Biden Team May Partner With Private Firms To Monitor Extremist Chatter Online (cnn.com) 250
schwit1 shares a report from CNN: The Biden administration is considering using outside firms to track extremist chatter by Americans online, an effort that would expand the government's ability to gather intelligence but could draw criticism over surveillance of US citizens. The plan being discussed inside DHS, according to multiple sources, would, in effect, allow the department to circumvent' [restrictions the U.S. government has to surveil American citizens]. A source familiar with the effort said it is not about decrypting data but rather using outside entities who can legally access these private groups to gather large amounts of information that could help DHS identify key narratives as they emerge.
In response to CNN's story, DHS said it "is not partnering with private firms to surveil suspected domestic terrorists online" and "it is blatantly false" to suggest that the department is using outside firms to circumvent its legal limits. "All of our work to address the threat of domestic terrorism is done consistent with the Constitution and other applicable law, and in close coordination with our privacy and civil liberties experts," the DHS statement added. But the department has considered partnering with research firms who have more visibility in this space, though it has not done so to this point, the sources said. If that ultimately happens, DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can't monitor US citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation. The CIA and NSA are also limited on collecting intelligence domestically.
Researchers who already monitor such activity online could act as middlemen to obtain the information. DHS officials maintain the materials provided would only consist of broad summaries or analysis of narratives that are emerging on these sites and would not be used to target specific individuals. But some of the research firms and non-profit groups under consideration by the DHS periodically use covert identities to access private social media groups like Telegram, and others used by domestic extremist groups. That thrusts DHS into a potential legal gray area even as it plugs an intelligence gap that critics say contributed to the failure to predict the assault on the Capitol.
In response to CNN's story, DHS said it "is not partnering with private firms to surveil suspected domestic terrorists online" and "it is blatantly false" to suggest that the department is using outside firms to circumvent its legal limits. "All of our work to address the threat of domestic terrorism is done consistent with the Constitution and other applicable law, and in close coordination with our privacy and civil liberties experts," the DHS statement added. But the department has considered partnering with research firms who have more visibility in this space, though it has not done so to this point, the sources said. If that ultimately happens, DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can't monitor US citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation. The CIA and NSA are also limited on collecting intelligence domestically.
Researchers who already monitor such activity online could act as middlemen to obtain the information. DHS officials maintain the materials provided would only consist of broad summaries or analysis of narratives that are emerging on these sites and would not be used to target specific individuals. But some of the research firms and non-profit groups under consideration by the DHS periodically use covert identities to access private social media groups like Telegram, and others used by domestic extremist groups. That thrusts DHS into a potential legal gray area even as it plugs an intelligence gap that critics say contributed to the failure to predict the assault on the Capitol.
Failed to predict? Please! (Score:5, Insightful)
They ignored all the signs right there in front of their damn faces
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another liberal who does not understand that "court packing" specifically means *increasing the number of justices on the court*.
The rest of your identified "lies" are similar.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's literally not. Packing the court refers to adding seats to the court. History doesn't record Trump doing this. The last president to attempt this was Roosevelt, and it's not even clear that the Constitution permits this. It only came up because some Democrats were pushing the i
Re:Failed to predict? Please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The US calls it an insurrection (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if using hyperbole to bolster your argument isn't exclusive to any one group on the internet.
Re:Failed to predict? Please! (Score:5, Insightful)
The cynic in me believes that they knew exactly what was going to happen, but let it go to the extreme so that they could use the outrage for political leverage.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you be cynical?
Just because suddenly noone in the media wanted to talk about the election irregularities, and how a senile geriatric who didn't even bother to campaign lost 18 of the 19 bellwether counties, but somehow received more votes than any candidate for POTUS in the nation's history?
Just because there have been Democrat operatives who were filmed taking credit for infiltrating Trump's rallies to provoke violence [dailycaller.com] before?
Just because the Democrats conspired to undermine the president with a
Nothing to see here (Score:3, Funny)
See, nothing:
Cui bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can't monitor US citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation.
This may benefit the FBI and DHS - but I think it's highly detrimental to the citizens themselves. What's the point of requiring warrants anymore, if the government can get the data it wants without needing one, through this kind of legal skullduggery? The goal of the warrant law is not to have a bit of paper - it's to force the government to justify their need for your information to a third party - a judge. Even if this loophole may respect the letter of the law, they can't tell me it respects its spirit.
I think any information obtained by the government via this mechanism should be automatically declared a fruit of a poisonous tree [wikipedia.org] and not admissible in any court.
Re:Cui bono? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the point of requiring warrants anymore,
98% of warrants are approved anyway, and the other 2% are approved after having procedural deficiencies corrected.
They never protected you in the first place.
Do you know what the penalty is for approving a warrant based on laughable, obviously-fabricated “evidence”?
Hint: It’s the same penalty that lawmakers receive for passing a law they know to be unconstitutional.
Nothing.
The answer is nothing.
Your rights are protected by nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you know what the penalty is for approving a warrant based on laughable, obviously-fabricated “evidence”?
To a good lawyer it can mean it gets thrown out of fucking court.
The system is rather fucked, not completely fucked. And your assumptions mean less than nothing.
Re: Cui bono? (Score:2)
Re:Cui bono? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think the "2A folks" are going to do?
Have their guns pried from their cold dead hands by people with bigger guns?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the "2A folks" are going to do?
A whole lot of NOTHING.
Once the shit hits the fan, most of them will hide sobbing with soiled pants, firing wildly in random directions.
Prove me wrong.
Re: Cui bono? (Score:2)
The people who broke into the capitol did not carry and use firearms. The only person killed during the event was an unarmed woman who was shot by a police officer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh right there is no more right to bear arms and the few militia groups which exists are portrayed by the media as nazi klan terrorists or some such bullshit.
You mean these brave patriots who planned on kidnapping an elected official? I feel safer already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Are these militia groups open to people with brown skin? The more members the better right?
Re:Cui bono? (Score:4, Interesting)
But the government cannot do that. It cannot employ private partners to get around the 4th Amendment. A good example is hard drives on computers you bring in for repair. If a tech stumbles across something illegal, they can report it. But if they have a cozy relationship to scan and report, that's them functioning as an extension of the government, and is illegal without a warrant.
They mouth statements to allay this fear, then double down on describing doing exactly what they just said they weren't, a cozy official pipeline of info gathered and reported to them.
Re: (Score:2)
"But the government cannot ... employ private partners to get around the 4th Amendment."
Oh yes it can. It already has. You may recall reports that the FBI used NSA databases to gather surveillance data on citizens they could not collect themselves. And that they used private contractors to do so, contractors sometimes employed by the NSA.
It has already been done.
Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Like when Obama/Biden bugged Associated Press (Score:5, Informative)
"Extremist", of course, will include whatever "chatter" we don't like ...
Sort of like when the Obama/Biden administration spied on accredited journalists. Dozens of associate press land lines, reporter cell phones, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Over leaks related to North Korea nukes, Stuxnet, Snowden and Manning, etc? Um, yeah. That's chatter we don't like.
Who is this "we"?
The feds generally work in such a way that they have made themselves a "they"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremist", of course, will include whatever "chatter" we don't like ...
It’s hate speech.
And racist speech.
And sexist speech.
And ableist speech.
And transphobic speech.
And homophobic speech.
And xenophobic speech.
And insurrectionist speech.
And islamaphobic speech.
And climate-denying speech.
And anti-vaxxer speech.
And unverified speech.
And speech which triggers someone.
And speech which promotes equality.
And speech which promotes diversity.
And speech which promotes tolerance.
And speech which blames a victim in a fashionable class.
And speech which makes someone feel bad about their body, unless their body is orange or belongs to an unfashionable group.
And verified speech which calls into question the purity and divinity of a fashionable group.
And speech which a crazy person might believe therefore it’s dangerous.
And speech which may cause people to lose faith in our elections.
And speech which may cause someone to do something that the ruling-class doesn’t like somewhere.
And speech which states a provable fact but which threatens the fabricated reality that thefadhionable class has created for itself.
And speech which violates the policy of a large corporation.
And speech which doesn’t violate any policy but which disagrees with someone fashionable.
And speech which points out the hypocrisy and misapplication of any of the above.
There will be more forbidden speech categories.
That’s a promise.
Like screaming “fire” in a crowded theater, a few common-sense restrictions on freedom is more than reasonable.
If you want the right to violate these rules, you’ll need to join a fashionable group, and learn to conform. It’s the only way we can be sure that you are pure enough to use the banned words and phrases in a way that doesn’t threaten us.
Again, completely reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
About half of those are reasonable, defining "reasonable" as what you'd expect the three-letter organizations to be interested in based on their charter. The other half sounds like verbal diarrhea.
Besides collecting money (particularly the DHS) their other concern is appearing to do their job, which means stopping the violent overthrow of the government, mass-casualty events, etc. They only care about your ideas if they look something like a Jihadi, Weather Underground, or Timothy McVeigh. If you're like-mi
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the original is "FALSELY screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre".
Further note that the Supreme Court case dealing with same was, at least partly, overturned by another Supreme Court case....
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Folks like Merkel are openly saying "we need to bring in 3rd world foreigners en mass to support and replace all the old people who didn't have enough kids to keep the population rising" (paraphrased)
Re: (Score:2)
This is well known. Social security is mathematically a Ponzi scheme -- it needs needs investors to pay back old investors, and is faltering because the math doesn't lie.
Wholesale importation of younger workers was desired by both parties to stave off problems with it, for one more generation without having to make tough cuts which are devestating to an elected politician's career (and fortunes, where their family income goes up beyond their salary, as they mysteriously become investment geniuses.)
That the
Re: Biden doesn't have that much power (Score:3, Insightful)
You think what happens AFTER Biden? How about what happened during Biden round 1 in 2015-2016.
Per Reuters a few days ago:
The U.S. Justice Department has told a court it did not have enough evidence to justify continued surveillance of one of President Donald Trump's former campaign advisers in 2017, in a sign it believes the FBI on occasion went too far when it investigated Russian influence in the 2016 election.
So yes, they knew Russian influence was a hoax, the FBI and DOJ and FISA courts went after it an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mueller said it wasn't a hoax. Although he couldn't prove collusion there was definitely influence. It's right there on the first page of his report, which was limited by his lack of access to then president Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
When court testimony from a federal agency becomes lies, well, then you've got a direct course of action against that agency.
Not extremism. Factual reporting. Oh, crap I replied to an AC again. You sit on your throne of lies, hidden behind anonymity. Being anonymous doesn't make you a liar or a fake, but being a liar or a fake does encourage anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden; "...we the people ARE the government..." (Score:2, Insightful)
Partner (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a partner, you are an equal participant.
Therefore the 4th amendment applies.
Remember when liberals cared about rights ?
Liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals still care about rights. These aren't liberals anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Biden isn't a liberal by any definition. His politics are centre right at best. A lot of people were disappointed when he won the nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but I don't think there are too many people who think that Biden is making his decisions for himself, or even has much input into what he's been doing. I don't even see democrats arguing against that. I'd say that his lack of independent thought is part of the reason for his nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, some Rights. They've never been too happy about that whole Second Amendment thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, some Rights. They've never been too happy about that whole Second Amendment thing.
There is a substantial minority of the American left that is pro-gun.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when liberals cared about rights ?
Never. The anarchists and socialists just stole the term 'liberal' for better PR. They used to be the slave owners 150 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember when Democrats enslaved hundreds of thousands of black people, formed the KKK, promoted eugenics, opposed the Civil Rights Act, had two presidential candidates oppose gay marriage, and had an ex-KKK Grand Wizard in Congress (well into the 00’s)?
Oh hey, remember when they pretended to care about “tolerance” and “diversity”, right before they set about destroying both?
To be fair, they did kind of tip everyone off. Tolerance means “to endure something one doesn
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Biden's not a liberal (Score:2)
Really? Three? There are at least 24 such channels and you worry about 3 being conservative but not about at least most of the others being far left?
Re: (Score:2)
Compare a republican of today against one from the Reagan era. Reagan republicans look like leftists to the current party.
Extremest is relative (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance without pesky oversight ... (Score:2)
I'm sure future conservative presidents will find this Biden precedent quite useful.
Re: (Score:3)
CIA/NSA limited on collecting? Yeah, right! (Score:3)
They may be officially limited on reviewing but it's totally no-holds barred on collection.
problem never going away (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Coincidence? (Score:2)
This regime isn't unlike the last one (Score:2)
Biden 'Team'? (Score:2)
A source familiar with the effort said it is not about decrypting data but rather using outside entities who can legally access these private groups
[The] DHS said it "is not partnering with private firms to surveil suspected domestic terrorists online" and "it is blatantly false" to suggest that the department is using outside firms to circumvent its legal limits.
Why do they bother denying it? Of course they are considering using external firms to circumvent restrictions. I suppose any scrutiny will be denied because of 'commercial in confidence' agreements and national security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they bother denying it? Of course they are considering using external firms to circumvent restrictions. I suppose any scrutiny will be denied because of 'commercial in confidence' agreements and national security.
Theodore Dalrymple:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become
Not really a surprise (Score:3)
I'll be blunt, on the one hand there's a lot of neo N@zi groups, real ones, that got free reign the last four years. This isn't me being a libtard. Do some googling and you'll find the FBI had their leash yanked and kept from monitoring those groups. I'd like to see more oversight on them. Jan 6th has to have got them excited.
But on the other hand, no. Just no. This will be abused. Just like when the Patriot Act was used to help shut down occupy wall street.
Re: (Score:3)
If Americans didn't want this kinda thing we'd be saying President Sanders right about now.
Last year the Senate extended the FISA act. One of the amendments would have required authorities to obtain a warrant to access internet users' search histories and browsing information. Sell, the amendment did not pass - it failed for the lack of one vote. Guess who was absent from the vote? Yes, it was senator Sanders [slate.com]. So, while he talks the talk, when it mattered he did not walk the walk.
Re: (Score:2)
So, while he talks the talk, when it mattered he did not walk the walk.
This is typical of Senator Sellout.
Re: (Score:2)
How about *you* provide cites to back up your claims?
Re: (Score:2)
That's your TDS talking. Nothing Trump did was remotely as evil as Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - or Obama's destruction of Libya and Syria.
They came for the 1st but at 1st it was only some (Score:2)
They came for the 1st but at 1st it was only some groups so most did not give to much of an dam. But then they came for the 2th and after that the usa was no longer the land of the free. Next they moved to get rid of the right of trail by jury after one case of jury nullification let some one the party did like go free. After that they when for what has left of the 1st and non state media.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't laugh about the First Amendment attacks. A few weeks back the nation was treated to the fascade argument that free speech is valuable because of the marketplace of ideas...with the assumption speech not valuable could what, perhaps, maybe, be banned? But the value in the first amendment isn't all possible speech. Rather, it's forbidding the power of censorship to the power hungry.
Laying the groundwork, I guess. I hope I'm wrong. But then there's human history. "The populace is not ready for this
Out of the frying pan (Score:3)
So, Biden takes office and begins dismantling the Federal government's relationship with private prisons. Well, kind of, and ICE is still using private facilities for *their* detention centers, but let's pretend his administration is actually doing something here. Yay!
Oh, wait - now, there's this. We're going to introduce the exact same problem in another extremely sensitive area of government. All the same problems will be present, and likely a whole host of others. Private companies will push the boundaries at every opportunity in order to produce results. They will almost certainly have access to information not publicly available in order to direct their efforts, which will quickly be abused and monetized. More to the point, that information will almost certainly giver them leverage over many of those who may look to do something about their abuses. We could, in effect, end up with what amounts to a cross between Facebook, the CIA, and the Stasi.
Are we *sure* all those QAnon people aren't right about Trump still running things?
Re: (Score:2)
Private prisons are like private schools -- Dems do not want because no unionized government employees, which is why Repubs do want.
See also DC and Puerto Rico statehood, hand over fist immigration, etc. The surface reasons argued about bear no resemblance to the real, behind the scenes for and against all these.
"Oh look, another hot button issue on Slashdot. Let's scan 200 messages already blabbering the echo chamber arguments which have zero to do with motivations for or ag'in!"
Re: (Score:2)
Private prisons are like private schools -- Dems do not want because no unionized government employees, which is why Repubs do want"
I don't want private prisons because they have financial interest in keeping them filled. http://www.njjn.org/uploads/di... [njjn.org]
http://www.aublr.org/2017/11/p... [aublr.org]
Now here's where the real money comes from. These crony politicians and their friends all own companies that sell products to these private prisons.
Police State Inbound (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you imagine the firestorm over this if Trump was in power.
Well done the US - you voted for Democrats but what you got was an incoming police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you mean by "left". Democrats aint it, and aren't interested in passing even the watered down milquetoast swill that Biden campaigned on, like $15 minimum wage, public option, or reducing the Medicare age to 60 - when Hillary proposed lowering it to 55 when she last ran for office, before a pandemic where tens of millions became unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump already did such things. https://archive.is/d7G8N [archive.is]
Re:Police State Inbound (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine the firestorm over this if Trump was in power.
Yes, and it would have been completely justified. Trump consistently demonstrated a complete lack of concern for norms, rules or laws of any sort, anything that got in his way. While I think this is a bad idea and don't want the Biden administration to have this power, I would expect this administration -- or virtually any administration other than Trump's -- to exercise some restraint with the power, at a minimum to the extent of following whatever rules they need to in order to claim constitutionality, and to make an attempt to monitor extremists across the political spectrum.
As an example, consider the NSA intelligence collection outed by Snowden. They were collecting vast amounts of information, but they had some legal analysis that basically said that as long as they didn't look at it they hadn't broken a law. Essentially, they redefined "collect" as "examine", then set up a system that allowed them to dragnet nearly all US communications but to ensure that none of the data was actually reviewed or analyzed until they had gone through the proper legal procedures (the rubber-stamp FISA court; which is a separate issue but an exacerbating factor) to get permission to look at it. This is the sort of rules-lawyering I'd expect. It crossed the line of acceptability, but there was still a significant amount of restraint being applied, and they were still careful to follow their (bent) rules, which included needing some level of probable cause before they looked at any piece of their data trove.
I would not trust the Trump administration to adhere to any norms, submit to any restrictions or make even a pretense of using the power in any way that wasn't brazenly partisan.
Well done the US - you voted for Democrats but what you got was an incoming police state.
Well, we haven't gotten it yet. Apparently some people have been talking about it, but they're backpedaling hard. I predict that it will fail. Honestly, I doubt the conversations were ever really serious, either. My guess is that it went something like: A senior administration official (possibly Biden) asked for ideas about how to monitor extremism, some people came up with this idea and floated it around but it never got any traction, and somewhere along the line someone decided to leak it just to make sure it wouldn't.
What I find interesting in this conversation is the lack of "Oh, they've been doing that for years comments." Because there is a significant group of slashdotters who are convinced that tech companies have been selling this sort of access for a long time, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence (yes, there was that AT&T thing in the 80s).
In DDR, 1 in 6 were an informant at some point (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
One of the Stasi's main tasks was spying on the population, primarily through a vast network of citizens turned informants, and fighting any opposition by overt and covert measures, including hidden psychological destruction of dissidents (Zersetzung, literally meaning "decomposition").
In WW2, good people climbed into planes to bomb, shoot and kill individuals with the psyches of those currently in power in the US. Their great efforts saved the world from those psyches for a
Some old tricks of the trade (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Kids! Turn in your parents for violations of covid, hate speech, or green life!"
Would that this were a joke.
Aaah, thw universal $reason! (Score:2)
For Bush it was "terrorists". Kept going during the Obama era.
And now the found something fitting with the SJW government: "extremists".
I'm surprised they didn't go with "online hate" right away. Seems they think we are not ready ... yet.
But effectively, it will serve the same purpose.
Instead of stopping only those who harm,
they can now also stop those who oppose *their* harm.
And yes, "At least it's not Trump". Look how far we've come! Horrible things have been made totally accepted by virtue of not being t
Too Many Aspiring Terrorists (Score:2)
Wrongthink (Score:3)
Wrongthink must by stamped out by any means necessary! 1st amendment? We don't need no stinkin' badges!
Re:Monitor Extremist Chatter Online (Score:5, Insightful)
We really are lost. Rule by the people is over. Who knows if we will ever again see technology rock the boat like firearms did and enable the people to rise up and take power. It seems unlikely, enabling technology is no longer filtering unfettered and ever cheapening down to the masses and any practicable tools are being dismantled one-by-one. Let the battle of which nobler, wiser, enlightened ones will choose our destinies begin I suppose.
I guess we'll finally have equity for the heart shaped birthmark, long second toes, back hair, D-cups, or whatever other random nonsense you idiots are calling an 'identity' these days and being led to believe everyone else is after you.
Re:Monitor Extremist Chatter Online (Score:4, Insightful)
The American Revolutionary War... the most important event in American history and the reason the 2nd amendment exists
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in my timestream people got so butthurt about the government wanting to take their weapons away that the didn't do anything about it except collect guns. It was not effectual.
Most recent butthurt event I can recall was when an angry mob of people, who truly believed democracy produced an invalid result, descended upon the capitol and bravely.. stole some office paraphernalia and took selfies?
I think people would have to be a lot more pissed off before they'd actually start a genuine civil war over politics. We're talking broke, starving, Netflix won't load, and Walmart is out of business pissed off.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is to be able to threaten a violent revolution, that threat is entirely blunted, too.
If the goal is to collect weapons because they're marketed to people, the goal is met.
Re:Monitor Extremist Chatter Online (Score:4, Insightful)
"broke, starving, Netflix won't load, and Walmart is out of business pissed off."
Or driven out of work, no bank, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Siri won't load, put in jail pissed off. Not all of that is ludicrous if you believe the political movement that says plainly they would get you fired, or deny you banking and social media, and says you should be jailed for what you believe.
I tend to take them at their word more often now than I have in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
But you get an free internet plan with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Rebranded as the "Telescreen"
You'll get a free one for every room of your house as part of a multi-trillion dollar stimulus or infrastructure program.
We love free stuff! Can I get free bread and free tickets to the circus too?
Re: (Score:3)
Literally. Fascism is private ownership with strong government "partnership".