House lawmakers grilled Department of Homeland Security officials this week over the agency's monitoring of social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

Earlier this year, there were reports that the like Twitter and Facebook in order to identify emerging threats. But how much data is the government really able to track, and will this type of activity have a chilling effect on open Internet discussions?

That was the subject of a House Homeland Security Committee hearing this week, which heard testimony from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials about the agency's processes. Though DHS insisted that everything is on the up and up, Rep. Jackie Speier took the agency to task over reports that the department failed to respond to Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests and that it has been monitoring reporters' activities.

Speier, a California Democrat, pointed to testimony submitted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which accused DHS of ignoring requests for information about its monitoring rules. EPIC sued DHS in December over the issue, resulting in the release of a 285-page document that revealed an $11 million contract with General Dynamic "to engage in monitoring of social networks and media organizations and to prepare summary reports for DHS," EPIC said.

The Privacy Act prevents government agencies from collecting citizens' personally identifiable information (PII). But "the documents obtained by EPIC also reveal that there are several exceptions to the 'no PII' rule, including allowances for collection of PII of anchors, newscasters, or on-scene reporters who ... use traditional and/or social media. This would allow the agency to build files on bloggers and Internet activists."

"I find that outrageous," Rep. Speier said, and pushed DHS to amend the General Dynamics contract to ensure that such information is not collected or used in the future.

Mary Ellen Callahan, chief privacy officer at DHS, said the only information collected about reporters is name, affiliation, title, and any other publicly available information as it relates to an unfolding event. One such reporter might be the first on the scene of a disaster, for example, and DHS will use that reporting in its investigation, but only "if it adds to the credibility of the report or adds information," Callahan said.

Information gathered about the reporter does not "cut across" the agency and is not used for other investigations, she said.

"What I'm suggesting to you is that [reporter data] is irrelevant and you don't need it," Rep. Speier responded.

Monitoring Public Opinion?

Speier and committee chairman Patrick Meehan were both concerned about a report from Michigan that said DHS monitored public chatter about plans to move Guantanamo detainees to a local prison in Standish, Mich.

"In my view, collecting, analyzing, and disseminating private citizens' comments could have a chilling effect on individual privacy rights and people's freedom of speech and dissent against their government," Meehan said.

Meehan acknowledged that people who post things on public websites "forfeit their right to any expectation of privacy," but said his worry "is what else the government may be doing with the information."

When asked about this type of monitoring, Richard Chávez, director of DHS' Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, said "it's not under our authority" and would be illegal to undertake.

Rep. Speier didn't buy it, and put her support behind recommendations made in EPIC's proposal. They include: a ban on monitoring social networks for chatter that reflects badly on the government; requiring the government to suspend that monitoring until safeguards and guidelines are put in place; and requiring any agency that does monitor social networks to submit annual reports to Congress summarizing that activity.

At this point, Callahan said, DHS refers to 1999 guidelines for how federal law enforcement officials should conduct investigations online, as well as 2011 guidelines regarding the intelligence community's use of technology. But the department is currently putting together rules that are specific to social media. They "will identify the authorities, restrictions, and privacy oversight related to use of social media for operational purposes," Callahan said.

Overall, however, she said, DHS abides by the rule that "if you can't do it offline, you can't do it online."

All of this comes several weeks after Leigh Van Bryan, a 26-year-old Irish citizen, before he even arrived in the U.S. for a vacation in Los Angeles. The offending tweet, which Van Bryan referred to as a simple joke, was in response to a friend asking about his upcoming plans. Van Bryan replied via Twitter: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America." He was denied entry into the country.

What do you think? Should people expect to have their public statements monitored or is this an invasion of privacy? Let us know in the comments.