Slashdot Mirror

CALEA stands for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. You can get more information on the FBI website. You can also get lots of links by doing a simple google search.
---

I totaly believe that its ones inate right to slef-defense if being attacked. This right though should be limited to self-defense in a physical manner if that is how you are being attacked. Being attacked on the net and fighting back in this manner just doesn't seem like the correct thing to do. As an ISP/IT company Conxion has a responsibility to handle the attack through the appropriate channels. If a US citizen cannot legally do this type of thing then why should the fact that Conxion is a major corporation shouldn't make it acceptable. Especially troubling is this little blurb: "Conxion was so proud of having given the attackers a dose of their own medicine that it issued a press release about the incident." My first thought after reading the press release was DUH! you just comitted a crime and then made a public announcement regarding your actions. This alone should be enough evidence to take some form af action against Conxion based on thier own admission. One should not stoop to an act of terrorism as a form of retaliation. You would think that a company with such strong Microsoft affiliations ought to be weary (after all the DOJ/monopoly actions) of doing such a thing. Two wrongs don't make a right...no matter how good it feels.

And what defines 'arouse suspicion'? Whose definitions are we going by? Do your political views warrant monitoring? The FBI thought that Albert Einstein's did...

Albert Eienstein's FBI files, recently released under the FOIA

If you have no reason for the FBI to pay attention to you, they won't.

This is similar to the arguement that "You wouldn't use encryption unless you had something to hide..."

Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that I enjoy being watched...

-jerdenn

The FBI keeps a nice library of its doings at its Freedom of Information Act homepage. They also explain why, and what they've left out. They even had a file on Lucille Ball ("I Love Lucy") at the request of the house Un-American Activities Committee. Here's an alphabetical listing of what they'll show, which is much less than what they've got.

The FBI keeps a nice library of its doings at its Freedom of Information Act homepage. They also explain why, and what they've left out. They even had a file on Lucille Ball ("I Love Lucy") at the request of the house Un-American Activities Committee. Here's an alphabetical listing of what they'll show, which is much less than what they've got.

The FBI keeps a nice library of its doings at its Freedom of Information Act homepage. They also explain why, and what they've left out. They even had a file on Lucille Ball ("I Love Lucy") at the request of the house Un-American Activities Committee. Here's an alphabetical listing of what they'll show, which is much less than what they've got.

The FBI keeps a nice library of its doings at its Freedom of Information Act homepage. They also explain why, and what they've left out. They even had a file on Lucille Ball ("I Love Lucy") at the request of the house Un-American Activities Committee. Here's an alphabetical listing of what they'll show, which is much less than what they've got.

When I visit http://foia.fbi.gov/alpha.htm, I get:

Forbidden

Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.

Freedom of what? Maybe I need to file a formal FOIA request in order to view the page.

How about JFK? They have his wife, his brother, even his dad...

and so on...

Found this under Josephine Baker

The famous nightclub entertainer was thought to be involved in communist activities, however, no evidence was ever found that proved otherwise.

I've read it again, and again, and I still see something that baffles the constitution.

Murphy(c)
Or maybe it's just me....

http://foia.fbi.gov/unusual.htm

From http://foia.fbi.gov/crs552.htm :

ORDER PROCESS: This System of records has been exempted from the access procedures of subsections (d) and (e)(4)(H) of the Privacy Act, to the extent permitted by subsections (j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of the Privacy Act. A first-party request for access to a non-exempt record from the System should be made in writing with the envelope and the letter clearly marked "Privacy Act Request." Include in the request your full name, complete address, date of birth, place of birth, notarized signature, other identifying data you may wish to furnish to assist in making a proper search of the records, and a return address for transmitting the information. All other requests for information from the System should be made in writing pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. All requests for access to information maintained at FBI Headquarters must be addressed to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535- 0001. All requests for information maintained in FBI field divisions or Legal Attaches must be made separately and addressed to the specific field division or Legal Attache.

Let me know how it goes.... ;)

The Truth is out there!

I'm amazed that nobody has commented on how this is coming from the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), which has repeatedly proven itself to be utterly clueless when it comes to the Internet it is charged with protecting.

The NIPC's director, Michael Vatis, seems bent on using every single hiccup on the Net to prove how Essential and Important (TM) the NIPC is. When the Melissa virus hit, NIPC was running around screaming about the end of the world. After that the NIPC was warning about the evil "Y2K viruses" that never really existed (oops!). (The NIPC alert I linked to is a scream; it basically says that there are lots of Nasty Viruses out there, and that, if someone could write a Nasty Virus, they could probably write a Y2K virus, so you should panic immediately.) Now, since Melissa and Y2K failed to destroy civilization, the NIPC is beating the drum over the DoS issue, calling a bunch of script kiddies who inconvenience some people "cyber terrorists".

I'm not sure why they keep doing this, unless Vatis is such a publicity hound that he will take any excuse to "alert" people of "threats", even if those alerts do more damage than help by panicking people into distrusting the reliability of the Net. His fearmongering has become so blatant and counterproductive that he's become a favorite target of ridicule for Rob Rosenberger, the crusader for common sense regarding computer viruses.

Sure, it's bad that these big sites are suffering DoS. But it's not "terrorism", and slinging around that word only proves how cushy daily life for most people in America truly is. It's hard to imagine anyone rationally being able to compare congestion at Yahoo! to blowing up a federal building. Maybe if Vatis stopped to think for a moment before lunging to get his agency in front of the cameras of the press, he'd realize this too.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

Email them at NIPC@fbi.gov.

Easy, just go to the website of the office that busted them: http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/nyfo/nyfohome.htm and go to contacts at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/nyfo/nycontac.htm#em ail and hit the email button: newyork@fbi.gov

Interestingly, the FBI home page at http://www.fgi.gov has no way to contact the FBI via email. Fortunately, the NYC office does.

Let them know! Feel free to cc president@whitehouse.gov while you're at it.

-Greaper

I didn't see this in the threads already, but apologies if it's already been posted. Email them by going to http://slashdot.org/features/00/01/04/2316228.shtm l and let them feel the full /. effect. The actual address is newyork@fbi.gov on the New York FBI site.

This cloak and dagger crap is so unecessary. Bullying is not professionalism. Someday Janet Reno won't be around to cover their asses when they screw up and the hammer will come down on these guys. Say, FBI guys, hear that?!

Say /. folk, remember what our good friend TJ said:


Those who give up a little freedom for security
don't deserve freedom or security. -Thomas Jefferson

-Greaper.

I think your statement that "There is nothing we can do to prevent a determined individual or group from commiting an act of terrorism" is pretty close to the truth.

What we need to realise (as the army often does when evaluating war) is that there _will_ be casualties. After realising that, we decide where the minimal point is; do we need to add full display body scanners? Well, do they prevent said determined persons? No. Will they prevent drug smugglers? Maybe. Are there other ways to prevent drug smuggling? Yes. Do we need the scanners? No. (Hypothetically speaking).

What we also need is more universal use of known terrorist face shots being forced on customs / security officials for recognition. Its not like the CIA/CSIS/FBI/etc. doesn't have a good list of desciptions with photos. Sure, its not complete, but this would help a lot.

Youth crime is rising in America

There is a reason for the spread of this lie, however, and that is to distract from the total failure of the immoral attack on human rights disguised as a war on drugs. The illusion of increasing crime, and the designation of scapegoats such as video games, disguises the failure of current government policy, leading to increasing the power government has, allowing it to push the failed policy even harder. A vicious cycle -- the more powerfully the government pushes its drug policy, the worse the policy fails; the more it fails, the more scapegoats the government uses to increase its power to push that policy.

By the way, the FBI page is not very conducive to reading the UCR. The sections with information are not linked, but they are there if you poke around enough.

Youth crime is rising in America

There is a reason for the spread of this lie, however, and that is to distract from the total failure of the immoral attack on human rights disguised as a war on drugs. The illusion of increasing crime, and the designation of scapegoats such as video games, disguises the failure of current government policy, leading to increasing the power government has, allowing it to push the failed policy even harder. A vicious cycle -- the more powerfully the government pushes its drug policy, the worse the policy fails; the more it fails, the more scapegoats the government uses to increase its power to push that policy.

By the way, the FBI page is not very conducive to reading the UCR. The sections with information are not linked, but they are there if you poke around enough.

Am I the only one who wonders about the credibility of this entire story? The only corroborative source referenced is a story on a web site that's since been replaced, with the site providing access to back issues only by subscription.

I don't doubt that Mr. Katz received a number of e-mails, and perhaps the no-longer-present story would allay my concerns. But think of all the urban legend e-mails we've all received, like kidney thefts and mrs. fields cookie recipes. And they've been picked up by the occasional mainstream media source as well.

I'm not saying this is bogus, but it sure seems unusual. For example, has the FBI ever mass e-mailed public school principals before? Have they ever launched a huge direct-mail international information campaign without issuing a public press release or otherwise informing the public? Don't the criteria seem a little too conveniently broad-sweeping in their profile, like someone was trolling for outrage? "Boys of average or above average intelligence!?"

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

So what do you do when all mediums are controlled by large corporations?

You see, people always think that government is the sole threat to free speech on the Internet, and it is a threat, but it's not the only one. Industry could, conceivably and very possibly, create a barrier-to-entry so high (the reason the internet is so free and inspiring is that the barrier to entry is so low) that the few who can afford to run a website are the ones who control the majority opinion.

You've already seen that happen with television, radio, and newspapers. They're all controlled by conglomerates who create economic barriers to competition. And since it's usually an oligopoly, and not a monopoly, and since it's not technically holding people back (by force of law) from free press, people claim that this is still a free country.

I say, stop bothering to get up and arms when the government claims it can censor or control the internet. They can't, they don't know how. But industry does, because they've been censoring and controlling mediums for years. It's nothing new to them. It's not oppression, they say, it's economics. But whatever they call it, the end result is the same.

So how do we combat this? We need to do all we can to keep the cost of the Internet down. At times like this, Free Beer can equal Free Speech. Linux, and the cooperative in San Francisco which sells T1 lines at cost is a fantastic example, and I wish I could see more situations like this crop up. It would also be nice to see the computer industry unionise but that's a whole different post.

In the end, if you don't want to see the Internet get gobbled up into the stomachs of the bloated plutocrats, it is up to you to make sure it doesn't happen. Keep the internet cheap and open to anybody, and you'll insure that the internet will be cheap and open for your own needs.

Michael Chisari

The report specifically points out the liklihood that Jerusalem will be a likely target for terrorism.

Of course, the nuts don't always have such good aim. One fringe group in New York was planning to strike at the heart of the great satan (US) by blowing up a subway station in Queens.

they added a convient link to the 10 most wanted list.

I think this should go down in history as a remarkable peice of propaganda.
---

Anonymous cowards making incredible allegations about the "crimes" of people who dare to tell the truth in public carry absolutely no weight at all.

While you want to intimidate, track down and jail whistleblowers who have the integrity to sign their own statements and assume responsibility for them, I want you to enjoy your freedom to speak anonymously if you so desire to protect yourself from unlawful harassment because of what you have to say. As long as your statement itself doesn't involve a serious crime (and no, I don't consider simply informing the world about how crimes are committed one of those), anybody involved in the mere handling of your statements on your behalf should be required by law not to reveal your identity even before a court of law!

Such is the law in Sweden with respect to printed media, based on the principle that the publisher is solely responsible for what is being printed. Since Slashdot is an unmoderated medium, that principle can hardly be applied here, but that doesn't make the freedom it would yield any less desirable. I don't care that you don't have the slightest idea of what freedom of expression means, but I want you to enjoy that freedom as much as anybody else, because if you can't, then that freedom isn't worth a dime to anybody else either.

And, if you are still not convinced, please report my name and e-mail address to your nearest police officer, the FBI, Interpol, or any Microsoft lawyers you know. I'm a system manager at a Swedish university, and it's my job to protect the privacy of our users as well as the integrity of our systems against attacks from anywhere.

Privately, I'm sick and fed up with silly government attempts at controlling the spread of information, such as bans on cryptographic software, laws regulating the mere mentioning of named individuals in electronic communication, "copyright infringement" claims raised against proxy HTTP servers, software patents, police snooping on private mail and so on.

I freely admit to a strong desire to circumvent any technical or legal obstacles placed in my way for no legitimate reason at all, and pointing out security flaws in computer software or service configurations - even to the point where continued operation of said software or service is jeopardized - is to me a good deed for the well-being of man kind.

I have decompiled and studied binary code without regard to any copyright on it, simply to satisfy my curiosity. I have modified the Netscape Navigator binary (international version) and configuration to enable US-strength encryption as well as change the "license agreement" nonsense into something in line with Swedish law for the benefit of our students (we don't accept "shrinkwrap" licenses over here), without asking Netscape. I routinely press the "Accept" button whenever I install software at work or at home, knowing that it means approximately "null and void" to me. I may read the "license agreements" after installation, just for the fun of it. I have transmitted encryption software across national boundaries. I have exploited security holes in computer systems owned by others, without their authorization, to obtain useful results such as improved network connectivity.

I scoff at the obscene claims made by German authorities to "own" Adolf Hitler's literary works, and I'll gladly make and distribute copies of Mein Kampf or any other garbage he wrote whenever I feel like it. I conspire with my friends to change the ways things happen around the world, whether in politics or in business, not merely by voting in elections or participating in marketing polls. I believe I do all this in full compliance with the law and with judeo-christian ethics, but if I don't, I'm prepared to defend my actions in court.

I challenge you to report all the above to the appropriate authorities, simply as an experiment to show how futile that is, and how pathetic your remarks are. I promise you that I will not have you prosecuted for making any false accusations against me (though I cannot answer for any actions by others). Ain't I kind? Believe me, it's hardly worth the cost of a phone call.

No, I'm not giving you my residential address. I may be frank, but I'm not stupid. If you are serious, you could either ask my ISP Algonet (it's my primary private ISP, not a mailbox hideaway), or you could ask Datainspektionen, the Swedish government agency charged with maintaining the register of those who maintain databases with personal information, for the owner of registration license number 9999110043 (it's mine). Make sure to include ample copies of any evidence you have against me either committing a crime or violating anybody's privacy by storing their names electronically (I'll mention Bill Clinton, Börje Ramsbro, Håkan Nordquist and Tomislav Micic to give you a fair advantage). Good luck!

Jerk.

Trust no one, Mr. Mulder.....

http://www.fbi.gov/foipa/ufo.htm

-Derek

He then proceeds to silly analogies, such as "Would we allow a car to be driven with features which would evade and outrun police cars?" Well... yes, we would, unless high performance sports cars were banned while I wasn't looking.

Freeh concludes with a complaint that strong encryption will "drastically change the balance of the Fourth Amendment". Well, perhaps so, but he is conveniently silent about technologies which have already tipped the balance in the other direction. The net effect of Freeh's position is to create a one-way ratchet -- technologies which degrade privacy (e.g. drug testing, look-through-walls IR, etc) are deployed as widely as possible, while technologies which enhance privacy (e.g. strong encryption) are restricted as tightly as possible.

That said, there might be a case for mandatory key access if there were simply no other way for the police to surveil people who fall under legitimate suspicion. Fortunately, this is not the case -- just off the top of my head, I can think of three alternatives (planting a bug in the target's hardware, remote viewing of the target's monitor via Van Eck emissions, Trojan Horsing the target's crypto software).

The fact that these alternatives are more work than sitting in one's office and pulling up the target's key is, frankly, not my problem. The fact that these alternatives do not scale nearly as well as the government's desired mandatory-key-access regime (and are thus unsuitable for mass surveillance), is, IMO, a feature. The fact that the government seems to regard it as a bug raises a big red warning flag.
/.