Slashdot Mirror

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders.

-- Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, May 1997

(The source used to be http://norfolk.fbi.gov/wmd.htm, but that link is mysteriously inactive now, and I can find no other citation of the quote online ... hmmmmm.)

One or more of the proscribed missiles filled with conventional explosives and launched at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia certainly would fill Freeh's definition of WMD, as it would have destructive capacity to overwhelm local responders more than the OK City bombing. Unless the question specifically mentioned NBC weapons -- and I see no indication it did -- then there is no justfication for assuming that is what those questioned meant when they answered, since a man no less than the former FBI Director himself agreed that WMD is not limited to those.

No, they did not. They said that there were reports of contacts between the two, but not connections.

The sky is not blue, rather, it is lacking red and green! To most people, there's no necessary difference between the two. If the questioner stated to those questioned that a connection is something more than contact, fine. But again, I see no indication of this.

You are again trying to narrowly define words and phrases moreso than is required, and then judging how other people answered based on your narrow definitions. That's unreasonable.

Look for the bit involving the WTC attack.

There's nothing in there supporting the claim that Bush said Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda. The fact that you didn't actually quote anything but instead tried to post a URL that didn't even support your point is telling.

Bush did say -- though not in the link you tried to provide -- "[Hussein's regime] has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." That's the closest he came, and those things are likely true, and most experts agree they do not constitute substantial support, since the evidence he was referring to in re: al Qaeda was mostly indirect support, in allowing them to operate out of Western Iraq (the "harboring" part ... note that the sentence construction requires that only one of "aided, trained, and harbored" apply to "operatives of al Qaeda").

I suppose you could say it depends on what "substantial" means, but still, Bush never drew very direct lines linking the two.

No. Again, look at what they actually said.

You first. Read the resolution. It authorized for two purposes:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

These were the primary justifications for the use of force, the ones actually enumerated in the law.

I am not denying there were many components to the public case for war, and one of them was the apparently false intelligence of actual existence of WMD. I criticized Bush at the time for emphasizing this part of the case too much, and I was one of the few pro-war people who was not at all convinced by Powell's WMD presentation to the UN in February 2003 (my reaction was similar to the one expressed by Bush himself,

In recent years, especially since 9/11, the FBI has expanded itself in to a global police force. They are quite proud of it, here is their web page where they brag about it.

"Office of International Operations (OIO). OIO now supports some 200 FBI employees in 45 Legats worldwide and hundreds of Agents rotating in and out of temporary assignments overseas."

"Thanks to the foundations laid by the Liaison Section beginning six decades ago, we now have solid working relationships with a range of colleagues in every part of the world, pursuing terrorist, intelligence, and criminal threats with international dimensions. It's no exaggeration to say that the FBI is a global organization for a global age."

Next time you hear Republican's/Conservatives rail about the UN and world government stop and think a minute. They aren't really complaining about the idea of a world government, they are only complaining about who runs it. They want to run it, out of Washington, out of the oval office and at the moment that means they want George W. Bush to run the world.

The bureaucracy at the U.N. is deeply flawed and a good case can be made against it running the world. But instead should the world be run by a religious extremist elected by a tiny percentage of the world's population and whose main goal in life is to enrich and empower that tiny minority at the expense of the rest of the world.

If you don't think the U.S. is angling for a global empire just read the above description of the FBI. Consider the U.S. now has troops in more than a hundred nations, along with big and growing DEA and CIA contigents, and of course the NSA is spying on all communications on the planet. The U.S. also spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined and that spending is accelerating, not slowing, though most of those conventional military forces are of little value against the Al Qaeda threat. The Bush administration is also actively developing new tactical nukes with the expressed intent of bestowing upon itself the privilege of being the only nation on the planet with the license to use nuclear weapons in otherwise conventional wars.

And of course add in the U.S. has bestowed upon itself the right to use preemptive aggressive warfare to take down any sovereign government it so chooses, with or without any valid justification for the action. All they need is to lay an accusation the nation might someday be a threat to the U.S. which is a charge that can be laid against any nation.

One can only hope that Bush and company are thrown out and Kerry doesn't pursue the same path, which is certainly in doubt on both scores.

If bush stays in power, or any U.S. government continues down the current course, the rest of the world really needs to consider forming a global alliance to counter the United State's imperial ambitions, unless you want extremist Christians running the entire planet, and forcing their "unique" idealogy on you.

Probably one of the best things the UN, and its members nations, could do at this point to give the U.S. reciprocal treatment in a three phase plane:

A. Move the UN headquarters out of New York and to Europe without giving the U.S. the option to veto in the security council

B. Place the U.S. on probation to end its imperial ambitions or be removed from the security council

C. If U.S. behavior continuesand eject the U.S.from the U.N. all together.

Maybe the Republicans will dance with joy at getting out of the U.N but I wager when they see their power and influence in the U.N. being eliminated they will freak and suddenly develop a passion for it.

I'd really like to see how much the U.S. likes being totally isolated and being the global pariah its current policies have called for. Their are obvious feasibility problems with this, since Britain, Italy and Australia would oppose it but I'm not sure how many other nations actually would.

"It is unclear to Indymedia how and why a server that is outside the US jurisdiction can be seized by US authorities."

This is simply explained. It is thanks to the fact that, especially since 9/11, the FBI has expanded itself in to a global police force. They are quite proud of it, here is their web page where they brag about it.

"Office of International Operations (OIO). OIO now supports some 200 FBI employees in 45 Legats worldwide and hundreds of Agents rotating in and out of temporary assignments overseas."

"Thanks to the foundations laid by the Liaison Section beginning six decades ago, we now have solid working relationships with a range of colleagues in every part of the world, pursuing terrorist, intelligence, and criminal threats with international dimensions. It's no exaggeration to say that the FBI is a global organization for a global age."

You see the disturbing thing about it is:

A) Say you are fed up with the fact the U.S. is turning in to a police state. In the old days you would become an ex pat and find some place better to live. Well its becoming increasingly hard to find places in the world where the American police state doesn't have a DOD, CIA, NSA and FBI presence.

B) They are trampling most international law on jurisdiction and extradition. Really the only thing stopping it is if each nation tells them to go to hell and defends their sovereignty. Unfortunately a host of nations are either:

- partners in the war on terror and giving each other a blank check to run amuck on the law enforcement front
- bribed/blackmailed by the U.S. especially through the IMF and World Bank
- easily coerced by an unmatched U.S. military which has declared its fondness for preemptive invasion (Iraq) and government topplings(Haiti).

It is, for example, a major new initiative on the part of Ashcroft to hunt down American sex tourists in places like Central America. It is a noble goal on the face of it to hunt down pedophiles, the problem is when you are in a foreign country you are supposed to answer to their laws and law enforcement agencies first, and the FBI should in fact have absolutely no jurisdiction with extradition being the only avenue, and that is normally only if you are wanted for something you did in the U.S. The FBI has increasingly decided you can be made to answer to American law no matter where you are on the planet. It is quite chilling when you think about it because it increasingly means no one can escape America if it continues down its current path to nutcase-dom and dictatorship.

The bills come at a time when the music and movie industries are exerting enormous pressure on all branches of government at the federal and state levels to crack down on P2P content piracy. The industries also are pushing to portray P2P networks as dens of terrorists, child pornographers and criminals -- a strategy that would make it more palatable for politicians to pass laws against products that are very popular with their constituents.

There's also increased enforcement activity. The US Department of Justice released this announcementearlier this year. According to this article possessing obscene material is legal but not distributing it:

Under federal law, it is illegal to knowingly possess or distribute child pornography. It generally is legal to possess "obscene" materials--defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as sexually explicit materials lacking scientific, literary, artistic or political value--but illegal to distribute them. Magazines such as Hustler or Penthouse are typically not considered obscene, but legal standards vary from state to state.

Law enforcement are ramping up their efforts and soon enough folks will find that distributing GBs of hardcore material is not just illegal but might earn them a visit to the pokey where their music sharing friends can visit them after paying their settlement.

This is why the FOIA is such a good thing. While it's easier to forget about our mistakes, analyzing them helps us avoid repeating them. Its so we can see what the Govt has said about us.

The FBI commissioned a STUDY to determine the prevalence of defensive gun use, in response to independent studies which indicated it was much more common than the anti-gun lobby would like us to believe.

Where's the study? You give specific statistics but you can't link to the source you got them from? Liar.

Here's how you do it. According to the FBI, there were 1.43 million violent crimes in the United States in 2002. According to you, more than half this number were interrupted by the defensive use of a firearm. That's ridiculous.

Link to more crime statistics here.

The FBI commissioned a STUDY to determine the prevalence of defensive gun use, in response to independent studies which indicated it was much more common than the anti-gun lobby would like us to believe.

Where's the study? You give specific statistics but you can't link to the source you got them from? Liar.

Here's how you do it. According to the FBI, there were 1.43 million violent crimes in the United States in 2002. According to you, more than half this number were interrupted by the defensive use of a firearm. That's ridiculous.

Link to more crime statistics here.

"The deliberate destruction, disruption or distortion of digital data or information flows with widespread effect for political, religious or ideological reasons."

Someone needs to mod this parent up. The refusal to profile based on race, country of origin, sex, and age explains the absurdities like this one. As much as I couldn't stand Al Gore, the fact that he was chosen for the full shakedown in an airport line in the months following 9/11 just shows the stupidity of random screening. What we need is TARGETED screening.

There are, after all, surprisingly few elderly, white, female Presbyterians on this list.

No more terrorist attacks in the US.

There weren't terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the six years prior to 9/11. It's only been three since 9/11.

No more recession

When Bush loses the election in November the big reason will be because he did not net create one job in his miserable presidency. Herbert Hoover is smiling in Heaven because in the future, Bush's name will be used for lousy economic performance instead of his.

No more WMD in Libya

Libya never had WMD. Just dreams of them. North Korea, on the other hand, now has them whereas they didn't when Dubya took office.

Lower taxes

At the expense of higher defecits, higher unemployment, and the Fed worrying about inflation. Oh, and the suck-ass economy in general.

Lower crime

Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Gay marriage being trounced in many states

Last I checked, Dubya doesn't hold state office.

Iraq people now free from Saddam

I don't live in Iraq. What's he done in his own freaking country? Nothing.

Syria is being quiet

Syria was quiet before Dubya.

Yes, there is a democracy

Guess what? There was democracy for over 200 years before Bush. Despite his best efforts, there will be democracy after he's gone.

...fortunately for the American people, you're in the minority in this country.

Fortunately, I'm in the majority. You know, people who didn't vote for Bush?

Tell that to the FBI, asshat.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Don't worry, you can trust them.

Now, on to my answers on the vigilante question:

The bottom line is it's a case by case basis.

If illegal activity is going on and it's a law that's usually enforced like KP or cyber-blackmail, a virus-writing IRC channel, or what-not, alert the authorities. If the authorities don't take action, write your lawmakers and cc the press.

If there are organizations that work to derail that type of crime, such as Symantec for viruses, alert them also.

As far as taking direct action against the lawbreakers:

Don't break the law to do it. Don't hack or DDOS their machines. DO report them to their ISPs to get them TOSsed off the net, DO alert the media if the situation warrants it. Do NOT tell people you KNOW are LIKELY to "take the law into their own hands" about it, as that makes you an accomplice, in the moral sense if not in the legal one.

But what if the person is just annoying and not breaking any laws? For example, trolls who post 100 flames a day to a particular newsgroup?

If you can, just ignore him - that's what killfiles are for.

If that doesn't work, try to isolate yourself from him and alert others they should do the same.

If that fails, try slapping him around a little, but don't become annoying yourself:

If he's breaking his ISP contract, alert them. If he's doing it during work hours from his work computer, alert them.

If he's doing it from home though, don't bother his employer, they don't own his free time, and if they do take action against him, you could be on the wrong end of a lawsuit, sigh.

The bottom line:

Pick your battles, and be an adult about it. Get thicker skin if you need to. This is the Internet, it's not a place for 5 year old whiney kids who cry foul every time they get a "buy or product" solicitation in their email (even though we have EVERY RIGHT to cry foul :) ).

URL of the day: https://tips.fbi.gov

I would like to address a statement you made - though whether this is an actual belief you carry isn't clear.

"a cop ignoring a murder to chase a speeder"
Although I don't have any actual data to back this up, I think common sense would dictate that no cop would *ignore* a known murder and instead go chase a speeder.

Of course this shouldn't lead to any notion of an entire policeforce being set on a murdercase and leave all other violations of the law unmonitored.

Your statement seems to draw from an oft-made argument of traffic violators, namely "Don't you have anything better to do ? Like catch a murderer ?".
Without getting into the fact that the police is not bemused at any such comments, I think it should be clear that it is the police's duty to monitor for any violation of the law.

This completely ignoring a possible eye-opener for some :
In 2002, speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,713 lives were lost in speeding-related crashed
Source : National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
An estimated 16,204 murders took place in 2002.
Source : Federal Bureau of Investigation

With roughly 4 deaths related to speeding to every 5 deaths due to murder, I think the police has every reason to target speeders - no matter what the argument (not every speeder kills, not every speeder speeds by as much as to be considered dangerous, etc.)

" And you completely missed my point...

Managers should be cautious assigning anyone to places of high responsibility. Malicious young workers, incompetant old managers..."

I'm not missing your point at all, I'm simply taking it for granted. Perhaps if I state my hypothesis as: 'All other things being equal, you are more likely to see a statistically greater number of younger workers make judgment errors than older workers; including judgment errors resulting in criminal behavior.' So, if you make bad hiring decisions generally or good hiring decisions generally, as long as you are consistent in your criteria... age becomes a statistically relevant predictor. What I am not saying is that bad decisions won't result in bad results. If you hire a crook that is 50 years old, you will get the bad results same as if you hired a 25 year old crooks.

Given that, I urge managers to apply caution to every hiring decision for important roles and that extra caution is warranted in evaluating a young person for the same role.

"Sitting on this stereotype[...]"

Lets stop right there. There's an old saying that goes something like, "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean it's not true. I agree it is a stereotype and one that is earned. However, my hypothesis is testable and there are even studies that can provide insight. Just for shits and giggles (and the fact I believe security and technology management issues are important) I did a little looking around and pulled some crime statistics.

Lets start with a look at all crime broken up into 5 years per age group. (I'd do a full APA bibliographic citation, but I'm old & tired... oops! another stereotype) BTW, all stats are from the 2002 Crime in the United States report from the FBI (available here); the most recent year published (or that I could find in 5 minutes).

Age 20-24: 19.8%
Age 25-29: 12.3%
Age 30-34: 10.9%
Age 35-39: 10.4%
Age 40-44: 8.9%
Age 45-49: 5.5%
Age 50-55: 2.9%

(NOTE: I've not put all ages in these so don't expect to get to 100%.)

Interesting, but this is all crime. These stats don't address cybercrime specifically, but we can take a look at
fraud and embezzlement numbers as in the same basic class of crime as the AOL guy committed. At least we won't pollute the numbers with sex, drugs, and murder that way:

Age 20-24: 20.0%
Age 25-29: 16.7%
Age 30-34: 16.1%
Age 35-39: 14.0%
Age 40-44: 10.8%
Age 45-49: 6.4%
Age 50-55: 3.3%

Wow. Of course, there were other non-violent crimes in that report other than fraud and embezzlement and they may well shift the numbers (stuff like forgery and gambling). But even eyeballing those the young are less trustworthy. The only place were older people seemed to be worse was sex crimes (which doesn't surprise me). There are crime stats for cybercrime, but I couldn't find any study regarding perp age. It is interesting that the vast majority of computer crime is from within, the same class that the AOL guy was.

Naturally my little study was quick and dirty and may not stand a deep look, but it's close enough for government work (but you'd know more about that than I). It certainly supports my premise however; more successfully than I thought. Indeed it's a shame you and I are the only ones watching this thread at this point (slashdot attention being as fleeting as it is). Of course, presenting actual facts might throw the average Slashdotter for a loop.

"[...]just makes you seem like an asshole with a grudge who responds with arrogance, even if your observations are reasonable."

Get this straight: I am an asshole and I am arrogant and I could care less who thinks that I am either; I leave such worries to the unexceptional, fashion whores and the middle class sensibilities that m

What idiot rated the above "redundant"? It's a short, simple answer to the question. The other poster is in a different thread on the second page, not this thread. It's only redundant if, upon reading the comment, one says something like "I just read a comment two spots up that says the same thing". Here's a link to the FBI's page about the COmbined DNA Index System for whatever mod thinks a post is redundant if it doesn't provide info that's not replicated somewhere in the huge list of posts under the story in question.

Now I'll probably get modded "flamebait"...

According to the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report, in the 10-year span 1993-2002, 13 Maryland officers were feloniously killed and 16 were killed accidently. I haven't looked to see how many of these were in Baltimore, but for the year 2002, three of the six deaths were in Baltimore.

Ignorance is bliss huh? You should be called the pinnacle of 'Ignorance is Bliss', Mr. Pot-Kettle-Black. Police officers die in the line of duty either accidently or intentionally. Like has been said already, it's not at all small news when one is killed on duty in the US. Last year one was murdered in my local state and the state flag was lowered to half-mast in memory of the slain officer.

More proper research would show that officers intentionally killed while on duty is not an 'everyday event', the grandparent was correct in this matter, there were IN FACT 42 law enforcement officers feloniously killed in 1999. Here you'll see the FBI's statistics of officers feloniously killed, for the years 1993-2002. For those 10 years, there were 636 total, not including 72 from the events of 9/11. The yearly low is 42, high is 80. Along with the 56 feloniously killed in 2002, there were 77 killed in duty-related accidents, so yes, it is over 100 for that year and likely also for each year as your source said. But that includes deaths accidental, not killed by an assailant with such intent. It can be a dangerous occupation after all, but you knew that. For UK stats, Google didn't reveal anything comparative. Maybe one way to compare is to divide these kinds of stats by 5 and you get UK results since the UK has 1/5 of the population of the US.

So say that again, a law enforcement officer dies on duty and it's an everyday event, and it's minor news when it happens in the US? Please. It's rare just like it is in the UK.

You're a Brit, yes it's ironic that an Englishman said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

It may do well in your culture, it may not do that well in others. The original story and question related to the UK, not to the USA.

Despite the reputation the US has for being a shoot-from-the-hip, violence obsessed society, US crime rates have actually been decreasing for many years. That's not to say that violent crime isn't a problem anywhere in the US. There are some bad neighborhoods. They're mostly urban areas. A lot of the violence here is drug related. Some of it is gang related. But I believe that even the larger cities in the US are mostly safe.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel03/ucr2002.htm

The geek worried about being mugged in the UK may have a serious problem, at least according to this article which indicates UK crime rates have risen sharply:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3669407.stm

I intentionally avoided sensational sources of crime data. That obviously excluded all pro-gun and anti-gun sites. Relative comparisons within a country are not useful for this discussion. I tried to find data on per capita crimes for different countries. I couldn't find any, but I know the truth is out there. (TM) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the US has a relatively high crime rate. The reverse wouldn't surprise me too much either.

I found an article claiming Canada's crime rate has been increasing. I've visited the Toronto area, and the Canadians I met were very nice. I know all societies have criminals, but I can't imagine Canadian criminals. We could learn a thing or two from our neighbors to the north. I wish our society was as polite. Their streets are cleaner too. That's a big plus for me, because I really hate litter. One of these days I'm going to see someone litter and it's going to make me so mad I kill them.

It's a joke. Laugh.

Per the FBI, in 2002 there were 1,426,325 violent offenders in the United States. That was a rate of 494.6 per 100,000. Divide by 1,000, that's .4946/100, or about 0.5%. 2002 was, of course, near the bottom of a percipitous violent crime drop. In 2001, the number was 504.4/100,000 and 2002's number is a 12.9% decline from 1998.

In the U.S., the number of police deaths to criminal acts (that is, *only* attributable to being killed in a felonious act) is around 50-60 per year. This is actually slightly less than the number of police officers killed due to accidental causes while on duty (70ish).

However, annual assaults on police officers number around 60k per year.

(Stats from the FBI.)

- Overall crime decreased 5.8% in all five boroughs, while the national average drop was 0.5%

- Most of the crime reduction came from a huge decrease in property crimes, such as auto thefts; violent crime was down by 6.9% in NYC, compared to a 6.5% decrease in cities over 9 million, while NYC's property crime decreased 5.4%, with other 9M+ cities experiencing just a 1% drop.

- NYC's police force is the largest (37,000 members) and has the most cops per capita (one officer per every 215 residents), at a cost of $5 billion a year.

No, I can't. You can probably thank the 1969 case of Chimel v. California for helping everyone out there. This case placed more control over what the law enforcement could search following an arrest.

There was a case that went to the Supreme court in which it was argued that an IR heat detector was a violation of the 4th ammendment. You can read about it on the FBI's page, in Kyllo v. United States.

I think the issue at hand here is the potential that Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act has of being abused by law enforcement.

Black people get convicted of a lot more crimes, and sent away for much longer terms. That by the very definition is racism, and the only way you can say it is fair is by taking the position that black people are subhuman (naturally commit more and worse crimes than white people).

I agree with most of what you say, but this line caught my eye (and ire). Saying that the justice system is racist just because black people are convicted more often is a leap of logic that seems to be a tad too long to me.

Let me offer you another very plausible explaination: black people may very well commit a disproportionate number of crimes not because of a natural propensity, but because of the disproportionate number of African Americans that live in poverty.

Poverty levels are known to adversely affect the amount and types of crimes (FBI "Crime Factors"). Sadly, 22.7% of the African American population is situated below the poverty line (an income below $18,725 for a single parent with three dependent children) -- astounding when compared with the rate for non-hispanic whites: 7.8% (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2001).

Taking these facts together, a higher crime rate among African Americans appears to be nearly inevitable. I think the main culprit here is an economic environment that affords people little opportunity to improve their income status, rather than a habit of racism within the justice system.

Here's what the article's all about: CAN-SPAM Act Congressional Testimony of Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jana Monroe before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, May 20, 2004

Steve Linford of spamhaus calls the overview of Project SLAM-Spam "required reading for all spammers."

The "Notable early accomplishments" read very strangely. They seem to have been drafted for maximum deniability. "Developed ten primary subject packets developed and for referral to Law Enforcement" "We are already planning meetings to ensure that this initiative is on track, and to further define the scope and packaging of this activity are being planned." Doesn't sound like a major roundup of criminals is in the works.

The FBI doesn't actually produce many arrests per hour expended. The FBI's Baltimore-based child porno operation produces about 1.6 arrests per agent year. They have 200 agents on that operation, or about 2% of their agent staff. (The FBI isn't that big. There are only about 12,000 agents. The NYPD is four times as large.) So to shut down 100 spammers per year, they'd probably have to devote about 75 agents to the operation, which is a big bite for them.

My last iteration:

A redact is a person who redacts something.

Likewise a censor.

The nominative usage of each verb refers specifically to the person performing the act, not to the product of the action.

A redact produces a "redaction". A censor produces "censored material". The main purpose of redaction of government documents is censorship, though a colophon or masthead or invoice may be added. If new text is inserted in the material to change its meaning, it's an FOIA no-no, tantamount to lying, though I couldn't point to any cases of it.

These guys seem to have a handle on the one-way trip information takes in an FOIA redaction, and they manage to omit misuse of the word entirely!

These guys, however, blow it.

There's hope we'll discover intelligent life in Washington, as long as we avoid those who call themselves "intelligence" for reasons of maintaining their cover.

McCarthyism is a myth perpetuated by a liberal American media. Read about it.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but take a look at Stallman's photo. Now look at the FBI's Most Wanted list. I almost expected to see that picture there with a reward leading to the arrest and capture of this communist member.

These statistics are somethat dated now, but in 1997 the US had 187 violent deaths per million population, compared to Japan with 176 in 1996. (Note that family members murdered in murder-suicides were classified as suicides in Japan.)

#1 - They're enforcing the laws of our country. The FBI is just the police that operate at the Federal (National) level. It is not the FBI's job to deal with foreign matters.

#2 - The responsbility for tracking down Bin Laden lays with the NSA (It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information.) and the CIA (Providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics.). The Department of Defense (the military) are the ones who carry out the work to actually find him.

This is one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard in a while. I can't believe it was declared "Insightful" by a moderator.

To be so ignorant as to imply that the FBI doing its job in domestic affairs will deter its ability to prevent terrorism (by any organization) is amazing to me.

The FBI is not an entity with one sole investigative purpose. It is an entity that is the federal government's ability to make sure that federal law is respected and upheld. They are a law enforcement group. Copyright infringement is just one of their purposes - they've been tracking down copyright infringement even before the popularity of trading music on the Internet (have you ever seen one of those big FBI warnings at the start of a movie).

The FBI states that its priorities are as follows:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack.

Top priority would mean that most of the agents working for the FBI would be dedicated to preventing another attack from a terrorist organization.

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.

What good is freedom if foreign governments get to decide what happens with our government? I can completely understand why this ranks #2 on their list of priorities.

3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

Although it may be a highly debated topic, exchanging software, music, or other digital data that is a copyrighted work without the permission of the publisher or author is illegal. The fact that it is the third priority means that this would also have quite a few agents to investigate these crimes. In my opinion, I believe that they are probably understaffed for this particular task.

4. Combat public corruption at all levels.

This would include state officials. Imagine the scope of work that is necessary to fulfill this priority.

5. Protect civil rights.
6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises.
7. Combat major white-collar crime.
8. Combat significant violent crime.
9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners.
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.

If you have any doubt in the FBI's ability to investigate possible terrorist threats, go their website and do the research for yourself. I would hate to think what would happen to this country if our sole purpose was to defeat terrorism while neglecting our domestic issues. A crime is a crime - and affects us all, in the end.

This is one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard in a while. I can't believe it was declared "Insightful" by a moderator.

To be so ignorant as to imply that the FBI doing its job in domestic affairs will deter its ability to prevent terrorism (by any organization) is amazing to me.

The FBI is not an entity with one sole investigative purpose. It is an entity that is the federal government's ability to make sure that federal law is respected and upheld. They are a law enforcement group. Copyright infringement is just one of their purposes - they've been tracking down copyright infringement even before the popularity of trading music on the Internet (have you ever seen one of those big FBI warnings at the start of a movie).

The FBI states that its priorities are as follows:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack.

Top priority would mean that most of the agents working for the FBI would be dedicated to preventing another attack from a terrorist organization.

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.

What good is freedom if foreign governments get to decide what happens with our government? I can completely understand why this ranks #2 on their list of priorities.

3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

Although it may be a highly debated topic, exchanging software, music, or other digital data that is a copyrighted work without the permission of the publisher or author is illegal. The fact that it is the third priority means that this would also have quite a few agents to investigate these crimes. In my opinion, I believe that they are probably understaffed for this particular task.

4. Combat public corruption at all levels.

This would include state officials. Imagine the scope of work that is necessary to fulfill this priority.

5. Protect civil rights.
6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises.
7. Combat major white-collar crime.
8. Combat significant violent crime.
9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners.
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.

If you have any doubt in the FBI's ability to investigate possible terrorist threats, go their website and do the research for yourself. I would hate to think what would happen to this country if our sole purpose was to defeat terrorism while neglecting our domestic issues. A crime is a crime - and affects us all, in the end.

Great: first of all there's no link in the NY times article to find where this guy's homepage is. Then I go to google, and the first link is a guy named "Eric Brown" who's an FBI top ten wanted person. But hey, this Eric Brown has published a guide to all Eric Browns on the net. Thank you!

Maan

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

It'll also increase your life expectancy.

But not that much.

Instead of having to put up with stupid requirements,

lazy co-workers

and (my least favourite) meetings

I'll take having to clock 8 hours a day in a chat room

Now where do I apply for a job like that?

If UBL is indeed guilty of 911 as you all indeed claim then why when you look at his FBI most wanted poster does it fail to mention 911? There is absolutely zero evidence against the man that would stand up in a US court and that's why he will either die or get a military tribunal.

The Taliban made an offer to the US to extradite Usama to a third country if the US could provide ANY evidence of his involvement in 911 and the US point blank refused choosing instead to make the opposite claim in their media.

It is well documented that the military action against Afghanistan was planned and deployed prior to the attacks of 911.
Even India offered to assist the West in its future military plans against the taliban back in June, 2001.

From their website:

Public TV's total national, regional and local revenue in FY00 totaled $1.6 billion, according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Leading sources of revenue: members (23.5%); state governments (18.3%); CPB and federal grants/contracts (16.4%); businesses (16.1%); state colleges and universities (6.5%); and foundations (5.5%).

So, the federal government chips in 16.3% of 1.6 billion dollars. That's 260 million.

From their website, NPR's operating budget (total) is 100 million dollars. Congress pays for 18%.

The FBI budget: 4.298 billion, with $500 in new spending this year to develop counter-terrorism and high-tech crime fighting.

From their website "High tech" crimes outrank public corruption investigations, protecting civil rights, combating organized crime, and even upgrading the organizations technology to successfully perform their mission.

While I don't have a hard number, I can tell you if it's not close to 280 million, it's probably more.

...Thousands of MADMEN could be built by many nations...

It's already been done.

"Did you notice that "new" FBI seal in the corner? Only 5 stars; no laurel leaves; shield moved up to the top of the blue field. That's the official FBI Anti-Piracy seal, just unveiled today... and you'll be seeing a lot of it in the days to come. Not just on the warning screens of videos and DVDs, but on the millions and millions of CDs, games, software packages, and other digital media that are produced each year."

preventing and prosecuting cybercrimes is now the FBI's No. 3 priority, behind anti-terrorism efforts and counterintelligence operations.
well, considering that anti-terrorism is what we developed homeland security for, they'll have to wait in line if thats going to be one of their primary goals.

"counterintelligence: The branch of an intelligence service charged with keeping sensitive information from an enemy, deceiving that enemy, preventing subversion and sabotage, and collecting political and military information."
Hmm....sounds like a job for CIA, NSA, SS, and several military agencies. They'll have to step in the back of the line there too. Maybe they meant to say "anti-treason" efforts.

Oh, and then there's prosecuting cybercrimes, which is what LAWYERS do. But speak of the devil, doesn't the DoJ have a...why YES they do! The CCIP, computer crime and intellectial property division of the DoJ. And we all know the FBI and DoJ are always holding hands....wait, wasn't the newly stated Director of FBI one of the DoJ? Why YES he was!

But if the FBI wants to prioritize its resources towards the CCIP, CIA, and Homeland Security, how are we going to keep up with the original FBI chores? Good question. (-thank you) (-your welcome) Unfortunately, bank robberies, serial killings, extortion, rackateering, theft, gangsterism, fighting communist expansion, fugitives, assassination attempts, watergate, hoffa's missing corpse, and the X-files will have to be postponed since the agency needs more money. On one hand, the FBI could try to defend joe schmo and joe tax evader, or they could defend the RIAA and MPAA who have pounds and pounds of money.

Some people don't agree with this and believe Dir. Mueller will run the agency a-fry:
They expect you to tinker with the machinery until you get it whirring along again. They want you to be the total executive who moves in, takes over and puts the place in order. In short, they expect you to do what a new CEO would do when taking over a major business operation that has fallen into disrepair: fix what's broken, shake up the table of organization, get rid of the deadwood, and start making big profits for the stockholders. But the FBI isn't a business. It's the investigative arm of the Justice Department. Its principal job is to go out and dig up the facts to back up whatever litigation DOJ is working on. Its field is interstate crime."

Seriously, I'm not trying to troll, but you could argue one way or the other and come out right: the FBI is doing exactly what it has been doing since its conception. Unfortunately, I think the diversity in crime has expanded past their "business model", and they'll eventually have to decide to split the agency apart -similar to why we should have split MS apart years ago.

preventing and prosecuting cybercrimes is now the FBI's No. 3 priority, behind anti-terrorism efforts and counterintelligence operations.
well, considering that anti-terrorism is what we developed homeland security for, they'll have to wait in line if thats going to be one of their primary goals.

"counterintelligence: The branch of an intelligence service charged with keeping sensitive information from an enemy, deceiving that enemy, preventing subversion and sabotage, and collecting political and military information."
Hmm....sounds like a job for CIA, NSA, SS, and several military agencies. They'll have to step in the back of the line there too. Maybe they meant to say "anti-treason" efforts.

Oh, and then there's prosecuting cybercrimes, which is what LAWYERS do. But speak of the devil, doesn't the DoJ have a...why YES they do! The CCIP, computer crime and intellectial property division of the DoJ. And we all know the FBI and DoJ are always holding hands....wait, wasn't the newly stated Director of FBI one of the DoJ? Why YES he was!

But if the FBI wants to prioritize its resources towards the CCIP, CIA, and Homeland Security, how are we going to keep up with the original FBI chores? Good question. (-thank you) (-your welcome) Unfortunately, bank robberies, serial killings, extortion, rackateering, theft, gangsterism, fighting communist expansion, fugitives, assassination attempts, watergate, hoffa's missing corpse, and the X-files will have to be postponed since the agency needs more money. On one hand, the FBI could try to defend joe schmo and joe tax evader, or they could defend the RIAA and MPAA who have pounds and pounds of money.

Some people don't agree with this and believe Dir. Mueller will run the agency a-fry:
They expect you to tinker with the machinery until you get it whirring along again. They want you to be the total executive who moves in, takes over and puts the place in order. In short, they expect you to do what a new CEO would do when taking over a major business operation that has fallen into disrepair: fix what's broken, shake up the table of organization, get rid of the deadwood, and start making big profits for the stockholders. But the FBI isn't a business. It's the investigative arm of the Justice Department. Its principal job is to go out and dig up the facts to back up whatever litigation DOJ is working on. Its field is interstate crime."

Seriously, I'm not trying to troll, but you could argue one way or the other and come out right: the FBI is doing exactly what it has been doing since its conception. Unfortunately, I think the diversity in crime has expanded past their "business model", and they'll eventually have to decide to split the agency apart -similar to why we should have split MS apart years ago.

Mods never click the damn links!... FBI might have been a bit better :p

For those too lazy to shop around for a link, the logo is visible on the FBI homepage along with a fairly extensive notice.

The wording is what really gets me...very colloquial for such a terse organization:

PIRATES IN CYBERSPACE
Not Exactly Fun and Games
Does the number THREE BILLION DOLLARS get your attention?
...
Did you notice that "new" FBI seal in the corner? Only 5 stars; no laurel leaves; shield moved up to the top of the blue field. That's the official FBI Anti-Piracy seal, just unveiled today... and you'll be seeing a lot of it in the days to come. Not just on the warning screens of videos and DVDs, but on the millions and millions of CDs, games, software packages, and other digital media that are produced each year.
Oh, and one last thing:

Protect yourself!

Great stuff. Of course, I'd always thought of the red, black, and white FBI WARNING screen on VHS and DVD's as somewhat of a, well, warning...but hey, new times, new logo.

They consider this an effort to combat piracy. I somehow doubt that half an hour in Photoshop will do much to address the problem.

Granted, I'm all for the protection of artists and such, but the usual practice of protecting the 'big stars' (who tend to fall short of being 'artists') while leaving independent musicians and filmmakers out in the cold isn't exactly what I'd had in mind.

These efforts specifically target criminal enterprises -- and link the considerable resources and efforts of private sector companies and trade associations with law enforcement partnerships (on local, state, federal, and international levels) to identify and stop them.
And that's not all.

You can file complaints with the FBI at their Cybercrimes homepage. If the value exceeds a certain amount, they can and will get involved. Don't think that the government won't follow up for you. Not everyone gets results, but it does happen. The Secret Service got involved when I and a few other people got defrauded by an eBay scammer. Don't forget that with such a high-profile crime, the FBI *wants* to get involved. They want to look good, too.