Slashdot Mirror

FBI knows how to find these guys, and detain them for as long as possible before filing charges. You can bet there will be (non-torture) interrogations. The FBI has plenty of federal laws they can throw at these guys, can work with your local DA, and ICE, not to mention get the warrants to track who these guys are talking to and who else might be a threat to you.

The United States NEEDS you to report ANY activity of this kind immediately.

http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm

Rep. Mack "Bodi" White, R-Denham Springs, said he sponsored the bill for Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, to raise money to finance a division in Caldwell's office that investigates Internet crimes, particularly online sex crimes against children.

I agree that sex crime against children are very very bad but I think that if you look at the scope and size of the problems that plague the internet and ranked them in order, you'd find many other things precede sex crimes against children. Like Internet Fraud and Identity Theft. How much money do people lose to things like that? Hint: A lot.

I'm sick and tired of thinking of the children, let's think about everybody for a while. The lil' bastards don't even pay taxes and they're the motivation behind 50% of the legislation in this country.

Wait a second... I thought I saw that guy earlier:

From a previous article.

From this article.

And no, I don't read the articles, I just look at the pictures.

I love the easy to read design once you click any of those links. I know, I know. Work in progress.

I have said this before, I don't want to ban guns but I think more regulation is needed

Other sources argue the Swiss may have a low murder rate to to higher gun regulation.
Your statement that the Swiss have a huge gun culture is true. But the US still exceeds all other countries per capita. The Swiss come in third.

I was curious about the motives for murder in the US. I found these stats on
why murders happen in the US. Not one motives stats "Due to Video Game Influence" which leads me to my original point: a better (imperfect, but still better) approach to controlling teen violence is modifying gun laws NOT regulating video games.

Or just start your own site.

(U) aboveground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe extremist groups or individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as law-abiding.

The Government and its security services for example?

(U) alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

The truth differs radically from what's presented via (corporate) mass media outlets.

(U) radicalization

(U//FOUO) The process by which an individual adopts an
extremist belief system leading to his or her willingness to
advocate or bring about political, religious, economic, or
social change through the use of force, violence, or
ideologically motivated criminal activity.

So those responsible for dictating and enacting US foreign policy since the end of WW2 have been radicalized?

(U) Reporting Notice:

(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminalactivity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector andcritical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of theNOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBIregional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type ofequipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designatepoint of contact.

I suspect that the FBI will have written a linux-compatible CIPAV after the quoted incident.

Recently I read 'The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation' which noted that 9/11 investigators were shocked how behind the FBI was in terms of technological capabilities when compared to the NSA or the CIA. I was surprised to read that in many FBI offices there was only a single computer per floor!!!. However the next paragraph...

The agent phoned the FBI's Special Technologies Operations Unit for "urgent" help, expressing "the valid concern that the Unsub hackers would be 'spooked.'" But two days later the hacker, or a different one, visited the site again and "the system was able to deliver a CIPAV and the CIPAV returned data."

Perhaps the *ahem* cracker discovered the FBI's attempts to infect his machine and potentially, to put them at ease after discovering the FBI's attempt, re-visited with a machine they were capable of infecting. What data did it deliver? www.recipies.com? I know if I visited a website that failed to infect my machine I might be so inclined to gather data on what was trying to do it, especially if I was conducting nefarious activities. Seems a bit clumsy for law enforcement, but hey you're right, they probably learned, so lets move on.

Reason I bring it up is that internally the 9/11 commission came very close to recommending the FBI be disbanded but for serious smoozing from the FBI director Robert Mueller who was 'determined to save the FBI'. Instead the recommendations were for an American domestic intelligence service, like the British MI5, be set up and what resulted was The Department of Homeland Security.

Now I'm not criticising the FBI here, but, for an organisation that treated it's counter-terrorism operatives like personal assistants and clearly didn't take counter-terrorism seriously before 9/11 because it wouldn't result in the type of arrests that would get an agent promoted - this looks a lot like counter-terrorism. Also telling for what it implies...

The records also indicate that the FBI obtained court orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which covers foreign espionage and terrorism investigations, but the details are redacted.

I was being sarcastic with the 'I wonder if they have a Linux version' remark I was just surprised that the FBI now happens to be using spyware, like technology now means something to the FBI, so I did a quick search and sure enough Director Mueller spells it out for us with this paragraph...

Today, our mission has changed dramatically and our budget reflects this change. For FY 2005 the FBI is requesting a total of $5.1 billion, an increase of about $525 million over the FY 2004 enacted level. This includes net increases totaling $324.6 million and 948 new positions, 307 of which are agents. Approximately 44 percent of the funding is allocated to counterterrorism and counterintelligence-or about $2.2 billion and 12,466 positions. Compared to FY 2001, this represents more than double the amount of funding and equates to an 80 percent increase in the number of people devoted to the counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions.

Seems to me the Director Mueller (to his credit) has instigated a seismic shift in the way the FBI operates internally. But "foreign espionage and terrorism investigations" isn't that the DOHS responsibility? "terrorism investigations" that doesn't imply the FBI's priority is necessarily arrests. So I'm wondering perhaps we are looking at a turf war between the DOHS and the FBI? I bet those missing 632 pages are an interesting read, especially since the article focuses on 'law enforcement' activities of the FBI spyware.

I doubt there is just one type of government spyware out there, if i

There are LOTS of fundamentalist Christians in the US and how much terrorism are they responsible for? Compare that to the number of fundamentalist Muslims also in the US who were arrested for terrorism plots. It's nice and PC to add "oh and also Christianity" but it's not very realistic.

Maybe you should look at the statistics.

terrorism from 2002 through 2005. In keeping with a longstand- ing trend, domestic extremists carried out the majority of terrorist incidents during this period. Twenty three of the 24 recorded terrorist incidents were perpetrated by domestic terrorists. With the exception of white supremacist Sean Michael Gillespieâ(TM)s firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements...
The terrorist preventions for 2002 through 2005 paint a more diverse threat picture. Eight of the 14 recorded terrorist preventions stemmed from right-wing extremism

Christian fundamentalism hasn't backed down - Anti-abortionists, KKK, Waco, Jonestown, Christian identity, etc.

While religion is a threat, clearly Animal & Environmentalism have caused far more terrorist destruction in the US.

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?

Nope. In the U.S., copyright infringement (under the misnomer "piracy") seems to be a federal crime.

You can probably thank the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA for that.

So I take it you have burglaries all sorted in the US?

Comparatively speaking, Yes.
FBI Crime Statistics

Home Office Crime Report for 2005/2006

Take a look at page 115 of the home office report. Chapter 7.4.
Let's use the Rural numbers, just for fun. They're lower.

Percentage victims once or more
All burglary: 2%
All Vehicle Theft: 4%
All Violence: 2%

Now compare it to the United States FBI report:
2005, violent crime rate: 469.2 per 100,000 people (equivalent to less than or equal to 0.462%, per UK standards)
Burglary: 726.7 per 100,000 (equivalent or = 0.7267 %)
Motor Vehicle Theft: 416.7 per 100,000 ( = 0.4167%)

Notice also that the FBI counts discrete events of crimes, where as the Home Office will only count you once if you get robbed, beat up, or stolen from multiple times per year. In essence, the Home Office method is a clear attempt to reduce crime statistics by any defendable method.

You are at least 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK.
You are at about ten times more likely to have your car stolen in the UK.
You are about three times more likely to have your home robbed in the UK.

I invite you to poke around the official numbers for both the US and the UK and make a counter argument.

My argument is this: Offering violence to criminals reduces their numbers.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter. New York Country Lawyer can help with understanding that. The FBI warning is FUD, disseminated by RIAA and their freinds. "Ric Hirsch, ESA, Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property Enforcement, said, "This new seal will serve as a clear and important reminder to consumers that piracy of game products is illegal and may be subject to criminal enforcement." http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/piracy021904.htm

Mr. Schiff: One of the first times the FBI used computers in an investigation was in the late 70s. Several companies wanting to help build California freeways were involved in rigging bids for concrete beams...

Mr. Marshall: "It's my understanding that computers are essential in whatever type of investigation you have."

Mr. Schiff: That's retired FBI Special Agent Hal Marshall...

Mr. Marshall: "Especially in coordinating information with other offices; information being specifically available in real time rather than trying to quire someone by the telephone or, in those days, we had teletypes."

Mr. Schiff: Investigators found out about secret meetings. Marshall says telephone records were subpoenaed and then reviewed by hand at first. Then he had a thought...

Mr. Marshall: "We're moving into a new era, let me call FBI Headquarters. I called FBI Headquarters and talked with the then new computer section and told them what we had and they said, 'Please send them to us so we can help you out.' And that is what happened."

Mr. Schiff: There were convictions and guilty pleas after computers helped prove anti-trust violations. I'm Neal Schiff of the Bureau and that's the FBI's Closed Case of the Week."

Yes, those computers... They solve crimes!

You would think that for an agency, that according to its name, deals with investigations that they would be a bit better at, well, investigating? Makes me wonder how they keep track of things internally as well. All that aside, maybe they should change their priorities. Perhaps putting number 10 a little high up to, you know, successfully perform the FBI's mission. 1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack 2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage 3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes 4. Combat public corruption at all levels 5. Protect civil rights 6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises 7. Combat major white-collar crime 8. Combat significant violent crime 9. Support federal, state, local and international partners 10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission Taken from http://www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm/

The FBI does have certain, specific areas of jurisdiction. Ever read the FBI website? They say with specificity what their areas of jurisdiction and current criminal priorities are.

You mean like at http://www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm ?

The FBI's jurisdiction is essentially being the nation's police force as opposed to your local city force. You can't say "ignore these sections of the state, county or city code" to a local police force just like you can't tell the FBI to ignore the U.S. Code.

Apparently, teenagers were never violent or moody before the development of video games.

Does anyone really know how many teenagers committed violence from 1900-1980ish (the period prior to violent video games)? No, because it was such a social taboo that it was not reported, was covered up, or word never traveled beyond city limits. Modern global media records every minor violent event in every town of America with more than three people.

How many teenagers took part in the World Wars and committed violence?

If you were a violent teenager in the pre-video game era, you had an outlet for your violence. War and to some extent protests.

I suppose the violent video game of Tetris caused the Menendez Brothers to kill their parents in 1989?

Bottom line, we cannot establish a trend because we don't have the data to create a trend (prior to the 80s)!

How far back can we trust the data to reliably contain all teenage violence?

FBI Report of crime statistics in 1995 *1:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 21,597
1995 Offenders under 18: 2169

FBI Report of crime statistics in 2007 *2:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 17,040
2007 Offenders under 18: 1063

So apparently, the video games in 1995 were more violent than the video games in 2007.

*1 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf
*2 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html

Apparently, teenagers were never violent or moody before the development of video games.

Does anyone really know how many teenagers committed violence from 1900-1980ish (the period prior to violent video games)? No, because it was such a social taboo that it was not reported, was covered up, or word never traveled beyond city limits. Modern global media records every minor violent event in every town of America with more than three people.

How many teenagers took part in the World Wars and committed violence?

If you were a violent teenager in the pre-video game era, you had an outlet for your violence. War and to some extent protests.

I suppose the violent video game of Tetris caused the Menendez Brothers to kill their parents in 1989?

Bottom line, we cannot establish a trend because we don't have the data to create a trend (prior to the 80s)!

How far back can we trust the data to reliably contain all teenage violence?

FBI Report of crime statistics in 1995 *1:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 21,597
1995 Offenders under 18: 2169

FBI Report of crime statistics in 2007 *2:
Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter: 17,040
2007 Offenders under 18: 1063

So apparently, the video games in 1995 were more violent than the video games in 2007.

*1 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf
*2 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html

Yeah, but that murder rate is skewed by urban areas with gun control. Further, murders not committed with a gun ought to be filtered out.

Even so, doing a cursory google search,

According to the FBI, the US murder rate is under 6 per 100,000.

According to nationmaster, the US rate is high (though their number is lower than the FBI number), but you can find European nations with both higher and lower numbers, and the UK and France are more than half the US rate.

Where did you get your 10x number from?

Because I don't trust wired.com much... I did a quick search for data on Max Butler from the source: The Department of Justice's own press release on this is dated 9/11/2007.

I'm assuming this is a pseudonym? Or is he hiding abroad? Because if his real name is known, he can't be that hard to catch...

Have you ever heard of this guy?

The way your post is worded, it appears that you are hoping for this to happen and/or inciting it. Reported to https://tips.fbi.gov/

I just went to http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html and noscript is blocking their javascripting attempts. Clearly the FBI is just trying to determine what percentage of people think they are smart enough to crack codes, but are stupid enough to allow javascript to run from fbi.gov :-)

Direct link:

http://www.fbi.gov/headlines/code.swf

This should work ;)

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference

2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html

Kids challenge:
http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

I was wondering about that too. they didn't post it.

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference

2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html

Kids challenge:
http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

I was wondering about that too. they didn't post it.

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference

2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html

Kids challenge:
http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

I was wondering about that too. they didn't post it.

It's either:

STUPENDOUS. WE
CONGRATULATE YOU ON
CRACKING THIS LATEST
ENCYPTION. VISIT
WWW.FBI.GOV/coded.htm
TO LET US KNOW OF
YOUR SUCESS

or, the real secret message:

CLASSIFY. US
ACCELERATING ALL OF
AMERICAS OWLS AROUND
ANTARCTICA. ALERT
CIA-NSA-DOD/NCSCA-DOE
TO LAY IN WAIT OF
MORE UPDATES.

You are supposed to go to the website to let them know of your sucess, but there is no contact information on the website. I guess they just check the logs?

So they took moved the letters of FIDELITY, BRAVERY, and INTEGRITY to the front of the alphabet for the substitution and then left the rest as is. There's an example on their analysis page that does this with SECRETLY as the seed.

I figured it out by the obvious replacements and then continued on as more became apparent. I wonder if anyone went about trying different sub keys? Given the amount of text and the obviousness of it, attacking the cipher text seemed the most sensible route.

It remains fairly trivial after your substitutions. vivit -> visit, then the last line but one is "to let us know of". After those chars, the whole thing falls into place. The final translation table is tr '[abcdefghijklmnoqstvwyz]' '[fideltybravngchkopsuwm]'. You're supposed to visit this trite URL, which congratulates you. Maybe they really did mix it up with the kids' challenge.

Why embed the text in a flash object? code... I would of given this a shot if I could of relied on some normalized text, but no... that would make sense. Sense and gov't obviously don't belong in the same room. Yea... I am a little disappointed.

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008 http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference
2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html
Kids challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008 http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference
2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html
Kids challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

The links in the article point to FBI challenges in 2007 and the kids challenge but do not point to the 2008 challenge.

Here is the FBI Cryptanalysis challenge 2008 http://www.fbi.gov/page2/dec08/code_122908.html

Other helpful links for reference
2007 challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/code112107.html
Kids challenge: http://www.fbi.gov/kids/k5th/jobs9.htm

Just like Cisco does with the counterfeit Cisco products leaving the same factories in China that the "official" Cisco gear leaves from. Cisco farms off manufacturing to cheap labor in a country with questionable business ethics and saves money. They then get the FBI to handle the unlicensed products that enter the country with the FUD added by Cisco the this equipment might have back door spying software.
Cisco gets the cheap labor and free enforcement from the government. A double positive!
I don't know what is more disturbing to me, the federal government still buying equipment from Cisco instead of telling them to move the manufacturing to a safe and controlled environment before they will buy more or the wasted tax dollars being spent fighting this instead of Cisco's own corporate security dollars.
By the way.. I have never read about any actual counterfeit Cisco gear with a back door, only about the possibility.

http://washingtondc.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/cisco022808.htm

If Megan Meier had merely lost sleep, or suffered from panic attacks, or cut herself as a result of the harassment she endured from Lori Drew, would Drew have been convicted? Or even arrested?

Quiz: How long can you go without sleep, before going clinically, permanently insane? Sleep is an absolutely necessary biological function, and one can die from its lack, as sure as one can die without food, hydration or adequate ambient temperature. People also die from cuts, and the fact that some people survive them or perform them so frequently under distress that to you the activity appears "recreational" does not excuse or mitigate the intentional inflicting of suffering on another: torture.

These perverse incentives -- "rewarding" Megan Meier for her suicide by vicariously exacting her revenge on Lori Drew...

What an utterly despicable, fatuous excuse for ethical reasoning! If Megan Meier considered "These perverse incentives" even comparable to the incentive of life as a direct result of Lori Drew's actions, which is indisputable and Lori Drew's self-stated intent, Lori Drew had at that time deprived Megan Meier of the unalienable, Constitutional right to pursuit of her own happiness, and Lori Drew is from that moment forward guilty of a felony. Her accomplices are her ISP and the social networking site, who were unwitting and, until proven guilty, presumed unwilling, thus they are not prosecutable but still an indispensable accessory to the conspiracy, satisfying the condition "two or more persons" in the Civil Rights Statutes, without putting the ISP or social networking site in moral or legal jeopardy.

Perhaps the story should not have been covered at all, or anywhere near as much as it was. (I realize I may be contributing to the problem here, but my penance is that I'm calling for less coverage in the future, and I would never be writing about this if the mainstream media hadn't covered it so extensively.) What about all the other people who committed suicide during the same year, also as a result of vicious harassment, but with the only difference being that their suicides did not involve the Internet?

That is your only remotely interesting point, and it so closely mimics the Slashdot meme about patents, "add 'with a computer' to a pompous description of any obvious and non-novel device, idea, or process, and you have yourself a shiny new patent!" as to render even that interest nearly imperceptible. Yes, Internet-related stories obviously get disproportionate coverage. You noticed, want a cookie? More importantly, which you completely missed or ignored, crimes committed using the Internet are seen as necessitating their own statutes rather than prosecution under existing ones, which are generally written in platform-independent language. Lori Drew misrepresented herself. She forged her identity, and initiated romantic relations with a minor under that false identity, and prosecutors had trouble finding an applicable statute to successfully prosecute her. That's the real "WTF" story here, not your macabre question of whether people so viciously harassed that the prospect of revenge rivals or exceeds their will to live, have a bit more or less legal standing, posthumously.

Drop dead.

Moryath,

There are a few things you need to know before you open your mouth:

1.- These people were defending themselves and their country against a foreign invasion that was unjustifiable (Keep on reading before you blast me in an uninformed way) and they have every right to do it.

2.- If you justify the torture done on them, you must also justify the torture on every person (either military or not) done by other parties on any other person captured during a violent incident. I justify neither.

3.- The war on Afghanistan was started on the pretext that the Afghani government (the taliban) was harboring Usama Bin Laden and he was accused of 9/11, however, there is no evidence to that. Even the FBI does not include any actions related to 9/11 in their charges against Bin Laden (You can check yourself at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm)

4.- The war in Iraq was based in even more pathetic lies by claiming that Saddam Husein had "weapons of mass destruction" and was willing to use them (funny enough, the US has the biggest stock pile of weapons of mass destruction and is the only country so far using nuclear weapons against civilians). After several years of illegal occupation of Iraq while thousands of women and children have been murdered by your heroes, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, that is quite surprising considering that your heroes had satellite photographs of them.

5.- What I have written in the previous four points is based on research and are undeniable facts. I condemn violence regardless of it's origin, unfortunately, these days is always starting from a country that his current (And fortunately not for much longer) idiotic president calls "A beacon for freedom"

Just do a bit of work and think what the US has been doing in the middle east since the second world war, supporting Israel, a country that was illegally created on land stolen from the Palestinians and helping them mass murder civilians. The whole issue is nothing short of repugnant and both the US and Israel owe the whole world an apology.

Wow you sure get pissed fast. You need to chill out before you have a heart attack or something.

Also, your citations are wrong just like everything else you post. They're based off of malformed data meant to prove a point.

Check this out, the FBI themselves warn against doing exactly what you're doing because it's stupid: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/about/variables_affecting_crime.html

I have the right to defend myself with lethal force; you do not, so... good for you I guess? I'm glad you cannot own a firearm because it sounds like you have some serious issues. I just want you to note that you're not special and you are certainly not morally superior to me in any fashion simply because of the fact that your government supresses your right to self defense. I am not a savage nor am I a redneck simply because I have the right to exercise that option.

In one recent case, using fingerprints this way, the FBI arrested someone from Oregon for the Madrid train bombing. After 17 days in jail, he was released because Spanish police found the real source of the fingerprint. FBI apology here: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/mayfield052404.htm

News coverage here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/ (or do a search; there's enough out there).

The evidence they presented was that his fingerprint partially matched one found on another continent. I don't think reports said he is known even to have left Oregon. What would have happened if the Spanish police had not been so successful? That's why it's dangerous to have these databases in place. Not because they can't be useful, but because they will be used incorrectly.

Research performed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories showed bullet lead analysis to be unreliable. Following this research, the FBI announced that it was no longer making use of the process.

Thanks for the analysis, my statement was based on older numbers, so let's look at these. You don't quote numbers for violent crime arrests, only violent crime incidence. But in the page you linked:

In 2007, the FBI estimated that 14,209,365 arrests occurred nationwide for all offenses (except traffic violations), of which 597,447 were for violent crimes, and 1,610,088 were for property crimes.

597,447 is significantly less than the ~850,000 you figure for marijuana related arrests.

More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY OTHER VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED!

Minor point, but possession of marijuana isn't a violent crime. That said, I am still fairly confident that you are wrong.
Some quotes from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/):

Nationwide, an estimated 1,408,337 violent crimes occurred in 2007.

Law enforcement made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.8 million arrests**, or 13.0 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense in 2007.

According to this http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html:
#42.1% percent of drug related arrests are for marijuana possession and
#5.3% marijauna sale/manufacture.
Some simple math from these numbers (by me) puts the # of total marijuana related arrests at ~853,200. This is substantially less than the number of arrests for violent crimes.

Those pesky facts out of the way, 800K marijuana related arrests is a ridiculous waste of resources.

* All of these facts are about arrests, not convictions, not number of crimes, and not the number of people in prison for the offense.
**This does not include alcohol related offenses. There were 1,427,494 drunk driving arrests alone.

More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY OTHER VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED!

Minor point, but possession of marijuana isn't a violent crime. That said, I am still fairly confident that you are wrong.
Some quotes from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/):

Nationwide, an estimated 1,408,337 violent crimes occurred in 2007.

Law enforcement made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.8 million arrests**, or 13.0 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense in 2007.

According to this http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html:
#42.1% percent of drug related arrests are for marijuana possession and
#5.3% marijauna sale/manufacture.
Some simple math from these numbers (by me) puts the # of total marijuana related arrests at ~853,200. This is substantially less than the number of arrests for violent crimes.

Those pesky facts out of the way, 800K marijuana related arrests is a ridiculous waste of resources.

* All of these facts are about arrests, not convictions, not number of crimes, and not the number of people in prison for the offense.
**This does not include alcohol related offenses. There were 1,427,494 drunk driving arrests alone.

So where are the US antiterrorism people? This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals. We have a whole Department of Homeland Security. They had a good computer security guy in charge of dealing with such attacks, Amit Yoran, and he quit in 2004, fed up because DHS didn't really want to deal with real problems. His replacement was a career lobbyist. Really. "He served as Director of 3Com Corporation's Government Relations Office in Washington, DC where he was responsible for all aspects of the company's strategic public policy formulation and advocacy." That's America's first line of defense against cyberterrorism.

The FBI has an antiterrorism operation. What are they doing? What they say they're doing is working to "strengthen and support our top operational priorities: counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and major criminal programs." What they're actually doing is flying around the FBI director in the private jet purchased with antiterrorism funds.

FBI testimony before Congress, 2001: "The FBI believes cyber-terrorism, the use of cyber-tools to shut down, degrade, or deny critical national infrastructures, such as energy, transportation, communications, or government services, for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population, is clearly an emerging threat for which its must develop prevention, deterrence, and response capabilities."

FBI testimony before Congress, 2004: " In the event of a cyberterrorist attack, the FBI will conduct an intense post-incident investigation to determine the source including the motive and purpose of the attack."

So where's the action?

Heads need to roll at DHS and the FBI.

So where are the US antiterrorism people? This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals. We have a whole Department of Homeland Security. They had a good computer security guy in charge of dealing with such attacks, Amit Yoran, and he quit in 2004, fed up because DHS didn't really want to deal with real problems. His replacement was a career lobbyist. Really. "He served as Director of 3Com Corporation's Government Relations Office in Washington, DC where he was responsible for all aspects of the company's strategic public policy formulation and advocacy." That's America's first line of defense against cyberterrorism.

The FBI has an antiterrorism operation. What are they doing? What they say they're doing is working to "strengthen and support our top operational priorities: counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and major criminal programs." What they're actually doing is flying around the FBI director in the private jet purchased with antiterrorism funds.

FBI testimony before Congress, 2001: "The FBI believes cyber-terrorism, the use of cyber-tools to shut down, degrade, or deny critical national infrastructures, such as energy, transportation, communications, or government services, for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population, is clearly an emerging threat for which its must develop prevention, deterrence, and response capabilities."

FBI testimony before Congress, 2004: " In the event of a cyberterrorist attack, the FBI will conduct an intense post-incident investigation to determine the source including the motive and purpose of the attack."

So where's the action?

Heads need to roll at DHS and the FBI.

So where are the US antiterrorism people? This is an attack on US assets by foreign nationals. We have a whole Department of Homeland Security. They had a good computer security guy in charge of dealing with such attacks, Amit Yoran, and he quit in 2004, fed up because DHS didn't really want to deal with real problems. His replacement was a career lobbyist. Really. "He served as Director of 3Com Corporation's Government Relations Office in Washington, DC where he was responsible for all aspects of the company's strategic public policy formulation and advocacy." That's America's first line of defense against cyberterrorism.

The FBI has an antiterrorism operation. What are they doing? What they say they're doing is working to "strengthen and support our top operational priorities: counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, and major criminal programs." What they're actually doing is flying around the FBI director in the private jet purchased with antiterrorism funds.

FBI testimony before Congress, 2001: "The FBI believes cyber-terrorism, the use of cyber-tools to shut down, degrade, or deny critical national infrastructures, such as energy, transportation, communications, or government services, for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or civilian population, is clearly an emerging threat for which its must develop prevention, deterrence, and response capabilities."

FBI testimony before Congress, 2004: " In the event of a cyberterrorist attack, the FBI will conduct an intense post-incident investigation to determine the source including the motive and purpose of the attack."

So where's the action?

Heads need to roll at DHS and the FBI.

It's funny that this chart says that the highest violent crime rates are in the south. Sort of the opposite of what you claim.

Now it's time for some federal law enforcement action. Over at McColo, there will be records that indicate who's behind the spamming and botnet operations. They'll know who paid for servers. There will be phone records showing who made support phone calls to McColo.

McColo is in San Jose, and the San Francisco office of the FBI, which covers Silicon Valley, has a Cyber Intrusion Squad. It's their job to start digging and find out who's behind the spam operations.

Even if the people behind the spamming tried to stay anonymous to McColo, the odds are that they slipped up somewhere.

"Please tell me that you are not that naïve."

I agree with others here. I would be pissed if my country just handed me over to some foreign country with no evidence that I committed the crime. I can't see why any other country would be different.

Also if OBL is responsible for 9/11 attacks when then doesn't the FBI mention it in their wanted poster?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

That's like saying you should wear a fireman's suit all the time in case the building you're in catches fire. Packing iron is just as extreme. My interpretation of someone carrying a gun is that they want to live unreasonably and be "prepared" when life catches up with them.

It's more like wearing a seat belt whilst driving. Most buildings must meet fire codes and they generally have fire extinguishers, alarms and escape routes. Life does not come with an alarm system and escape is not always an option when someone wants to take your life.

It is obvious you have not consumed as much Mountain Dew as I have because we have wildly different ideas of extreme.

See above. Your interpretation is a fallacy and you should do further research.

Insurance holds law enforcement accountable by higher premiums to their municipal government (city/town/county etc). If crime gets out of hand, the municipality is faced with a prohibitively high rate increase, and must either shape up or pack up. State and federal governments share in the responsibility and lend their support as needed. If law enforcement becomes ineffective, the economic pressure sorts things out.

So take money from a municipality and give it some insurance company? Sounds great. Where do they pack up to? Does the town becomes a ghost town? Please provide a citation for this program that seems to be working so well for Canada opposed to the gun ridden streets of the United States.

There are services available to victims of crime, more than just financial support, obviously no replacement for not having been victimized in the first place. But more importantly you should know it's your children that are more likely to be victims of gun-related violence. The age at which murderers are most likely to use a gun is 17. Guess what age group they're shooting at. Are you then going to send your kids to school packing? Of course not. You shouldn't carry a gun either FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS.

Actually, there is a school district which allows concealed handgun permit holders to carry their firearms on school grounds. There is also legislation being introduced next session to allow concealed carry on college campus If my children decide to obtain their permits when they become of age I will support them 100% and I am encouraging my school district to adopt similar policy.

There are distinct differences between myself and my children. I am an adult. I am capable of making rational decisions under duress and I have a much better dispostion than most children. Therefore, the reasons that my children should not carry a firearm to kindergarten do not apply to me. Also, you have to be 21 to obtain your permit in Texas.

I don't buy it. A reasonable reaction for when someone believes their way of life could lead them into mortal danger is to change their way of life to avoid such a situation. By arming yourself, you knowingly accept the risk and in fact add to it by doing so. Your family comes along for the ride, and are more likely to b