federal government, as they only employ about 2.7 million personnel. They could ask the state, county, and municipal governments for assistance, and if we added up all of them, we might just have enough monitors...but then we would have no government at all, as everyone from the president to the guys that mow the lawns at the city park would be too busy reading my emails to do anything else.

A more reasonable expectation would be that most electronic communications are logged (as astonishing a feat as that is), with certain criteria utilized to determine which communications are worth looking at; remember, there's no way in hell that they can look at them all, so they have to be selective. Is there a list of words that generate flags? Undoubtedly. Maybe the points of origin that those communications come from, or the people who receive them? Absolutely. I'm sure that there's more than that. But to think that everyone is always being watched is just...I don't know, far-fetched. I wouldn't expect anyone not on their radar to be actively monitored, and remember, that radar by necessity cannot be all that large. There are too many people to watch, and not enough people to watch them.

And who are they watching? Terrorists. People with certain political or religious beliefs here at home, which they also brand as terrorists. Heads of state. Basically, people who are or who can potentially be a threat to them. That's why I don't think that anyone is scrutinizing me to any degree. Aside from periodic background checks due to my job, I'm just not that interesting.

I really don't think that they're watching treasure hunters. As I said earlier before the thread was derailed into conspiracy theories, they have bigger fish to fry. (Yes, even the IRS. And if they were watching me, again, they would have known not to audit me that year, as it resulted in their having to pay me several hundred dollars. That's not a smart way to run an agency that's supposed to generate revenue.)

YMMV. I only ask that people look at it critically before they get too worked up over it.

 

[Red James Cash]

So you think fusion centers are conspiracy theories?Yup ok

 

[Dave Rishar]

Not at all. Of course they exist. You can read about them on the DHS website.

However, you're focusing very hard on one tree and ignoring the rest of the forest. Run the numbers. Do you think that it's possible for every electronic transmission (never mind the non-electronic ones) to be looked at by a human being? And with regards to what may or may not be labelled as a "threat" (because that's what fusion centers are for, no matter who you ask - they identify threats), do you think that treasure hunting is in a threat category?

 

[Red James Cash]

Not at all. Of course they exist. You can read about them on the DHS website.

However, you're focusing very hard on one tree and ignoring the rest of the forest. Run the numbers. Do you think that it's possible for every electronic transmission (never mind the non-electronic ones) to be looked at by a human being? And with regards to what may or may not be labelled as a "threat" (because that's what fusion centers are for, no matter who you ask - they identify threats), do you think that treasure hunting is in a threat category?

Not at all,I focus on everything.You dont know me to well.I never stated that all transmissions were looked at by humans.I know very well how data is gathered.Its all keywords and key phrases,when one rings a bell then its looked at,or,its stored away waiting for other keywords or phrases to pop up.Fusion centers arent just for threats,theyre for everything.Right now we're probably getting this thread on the border line of being locked,no politics allowed except in the political section.Remember this,the average american citizen is considered the enemy.Dont doubt it.

 

[Chug And Red]

Mmmmmmmmmmm Maybe I need to Open those Letter From the IRS, Maybe I can Pay My Taxes With Crusty Zincoln Pennies! But I don't Have Enough of them Yet!!!

Chug

 

[ivan salis]

dave they got electronic "skimmers" --computers that track data --text -- that use "keywords" to trigger what gets sent to a human being that monitors this stuff --only the stuff that's forwarded by the computers gets checked out by a human ---- this of course greatly expands their monitoring ability --they also have computers that skim voice data from phone calls --these too are set to detect "keywords" and then shift it to a human being who checks it out .-- this is what snowden reveled about the NSA to the public ... and why they were so pissed about it.

 

[G.I.B.]

do you think that treasure hunting is in a threat category?

Your forgot the 'paranoia' category.

 

[Red James Cash]

I wonder if theres a "SFB" catagory

 

[Dave Rishar]

dave they got electronic "skimmers" --computers that track data --text -- that use "keywords" to trigger what gets sent to a human being that monitors this stuff --only the stuff that's forwarded by the computers gets checked out by a human ---- this of course greatly expands their monitoring ability --they also have computers that skim voice data from phone calls --these too are set to detect "keywords" and then shift it to a human being who checks it out .-- this is what snowden reveled about the NSA to the public ... and why they were so pissed about it.

I understand. Do you feel that any terms related to metal detecting, treasure hunting, gold panning, thrift shop finds, or indeed anything else routinely discussed on this forum is on that list, that the NSA is evaluating it, and that it's being passed on to the IRS?

 

[CASPER-2]

YES - I DO

 

[Dave Rishar]

I'm still not seeing anything treasure related.

As for the big list...gorilla? Glock 26? (And why have both Glock 26 and Glock? Wouldn't "Glock" cover both?) Poor old Gaston and his family must be perpetually flagged.

Spyderco? They make nice knives, but I'm not sure why they'd be on some sort of a watch list. Must be the spooks trying to get a leg up on the competition with the sprint runs.

Juliett class submarine? They're interested in a couple of decommissioned Russian diesel boats that are fifty years old, but not interested enough to track them past their NATO designator? (I did not see Project 651 on that list; apologies if I missed it.)

I respectfully remain unconvinced, and I have serious doubts about the authenticity of that list.

 

[Red James Cash]

Thats ok,remain in doubt.Thats your choice.So tell us why you only have 424 posts after being here going on 7 years?That casts a lot of doubt to your claims.Having doubt works in a lot of ways.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Please keep politics out if threads except on the politics forum....

 

[Dave Rishar]

Thats ok,remain in doubt.Thats your choice.So tell us why you only have 424 posts after being here going on 7 years?

Perhaps I don't spend quite as much time on the internet as others do. I don't have a good answer for this. I did take a few years off from Tnet, as you've doubtless seen from my posting history. (The posting that I did after 2009, anyway.) That's the best explanation that I can give.

Is there a minimal level of posts required in order to take part in discussions? I'd much prefer to discuss the topic at hand.

That casts a lot of doubt to your claims.Having doubt works in a lot of ways.

Anything to say about my earlier statements besides personal attacks? I mean, I'm okay with it if the site admin is okay with it, but sheesh...I thought that we were discussing something besides me here. If that's what you want to talk about though, we can talk about that instead. It's one of my favorite subjects.

 

[Escape]

Just incase the IRS is monitoring, we should put a disclaimer at the bottom of are post. Such as, " The items mentioned may or may not have been actually found. Posting is intended for entertainment purposes only." Now you can post what ever the heck you want. Did I mention the two bags of gold I found on federal land?

 

[Limitool]

Just incase the IRS is monitoring, we should put a disclaimer at the bottom of are post. Such as, " The items mentioned may or may not have been actually found. Posting is intended for entertainment purposes only." Now you can post what ever the heck you want. Did I mention the two bags of gold I found on federal land?

* Did I mention the two bags of gold I found on private land?

* The items mentioned may or may not have been actually found. Posting is intended for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Escape]

Limitool: To funny... ; )

 

[Red James Cash]

As for the big list...gorilla? Glock 26? (And why have both Glock 26 and Glock? Wouldn't "Glock" cover both?) Poor old Gaston and his family must be perpetually flagged.

Spyderco? They make nice knives, but I'm not sure why they'd be on some sort of a watch list. Must be the spooks trying to get a leg up on the competition with the sprint runs.

Juliett class submarine? They're interested in a couple of decommissioned Russian diesel boats that are fifty years old, but not interested enough to track them past their NATO designator? (I did not see Project 651 on that list; apologies if I missed it.)

Why dont you ask them,dont ask me

Is there a minimal level of posts required in order to take part in discussions? I'd much prefer to discuss the topic at hand.

No not at all,but to me,theres a minimal number of posts that would make you( or anybody else)more or less believable.430 posts in almost 7 years doesnt quite cut it in my book.It just kind of makes you look,well you know

The topic at hand cannot be discussed here as I already said.The OP can be discussed but not what we are getting into.TH already warned.

Anything to say about my earlier statements besides personal attacks?

No personal attack at all,call it an observation.

If you dont believe the list just go to the DHS and FEMA and NSA websites.