Slashdot Mirror


FBI Databases Used for Stock Fraud

Phronesis writes "The Associated Press reports that two FBI agents have been indicted for conspiring with the owner of InsideTruth.com to short stocks and then leak information from the FBI's internal databases (e.g., unpleasant personal information about corporate officers). They also allegedly blackmailed companies with the threat of revealing such information. This case illustrates the failure of law enforcement agencies to implement adequate protection against the abuse of information they collect."

137 comments

  1. Which leads one to wonder by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why these guys were collecting such information in the first place. Seriously, there are a lot of privacy activists out there, but it seems to me that the vast majority of them are complaining about the cookie-of-the-month problem when what they should really be looking at are the kinds of scams government data collecting enables. Identity theft, for instance, wouldn't be possible if not for the ubiquity of Social Security numbers as a "citizen ID" of sorts.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Which leads one to wonder by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Why these guys were collecting such information in the first place.

      In the only specific instance described in the article, the FBI agents used the National Crime Information Center to find a corporation executive with a serious criminal record. Their stock analyst co-conspirator sold the corporation stock short and publicized the facts.

      It's perfectly proper for the FBI to have a database where they can look up criminal records. What I wonder about is why it took FBI agents to dig out the facts - shouldn't the rest of us be able to check out whether the people we entrust with our money have a criminal record without making friends in the cops? And why didn't that corporation find out about this before they hired the guy?

    2. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I met an ex-FBI agent who was fired for not altering his forensic finding on a death in LR, Arkansas.

      They wanted him to change his report to "suicide" but he wouldn't so they canned him.

      He had a similar experience when he worked for the DEA. He doesn't have kind words for neither the FBI or DEA.

    3. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >> shouldn't the rest of us be able to check out whether the people we entrust with our money have a criminal record

      No.

    4. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Thud457 · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Around here, it's go down to the police station, give them $5, and request a background check.
      (This may be restricted to certain kinds of businesses, but I don't think so.)

      If they were using NCIC, this could have been done by any donut-cowboy in the country. They're being FBI agents just makes the betrayal of trust more glaring.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Which leads one to wonder by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      And why didn't that corporation find out about this before they hired the guy? Because most corporations, and other agencies, rarely do full and efficent backgroung checks on employees. A company I used to work for, which shall remain nameless, hired a "reliability engineer" who had neither his claimed military experience, nor his PHD! the fish

    6. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that you're getting your news from Slashdot. I recommend you acquire more diverse reading habits before your brain atrophies.

    7. Re:Which leads one to wonder by 5KVGhost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why these guys were collecting such information in the first place.


      Because all of the information in question concerned criminal activity, and collecting information on criminal activity is what the FBI is for.

      They did not have access to some giant dossier on every citizen like you seem to think. The only database even mentioned in the article is the one maintained National Crime Information Center (NCIC). The NCIC database contains nationwide information about criminal cases, including convictions, stolen property, missing persons, etc.

      The NCIC is a reference which ensures that all levels of law enforcement have access to the same basic information. When you're stopped for a traffic violation the officer probably performs an NCIC check (and maybe one of the equivalent statewide system) to make sure that the car isn't stolen and that you're not wanted for some other crime. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and a surprising number of hardcore criminals get caught this way.

      The other stuff the article mentioned were corporate crimes (or suspected crimes) which the FBI also knows about because they are, after all, criminal activities.

      These corrupt agents were using legitimately collected information for illegitimate and illegal purposes. The bad thing is not the fact that the FBI has this information, but that it was used for personal gain and for blackmail. There are many good examples of government agencies and private corporations collecting information they shouldn't be collecting, but this is not such a case.
    8. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's perfectly proper for the FBI to have a database where they can look up criminal records.

      And it's perfectly improper for them to make use of it for other than legitimate law enforcement purposes. Their boss would not, or should not, have approved of their divulging such info absent connectoion to current criminal activity.

      In a similar case, a divorced guy had an FBI friend look for unsavory info about his ex's new husband. He then (unsuccessfully) used it to petition a court for sole custody of their daughter. The information helped bring an early end to his ex's second marriage. When questioned, the FBI agent said he dug the info out because his friend said he "feared for the child's safety." BS. The agent should have gone throufgh channels and obtained permission to divulge. Obviously he couldn't make the case, so he went off on his own.

      Once again, "For the love of God, will no one think of the children", merely by being uttered, trumps the rights of citizens to retain privacy.P.S. -- the agent was not disciplined beyond, "You shouldn't have done that. Wink, Wink. Nudge, nudge."

    9. Re:Which leads one to wonder by markmoss · · Score: 2

      I agree that the FBI agents' use of the database was corrupt, immoral, and illegal. (From other posts, it sounds like anyone could have dug the same information out for themselves - but what the agents' pals did with the data was insider trading, and the agents were accomplices, not to mention using agency resources - and, I suspect, on-the-clock time - for profit.) I've heard of enough FBI misbehavior, and mistakes compounded by gross arrogance, that I would seriously consider firing all the agents and starting over, because no one's ever going to catch all the bad apples, and I don't see any way to change the culture that _creates_ the bad apples except replacing them all, good or bad...

      But someone was criticizing the FBI as a whole for collecting information. It's pretty clear the NCIC is the sort of info the FBI or some other federal law enforcement agency should be collecting.

      Why are all FBI agents "special"? 8-)

    10. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this other ex-NSA agent who didn't want to spy on a civil rights activist and then he got canned and worked for the conspiricy group and then he helped develop a alien-virus vaccine and then he got canned cause he didn't alter evidence and then he worked for the police and when he wouldn't put drugs in someones pocket to frame em he got canned. But um then he worked for his local city council and when he wouldn't approve a zoning change that would remove a orphanage and put in a new strip mall he got killed. God damn the corrupt govenments, why cant they all use OSS! All they do is get their pockets stuffed by the DMCA and RIAA. With that new MPAA bill companyies can go after anyone for copyrite violations and that sucks! Down with Bill Gates and up with LINUX TORVALIDS!

    11. Re:Which leads one to wonder by Scareduck · · Score: 2
      It's perfectly proper for the FBI to have a database where they can look up criminal records
      But were these in fact criminal records, or just long dossiers of suspicious-looking activities being monitored by the FBI? We "think" this guy "may" have committed a crime, a list for which is now being made to police agencies nationwide? That's abuse of authority. A man is guilty of a crime or not, but inventing a twilight world where someone can be accused by an investigating agency and this becomes fact -- well, let's just dispense with the jury system!
      --

      Dog is my co-pilot.

  2. Hmmmm by Disevidence · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So yet another case of government intruding privacy, and yet the same government is against encryption, embraces companies that sell privacy info and can't make a proper bill about privacy?

    Little wonder we trust them.

    --
    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  3. Remember John Hanssen... by Slashamatic · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It is theoretically nice to have a trusted someone that checks all our correspondence, etc., but any organisation is full of human beings who may be fallible.

    Anyone who thought that the FBI is beyond reproach only had to look at the Hanssen case. This one, however, is even more interesting because it represents commercial use of sensitive information. I will treasure this as an example of why Governments should also have a 'need-to-know' applied to them.

    1. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thought that the FBI is beyond reproach only had to look at the Hanssen case
      I don't think anyone has thought the FBI to be beyond reproach for a long time. I believe most people mistrust their government and it's executives . Stories like this only reinforce that fact.

      --
      I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
    2. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Scutter · · Score: 1

      It is theoretically nice to have a trusted someone that checks all our correspondence, etc

      Oh my god. I don't even know where to begin with this.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by peddrenth · · Score: 1

      "It is theoretically nice to have a trusted someone that checks all our correspondence, etc"

      What're they doing, correcting our spelling?

    4. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Saxerman · · Score: 1, Funny

      Err... this IS Slashdot. Obviously NO ONE is correcting spelling around here.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    5. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
      I know that this is not the place where we like this, but whether you are in the UK or the US, somebody is out there telling us this. It is very difficult to explain that those organisations that protect us don't do so without promptly being branded a snivvelling crypto-marxist/Islamic Terrorist sympathisers by the stupid white men and their cronies. They like to tell us Trust Us, but this case is a very good exmple of the danger of doing so.

      It is kind of frightening, but most people will gladly hand over their freedom to some anonymous government agency "because they know best". These people do not read Slashdot or Risks and certainly not extreme left-wing journals like The Guardian. They know that strong government is good government, etc., and examples like this are needed to show that even if an organisation isn't corrupt, it is composed of individuals who may be.

    6. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...not extreme left-wing journals like The Guardian [guardian.co.uk]

      And of course extreme left-wing types are totally against oppressive governments. Let's see: Pol Pot (1/3 population murdered), Stalin (60 million killed), Mao et. al. (Tienamin Square, Tibet, ...), N. Vietnam. Hmm... maybe not.

    7. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by onepoint · · Score: 1

      > represents commercial use of sensitive information.

      Note: I have not read the anything about the Hanssen case.

      Well it's about time, we are the only government that does not support the businesses by the assistance of spying. In Europe and Asia, it is common for there spies to reaseach and gather american technology for a buisness.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    8. Re:Remember John Hanssen... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Well it's about time, we are the only government that does not support the businesses by the assistance of spying.

      In the first place this is blatently false.
      See the Airbus case where Echelon was used to win Boeing a major contract.

      Secondly no governments should be doing this. If other governments are doing this, then we need to take action on this, but not by doing the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right and all of that.

      Third, why should *my* taxes be used to prop up some huge corporation to make its executives even richer.

  4. so, what's gnu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well lemming sea. first, take some Godless greed/fear based LIEforms. then, trust them with ALL of "our" money, &/or information. well gee willikers, what the fud. they MuSt be responding to their training.

    now that they've been "caught", eye gas IT's safe to "invest" again/more/debt, in the FraUDuleNT fairytail ill eagle Godless greed/fear based billonly "economy", know?

  5. Stop this from happending in the eu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Help stopping a propsal that will force the ISP's in the EU to store info on their users for several years.

    info at http://stop1984.com/index2.php?text=letter.txt
    I guess we're heading the same way as you guys

  6. As usual its an inside job by davecl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This illustrates once again that the most frequent abuses of security are inside jobs. The vast majority of cases where security systems are breached for personal gain are done by people inside the organisations keeping the data.

    How much bigger would this story be if the data had come from hackers penetrating the FBI? Since its an inside job, its not front page news.

    We don't need huge security structures and new laws to keep out black hat hackers, we need a closer watch on people inside companies and organisations keeping data. And, if the data isn't needed for a clear purpose, it shouldn't be collected.

    And that applies as much to government agencies as companies, since the people inside those, as this case proves, can't be trusted either.

    1. Re:As usual its an inside job by term8or · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah. I remember a few years ago reading that 70% of computer cracking incidents are caused by people inside the organisation

      The real problem is preventing internal people breaking a system. Realistically, if your Computer Services Manager is cracking your e-mail system to read internal mail from directors, you don't have much hope. (Something that happened in a company I was working for a few years back).

      One thing I'm impressed with is the fact that this story came out at all. I've heard rumours of similar things happening in the UK, and they are all covered by the official secrets (Cover the govt arse) Act.

      --



      "As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig. :) " - AC
    2. Re:As usual its an inside job by davecl · · Score: 1

      Yes, its difficult if the people inside are crooks, but that's always the case.

      One thing I've heard suggested, which is interesting, is that some sort of clear statement of professional ethics is needed in the computing field - a bit like the 'Hippocratic Oath' in medicine, and that people who breach this should be 'disbarred' in some way by a professional body.

      No idea if this is at all practical though!

    3. Re:As usual its an inside job by kace · · Score: 1

      We don't need huge security structures and new laws to keep out black hat hackers, we need a closer watch on people inside companies and organisations keeping data.

      And who watches the watchers? And who watches them?

      What we need is more honest people. This problem is not primarily legal or structural. It's a cultural problem. Look at how many people were involved! Besides the two agents there were the people on the outside. One honest man anywhere in the process could have killed this little scheme before it was hatched.

  7. PEJAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty Early Jessica Alba Post!

  8. How should privacy violators be punished? by Tsar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here's my suggestion: Have the FBI, or even some more reputable organization, run a full-bore background check on them, followed by total surveillance for some period of time from 30 days to life, depending on the seriousness of the violation.

    Then post the results, complete with photos and video clips, on a website for the duration of the sentence.

    I see that privacyviolators.com is available, as is publicstockade.com.

  9. penalties by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    if convicted of all counts, Royer and Elgindy could receive 65 years in prison. Wingate faced up to 45 years in prison if convicted, and the other defendants, Cleveland and Troy Peters, each could be given 40-year prison terms.

    If only we had similar penalities for spammers.

    I wish I could make a joke about Wingate, (there has to be one someplace) but I don't realy have enough coffee in me yet.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  10. Bad agents by CodeMonky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on. We've known forever that the FBI has huge files on tons of people, there where stories about the FBI file on einstein on here a week or so back. Had it been the actual FBI selling this information and not a couple of bad apple agents pissed they didn't get a raise this year then perhaps it would be a huge story.

    As it is, this just shows they need a little stronger check as to who has access to what, but they did catch the people so I am assuming some checks are already there.

    --
    --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    1. Re:Bad agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, as you say: "this just shows they need a little stronger check as to who has access to what"

      It also shows that they can fuck off if they expect access to any of MY personal information.

    2. Re:Bad agents by GMontag · · Score: 2

      It is nice to see that we now have a Justice Department that will actually prosecute FBI agents. In the recent past, bad agents were inventing cases and killing innocent people, all without a slap on the wrist.

      Nice to see that *something* changed, now if the Justice Department would just leave the common folk alone all will be much better.

    3. Re:Bad agents by Spudley · · Score: 1

      [quote]there where stories about the FBI file on einstein on here a week or so back[/quote]

      I think I would also have been inclined to keep an eye on the guy who invented the atom bomb...

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    4. Re:Bad agents by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Which I'm sure they did, since it was invented in a top secret military complex by people with strict security clearances. But since Einstein wasn't one of them, that has jack-all to do with it.

  11. at-least-they're-good-for-something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    and i was just saying today that the FBI (and the police) don't do much of anything proactively. i guess i was wrong - they just need proper motivation.


    i was also haranguing their ability to do anything with the vast amount of data they collect. again, i was wrong - they can do things in their own interest.


    what irks me the most, though, is that i get to pay the government to pay a lawyer to prosecute a fraudulent law enforcement agent. irks.

    1. Re:at-least-they're-good-for-something by Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget - you may get to pay for the defendant's lawyers as well!

      --
      I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
  12. Stock Fraud... by Mike+Connell · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stock Fraud

    Glad to see the FBI is doing something useful :-)

  13. The corruption runs deep by forgoil · · Score: 2

    I can see how many are afraid of the deeds of organizations such as the KGB, GRU, Gestapo, Stazi, and FBI/CIA. This gives a fear of any form av compulsory identification, and a misstrust of the goverment agencies for law enforcement.

    The problem here is that system is rotten, and with presidents who are obviously lying their pants off (pun very much intended) constantly, these FBI agents probably didn't feel bad about doing these deeds.

    So off course we are afraid of the information collected, since it not only can, but apparently will be used against us. That is the problem, that the information that is supposed to protect us, is used against us.

    I don't have a clue on how to fix a system this corrupt, with indivudauals this ruthless. The only advice I can give you all is to not act like these peoples and be a good role model for your friends and family.

    Mr. Smith

    1. Re:The corruption runs deep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously.

      When Clinton was president, he was illegally reading the fbi files on republicans in congress. He was stupid about it too, since he got caught. Unfortunately, he still got away with it.

      How often does this happen in the whitehouse and never get discovered?

  14. Replace them with robots by jukal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    otherwise they are just normal people. FBI employees around 30 000 people. A little city. I bet they use the database for criminal purposes hundreds of times every day.

    A clip from here:
    " The Webster commission is expected to recommend limiting highly sensitive files to those with a strong need-to-know -- "role-based access," in FBI jargon. "

    'Expected to recommend...' exactly what is the procedure currently?!?! These systems and their databases are extremely scary.

  15. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the greatest threat against the government is it's citizens. Just like the every application would be perfect if there weren't stupid users.

  16. Predictable... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Reminds me of that old, old quote:

    • Power corrupts.
    • Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


    As governmental databases will reach critical mass, especially with cross-indexing and cross-searches are made more and more common (Oracle database proposals anyone?), I can safely predict that this kind of abuse will only become more and more common.

    Do you still think your government does not spy on you? Think again...
    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  17. Wait a moment by Azahar · · Score: 1

    I am in Australia but we are talking about the American Government here dealing on your behalf.

    On a persoanl level (and I work for the military so I know about security), what are you afraid of? My wife is Moslem so no doubt we have been checked ten times over or more. Shouldn't you be clamouring over your ten rights of citizenship (I just cannot remember the proper name). You should stop defending how and start defending why.

    --
    Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
    1. Re:Wait a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean the bill of rights?

      The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the bill of rights.

      http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/b il lrights.html

      Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Amendment II
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Amendment III
      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Amendment VI
      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

      Amendment VII
      In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

      Amendment VIII
      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      -------------
      I don't see anything in it preventing the government from keeping files on us.

    2. Re:Wait a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Amendment V
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.(snip)

      I don't see anything in it preventing the government from keeping files on us.

      BFD.

      By your logic, Air Force personnel retain the rights of ordinary citizens, as they are neither in the "land or naval forces."

      Note that Amendment X specifically rejects enumeration in the Constitution as the sole basis for other rights.

      Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    3. Re:Wait a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Correction -- I should have cited Amendment IX, not Amendment X

      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  18. Some things never change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it Julius Caesar that said "custodiet ipsos
    custodes?"

    (Who watches the watchmen?)

  19. Fundamental Misunderstanding of Reality by johnbr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This case illustrates the failure of law enforcement agencies to implement adequate protection against the abuse of information they collect.

    No. Fundamentally, this case illustrates the corruption of power. Governments are made up of lots of individuals, with their own problems, stresses and challenges. They are not angels. If the opportunity to profit from their position appears, many will take it. Putting more levels of bureaucracy and control is just a form of "moving the problem around."

    If you want to grant the government more power to accomplish things, abuse of power is the natural, and practically inevitable result. Get used to it. It will happen more and more often over time as we surrender more and more of our freedoms. Especially for the never-ending war on terrorism.

    The question we should be asking is "Why does the FBI have this data in the first place?", not "why aren't there sufficient controls to protect this data?"

  20. What happened to my wallet by Azahar · · Score: 1

    The correct translation is (LOL)

    I am only cleaning the place so why was my wallet stolen?

    Better to think

    Cuiusvis hominis est errore: nullius nisi insipientis in errore perserverare.

    --
    Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
  21. Predictable correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Bzzt. Wrong. Lord Acton: "And absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

    There's a big difference: the first version makes it inevitiable, when Acton didn't think it was inevitable, just an encouragement. Not the same thing, at all.

    1. Re:Predictable correction by Sorthum · · Score: 1

      Wrong again.

      Power attracts the corruptible.

      Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible.

    2. Re:Predictable correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he wasn't quoting lord acton, he was quoting the old saying and the old saying is not equivocal.

    3. Re:Predictable correction by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Power attracts the corruptible.

      Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible.

      Fair enough, but that saying has a much different meaning from the original.

  22. Where's the integrity? by Deosyne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is an outrage! FBI agents using personal information collected by the agency on citizens to promote their own interests? Obviously we just need to change the administration of the FBI; after all, this would have never happened under the first and greatest FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover!

    Er... wait a minute...

    Seriously, I've just come to expect that the FBI is going to be corrupt and incompetant until the day that it is disbanded and replaced by another institution, which will probably just follow suit anyhow. The place just begs for it; national authority, minimal oversight, intentional segregation from other government offices, a long history of this sort of abuse with little public repercussion, etc.

    Where in the hell else do you think our extremists, fascists, and power-hungry psychos are going to try to get into? It sucks that there are actually some good people that work in the FBI since they have to get caught up in this crap as well, but at least there are good parts to it. But I'll be damned if I'm ever going to trust the FBI in general, given, oh, decades of an example to go by. The USA PATRIOT act did us a favor by potentially saving us a fortune in investigations by making legal what the FBI was going to do on their own anyhow.

    1. Re:Where's the integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that one of the other things that the patriot act did was to encourage the sharing of records among law enforcement agencies at all levels.

      Don't be surprised when you hear that, say, Chicago police officers have been abusing the same database.

    2. Re:Where's the integrity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously, I've just come to expect that the FBI is going to be corrupt and incompetant until the day that it is disbanded and replaced by another institution, which will probably just follow suit anyhow. The place just begs for it; national authority, minimal oversight, intentional segregation from other government offices, a long history of this sort of abuse with little public repercussion, etc.

      OR as Ed Abbey (I believe) said, "Government authority, backed up with guns."

  23. The Myth of Government Making us Safe by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "This case illustrates the failure of law enforcement agencies to implement adequate protection against the abuse of information they collect."

    This case illustrates the failure of trusting and empowering large beaurocratic entities to snoop into everyone's lives in the mistaken notion that will somehow make us all "safer."

    Individuals have never come close to committing the level and magnitude of atrocities that governments, including our own (USA), have, in terms of lives destroyed and even taken, not to mention human suffering in unthinkable numbers. Consider WW I, WW II, the Nazi regime, the Stalin regime, the Mao regime, the Khmere Rouge regime, the Saddam Hussein regime, and the Taliban regime. Even Osama bin Laden, with government support was unable to match any of those in shere atrocities committed (and what Osama "the fallatio queen" bin Laden did manage to do he likely couldn't have pulled that off without ongoing aid and support from the Taliban regime).

    If events like these do not illuminate the fallacy of giving up freedom and handing the government authority over our lives in the mistaken notion that it will keep us safer, then really nothing will and our society as such is doomed.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:The Myth of Government Making us Safe by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Even Osama bin Laden, with government support

      Just to clarify, with support of the Afghan (and possibly a couple of other) government at the time, the Taliban.

      Osama "the fallatio queen" bin Laden

      I didn't realize I'd left that in there. That comes from a private joke centered around the notion of abducting Osama, bringing him to the US for a sex change operation, then sending him back to live under Islamic law as a woman. The joke was that his own men wouldn't recognize him, and even if they did, they would likely relegate him to fallatio whore status. An amusing joke, and one I've grown accustomed to typing into emails, but I didn't really intend to include it here.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  24. Here is the insidetruth.com mirror by manifested2 · · Score: 1

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010924124338/http://i nsidetruth.com/

    Why?

  25. Who Was That Clown Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one who was going to legislate a backdoor key into everybody's computer?

    And to whom was he going to give the key?

    Ah well, at least this scam would have made the markets a little more "efficient", if you know what I mean by "efficient markets"!

  26. I don't get it... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    I don't get it. They inform investors about the shady past of executives. Who wouldn't want to know that???

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason to hide this information, that I can see, is when the information was collected by illegal means.

  27. "But I have nothing to hide..." by Cally · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of thing is the answer to that constant refrain when one tries to protest or object to the ever-increasing government surveillance, information and data interception and storage. "I've done nothing wrong, so I've got nothing to hide." You may not have broken the law, but mebbe your husband would be interested to know about that drunken fling a couple of years ago at the office christmas party, and say, aren't these expenses claims a bit... creative? And tell me, why ARE you browsing gay porn from home, what with you being married with kids? and so on, and on. Humans are of course the weakness in all these systems promoted by clue-lite technocrats - those politicians who advocate technological solutions to everything, but who don't read the RISKS digest, or CryptoGram, or Incidents, Bugtraq, "Crash!" (the Tonty Collins book, not the Ballard one...) and so on.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:"But I have nothing to hide..." by Fjord · · Score: 2

      Ok, so what do you say to me, who has never cheated on my spouse, only expense what the company tells me to, have never itemized my deductions because the standard deduction is less, and don't view gay porn (at home or otherwise).

      Some how I don't think you'll hit on many people using the above criteria (maybe on the cheating, but certainly not on the gay porn). This case even has the whole "well these executives should have told the truth to get paid millions/year" or "the company should have done the background check" aspect to it.

      Not that I'm saying these databases are a good thing, in fact, I think they are a bad thing, but this isn't a good arguement against "I have nothing to hide"

      Personally, I prefer the "you may not be doing anything illegal now, but something you do now may be made illegal" and "while the government of today is relatively benign, handing over our rights allows the government of tomorrow to become an effective oppressive force. This is not the legacy I want to leave for my children".

      --
      -no broken link
  28. this doesnt really deal with gov't data collecting by sketchkid · · Score: 2, Informative

    these guys would just find out little companies (traded OTC [over the counter], not on the nasdaq or NYSE) that were being investigated by the FBI for wrongdoing. then, the guy would borrow a lot of shares of the company (these were very small companies, so we;re talking about penny stocks. i.e., $0.42 a share) then immediately sell them, trash the company and recommended selling the shares on their website and then waited for news about the FBI investigating them to break. this would, invariably, cause the stock to drop substantially (a drop from $0.42 to $0.21 would be a 50% drop) then these guys would re-buy the stock and give it back to whomever they borrowed it from. this gave them a substantial profit.

    they were finding out which companies were being investigated by the FBI and then trading based on that information. it wasnt because of gov't data collecting, but, rather, because of gov't investigating.

    --


    ------
    [insert funny .sig here]
  29. The FBI makes the government safe by Azahar · · Score: 1

    That is what security services are for.

    --
    Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
    1. Re:The FBI makes the government safe by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      That is what security services are for.

      [ begin Max Headroom quote]

      "Protecting your right to unlimited television and consumer credit.

      "Security Systems. In your home, in your place of work, wherever you go, there we are."

      [ end Max Headroom quote ]

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  30. The problem here isn't lacking a privacy policy... by squarooticus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real problem here is that our government is so powerful that it is allowed to collect such information on us in the first place. Look, people: it's an intelligence organization. Once they have the information, they are unaccountable to anyone as to what they do with it. There is no public oversight of the FBI, because that would violate "national security."

    So, you think, "I'm not so important. The FBI isn't coming after me." Repeat the litany about not speaking up for the Jews, etc. and realize that this particular abuse is only one of countless ways in which our too-powerful federal government violates our rights on a daily basis.

    Don't be so quick to give up rights you don't exercise: instead, think of what kinds of rights you exercise that the majority might not care about (fair use, use of strong cryptography, etc.), and realize that if you have the ability to surrender their rights, they have the ability to surrender yours.

    Do you want small government? Join the Libertarian Party.

    --
    [ home ]
  31. No it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    This case illustrates the failure of law enforcement agencies to implement adequate protection against the abuse of information they collect.

    No, it illustrates that, human nature being what it is, there are bad apples at the FBI.

    The good part is this problem was caught and fixed. That's a testament to the relative openness of the US government.

    Would all you folks living in other countries who claim "My government doesn't do that!" answer this question:

    How do you know your government doesn't do things like this?

    My impression of foreign governments is that they are more corrupt than the US because it's easier to hide (privacy laws to protect Europe's privledged classes), and more accepted (how many European countries allow their corporations to bribe officials in other countries? How many of them even go so far as to allow tax deductions for foreign bribes?)

    Corruption is corruption. At least here in the US we do tend to rail against it and not accept it as "business as usual".

  32. Max Headroom by Azahar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yup. That says it all.

    --
    Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
  33. Amazing. by jpellino · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Twice as many messages about kazaa than about this (posting time nonwithstanding).

    Fraud? Hunh.
    Financial ruin? Feh.
    Futz with my free junk? Aiiiiiiii!

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  34. Short selling schemes of late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee.
    FBI, involved in short selling stocks...just like the questionable trading activities which were conducted during the events back on the eleventh. (but our government had *no* prior knowledge, and certainly *nothing* to do with those events either!)

    I wonder who benefited from the illegal trading activity back then? hmmm?? Bueller? Bueller?

    The U.S. Federal Gubmint: short selling America, and her citizens one-day-at-a-time.

  35. on the bright side by Pierre · · Score: 1

    At least our tax dollars aren't paying for this - that's a relief

  36. Power corrupts by wiredog · · Score: 2

    but Absolute Power would be cool!

    1. Re:Power corrupts by Rupert · · Score: 1

      ... absolute power is even more fun!

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  37. Why did the system fail? by karb · · Score: 1
    After all, they did catch them, and they are going to jail. While you shouldn't let law enforcement agents look at anything they want, making them fill out a form everytime they search for a criminal record would be pretty excessive. And it probably wouldn't have stopped these guys anyway.

    Ultimately, you have to trust people with information, and tell them that they will go to jail if they divulge it. You can only control it so much. Since these people were caught and will be put on trial, I fail to see how it's an example of how the system doesn't work.

    --

    Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

    1. Re:Why did the system fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ultimately, you have to trust people with information, and tell them that they will go to jail if they divulge it. You can only control it so much."

      Where are you getting this stuff? It's our government, we don't have to pay people to collect information on us if we don't want.

  38. Here's an informative book link by clion999 · · Score: 1

    Here's a book (Translucent Databases) written by Slashdot regular, Peter Wayner. It might be informative and helpful to those who face the same problems with insiders abusing information. From my understanding, the techniques aren't always useful, but they can help in many cases. http://www.wayner.org/books/td/

  39. It that you James Joyce? by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I thought you were dead.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  40. I Agree, But... by virg_mattes · · Score: 3, Informative

    In this case, the FBI had a legitimate reason for having the data. The abused persons were under active FBI investigations at the time. As stated above, the agents would borrow shares of a small company when they knew that one of the principals of the company was under investigation. They'd sell the shares, leak the bad secrets, wait for the share price to fall, buy them back, return them to the original owners, and pocket the difference. It's certainly abuse, but in this particular case the FBI as a whole had good reason to have the data.

    Virg

    1. Re:I Agree, But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making the assumption that a legitimate investigation was used to further a fraud. In this circumstance it is a valid question to ask if the investigation itself was also a fraud.

  41. National ID cards by D0wnsp0ut · · Score: 1

    Gee, I can't wait to get my National ID card!

    [sigh]

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
  42. RTFA by virg_mattes · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, they were leaking information about ongoing investigations to affect stock prices. The way they'd do this is to borrow stocks in companies whose principal(s) were under investigation, sell the stock, leak the data, wait for the stock price to fall, buy back the shares, return them to the original owners, and pocket the rest. So, in answer to your question, the "who"s that wouldn't want this:

    1.) The individuals under investigation. Remember, they are innocent until proven guilty, and more than half of people investigated by the FBI are exonerated, so the reputation damage done by the leak may not be deserved.

    2.) The stockholders, both the ones from whom the stocks were borrowed and other stockholders whose investments are getting trounced by these leaks. Remember, more than half of these investigations do not result in charges.

    3.) Others who are also being investigated by the FBI. What assurance do they have that they won't be the next targets of this?

    4.) The stock market in general, which takes a very dim view of insider trading of any kind, since it undermines faith in the system, which is key to its survival.

    That ought to be enough to start with. The thing to remember in this is that they were not just leaking data about past offenses, they were leaking the fact that they're under investigation currently.

    Virg

  43. So this Is what they need all that money for by router · · Score: 1

    Seems interesting that in two places where the FBI has screwed up royally in the past decade they have agents on the take.

    Albuquerque=Wen Ho Lee Scandal, where the FBI lied to a Federal Judge to keep an innocent man in solitary confinement for almost a year. This prompted the Federal Judge to apologize on behalf of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government for the treatment that Wen Ho Lee received.

    Oklahoma City=Timothy McVee bombed a Federal Building, and the FBI was clueless until the bomb went off that the building was a target.

    Now we know what the FBI was doing in those cases: lining their pockets selling our trust for cold hard cash. Not investigating, not doing THEIR JOBS, but letting people's lives get ruined while they made FAT PILES OF MONEY. That's just great.

    Obviously FBI agents don't get paid enough to protect the United States; it is far more valuable to use the tools at their disposal to make piles of cash from insider trading.

  44. Corruption in U.S. government agencies... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Offtopic


    I wrote a (free) book about how corruption in U.S. government agencies contributes to violence: What should be the Response to Violence?

    Note that the FBI is now a world-wide police agency, operating in numerous countries.

  45. Facist.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is theoretically nice to have a trusted someone that checks all our correspondence, etc"

    Why is it theoretically nice to have someone go through my stuff.

    Thanks, but theoretically, that makes you a control freak and a nut-job in my book.

    And speaking theoretically, I don't want to live in the same country as you.

    So again, speaking theoretically, I hope you don't live in the US.

  46. How does this relate to carnivore? by theolein · · Score: 2

    I know this is paranoid, but it is interesting to note that the same agents could have access to information gathered from the carnivore tool db and use it to threaten internet users for not paying tax on time or whatever if given some cash by certain other companies. The opportunities for abuse are boundless when the system itself is corrupt.

    1. Re:How does this relate to carnivore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone else mentioned it (carnivore); as soon as I read the article the first thing in my head as well was how irresponsible the agency is proving to be and how much more responsiblity it is being granted. I don't feel that the fbi is an evil agency of henchmen existing only to do politicians' ill bidding, but I would agree that the agency's inception and recent doing reflect poorly.

  47. Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My wife is Moslem "

    Let us know when she's flying so we can man the AA guns. Just to be safe after 9/11

  48. Not Citizen ID, SS# is used as a PASSWORD by JohnDenver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People won't REALLY understand the scope of the SS#/identity-theft problem when you relate it as an ID number and not as a Password.

    The solution is to detour companies from using your SS# number as a password by making them liable for any damages, then add some fines on top of that.

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  49. What's more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that instead of looking at terrorists learning to fly planes within the US, the FBI was arresting russian programmers because it threatened Adobe's profit.

    That is REALLY outrageous.

    Thank you for pointing out these ironies. It is very aggravating.

  50. Sure, I'll be first in line for that... by Thud457 · · Score: 0

    as soon as they do something similar for corporate management!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  51. Changing Legality by Krieger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's amazing how as more and more police powers are being granted that the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is going out the window.

    These days they collect information on bad tips, and hunches. The lack of oversight is appalling. I do admit that some of the laws where overly tight. The whole must get a warrant for each device for tapping is a bit extreme, even as a privacy advocate. What I don't like are the fishing expeditions that they're engaging in now. Especially they're imply threats against those who don't cooperate. The whole "your unamerican and not patriotic" if you don't wholly bend over and take it from law enforcement is a bit much.

    Speeding for me is a great example. Arbitrarily enforced and most often broken by officers without need (no lights or sirens). It seems that many officers take their badge as a right to be outside the law. TV shows and movies make police look bad, but when some of the real stories come out... it's usually so much worse then the fiction that you wonder why we ever wanted to trust these people.

    I will also be the first to admit that law enforcement is a thankless task. I do appreciate those individuals that are honestly serving.

    You just can't win.

    1. Re:Changing Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I do appreciate those individuals that are honestly serving.

      Me too. Both of them.

      ~~~

    2. Re:Changing Legality by borgboy · · Score: 1

      In many, if not most jurisdictions, a police officer is simply not allowed to run with lights and sirens unless they are responding to certain, very specific calls - officer down, deadly force assualts, etc. They cannot, for example, run with lights and sirens to answer a possible breaking and entering. Yet, they DO need to respond to those kinds of calls rather quickly. Even more maddening, those are the kinds of calls that get canceled 60 seconds later because the owner forgot the passcode to his alarm system.

      I know that cops abuse their powers all to often, but the little tidbit above is at least a small consolation.

      --
      meh.
  52. PATRIOT was wrong by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    This is a perfect example of why ALL law enforcement agencies NEED judicial oversight before they can look into any type of comunications. The founders of our constitution new this.

    All the PATRIOT bill did by removing this oversight is to give the same tools to our FBI to protect our citizens that the old KGB had to protect theirs

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  53. Re:this doesnt really deal with gov't data collect by Thu+Anon+Coward · · Score: 1

    there's only 1 problem with your little scenario here. most, if not all stockbrokers, will not short a penny stock. in addition, the stock has to have enough daily trading volume in order for you to make enough money on the difference.

    ok, so you made 21 cents/share. how many shares would you have to sell in order to make $10,000? well, obviously, 50,000 shares. however, most penny stocks have a volume of less than 80,000/day. so you are seriously going to tell me that they were moving the market in a hidden fashion where nobody could see it being done? can't be done. that's why it's usually a pump-n-dump scam for penny stocks, not shorting

    --



    I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
  54. Re:penalties - Not in Detroit by Mad+Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last year, the Detroit Free Press ran a two part story about police officers who abused a law enforcment data base, which is tied into the FBI's NCIC, for personal reasons.

    http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lein31_20010731.htm

    Cops tap database to harass, intimidate
    July 31, 2001
    First of two parts

    BY M. L. ELRICK
    FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

    Police throughout Michigan, entrusted with the personal and confidential information in a state law enforcement database, have used it to stalk women, threaten motorists and settle scores....

    Police said they think the system, which is used to make about 3 million background checks each month, is more widely abused than anyone knows...

    Despite rules limiting LEIN use to law enforcement purposes, police told the Free Press their colleagues use LEIN to check out attractive people they spot on the road.

    "I'm not going to be so naive as to say an officer hasn't seen a pretty girl and run her plate," said Carey, who also was once chief in Troy.

    Former Memphis Police Chief Phillip Ludos said the practice is so common it is known simply as "Running a plate for a date."...


    A few months ago, the Free Press did a follow-up, about how the Detroit police handled the offenders:

    http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lein26_20020426.htm

    Abusers' names to be wiped out
    Officers who misused LEIN won't be traceable


    April 26, 2002

    by M.L. Elrick
    Free Press Staff Writer

    LANSING -- State officials made it harder Thursday for the public to learn who has abused the confidential Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), a computer database containing driving records, criminal records and other personal information.

    Reversing their practice of keeping the names of police and others who abuse the system, the Criminal Justice Information Systems Policy Council voted to delete the names after investigating each case.

    The council, made up of prosecutors, police and state officials, made the change after state and local police officials expressed concerns that maintaining a database of abusers would violate labor contracts, which limit the amount of time a transgression can remain on an employee's record...

  55. What case is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And do people with strong connections with government agencies have a habit of disappearing or dying in mysterious circumstances when they stop following orders?



  56. NYTimes site HTML sucks by jswitte · · Score: 1

    This is OT for the FBI scandel, but perhaps of interest to geeks everywhere anyway. Did anyone else notice that the page rendering for the NTYTimes login page takes forever? I'm using Netscape 4.77 on a dual processor 533MHz G4 Power Macintosh with 256 MB of RAM (no slouch processor wise) running System 9.1, and when I scroll the page down, it takes about 20 seconds to render. Netscape doesn't cache stuff either (it is 4.77 of course). A look at the code reveals that these people really need to learn about the ROWSPAN attribute for tables, as well as design their popup menus better (50+ items in one isn't a good thing).

    Dammit, what webmaster do I complain to?

    1. Re:NYTimes site HTML sucks by Darby · · Score: 1

      I'm using Netscape 4.77 on a dual processor 533MHz G4 Power Macintosh with 256 MB of RAM (no slouch processor wise) running System 9.1, and when I scroll the page down, it takes about 20 seconds to render.

      Actually, Netscape (pre 6) on a Mac (pre OSX anyway) Sucks serious ass at rendering large tables. This is a flaw in the OS/Application, not the HTML.

  57. Quis Custodiet ipsos Custodes by PotatoMan · · Score: 1
    "Who will watch the guardians?"


    There is only one way to fix this problem: hire only trustworthy employees. This idea that bad private behavior can be separated from public office is absurd; should a man who makes "inapropriate intimate contact" with a subordinate be given the nuclear launch codes? If he cannot make good decisions on minor things, shall we trust him on major things?


    Jefferson wrote that the best disenfectant is daylight.

  58. Utterly unavoidable. Now DEAL WITH IT!!! by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "This case illustrates the failure of law enforcement agencies to implement adequate protection against the abuse of information they collect."

    Michael, take a deep breath. You're starting to sound like Jon Katz.

    This case illustrates exactly why mandatory encryption key repositories are a bad idea. It illustrates why keeping excessive information is a problem. It highlights the fact that we don't live in a safe world.

    We will never. Ever. Ever! eliminate leaks, corruption, and fraud. If the information exists at all, then there's no way of protecting it perfectly from unintended use. (Which, it occurs to me, is exactly why people have argued against copy-protection. Hmmm...) Sooner or later someone will find a way of getting to it and exploiting it.

    Note also that (as others have pointed out), the law enforcement agencies worked!" The perps were caught and punished, exactly like they should be.

    The only answer we have to threats like this goes as follows.

    1) Limit the amount of information collected to what's necessary. (in this case, the info. was necessary. Private key repositories are definitely not)
    2) Limit the amount of cross-referencing between separate databases.
    3) Implement and enforce legal protections on the data.
    4) Implement and enforce technical protections on the data.
    5) (really 3a) When things are abused or leaked, punish the perpetrators and reevaluate policies 1-4.

    This is old, old, OLD stuff but is changing now for a few reasons. Massive networking, storage, and databases are fundamentally contrary to items (1) and (2). Technology moving as fast as it is makes (4) a difficult moving target. The fact that too many people (legislators and judges especially included) consider this to be a different situation than it was 25 years ago makes (3) more complicated than it should be.

    In other words, reevalutate, enforce, and repeat.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  59. Robert Hanssen by rjh · · Score: 2

    His name is Robert Hanssen.

    Yours, very sincerely,

    Robert Hansen

    P.S.: Note that my last name is spelled with one S.
    P.P.S.: Note that I'm not the infamous Alaskan serial killer, Robert Hansen, either.

    :)

    1. Re:Robert Hanssen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      His name is Robert Hanssen.

      Yours, very sincerely,

      Robert Hansen

      P.S.: Note that my last name is spelled with one S.
      P.P.S.: Note that I'm not the infamous Alaskan serial killer, Robert Hansen, either.

      So what _are_ you hiding?

    2. Re:Robert Hanssen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his name is Robert Paulson.

  60. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a neat quote that my civics teacher drilled into me during high school.

  61. Moving the problem... by ClarkEvans · · Score: 2

    Here's my suggestion: Have the FBI, or even some more reputable organization, run a full-bore background check on them, followed by total surveillance for some period of time from 30 days to life, depending on the seriousness of the violation.

    Your suggestion just moves the problem; who watches the watchers? This reminds me of many "fault tolerant" comptuers, in reality they just move the critical failure point to another location; it still leaves the device with a failure point. Read the other insightful posts on this list. Why did they have the information in the first place?

  62. Why not? by Danse · · Score: 2

    When I apply for a job, they do a background check, including finding out whether or not I've committed any felonies. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Why not? by BinxBolling · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When I apply for a job, they do a background check, including finding out whether or not I've committed any felonies. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same?

      When you're applying for a job, you give consent for a background search.

    2. Re:Why not? by Danse · · Score: 2

      Ok, good point. How about private investigators and others that seem to have easy access to this sort of information. How do they manage it? Are they acting illegally?



      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:Why not? by s.fontinalis · · Score: 1

      When you're applying for a job, you give consent for a background search Indeed! Most places of business do not actually perform background checks of even the most rudimentary nature. As an applicant it is possible for you to perform a similar service on publicaly traded companies - using business research tools like Hoover's, etc. They tell you the same type of information - lawsuits, judgements, profits, losses. Of course, if you're applying to a private company your S.O.L the fish

  63. Help save FBI resources; register now! by ClarkEvans · · Score: 2

    As you know, it takes a great deal of money to track down terrorists. To help save money in this effort, John Ashcroft has created a special form where you can help provide the information about yourself so that our govenment can better use its resources on the real terrorists. Please fill out the form now, help us fight and win this war against terror! Also please find articles on the Homeland Security page to help you identify potential terrorists and report them.

  64. Mod that reply up, please by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2

    Exactly. And the other source for the information is the NCIC database, which is maintained by he FBI and routinely used by all levels of law enforcement. It contains information on criminal convictions, stolen property, etc. It's used so that the police in different states all have access to the same basic information about various criminals and crimes. It is NOT the eeevil secret file on every citizen that some people seem to imagine.

  65. Re:The problem here isn't lacking a privacy policy by sheldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they are unaccountable, why are these agents being indicted for misuse of the information?

    Isn't that a contradiction?

  66. InsideTruth.com had some good information by Animats · · Score: 2
    Archive.org has old copies of InsideTruth.com, so you can read what they were actually saying.

    Most of their disclosures about companies seem to be based on public information. Court records are a major source. Here's a sample report, on SeaView Video Technologies.

    The "inside information" from the FBI may have only been hints as to what court records to look at. Court records are public, but not well indexed. Law enforcement generally has better indexing of court records than the courts themselves. So this guy may have been using the FBI mostly as a search engine for public documents.

    It's legal to issue reports on a stock that you're trading, provided that you disclose that you're doing so. That's very common, and a source of much of the hype coming from Wall Street analysts.

    The press reports don't say that this guy's information was wrong.

  67. Re:Power corrupts... (the actual quote) by Cletus+the+yokel · · Score: 1

    "... and absolute power is actually pretty neat."
    Spoken by an anonymous Clinton staffer

    --
    Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking .sig - Apply here.
  68. Idiot submitter uses link to NYT not AP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiot submitter uses link to New York Times not AP or a newspaper using AP!

    Worse, they dont mention that you have to register to complete the link.

    Compounding the insult to slashdot readers (whom ignored this lousy submission as evidenced by lack of comments) is that no one locally copied the ap article here because of the fascist new delete-copies-of-nyt-copyrighted messages.

    Now I cant read it. Because no one copied it, and because the submission itself is SPAM!!!

    Thats right, SPAM by a shill of the NYT to collect names and addresses of people.

    screw it.

    MS paid over a thousand dollars per fake address and name when they bought Hotmail.com database.

    Yahoo paid over $1,500.00 per fake address and name when they bought Geocities.com database.

    Versisign paid a world record $14,000.00 per genuine name and genuine address when they boaght Netwroks Solutions entire database and registrations.

    NYT must be making a FORTUNE by keeping track of click trhoughs that register from slashdot high-iq people.

    too bad I never will sell my name otr identity.

    Cut down on spam! warn people when people post links to site that bar access untill you register!

    ARRRRGGHHH!!! This sucks. Slashdot is going down the toilet until the editors mention explicitly which links bar access and need registration. THIS ONE DID NOT!

  69. Bad agents ARE the reason info collection is Evil by Erris · · Score: 2
    Come on. We've known forever that the FBI has huge files on tons of people

    Tell me why I'm taxed for this service.

    Had it been the actual FBI selling this information and not a couple of bad apple agents pissed they didn't get a raise this year then perhaps it would be a huge story.

    Tell me the practical difference. Tell me that the agents involved are not scape goats. Who's gaurding the gaurds? More gaurds? Hmmm.

    The abuse of seemingly reasonable laws by corrupt officials is one of the reasons we have a bill or rights. You think you are very well informed, but are not. I suggest you read some history before you tell me to "Come on" again. It is a big deal. The government is NOT supposed to be in a position to do this, no matter how honest you think an government agency can be. Without power, there's no need for checks on it's abuse.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  70. Who do these guys think they are? by Cody-Jack · · Score: 1

    Who do these guys think they are the CIA???

  71. Isn't this information available publicly by dankjones · · Score: 1

    Arent criminal records publicly available documents?

    If so, it's interesting that the information they took advantage of was organizational data, not so much the public records.

  72. Re:Bad agents ARE the reason info collection is Ev by Quinthar · · Score: 1

    It is a big deal. The government is NOT supposed to be in a position to do this, no matter how honest you think an government agency can be. Without power, there's no need for checks on it's abuse.

    You write as if you want a zero-tolerance policy for abuse of information collection, as if the mere chance of misuse is sufficient justification for it's restriction. Is this true? Do you believe this is really practical, and that you would really like the results? For example, do you think you shouldn't be allowed to drive because there's a chance you can speed?

    If zero tolerance is stronger than you intended, where would you draw the line on the amount of abuse you'll tolerate? To me, a couple agents doing minor stock maniuplations isn't quite sufficient for banning all criminal information databases.

    -david
    http://www.quinthar.com
    http://www.quin thar.com/360ToGo
    http://www.quinthar.com/Ubiquity Project

  73. let me clear this up for you by Erris · · Score: 2
    To me, a couple agents doing minor stock maniuplations isn't quite sufficient for banning all criminal information databases.

    What they have is citizen information databases. Criminal information databases collect information on crimes. They had dirt files on innocent people collected for what? Routine monitoring? I don't need a monitor and I'm not going to pay you to do it.

    The FBI's mission needs to be defined better than this. I'm not going to sit here and try to draw a line for them, I'm going to demand that they figure out what they should be doing and convince people it's right before they do it. Incidents like this go a long way toward convincing people that we don't need a federal police force.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  74. Re: Er, wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If nothing else, the human animal is greedy. This
    is little more than that. Give them the tools and
    there **WILL** be abuse. The PATRIOT act is only
    one such tool; this loonatic war on terrorism has
    many more. And our "elected" officials put it in
    place, with a little help for their supporters
    at those $20 thousand a plate fundraisers.

    Meanwhile companies like SAP and Seibel are
    working to "integrate" their databases better
    to serve the needs of "Homeland Security".

    Give up. Buy a towel.