Slashdot Mirror

"Probably" won't cut it. Cite evidence or shut up. OK, Troll, I'll bite. Your post made me go to the FBI web site. Here is a partial list of what the feds define as "Crimes against Children". Pay attention to Section 2425: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/federal.htm

I just sent the FBI a tip using their form (https://tips.fbi.gov/). I doubt I was the first but you never know (Kitty Genovese syndrome).

Unfortunatly the reality is 'hates crimes' laws are a product of the modern 'civil rights' movement and just as much of a sham of doublespeak and deceit hatched by Democrats.

Secondly, Democrats in the late 50's and early 60's were extremely divided over civil rights legislation. Many Democratic senators from southern states were strongly opposed to it, and even Eisenhower and LBJ weakened the first attempt (the Civil Rights act of 1957) to the point that it was practically useless.

First off I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I say that those on the books already are applied in a totally bigoted fashion and will only get worse as more are passed

Anyone who has watched the antics of the left over the last fifty years knows it is only an intermediate step along the way to their goal of crimethink laws, i.e. making it against the law to disagree with Democrats. It is an old joke that a 'bigot' is someone winning an argument with a liberal. They have realized that just hurling 'bigot' at an opponent isn't enough to win an argument anymore so now they would rather simply jail the opposition like all their heros did. (Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc.)

Try to tell Mr. Bush that you are neither with him nor with the terrorists and see what he says.

those who "police the police" but yet are paid by the "police" they're "policing"

Yeah, that's a little odd.

According to the Integrity Commitee's website, "The [Integrity Commitee] does not have purview regarding whistleblower retaliation or discrimination matters. Whistleblower retaliation matters fall within the purview of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel." So, I'm not sure how the IC fits in with regards to those allegations.

Also, the Executive Order No. 12993 (included in a report to the US Senate) says that "[f]or certain administrative allegations against Inspector Generals... it is desirable to authorize an independent investigative mechanism" (that mechanism being the Integrity Committee).

The Integrity Committee includes "three or more IGs, representing both the PCIE [President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency] and the ECIE [Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency.]"

According to the PCIE/ECIE FAQ, "Presidentially-appointed IGs make up the PCIE" (including the IG for NASA).

While that doesn't mean that something fishy is going on (I don't know that the IC is "paid" by the PCIE or IGs), it's not as clear-cut as I would have liked. I would prefer the body that investigates the IGs to not have any connection to them. I thought that's what "independent" meant.

Because there is evidence that the same organizations whose purpose is going after what you call "bad" people are increasingly turning their weapons against us. When agents from a bureau whose self-stated mission is "to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States" come to believe they have the right to collect any data at all about you, even library cards, without any valid search warrant, you should better start worrying. In my dictionary, an officer of the government who feels no need to respect the Constitution is as "Bad" as it gets.

Amassing as much data as we can about the methods and equipment those secret agencies have that they could use against us is an act of collective self-defense. It goes in the same spirit as the freedom to "keep and bear arms" against an opressive government.

That's ironic - you seem to have ignored some key facts involving John Lott. Pulling stats out of bodily orifices != "discovery", and creating sock puppets to defend your arguments doesn't even rise to the level of scientific rigor seen in the Professor Emeritus of Gilligan's Island.

The answer to your example is: "The house where people aren't home, and don't have a security system". There's a reason why burglaries aren't news, and "home invasions" are - burglary is a much lower-risk occupation when nobody is around.

You can see some real facts on burglary statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-nburglary08.html (I hope you won't get the vapors changing from Mary Rosh to the Real World). The FBI stats show that the Northeast (home of gun control) has the lowest rate of burglaries per person, and is the only region where burglaries are declining.

Fifth, the FBI and Department of Justice have discretion in choosing what crimes to investigate and who to prosecute, as they have limited resources. Reporting this to them could easily result in no criminal case ever even beginning. While it might not hurt to report with them, a victim with a cause of action should pursue his own case, regardless of law enforcement.

I think a few people reporting it could help bring notice to the apperent criminal activities at the MPAA:
https://tips.fbi.gov/

No... This one is not one of the CSI studies. At least, the FBI press release makes it look that way.

From the release:
"Bruce Verduyn--a special agent in Houston's Cyber Squad, which administered the survey-said that this new survey differs from the annual CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey conducted by the Computer Security Institute and the FBI. "We surveyed about three times as many organizations and focused more on new technologies, where attacks originated, and how organizations responded," he said."

Irritatingly, it appears the FBI has removed the actual survey results from their page. Another story references the results directly at http://www.fbi.gov/publications/ccs2005.pdf but the link is dead. I'd much rather see the results straight from the FBI.

No... This one is not one of the CSI studies. At least, the FBI press release makes it look that way.

From the release:
"Bruce Verduyn--a special agent in Houston's Cyber Squad, which administered the survey-said that this new survey differs from the annual CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey conducted by the Computer Security Institute and the FBI. "We surveyed about three times as many organizations and focused more on new technologies, where attacks originated, and how organizations responded," he said."

Irritatingly, it appears the FBI has removed the actual survey results from their page. Another story references the results directly at http://www.fbi.gov/publications/ccs2005.pdf but the link is dead. I'd much rather see the results straight from the FBI.

Thus, US information about the prevalence of white collar crime is very poor. There are surveys, but not much hard data.

Does anyone actually have the survey? The link on the FBI's website doesn't even work.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/ccs2005.pdf

Yeah, that is odd, especially as I was talking about American citizens captured in the US. Who we did, indeed, tried during WWII, even while the war was going on. In civilian courts.(1)

No, the Nazi saboteurs were tried by a Military Commission, including the US citizens.

In fact, the courts ruled, during WWII, they must be tried in civilian courts if said courts were operating, unlike the military courts the president wanted to use.

That is wrong. I think that you are confusing things with a Civil War decision over the question of martial law.

However, every enemy soldier captures during WWII did, indeed, have access to a lawyer, and we did, indeed, tell people we had captured them. I'm sure that's just a minor point, though.

We informed the governments, as provided for in the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda and kin do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention. There are tests in the treaty to qualify for its protections, and they fail them.

Of course, we didn't capture random people handed to us by bounty hunters, but solely people in uniform on the battlefield, and there wouldn't have been a lot of point in them using lawyers to challenge their status, so almost none of them used a lawyer to do so.

On the contrary, we did intern large numbers of people toward the end of the war until their status could be settled. At that point there were many members of the Gestapo, SS and other criminal organizations that were trying to blend into the civilian population. It got sorted out over time.

With the war on terror, of course, there is plenty of reason for them to do that, because not only are many of them innocent, but the whole point of POWs is that you get returned after the war is over, and one's bothered to come up when that might be in the war on terror. So even if they are guilty of everything anyone vaguely asserted about them when given 500 dollars for turning a 'terrorist' over, they would still need to be entered into the legal system at some point.

No, they don't have to be entered into the legal system. The findings could be essentially administrative, much like the determination of POW status.

As far as the issue of "returning after the war", ... well, that is part of the hazard of taking up arms to make war as a member of a non-state actor without diplomatic recognition, and acting outside the law, isn't it? If it had been, say, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta that had taken up arms against the US, there would have been a non-state actor with diplomatic status who would be accountable for the actions of its members, a semblance of control, and would be likely to adhere to the law of war. As it is, Al Qaeda and kin are making war not merely outside the law, but often violate the law of war, and as a result they have very little legal protection and enormous personal risk. (The hazards of becoming a martyr, I guess.) Since their ultimate goal is to reestablish the Caliphage, this could be a very long war. Some of them may be held for a very long time. It should come as no surprise that a number of fighters have been captured, released based on lies, and then recaptured on the battlefield. That makes for a subtle problem.

NSA is responsible for SIGINT. The CIA and its various co-opted agents (Special Forces, other elite forces, etc) are responsible for issuing the kill -9 commands, as well as a certain amount of SIGUNINT, it would appear....

If you really believe that, I suggest that you look into the FBI website and run to the Supreme Court. The FBI is against the Constitution. Their website itself states explicitly that "in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on "federalism:" a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities."

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic .htm

I don't remember why at the time but it popped into my head to search the Amazon Wishlists. Upon entering an Alghamdi in Florida I found the following wishlist containing references to pilots guides to airports:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/?e ncoding=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=1UWSWIH3NXQJN

take note of the dates the items were added, well before the sept 11 attack, that this individual is ahmad vs ahmed (on the list), and also that no items have been added since this time period.

I immediately reported this to the FBI via their reporting form and suggested that wishlists could be used to openly and safely communicate needs. I never heard anything back so I can only assume it was investigated. If is was however, and found to be suspicious or related, I have no doubt that all open wishlists are now monitored for known aliases.

Note that this person may not be the hijacker. I've oft wondered since if some innocent pilot could be sitting secretly in jail because I found his wishlist.

Well, I found firm numbers on the number of deaths, where are the numbers or even a source for "People with guns that want to kill you ARE going to kill you most of the time, even if you also have a gun." As for "People driving drunk don't (99% of the time anyway) want to kill anyone", that is like saying "People who play Russian Roulete with a revolver don't (99% of the time anyway) want to kill themselves nor are they stupid".

"Heat of the moment crimes, such as one spouse murdering their cheating spouse when they find out about an affair, are unquestionably reduced when guns are hard to come by for the average citizen."

The number of Right To Carry Firearms (RTC) states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.States with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average with total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx? ID=18

Furthermore, the number of firearms in the United States and the number of gunowners are increasing, but the number of firearms related deaths is decreasing.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1. htm

"Data in this report regarding trends in firearm-related injury rates during 1993--1998 indicate that both mortality and morbidity from gunshot wounds declined substantially in the United States. However, firearm-related injury continues to be a public health concern accounting for approximately 31,000 deaths and 64,500 nonfatal injuries treated in hospital EDs in 1998."

Burning a building is not terrorism -- unless you're trying to influence a society, then it is. If you're influencing a family or company, that's not terrorism. If you're influencing a neighborhood, town or industry, that's where it starts getting grey.

You are mistaken, see "or any segment thereof" below.

... and when you really need to see what US law says is the legal definition. (1) the term ''international terrorism'' ...

Nice topic change from "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Now back to the topic, to refresh your recollection: "... Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity. I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder ..."

The author seems to erroneously believe that terrorism requires murder, it does not. Property crimes can be considered terrorism, the FBI says "There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_ 2001.htm

Though I wonder whether there are now federal files on me, and whether I'm being looked at funny at the airport.

If you are worried about it, then request your file.

If I were you I would be worried. Here you are having an open conversation about Mao among a group of people with leftist tendencies. Guilt by association. Based on your reasoning it would be reasonable for DHS to come visit you because of your participation here. Better yet, why don't you report yourself. If you go to the DHS web site (http://www.dhs.gov/) it is easy enough to find the link to the FBI site to report suspected criminal activity related to terrorism (https://tips.fbi.gov/).

What I don't understand is why people fall hook, line, and sinker, for the same techniques throughout history over and over again.

1) Instill fear in the population somehow, by either orchestating or latching on to a catastrophic event,
2) Tell the population that you will take care of it, blame enemies of the state,
3) Go to war, claim critics of the war are unpatriotic, out of touch, part of an "elite".

These 'catastrophic events' happen in the US about every 50 years or so.

9/11: War against Afghanistan - War against Iraq
Pearl Harbor: World War II
Zimmerman Telegram: World War I
USS Maine: Spanish-American War
Fort Sumter is fired upon: US Civil War
Boston Massacre: US Revolutionary War

It's bad, but what are you going to do? What the Bush administration has done is outrageous, but it pales into comparison to the crimes that took place under FDR.

Concentration camps.

Secret detentions, secret 'trials' by military tribunal, even secret executions.

Development of WMD, used by his successor to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Spying upon US citizens (a.k.a. 'subversives'), often without a warrant of any kind.

And yet some people still call FDR one of the best presidents of the US.

Or maybe DHS is such a new agency they're still learning the ropes. I mean, you can't be a well-oiled machine like the FBI or ATF in just a matter of a few years. Come on now.

Also, if you think that the site violates Federal laws, you could report it to the FTC (they even have an online form) directly, or to the FBI.

Just as with auctions of body parts and stolen merchandise, eBay reserves the right to pull any auction that it deems is against the best interests of eBay and the community it serves. It's like "at-will" hiring; if they think there's a liability involved (and when it come to Microsoft, how could there be any doubt BG is on the phone to his lawyers) they'll yank it. They also have a habit of reporting these things to the authorities, so the script kiddie involved may get a knock on the door from the FBI. Merry Christmas!

No wonder crime is such a problem.

Umm... crime rates have been going down.

What do you mean "crime is such a problem" ?? Sure, and "hurricanes are a problem" and "sometimes bad things happen to good people" and etc.

The truth here is that there will always be people trying to jack the system. In this case, stores have put in place these bar code scanners so they can track more volume more efficiently and push through more sales transactions in a shorter period of time, fully automated. Saves on labor costs since the cashier only need scan bar codes mindlessly and not be familiar with product. The drawback is the cashier isn't familiar with product or business practices since they are mindless, low-paid drones, and $1.99 iPods happen. Oh, and RFID isn't going to stop this either as the equivilent scam of substituting one's own RFID codes will appear in 3...2...1

I'd say the problem is gigantic mega-corporations are easy targets for somewhat clever scams such as this due to the very nature of their business processes and transaction flow.

Without going into details all I can say is that your mental picture is wrong and if you don't believe me then all I can say is "too bad". However it is a mainframe and it runs very well and processes about 3 million transactions per day (if I remember correctly). Also, the server room houses many other computer systems, some of them brand spanking new ( I won't say how I know). The FBI isn't as old fashioned as you perceive it to be. Have a look at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ncic.htm for slightly more info (nontechnical and unclassified public information).

And your statement is complete BS.

Here is why:

there were 16,500 homicides in 2003

"Nearly 71 percent of the 2003 murders involved use of a firearm, with 13 percent involving knives or other cutting instruments. Blunt objects, hands and feet also were used."

there were 42,642 auto fatalities in 2002, 17,013 of which were alcohol related.

16,204 murders took place in 2002

according to wiki
there were on 2986 deaths on 9/11.

This means that every year roughly 5.5 times the number are murdered
(most by guns). Care to give up your second amendment rights?

Roughly 14 times the number of people die in auto accidents per year,
(alot of them related to alcohol). Care to outlaw drinking? What about
cars?

I am not willing to give up the second amendment, nor do I think alcohol
or driving should be outlawed. Neither am I willing to let the government
have carte blanche in trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments because of
terrorists.

Also, the FBI stats http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-table01.html also has an interesting footnote, but you have to REALLY squint to find it:
The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, were not included in this table.

Why? because it would screw up the stats. Awwwww. The fact is that, after the total # of crimes peaked in 1991 and going into decline under Clinton, its starting to inch back up again under Bush, even excluding 9/11.

Also, they no longer count such things as "taxing" by school kids as violent crime, but it is. "Give me your lunch money and your new runners or I'll beat you up" is assault. Not including it in the stats doesn't make it "go away."

Problem is, kids AREN'T going around shooting and killing each other, at least not in the US.
The FBI reports that crime overall has gone down steadily since 1994. The most recent stats show that 2004 had the lowest level of violence in over 3 decades.

I wish I could find the specific graphs on this, but here's the raw data for each year... and if you take the time to look at it, it also shows that juvenile crime specifically is at it's lowest level in over a decade.

Oops - you're right, my fault. I was looking at two, used one, and gave the url for the other. The right link is here.

For the actual statistics on the US side, the FBI provides some pretty comprehensive reports. Only 11 poisonings in 2004.

Don't know where you pulled that 75% number from.

Of the 568 US law enforcement officers killed with a firearm between 1994 and 2003, 51, or 9.0%, were killed with their own weapon.

In addition, 26 officers were killed by friendly fire (including 6 training accidents and 4 non-suicide self-inflicted deaths) out of a total of 697 accidental on-duty deaths.

So, in total, we have 26+51=78 officers shot either (a) by assailants, with their own guns, or (b) accidentally by themselves or another officer, out of 594 total shootings. In other words, 13%. Source

Do you have any numbers to back up that 75% claim in the US? From the reports I've seen, you are way off.

Accidental Police deaths:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1acciden tal.htm

As you can see, the majority were auto related. Also: "In the 10-year period 1995 through 2004, 717 law enforcement officers died from accidents occurring in the line of duty." Further down it says that only "28 of the officers were mistakenly shot".

Compare to the number shot and killed by people meaning them harm:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fidc9397.htm

"A study of data regarding weapons used to kill law enforcement officers showed that over the past decade, 545 officers have been slain with firearms. Of these, 396 were killed with handguns, 114 were killed with rifles, and 35 were killed with shotguns. Also in this same time period, 28 officers died after a vehicle was used as a weapon, 9 officers were killed by bomb blasts, and 7 were killed by assailants using knives or other cutting instruments. Personal weapons, i.e., hands, fists, or feet, were used in 3 of the slayings, and blunt instruments were used in 2 of the murders. (See Table 28.)" This data doesn't include the Sept 11th attacks, as explained on the front page of the report. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/openpage.htm)

So put up some real facts, or stop spreading bullshit.

Do you have any numbers to back up that 75% claim in the US? From the reports I've seen, you are way off.

Accidental Police deaths:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1acciden tal.htm

As you can see, the majority were auto related. Also: "In the 10-year period 1995 through 2004, 717 law enforcement officers died from accidents occurring in the line of duty." Further down it says that only "28 of the officers were mistakenly shot".

Compare to the number shot and killed by people meaning them harm:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fidc9397.htm

"A study of data regarding weapons used to kill law enforcement officers showed that over the past decade, 545 officers have been slain with firearms. Of these, 396 were killed with handguns, 114 were killed with rifles, and 35 were killed with shotguns. Also in this same time period, 28 officers died after a vehicle was used as a weapon, 9 officers were killed by bomb blasts, and 7 were killed by assailants using knives or other cutting instruments. Personal weapons, i.e., hands, fists, or feet, were used in 3 of the slayings, and blunt instruments were used in 2 of the murders. (See Table 28.)" This data doesn't include the Sept 11th attacks, as explained on the front page of the report. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/openpage.htm)

So put up some real facts, or stop spreading bullshit.

They don't have jurisdiction.

Contact your local FBI field office:

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

You should also file complaints with your state's
attorney general and with the Federal Trade Commission,
and perhaps with other agencies that I'm forgetting
about at the moment.

When you're searching for fingerprints (a computationally-intensive task) you don't put every image up on the screen - you don't even store imagery, you store an encoding of the fingerprint and compare encodings (numbers). In reality it's done by humans, not computers.

Maybe in the UK, but not in US anymore. They do ten-print searches (fast) and latents (slow). It used to be that there were drawers full of prints and each section of some thousands had an "owner" who got to be intimately familiar with the prints in his section so that when a search request came in, they could make a good first pass guess if those prints were in their section of the catalog, and then they would manually drill down further. Talk about a tedious, mind-numbing job.

But you are right about the visuals, the searches are done based on minutae (whorls, loops, etc in the ridges) which are encoded as a searchable database and you only get multiple images of prints if there is too much ambiguity for the computer to resolve - so it kicks it out to a human to make the final judgement. Of course the results are only as good as the data, if the real prints aren't in the database or the submitted prints are too vague then you can get false positives and false negatives.

Have you ever read the constitution or the bill of rights? Both tend to be very vague when defining our rights. Finding a to-the-letter violation is nearly impossible.

While the ACLU has its problems, I'm still glad there are people out there willing to defend my right to burn a flag. After all, burning the US flag is considered the proper way of disposing of it.

The problem with racial profiling is that race does not in fact play a large role in who becomes a terrorist. While you are thinking that by searching the Muslims, we would greatly reduce the possability of terrorist acts, the truth is that the vast majority of terrorist attacks againt the US have been from domestic extremists. In fact, the FBI consider both Right-Wing extremists and animal-rights and environmentalist extremists a much larger threat. And that is just one of the many flaws in racial profiling. Only about 25% of Arab-Americans are Muslim, while 68% are Christian. Of the US Muslims, only 25% are Arab-American while 30% are African-American.

As for you being ok with the use of torture, as of 1999, the US government promised terrorists the same rights as all suspected criminals - "All suspected terrorists placed under arrest are provided
access to legal counsel and normal judicial procedure, including Fifth Amendment guarantees." (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.p df). To me, this is not an issue of other's rights being ignored, its the increasing chance that my right to a fair trial will be gone if the need ever presents itself.

Call your local agent today and see what they can do for you!

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

I know I'm jumping in late, but if just a few people see this and respond, it'll do some good.

Go to the following sites and complain:

Department of Homeland Security - Select "Security Threats" - This is a threat to national security.

US Secret Service Electronics Crimes Branch - They do computer fraud cases.

FBI

I know I'm jumping in WAY late in this conversation, but if just a few people see this and respond, it'll do some good.

Go to the following sites and complain:

Department of Homeland Security - Select "Security Threats"

US Secret Service - They do computer fraud cases.

FBI

Anybody can make a ridiculous metaphor that makes something TOTALLY unrelated look accurate.

Banks aren't particularly secure, they simple require a different risk.

I can walk into a bank with a gun and steal money.

Now, depending upon how ruthless I wish to be, I could very likely get away with it (you'd be shocked how often banks are robbed successfully (in the short term.)

The bank isn't more secure, the repercussions are more severe.

This is what makes your analogy terrible.

Generally they try to capture a complete computer containing all the algos used for the steganography. That way they don't have to search for a needle in a haystack.

According to the FBI, they are aware that there are steganographic utilities which can fit on a single floppy, don't require installation and leave no remnants other than the files used to insert data with steganography techniques. Files which contain other more interesting data inserted with steganography are not much good to you if that inserted data were first encrypted in a strong manner. They will be hard to detect, since there should be no pattern in the inserted data (uniform distribution of what looks like noise, exactly where you might expect to find noise) and even if you could detect them (maybe you expect something other than uniform noise?), you still have the problem of de-encrypting data which could have been encrypted with any good algorithm and keys.

It's a bit like the code devices of WWII. It was always easier to capture a code machine than try to brute force the code itself.

Capturing a device or algorithm buys you little if that device or algorithm and usage (strong keys, one time usage of keys, etc) is cryptographically strong. Without the keys you will need to brute force, even if you do have the cipher machine. A good cipher is one which does not need to be secret. Capturing a device or algorithm is only really good at a minimum to align your brute force attacks or in the best case if that device or algorithm is weak then you can find a quicker way to attack the cipher texts.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

This has to be illegal. Call the cops on them!

Well, if the overall aim is to preserve human life - then I don't see gun ownership beyond the practical purposes as benefiting society.

But you raise a valid point. So I'll spend a few minutes looking this up.

Ok.

There's this report that says there were 308 homocide victims in 2003-2004. And this report shows the trends since 1915. The caption reads: The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend since 1969. In 2002, just under 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.

Now, given that we had 20,008,700 people in December 2003 that means your chance of being a victim of homicide in Australia during that time (ignoring demographic issues obviously) roughly one in 66,304, or about 0.0015082%.

According to an FBI crime stats report there were 16,204 murders in 2002. The report says that's a rate of 5.6 per 100,000 - a percentage of 0.0056%. That's about 3.7 times our rate here - not catastrophic, and I do apologise for the sensationalist quip about "not even a fraction". But at least significant.

The report also says roughly 2/3rds were committed using firearms. In Australia it was "just under 16%".

The real question is: can you meaningfully compare these two sets of statistics? Does one country's crime rate really compare when you're talking about different cultures? More importantly, if you had the situation with gun restrictions here over there in America, would there be less murder victims or would the killers just use alternative means?

I don't pretend to know for sure the answers to these questions, but I'm leaning to the "in theory, if you didn't have so many goddamn guns there might be less successful murders".

I say "in theory" because it seems that change is impossible. Gun culture seems to be deeply entrenched - I doubt any politician would commit political suicide by attempting such a thing.

Speaking of political suicide, I saw a documentary about Falcone et. al. recently trying to clear out the mafia in Italy in the 80s/90s. That was literally political suicide; along with his colleagues he was asassinated.

Mafioso - terrorists you can trust.

Anyway, our murder rate here is less but not shockingly less, I suppose. But it is at least a counter-argument that you need personal gun ownership to be safe from violent killers.

This guy is basically harmless. It's only spam. Just delete it. Or better yet use a spam filter or sign up for one of the realtime blackhole lists.

I'd rather the FBI spend my tax dollars on something a bit more serious, like catching some real dangerous folks.

People need to learn not to resond to spam. If we want the government to fight our battles for us then they may aswell go after all the bogus infomercials you see on TV. Next thing you won't be able to claim vitamin C prevents colds (which it doesn't) but, hey, let people figure stuff out for themselves.

Robert Mueller's maanhood didn't grow to the size of a cucumber like Alan Ralsky promised....

Fraud and corruption are huge problems in Nigeria. Organized crime is rampant and has been exported to many other countries via Nigerian emigres. Not all Nigerians are crooks, but enough are to ruin the country's reputation. See http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/aace/africancri m.htm.

Well remember, DNA/prints are things that a person has to be able to give to law enforcement in most cases (at least if law enforcement wants to match the data to a person/name for someone who has not been arrested yet, and if they have been arrested the prints are already on file). It's not like the gov't can take it without you even knowing (99% of the time). They can grab your DNA off of the glass of water that you used but if they don't already know you then they won't have a name to match up with the data. This link http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm details what the gov't has so far as of the last update to the site (it's mainly static content). Basically there are around 47 million subjects in the database right now. The majority of those are criminal but some are civil (gov't employees, contractors, subcontractors). Also, for anyone who knows someone who subscribes to National Geographic there was an article about the fingerprint database in a recent issue (although it wasn't that good I thought; focused too much on fingerprints when the Division handles more than just those) http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0505/featur e7/ Unfortunately the full article is not on the actual website however I read it a while back when it first came out (someone is borrowing it and I can't look again right now) and it details the current count of fingerprints but I don't remember what it was without looking. So in summary, the gov't has a lot of prints on file but only for those people who have submitted them (either b/c of a crime committed or because of a background check needed for a job).

After all - the army lost a lot of anthrax four years ago.

Gotta replace it - never know when it'll come in handy!

According to FBI headquarters, the war against smut is 'one of the top priorities' of Attorney General Gonazalez and FBI Director Robert Meuller. Although law enforcement agencies have always been aggressive when it comes to prosecuting exploitative child pornographers, this new initiative is unique in that it targets Internet pornography featuring consenting adults

It's Attorney General Gonzalez and Director Robert Mueller .

I thought this was just the submitter's mistake, but it is actually that way in the article. I shouldn't be surprised; Ars Technica should stick to their stupid overclocking articles.

"They have a responsability to stop any negative effects that gaming may have in society."

May have.

What does that mean exactly? I'm not trying to come at you from some elitest prick, how can I be wrong, type of attitude, but are you suggested we have to regulate things because of what may happen?

I can buy alcohol, yet I might drive drunk and run someone over. I can buy a gun, yet I might shoot someone in a violent crime.

I agree that, based on age and maturity levels, certain things are more/less appropriate for a given individual.

However, according to an FBI report (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel00/school.htm ) on school shootings, they said the following about video games: "The student spends inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes, and seems more interested in the violent images than in the game itself."

So it would seem that even the FBI feels that the violent images are the interest of potential school shooters/psychopaths - and those could be obtained hundreds of different ways.

Little Johnny, if not already pre-disposed to this behavior, is not going to run amuck because he shot someone down in GTA. Although I do agree, it's still probably not appropriate for him to play...