Slashdot Mirror

...we all wore t-shirts with pictures of the FBI's most wanted - could it tell the difference between a face and a picture of a face?

I remember when CALEA came out. The telcos complained about the high cost of implementation and (then-) close deadline. IIRC, all the major telcos met the deadline--the motivation was a $10,000/day fine for any slackers.

It seems that the feebs wrote a faulty spec. The telcos can copy packet upon packet for the feebs. The feebs are expecting the header information to be stripped. If the feebs are allowed to change the spec at this point, will the telcos be forced to bear the additional cost? If so, the telcos will "tax" us through rate increases, of course computing the extra tax of profit as a percentage of expenses. If not, the feebs will tax us.

Either way, no one's privacy is safe. Ostensibly, CALEA specifies court-ordered wiretaps. But what if company Y is interested in the Intellectual Property research done at company X? Someone at the Telco could be bribed to tap X's calls and provide the desired information to Y. The same goes for anyone running for political office or potential whistleblowers.

somebody wrote:
>>Talk about fast moving: 10 years old, and just look at all the pr0n you can snarf. Imagine where we'll be at 20!
and unformed wrote:
>umm...if i remember correctly, porn was a LOT easier to grab when the net was only 6-7 years old....before the Cyber Decency Act kicked in...

umm ... if i remember correctly, the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court nearly three years ago. Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis?

You may be thinking of the Child Online Protection Act, which is presently being challenged at the Appeals Court level, with a review of the decision overturning it possible. But the COPA has been under injunction by an Appeals judge since 1998.

It can be a little hard to get to porn from certain libraries and other public institutions, and child pornography enforcement has stepped up (even while occasionally stomping on some Constitutional fingers), but in general porn remains as available as ever.

(Are you sure you're reading the real news, and not just Slashdot? I know from the editorial accuracy around here it would be hard to keep up.)

Oh, I see, you meant porn you didn't have to PAY for. Well, no wonder.
----
lake effect weblog

563/100,000 people were the victims of violent crime in the US in 1999 (see: the FBI's Statistics)

570/100,000 people were victims of violent crime in the Netherlands in 1999, just about the same as the US! (see: the Netherlands Ministry of Justice)

From an economic point of view, even the DEA's own statistics clearly state (if you wade around for a while) that the Drug war is just about an economic null-op. i.e. the money we "save" by having these "criminals" off the streets is about the same as the amount of money we spend to put them in prison. So, what the hell? Why are we doing this again?

---

The FBI and NIPC have also started a system called Infraguard, which is designed to be a bridge to the private sector. It's a pretty recent development.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl

The FBI has a unit that already does this. Additionally, a company called Advanced Solutions LLC provides such services. The technology was also used in 1991 to convict Jim Mitchell of killing Artie Mitchell of voluntary manslaughter. (The Mitchell brothers revolutionized the pr0n world by creating the movie Behind the Green Door :-D )

comparing Canadian crime data from here and population data from here vs U.S. crime and population data from here it appears that, per capita, Canada has a much higher violent crime rate than the U.S. (over double) - and it's illegal for you guys to own firearms. So why would it be safer up there?

The whole "kiddie porn" crisis was dreamed up by the Meese Commission as an end-run around the First Amendment. Go read the original Meese Report from the Reagan years. The kiddie porn crisis was devised as a way to get law enforcement chasing after the porno industry again, by creating something they could put people in jail for.

Kiddie porn is a small-scale problem blown up into a national issue for the benefit of the religious right. There wasn't much kiddie porn back when it was legal, before the Government started distributing it. The FBI runs a large child porno sting operation, staffed by 40 people, out of their Baltimore office.

If the real interest was protecting children, there'd be more activity in catching employers of child labor. The Department of Labor detected only 14 cases of child labor during 1998, while surveys indicated that somewhere above 250,000 kids are working illegally. Far more law enforcement activity is devoted to chasing child pornography than other employers of children.

But at the same time, we insist that the government be involved in every other aspect of our lives, trusting them with far more potentially pernicious powers in those areas. I'm here referring to Hayek's Road to Serfdom. While this is a more libertarian forum than the population as a whole, I wonder why the solution to DCS1000 seems to be outrage that they are betraying the trust we gave them. If they can't be trusted with the power, why trust them with the prerogative to acquire the power? Why put them in a position to betray our trust if we don't trust them? Or if we do trust them with the prerogative to acquire the power, why not with the power itself? This doesn't seem like a coherent position, to both trust and withhold trust.

If we were really concerned with limiting the powers of government, on the idea that we can't trust its executors, we would paraphrase Madison, Hamilton, and Jay not Benjamin Franklin (the latter portion, about receiving neither, is apocryphal -- it was added by people disturbed by the suggestion that, even if we got security, we would not deserve it if we so abandoned our freedom. Not that I think Moonwick is such a one; the tenor of his comment suggests that he was merely paraphrasing the misquotation of another who could not accept the radicalism of Franklin's statement.)

P.S., So if I'm doing a doctoral dissertation on James Madison, does that make this post flame-bait, insightful, or a troll?

(Paranoid conspiracy theory: The intelligence community is pissed at FBI for intruding onto its turf and is running this sort of article as part of a power grab ;-)

Yeah, but FBI's purview includes counterintelligence and prevention of terrorism in U.S. They've done counter-intelligence operations inside CIA headquarters. I'm not saying they don't get along, but (especially) if any of this stuff is on websites in/owned by US corps, they're gonna be all over it.

linkwhorelink: Osama's Wanted poster. Does he use a cane to hide the fact he's so damn tall?

Osama Bin Laden is the US's goverments blame child of the decade now that Castro, Qadhafi, etc are not longer a "threat". He is used as an example of why the terrorism needs to be fought and why the budget needs to increase.

For thouse that don't know, Bin Laden stole a great deal of money from the Saudi Goverment and built hospitals all over the Arab world. This has annoyed King Fahd who most lilky would have helped out anyway but this was done behind his back. Keep in mind that stealing large amounts of money in Saudi results in the death penalty. I suspect that Bin Laden was allowed to leave Saudi because of the good work that he has done there.

So why is the US got him listed on the top ten? Its because he feels that scnations aginst a country (Libya) are act of war and should result in people fighting back which he has done. They guy is an engineer and a good planner who feels his people (all Arabs) should be at war with those that have santions aginst any Arabs. He is also for a united Arab country. His work to bring western style hostpitals to the Arab world makes means that in many places in the world he has the type of respect that we would expect to be given to Mother Theresa in Inida.

If the US goverment did want to capture him, all they have to do is go to Ciaro and hang out in the Hilton and wait till he shows up. I know several people have have seen Bin Laden there.

According to the study, the extensive media coverage has drawn a portrait of epidemic revenge killings by loners that have easy access to guns. This stereotype is inappropriate and they rebuke the media for often-times being incomplete, inaccurate, or unbalanced. (Are the media part of the problem, rewarding kids for crave attention and unnecessarily alarming citizens?)

They recommend that every school should identify one staff member to be the 'threat assessment' coordinator. (The greatest cause of poor management is the lack of communication across multiple teacher, parents and students who observe threatening behavior.) This person becomes a central repository for information about threats at the school.

Importantly, each threat should be analyzed by their "four pronged" approach to assessing threats. These prongs are mostly situational (Family dynamics, School dynamics and Social dynamics) with a little bit of profiling (Personality of the student). Based on the analysis of these factors, the coordinator can determine whether the threat requires intervention by law enforcement or not.

There is a balance between individual rights (such as privacy rights not to be monitored or profiled) and collective rights (like safety from violence in schools). I am very heartened to see that the FBI advocates an approach based on analyzing the context of the situation, rather than profiling the individual, striking a good balance between the two potentially competing rights.

According to the study, the extensive media coverage has drawn a portrait of epidemic revenge killings by loners that have easy access to guns. This stereotype is inappropriate and they rebuke the media for often-times being incomplete, inaccurate, or unbalanced. (Are the media part of the problem, rewarding kids for crave attention and unnecessarily alarming citizens?)

They recommend that every school should identify one staff member to be the 'threat assessment' coordinator. (The greatest cause of poor management is the lack of communication across multiple teacher, parents and students who observe threatening behavior.) This person becomes a central repository for information about threats at the school.

Importantly, each threat should be analyzed by their "four pronged" approach to assessing threats. These prongs are mostly situational (Family dynamics, School dynamics and Social dynamics) with a little bit of profiling (Personality of the student). Based on the analysis of these factors, the coordinator can determine whether the threat requires intervention by law enforcement or not.

There is a balance between individual rights (such as privacy rights not to be monitored or profiled) and collective rights (like safety from violence in schools). I am very heartened to see that the FBI advocates an approach based on analyzing the context of the situation, rather than profiling the individual, striking a good balance between the two potentially competing rights.

I think you're looking for the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center.

Typewriter ribbons and carbon paper have been used as a source of text during investigations for decades (plastic or film ribbons since 1959). The FBI teaches ribbon examination. There are cases with ribbons as evidence.

3.5 SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE The Carnivore software consists of four components 1. TapNDIS driver (written in C) derived from sample source code provided with Win32 Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS) Framework (WinDis 32), a product of Printing Communications Associates, Inc. (PCAUSA, http://www.pcausa.com) The license for WinDis 32 prevents the FBI from releasing the source code for this driver, and possibly for TapAPI.dll, to the public. The relevant portions of the WinDis 32 license are shown in Appendix D. 2. TapAPI.dll (written in C++) provides the API for accessing the NDIS driver functionality from other applications. 3. Carnivore.dll (written in C++) provides functionality for controlling the intercept of raw data. 4. Carnivore.exe (written in Visual Basic) is the GUI for Carnivore.

Whistler will have the option to only run signed applications. You can turn this off.

The average user does not tweak defaults, especially when the menu options are as hidden as they are in Microsoft products. After all there has been an option to turn of scripting support in Outlook for several years yet Melissa and ILOVEYOU theoretically caused billions of dollars in damage because people do not change the default settings.

Anyway, how many non-computer savvy people are going to run an executable if Windows pops up a suitably scary error message up? After all Microsoft effectively killed Dr DOS with phony error messages. If Microsoft decides to implement this policy it is very conceivable that all the major software houses will get Windows Certified(TM) thus pressurizing smaller shops to do the same. Where does this then leave independent developers?

Second Law of Blissful Ignorance

ever since the mid-1980s, when Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) began to emerge...

The strongly held belief among FPEs that latent fingerprints can be matched to one person alone, wrote David Stoney in a 1997 legal practice manual, is "the product of probabilistic intuitions widely shared among fingerprint examiners, not of scientific research."

...proficiency tests reveal high rates of error by FPEs.

But forensic fingerprint identification is supposed to compare two different impressions from the same finger. As Stoney noted, "No two things, no two representations of this person's signature, no two representations of their fingerprint will be exactly alike." The test, therefore, ought to have used two different impressions from the same finger to establish a baseline score for a match. "It is really shocking," Stoney testified, "to see something presented...that doesn't have that basic element of forensic examination in part of the study."

• CBS MarketWatch
• C|Net
• The Register
• The BBC
• Wall Street Journal
• Basically
• Microsoft suspect the access was granted to St Petersburg (Russia) computer systems by use of the QAZ Trojan. The FBI is investigating.
  

We all know that when GW was asked what his favorite book was, he replied that he couldn't remember any. But has he possibly read Othello or the Odyssey, great classic works that conservatives love? For the past 400 years kids have been handed a play about a guy who abuses and suffocates his wife. Did I mention that he's the hero? For several millenia we've shoved the Odyssey down kid's throats, complete with it's graphic description of pools of blood from all the dead when Odysseus returns home. How is anything on the internet more violence-provoking than imagining these scenes for yourself?

Oh yeah, contrary to what the media tells us, violent crime has declined dramatically in the last decade, at least that's what the FBI's stats say. Is this the internet's fault too?

...hunting. There are few male-bonding experiences like hunting. A group of guys in backpacks (not all of us get drunk and wait in deer stands) and rifles go out for days at a time and usually come back empty-handed, but it was the experience that was worth it...

So how do you get out from wherever you live to wherever you hunt? I'm making the not-completely-implausible guess that you don't happen live in the deep woods of Montana or wherever. Why I surmise, you or your buddy drives a motor vehicle, right?

Now, suppose I take at face value your pangyric to the perfect virtues of hunting - OK, I'll admit that a.) I myself eat meat and b.) hunting one's meat with a rifle is a thousand times more morally justifiable than buying it out of the grocery freezer in cellophane and supporting that nightmarish factory industry which delivers it there. That aside, but taking into account the irrefutable logic that no 4x4 to drive you fifty miles from your house to the woods equals no thrilling hunting/male bonding experience, do you from that conclude that the state should not ever under any circs lift a finger to remove repeat drunk drivers, blind persons, young children and the stark raving mad from behind the wheels of cars?

Believe it or not there is a narrow pathway betwixt allowing the over-the-counter sales of Stinger anti-aircraft rockets and punishing possesion of a steak knife with decades in the federal slam. All I ask of the govt. is that all through the U.S.A. (where there are no internal customs stops) there should be a law regulating the sales of firearms so that felons can't buy them with impunity from so-called "private owners" at public gun shows.

I know it's a hassle for you gun lovers. I know the very notion of universal national handgun registration (together with almost seven decades worth of various legislation, like that which outlaws free commerce in Tommy Guns, but which nonetheless, strangely, the Supreme Court has found to pass muster) ruthlessly violates that old long dead letter the Second Amendment. I know, like the license tag laws, it opens up the possibility of abuse (I'm thinking here of the curious fact that the FBI through their informer allegedly informed the Alabama Ku Klux Klan of Viola Liuzzo's tag number). But the ugly fact remains that your favorite hobby object, the gun, is responsible for thirty thousand deaths and a quarter million injuries a year in this country. And while I know guns are themselves inanimate and blameless, still I refuse to buy the argument that any so perilous a technology should, on moral/ethical/constitutional grounds, be immune to effective regulation.

You allude to the ineffective gun laws in New York, etc. Have you ever visited a gun show in sunny Florida? I did once. No ID required, no background check, all the pistols and ammo you can carry, and they'll sell 'em to ya even if you still have on the stripy orange Raiford suit and the sawn handcuff-halves on your wrists. Now hop in the old car in Bradenton, I-275 to I-4 to I-95 and (if you've got enough methedrine) without stopping except at the Pump-n-Piss all the way to NYNY, where even including the costs of guns, gas and tire wear you can double your investment on their gun-controlled streets. Remember: no internal customs stops.

Now I really really really don't want to take away your goodole deer-huntin 30-06, much less my old buddy Tim Kurtz's fancy muzzle-loader. But seriously, answer me this, friend: it is asking too much to have the law put the likes of Hank Earl Carr out of business?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Having just read most of the Carnivore homepage it struck me that this entire program sounds like a big load of crap. They switch between descriptions of the 'carnivore software' and 'the carnivore box', they're terrific at descibing who they're going to catch, but vague about who is actually going to be able to access the information.

The site is full of contradictions, Barnum Statements, and rumours.

Is it possible, or even likely, that this whole Carnivore thing is a simple misdirection? We look at the right hand while the left hand does something much sneakier. Why is this an FBI project rather than say NSA or Interpol? Something weird is happening..

Apologies for sounding like a conspiracy type..

...an obvious attempt at covering up what the Carnivore system really is.

How much longer is it going to take for all the self proclaimed hackers out there to realize that soon they will need an internet of their own?

It's interesting, I just had this conversation with someone the other day. They thought it was quite humourous that certain hacker types were so vehement about the misuse of the net and infringement of freedoms on the net.

"[they'll] just go build another one!" I was told. Does anybody else recognize that as a line from Atlas Shrugged?

There are a lot of people right now busily tearing down internet freedoms and functionality who sleep soundly at night because they are certain that the 'hackers', the people who built the net and make it continue to function, cannot do otherwise; the powers that be are quite certain that if they fsck it all up, you will just go build another one, and when you do, they will take that one from you, too.

Now THAT is an intellectual property issue.

0x0000

This is a huge benefit.

open access will increase service?
i wonder.

right now my @Home cable connection is as fast as the LAN at work (of course, @Home is a kind of WAN, since i'm always on and can access information inside or outside, "installation" just means adding my computer to their network).

but every time i read an article talking about the higher demand for broadband i get nervous about ATT screwing up their growth projections and getting clogged like AOL a couple years ago. and what about these other ISPs? how much will the overall speed of the eventual infrastructure be limited by the aggregate of podunk operations' crappy hardware all accessing the lines simultaneously?
whenever anyone asks me if they should go with dsl or cable, i tell them, "definitely dsl. i have cable and the um, service is, er.. terrible, yeah. don't sign up for cable or you'll regret it -- and tell all your friends to tell all their friends not to sign up for cable either." (short-sighted i know, but i'll just jump ship in a few years if cable gets displaced anyway -- kinda like the internet analogue of Suburban Sprawl)

If, now, other ISPs are signing up users on the exact same infrastructure as my ATT service -- will they be required to report usage numbers to ATT? Since it is ATT that owns/manages the cables, won't they need to know this information in order to keep the architecture ahead of the population?
Maybe it won't matter. Since, unlike a dial-up which is a direct connection between your pc and the ISP, everyone will be on the same physical network -- what are the security issues as far as how ISPs might be able to track each others' traffic?


New .sig?? Slashdot Mantra: "Information wants to be Free"
FBI Mantra: "Information wants to be Freeh's"

---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties

A friend of mine has the perfect solution. I am sure that he would be more than happy to co-locate one of their products with you, at no cost.

A friend of mine has the perfect solution. I am sure that he would be more than happy to co-locate one of their products with you, at no cost.

If you wanna get a better idea on what kind of intelligence info the FBI gathers, and the type of people it gathers it on, peep the FBI's Freedom of Information act site:

http://foia.fbi.gov/

The site has reams of declassified FBI files on famous people like John Lennon, Lucille Ball, Jackie Robinson, Charles Lindbergh, Elvis Presley, John Steinbeck. They're all in PDF format, but at least that way you get to see the nifty black marks over the parts they didn't declassify.

As submitted to slashdot 09/07/00 and REJECTED (maybe they didn't want me to scoop katz?):

The FBI today released a report on school violence. Ironically, there is only a 1 in a million chance at present of someone being shot in school. Despite that, the political fallout has been fast and extensive. What follows is my own analysis of the report, along with my thoughts on what they did right, and what they did wrong, in the report. "... a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list."

The FBI went to great pains in this report to inform the reader that this report is not intended to be a basis for forming a profile of a potential killer. There is no single metric to judge the threat someone poses. Almost all of the information in the report points to this underlying theme - "do not profile students." The FBI also cautioned against the impulsive responses that the issue of school violence has generated, going as far as to say that these demands "have been accompanied by little if any concerted and organized effort to understand the roots of school shooting incidents." The FBI also stated that as a direct result of these incidents being so rare, there was no reliable way to pick out from any group who the killer will be.

The FBI also lashed out at the media, dedicating an entire section to debunking various myths that the media has propagated. Some of these I didn't pick up. Among the myths debunked that slashdotters would be most interested in:

• School violence is an epidemic
• The school shooter is always a loner
• Unusual or aberrant behaviors, interests, hobbies, etc., are hallmarks of the student destined to become violent.

The FBI, in a very round-about way, also slammed schools for zero tolerance policies, saying that the "one-size-fits-all approach" many schools take was ill-advised and could even be dangerous. To quote, "...schools must recognize that every threat does not represent the same danger or require the same level of response."

The core of the report, however, doesn't take some of its own advice and goes on to offer a series of threat assessment criterion to identify potential problems. In other words, profiling.

The assessment approach advocated in the report is based on a "four-pronged" model, with the main areas to identify falling into the personality of the student, and the family, school, and social dynamics in that student's life. This approach is *very* similar to current practices in "emotionally/behaviorally disturbed" programs for many schools. The difference between the FBI's approach hinges on the idea that a student should not be "profiled" until after a threat has been made. It is a small, but important, distinction. [Of interest to myself, the report noted that "about 25% of the adolescent population is at risk for psycho-social problems..." Also, the report notes that adolescence begins earlier in today's kids - as early as age nine. I found that somewhat suprising.]

The actual threat list had several interesting things listed in it which I will list below.

• lack of empathy
• exaggerated sense of entitlement
• attitude of superiority
• externalizes blame
• intolerance
• seeks to manipulate others
• lack of trust
• rigid and opinionated

All of these, to me, seem like values my boss has. Should I turn him in?

Continuing down the list...

• Unsupervised computer access
• Media, Entertainment, Technology

Hmm, apparently having unmonitored access to TV and standard media, as well as the internet, are threat factors according to the FBI. So, despite all the effort the FBI made to make it clear to people that profiling was a bad idea, here they are using a very generalized list to determine whether someone really is a threat or not.

The last leg of the report has recommendations for handling threats. As a short summary, the FBI recommends that schools form a group of teachers specifically to deal with possible threats. They specifically note that expelling or suspending the student is NOT a substitute for evaluating the student. Such an impulsive move can actually worsen the situation as the student may feel as if he/she was treated unfairly and feel a need for retribution. Also among the recommendations made, is that each case be treated individually, rather than the one-size-fits all approach common in schools.

In the conclusion, the FBI recommends additional research, and that in the interim, that both educators and law enforcement be trained in handling of such incidents and that a plan be put in place ahead of time to deal with serious, specific threats. The report also notes that school violence is continuing on a downward trend. The report concludes with the following: "Threats in schools are not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution".

The report is available directly from the FBI homepage, or via this link.

As submitted to slashdot 09/07/00 and REJECTED (maybe they didn't want me to scoop katz?):

The FBI today released a report on school violence. Ironically, there is only a 1 in a million chance at present of someone being shot in school. Despite that, the political fallout has been fast and extensive. What follows is my own analysis of the report, along with my thoughts on what they did right, and what they did wrong, in the report. "... a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list."

The FBI went to great pains in this report to inform the reader that this report is not intended to be a basis for forming a profile of a potential killer. There is no single metric to judge the threat someone poses. Almost all of the information in the report points to this underlying theme - "do not profile students." The FBI also cautioned against the impulsive responses that the issue of school violence has generated, going as far as to say that these demands "have been accompanied by little if any concerted and organized effort to understand the roots of school shooting incidents." The FBI also stated that as a direct result of these incidents being so rare, there was no reliable way to pick out from any group who the killer will be.

The FBI also lashed out at the media, dedicating an entire section to debunking various myths that the media has propagated. Some of these I didn't pick up. Among the myths debunked that slashdotters would be most interested in:

• School violence is an epidemic
• The school shooter is always a loner
• Unusual or aberrant behaviors, interests, hobbies, etc., are hallmarks of the student destined to become violent.

The FBI, in a very round-about way, also slammed schools for zero tolerance policies, saying that the "one-size-fits-all approach" many schools take was ill-advised and could even be dangerous. To quote, "...schools must recognize that every threat does not represent the same danger or require the same level of response."

The core of the report, however, doesn't take some of its own advice and goes on to offer a series of threat assessment criterion to identify potential problems. In other words, profiling.

The assessment approach advocated in the report is based on a "four-pronged" model, with the main areas to identify falling into the personality of the student, and the family, school, and social dynamics in that student's life. This approach is *very* similar to current practices in "emotionally/behaviorally disturbed" programs for many schools. The difference between the FBI's approach hinges on the idea that a student should not be "profiled" until after a threat has been made. It is a small, but important, distinction. [Of interest to myself, the report noted that "about 25% of the adolescent population is at risk for psycho-social problems..." Also, the report notes that adolescence begins earlier in today's kids - as early as age nine. I found that somewhat suprising.]

The actual threat list had several interesting things listed in it which I will list below.

• lack of empathy
• exaggerated sense of entitlement
• attitude of superiority
• externalizes blame
• intolerance
• seeks to manipulate others
• lack of trust
• rigid and opinionated

All of these, to me, seem like values my boss has. Should I turn him in?

Continuing down the list...

• Unsupervised computer access
• Media, Entertainment, Technology

Hmm, apparently having unmonitored access to TV and standard media, as well as the internet, are threat factors according to the FBI. So, despite all the effort the FBI made to make it clear to people that profiling was a bad idea, here they are using a very generalized list to determine whether someone really is a threat or not.

The last leg of the report has recommendations for handling threats. As a short summary, the FBI recommends that schools form a group of teachers specifically to deal with possible threats. They specifically note that expelling or suspending the student is NOT a substitute for evaluating the student. Such an impulsive move can actually worsen the situation as the student may feel as if he/she was treated unfairly and feel a need for retribution. Also among the recommendations made, is that each case be treated individually, rather than the one-size-fits all approach common in schools.

In the conclusion, the FBI recommends additional research, and that in the interim, that both educators and law enforcement be trained in handling of such incidents and that a plan be put in place ahead of time to deal with serious, specific threats. The report also notes that school violence is continuing on a downward trend. The report concludes with the following: "Threats in schools are not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution".

The report is available directly from the FBI homepage, or via this link.

Yes, that is what I meant. When I tried to correct it, slashdot locked me out and I couldn't post for several minutes. I gave up posting the correction and instead wrote a feature on the FBI's violence report, available here and submitted the analysis to slashdot for rejection. :/

If they really feel that this software is nothing to be worried about, why don't they put it up as an 'Ask Slashdot'?

Janet Reno asks:"I have the source code to a piece of software that my employer is a bit worried about. Do you think that this is a violation of anyone's rights?" So, what do you think crowd? Go ahead and check it out, and feel free to let us know what you think...

((Source Code Follows, then followed by 12 first posts, 18 Dickinson Poems, 23 Penis Birds, 4 rants on MDMA, and 1 comment about how the FBI sucks, moderated up to +5 Insightful.))

• The nearest equivalent to the FBI ... is the RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP also provides the services provided in the US by the Treasury Police, including dealing with "crimes about currency," and the protection of heads of state and diplomatic persons.
• The RCMP used to also perform services equivalent to the CIA, but this group was spun out, becoming CSIS - Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.

  There was a scandal where RCMP "spooks" burned a barn where purportedly nefarious people were planning ill; the "public" view was that this made the RCMP look bad, and so the RCMP wanted no more to do with the "spooky" activities. When they're the "secret service," who can really be sure???. The public face on this was thus:

  The establishment of the civilian Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the disbanding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Security Service by an Act of Parliament in 1984 recognized the differences between security intelligence activities and law enforcement work. The 120-year old interlocking of Canada's security intelligence service with the federal police force was brought to a close.

• The nearest equivalent to the NSA is the Communications Security Establishment, an "establishment" in the Department of National Defence.

  See also the CSE Unofficial Web Page, which has a rather interesting discussion of the organization.

  They are a mixed civilian/military group largely devoted to "signals analysis," and include pretty much the same functions associated with the NSA, notably not including having their own chip foundries. (Unless there's one hiding somewhere in Labrador!)

  Notable "listening" sites include Gander (a formerly notable airport), Alert (the most northerly inhabited place in the world), Masset, and Kingston. My father used to work next door to CSE headquarters, the Sir Leonard Tilley Building.

As I write this, Cryptome is still down. This is at 10:14 GMT July 24th 2000.

Lucky I saved all the offending material to my HD...

FYI, the people who requested the removal of the information were Special Agent James Castano and his immediate superior, Dave Marzigliano.

The published e-mail address was nccs-ny@fbi.gov

Be sure to let them know your views!

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

Should free citizens in a democratic society have to spend money for "nyms" to preserve the privacy they ought to be -- and once were -- accorded in law?

Hmmm...let's take a little stroll down a listing of (partial) files released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information act...

Black Panther Party-Winston Salem, NC
Brecht, Bertolt
Chavez, Cesar and United Farm Workers
Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam DuBois, W. E. B.
Einstein, Albert
Gay Activists Alliance

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of the privacy that we, as "free citizens in a democratic society," may once have been accorded was due to the relative difficulty of violating that privacy...

As technological developments eliminate that difficulty, we find that privacy dissolving. Now do we think that the issue is the technology or our commitment to the rights of the individual?

Hmmm...

It isn't much.

My question, which was not covered on the Web site nor on any story I've read to date, is what the FBI expects of the ISP that has one of these things put on its site.

Perhaps a good Boardwatch article?

(I'll believe it when I see it).

The FBI is sharing information regarding Carnivore with industry at this time to assist them in their efforts to develop open standards for complying with wiretap requirements. The FBI did so two weeks ago, at the request of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) Implementation Section, at an industry standards meeting (the Joint Experts Meeting) which was set up in response to an FCC suggestion to develop standards for Internet interception. [1]

What's interesting in this case is the FBI's press department, and their use of the word 'industry'. Usually, one would assume that they are referring to the 'computer' industry, but here, apparently, they are refering to the 'law enforcement' industry. See the CALEA web site, and you'll understand...

-jerdenn

Anyone with any influence who disagrees with the government is going to be tracked, bugged, and if they're influential enough, eventually shot. No, it's not the Soviet Union, but it's a lot more oppressive than you'd like to think. The minute you speak out about the oppression, you start to find out exactly how close we are to fascism.

This great country of ours is founded upon certain constitutional truths, amongst which are the right to freedom, and the pursiut of happiness.

What then, are we as Americans to do about those elements that do not share our vision. Are we simply to allow them to conspire to bring about our downfall ?

I am sure that the FGI, and other government agencies have the wellbeing of the public at heart, and we should look leniantly on those few cases where they have crossed the line. It is understandable that occasionally a few zealots will take things a bit further than they should in support of a worthy cause. You only have to look at some of the claims made about Linux on this very forum to see how easy it is to become a fanatic :-)

So in short, this is another non-event. As I have said before on this forum, the private life of Joe Sixpack is OF NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER to the FBI, and the cliche is still true, ONLY CRIMINALS NEED WORRY ABOUT THIS.

You people should stop criticizing the very people who are trying to protect your safety even as our civilization is crumbling around us. Surely these people (the good guys) deserve our support ?

The FBI has their own blurb on Carnivore. It's worth reading - it exlains the checks and balances on the FBI's ability to use Carnivore (heavily restricted by the legal system). Also another note is that the FBI does use advanced algorithms, sort of like the ones the credit card companies use for fraud or that the IRS does for tax evasion, to actually catch "suspicious" activity. They probably don't want that info leaking out otherwise people could workaround their algorithms. That justifies a co-hosted box as opposed to letting an Open Source zealot do it for them :)
--
______________________________________________

The FBI has their own blurb on Carnivore. It's worth reading - it exlains the checks and balances on the FBI's ability to use Carnivore (heavily restricted by the legal system). Also another note is that the FBI does use advanced algorithms, sort of like the ones the credit card companies use for fraud or that the IRS does for tax evasion, to actually catch "suspicious" activity. They probably don't want that info leaking out otherwise people could workaround their algorithms. That justifies a co-hosted box as opposed to letting an Open Source zealot do it for them :)
--
______________________________________________

Yes, the CIA is prohibited from spying on Yanks, but the only reason the FBI can spy on a foreigner is if they are investigating terrorist activity directed at the United States.

Now, this makes me wonder if they are restricted to spying on terrorists over here, of if they can investigate such factions abroad. I checked the appropriate section of their FAQ, but it seemed only to hint that they function stateside and rely on others to help them abroad.

"We cannot guarantee that any e-mail will not be used by a government agency, since we don't control the 'black box' filter."

FWIW, here is the FBI's policy.

By the way, a sniffer looks for crime, not just tracks it, if the analogy holds... I guess no one liked "Digital Storm."

Not that these are actually in use yet, but I can see it someday if we keep going down this path. It seems like we in the U.S. keep giving up more and more of our personal liberties to have a sense of "safety." Americans are whipped into frenzy by the focus of local TV news on sensationalistic crime reporting. Americans believe they are under seige from gun-toting, crack-smoking gangbangers.

Fundamentally, I should NOT be typing in "www.microsoft.com" in IE if I want to look for Windows 98 crap. I should type in "Microsoft Windows 98".

This is a good idea but it's already been tried. Remember RealNames? The problem with Real Names is that it makes it even more difficult to determine who has rights to certain phrases. Who decides who gets to use the various mnemonics like "Internet", "Books", "CD", or "Linux"? Too many of the sites on the internet cover very general topics. Using mneonics opens the WWW to even more corporatism and confusion.

Advanced searching doesn't offer much hope either for this problem. Searching really just abstracts the source away from the user. If I go to www.fbi.gov I can be relatively sure of the source of the information I am reading. This is of great benefit to the user. Using a meta-engine to push pages to the user without any real indication of the location of that page (anyone can create pages that look like official FBI pages) would undermine the few pockets of credibility that do exist on the web.

Sensible, fair, use of domain names is a lost cause. I shudder to think of the trouble that these new TLDs will bring...