Slashdot Mirror
FBI Investigates Open Records Request
GrooveMoose writes "A university student at the University of Texas
makes an open
records request for information on the underground tunnel system at the school.
A few months later the FBI and Secret Service come knocking on his door to see
if he's a terrorist. He's still under investigation by the federal government
regarding a completely open request."
Clearly, some paper-pusher at the university office freaked that somebody was using The Freedom of Information Act to force them to release information about their underground tunnels... most likely because the feds told universities to call them if anybody makes requests for information about campus infrastructure.
And, let's face it... even though it's perfectly legal to file a Freedom of Information Act request, doing so for topics like this totally out of the blue is certainly suspicious activity.
One thing to point out is that the agents called and said they wanted to speak with the student, but it doesn't appear they ever arrested him. That means he could have told them that he wasn't interested in meeting with them, or he could have walked out of the room at any time. He also could have at any time brought in a lawyer.
The moral of the story is that if you ask for some creepy information, and it's not exactly clear why you asked for it, then the FBI and Secret Service are going to have some questions to ask you, and they'll open a file on it. They won't deprive you of any of your freedoms over that alone... being confronted by men with badges who are looking for you may be a scary thing, but he could have just as well told them to leave him alone and they would have had to. He agreed to meet with them, so that's that.
The US goverment can not secure our borders, yet they are going after people that file FOIA requests.
Someone please explain to me how in the hell that make sense.
Consider what people would say if a terrorist requested the information for a tunnel system under a school, and the FBI didn't investigate it? It's not like they were tracking this guy's every move. He requested someone rather unusual, and they checked it out as they should.
This story may be related to Austin's Anti-Terrorism Force, but they have a saying at UT that may be apropos: You can't spell stupid without UTPD
A little learning never hurt anyone.
So now everytime someone requests info through the FOIA they will be questioned by the FBI or CIA? Is the government trying to discourage this?
Its kinda usless to have a right if you are harassed every time you use it.
The Daily Texan asking for the location of security cameras to be published is at least a request that makes logical sense... the student newspaper is of course in the business of making Freedom of Information Act requests on issues that the school would rather keep under wraps.
But, assuming he's not a terrorist, why did this student want to know about the underground tunnels? He clearly isn't going to get authorized access to them. So, what value was that information to him?... that's a point that the article totally neglects. Without this kid being willing to give that explanation, no wonder he's being presumed a terrorist.
If he's got a perfectly legit reason to want to know, then he should tell us. Otherwise, I don't mind him being given extra attention every time he walks by airport security. He should have known that'd happen for making such a request without a clear reason for doing so.
I guess the supposition was that everyone should know what it is, especially when it was mentioned along with the ACLU. I don't, though, but I guess it has something to do with the UT camera system they mentioned?
This is downright CREEPY. Since when does it make you suspect to file a request under the FOIA?
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff folks, this is for real.
...University? Anyone else less than convinced by this scenario? Sounds like Americans are so crazy, they'd suspect anyone. Hey I have a bomb... ... and a big hello to my new FBI fans and admirers,
xx ben.
Doesn't the secret service deal strictly with the president himself ? Could this mean that there is some sort of connection between the President and these tunnels ? Is this standard policy for the secret service to visit domestic terrorist threats ? It seems kind of strange to me.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
I know the guy (Mark A Miller) being described in this article. I use IRC mostly as a contact list, and have a channel for users of my unremarkable non-profit server. Mark has been a regular in my small (under 20 people) channel for months. I know this is the same guy as the Mark Miller in this article because the user in my channel talked incessantly about these freedom of information act requests, months ago.
[04/13 00:16] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Ah.
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> District Attorney Office. Forgot to go by that.
[04/13 00:17] <@dyfrgi> Why do you want/need to?
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To file a writ of mandumus against UT Austin.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They are ignoring one of my open records request.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To find out how much they pay for their Internet service.
[04/13 00:18] <@mspencer> "one of"?
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Okay, several of.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They initiall complied.
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Now they're ignoring me hoping I'll go away.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> I'm surprised you've filed even one open records request, let alone several.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> What are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Er?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Why are you suprised?
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> I mean, as long as you're being adult about it, and making sure your need for the data is worth the time they need to put into filling those requests.
[04/13 00:20] <@dyfrgi> Writ of Mandumus?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> mspencer,
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> So what are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To satiate my curiousity.
[04/13 00:21] <@Mirell[Mobile]> I'm not sure if that's how you spell it, dyfrgi.
[04/13 00:21] <@mspencer> Do you think those requests are having any kind of negative effect on the University or its staff?
[04/13 00:21] <@dyfrgi> I'm just wondering what it is.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Let's see...I requested initially any contracts or invoices detailing the cost the University entails in gaining Internet connectivity.
[04/13 00:22] <@dyfrgi> Mm. I assume you want to file a petition for a writ of madamus.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then I filed another one for something they withheld on an invoice.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then another one for another thing they left out..
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Classroom Web Cams they deny knowledge of
[04/13 00:23] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Information Security Council briefs, since we had the Social Security Number scare.
[04/13 00:24] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say by "Negative Affect" when they have a position who's sole purpose is to manage Open Records Requests.
[04/13 00:25] <@dyfrgi> I think he is implying that you should not ask, because it costs money for them to tell you.
[04/13 00:25] <@mspencer> I was deliberately vague: any effect, emotional or financial or otherwise, that is more significant than the benefit you get from satisfying your curiosity.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> No.
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> hopefully there isn't one, but if there is, I'd like to think you considered that.
[04/13 00:26] <@bl0d> i dunno, i'd really be curious about the Webcam one...that's just fucked up...
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> Ah, OK then.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=620962
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They pull crap like this as well.
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And this: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=657367
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[
Due to unwarranted disclosure of information of how the FBI has investigated this case, you are ALL under surveillance now, and labeled as potential terrorists until proven by the FBI. Thank you and have a nice day.
Who moved my sig?
FOIA = government honey pot?
Think about it.
You know I'm right.
I'm an undergrad at Caltech and here at least it's really popular to illegally enter the underground tunnel system for various reasons. There are all sorts of reasons for it -- you can get to classes when it's raining, you can get into buildings that would normally be locked at odd hours to turn in homework, etc. Also, some of our parties and other events have components in the tunnels and there's a bit of a cultural legacy associated with them as well -- people who attend the school are often given midnight tours highlighting various murals and the like. I've heard that this is popular at Carnegie Mellon as well.
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
This case is never going to close. It's going straight to the cold case bin where it's going to sit forever.
The agents were called in to investigate if this kid was a threat based on one suspicious, yet not illegal, thing that he actually did. The key question was of course why he made a request for such sensitive info about tunnels he would never be allowed to access anyway. Well, the only way to answer that question is to ask the kid...
So they requested a meeting. They got the meeting. They asked him about every reason they could brainstorm about why he made the request, and didn't walk out knowing much more than they knew walking in. The question's now more-or-less impossible to answer.
And that's the end of the story. Unless he does something else to reactivate his file, this will always be an unsolved case. They'll likely never bother to do anything more, but should he ever come up again in their sights the Feds will at least have the records from this case to remind them of what he did in the past.
Baylor Has simmilar tunnels running under its campus that link all the buildings. They are pretty much for utilities, and maintanence of such. A couple years back they realized that everyone was useing em to sneak around (includeing the secret noze brotherhood) and decided to lock them up. Unless you have a pair of bolt cutters you can't get down there, but then again they are hot nasty, and all the exits are locked so its kinda pointless. If i asked the university about them, they would probebly give me a blank stare also though.
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
I attend UT, and the explanation I got during orientation was that UT was, at least during the cold war, the custodian of the backup computer for various defense systems. In the event that the primary computer in who-knows-where was destroyed, the computer at our school was supposed to take over.
1) Get an anonymous proxy manager like EarthStation5. Tell it to exclude proxies from the U.S, Britain, Australia and any other country that gives a shit about this kind of stuff. 2) Using said anonymous proxies, go to hotmail and get an email account. 3) Only browse using the anonymous proxies, and only use the web via proxies to get your email at hotmail. You will be protected from this kind of bullshit. If you don't do this, don't whine and moan if you get harrassed. Technology is always many steps ahead of the MAN who wants to run your life but it cannot protect you if you don't use it.
So are these underground tunnels how college coed shower cams that I keep seeing advertised get installed? Or maybe the government didn't want people to find out about their dorm room cam racket :)
This is one time someone requested information about apparently sensitive information.
It's an abnormal request - a student doesn't have an obvious need for information about the tunnels at his school. If you went and bought 10x the amount of ammonia-based fertilizer that anyone would need, they'd investigate that too. Not because owning a lot of fertilizer is illegal, but because purchasing that amount of fertilizer is a decent sign that you may be about to do something illegal.
I'd much rather have the FBI taking the time to ask some intelligent questions when confronted with suspicious activity than letting universities be blown up.
paintball
Scene: Interview
Interviewer "So have you ever been convicted of a felony"
Mark "No"
Interviewer "Have you ever been investigated for terrorist activites?"
Mark "well.. there was this one time in college..."
Interviewer "OK thanks we'll call you" (calls security)
I've seen comments saying "he could have denied the meeting or walked away". I'm sure that wouldn't inflame the agents curiosity even more. The question about the ACLU was really out of line. Personally I think he should join the ACLU before making any other requests and then pull the card out if any other agents stop by.
the sentiment that I have to agree with is American citizens making FOIA requests should NOT trigger investigations.
People should only be investigated after they are proven guilty?
That's gonna work real well!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I go to utexas.edu. I can vouch for the administrative craziness that all too often plagues this school. :)
;)
;)
This is the same place where the suits did everything they could to keep the FOIA and other legal mechanisms from revealing information about the post-9/11 surveillance system. UT even went after our state attorney general over this. A friend of mine said it best: "Never sue someone when they have a law school."
The whole reference to UTWatch in the article creeped me out. UTWatch is a student-run organization which follows up on what the regents and other suits do. Like Ralph Nader in the 70s, its a mere watchdog organization checking if proposed policies will adversely affect the student body at large. Recently they have been very vocal speaking out concerning tuitition deregulation and the involvement of UT managing the Los Alamos laboratories. Not simply fact checkers, UTWatch does get involved when it smells something fishy.
I applaud what Mark Miller did. There is all sorts of cool things under the ground here at UT. Under ENS and RLM you can find a retired tokamak! More than just he are interested in whats buried. Simply put, what UT did (assuming it did something to spur this) simply lacked honor.
Part 1: straw man. Terrorist-lords like UBL work by hiding in mountains, spreading propaganda, and getting dumb 20-somethings to actually do the attacks.
Part 2: roughly a post hoc. Simply because the FBI was corrupt during that time it does not mean it is still corrupt; investigations are not bad solely because they have been used for bad purposes.
Logical fallacies refuted. Poink. Your overly dramatic post vanishes.
I can't say I'm surprised. The university isn't exactly forthcoming when this kind of thing is concerned. You should have seen what it took just to get the location of SOME of their security cameras around campus. For those interested, it should be in the Daily Texan archives somewhere.
I have to kinda agree with parent - I wouldn't be surprised if this is being used in some way to the effect of "sure, you can have access to this information, but we're going to screw with you and make a fuss every time you ask for it." The end goal being that your average citizen won't use it for fear of the hassle. Imagine these guys came to your job and started asking your boss questions about your possible terrorists links, because you requsted info on a local clock-tower structure or something (maybe for a private graphics project, etc). This would probably affect how your boss, or the employer as a whole, would look at you, whether you were "Guilty" or not. Soon, the only people who would make such requests would be the "damn-it's-my-right-you-HAVE-to-give-me-that-info" people, who would then probably be considered "activists" (and therefor, risky) by the government, so that the FOIA and the like could presumably be dropped with the explaination of "well, look, the ONLY people who really want this information are troublemakers - we should really lock this stuff down to protect the country from terrorists...".
Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that there are SO many ways that the kid could have gotten this info, besides doing it the proper way. He could have explored some/most of those areas himself, MIT style, learning how to "access" locks and the like in the process, and no one would have been the wiser. This blanket "we've got to protect people from terrorists" crap is getting to be an excessive excuse for anything the current administration doesn't like. Yes, there are bad people in the world who don't like us, and some are already inside the US, but come ON. And I'm saying this as a member of the US Armed Forces, protecting their right to use this excuse. Go figure.
I enjoyed this part:
"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?
I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.
If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?
Dan.
A close friend (cough) has been in the tunnels at my old university, it's actually pretty interesting and they used to be open. It is very dangerous as poorly shielded high voltage lines run through them, though, amoung other hazards.
Why? Why not. Tunnels were one of / the main motivators behind the now imfamous MIT Guide to Lockpicking, and it's not that far of a stretch to see why someone would be interested in getting a map. Maybe the kid just wanted to read them, but come on, if you REALLY wanted to know, those tunnels are ventilated above ground and it would take all of 15 seconds to gain entry and map it out that way, with string if need be.
Maybe this isn't that big a deal, but it's on the top of a damp moss covered slope. You better be careful, because there are worse things than being eaten by a grue.
..don't panic
...to design new levels for Quake.
... the agents, from Austin's Joint Terrorism Task Force
No WAY! *I* was investigated by the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force, too, back in 98 or 99. They were just curious why we were transporting a bunch of guns from El Paso to Austin in a rental car that was paid for with cash.
Ah, the fun times we had...
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
For Mark Miller, this is a winning situation however it turns out.
1
Ask for Information, get information, go public about how easy it was and how FBI etc.. are slipping
2
Ask for information, get questioned, go public about how fascist the FBI etc.. are acting
3
Ask for information, get denied, go public with FOI being overturned by FBI etc...
This is not news, it's a public troll.....
See:
http://homepage.mac.com/happywaffle/tunnels.html
Sure. I understand why he might be curious. It does seem like a way to draw attention to oneself. And I don't see why the university wouldn't just deny the request with a perfectly reasonable comment about security.
Okay: Someone is asking for information on infrastructure that could be exploited in a terrorist attack. I do wonder why they didn't just call the police/sheriff, but perhaps they naturally pass potential terrorist threats to the FBI.
I don't much like this. Are they saying that UT Watch might be planning terrorist attacks? If they are, then does it make sense to let the organization know that they know? (If this guy had been with UT Watch, pow, they know they're being tracked; if not, why wouldn't he mention the questioning to others?) Or are they just idly trying to find out if there might be a connections? Or are they completely clueless because they are a national law enforcement unit trying to follow up on a local group?
This is odd, too: The obvious answer is "We hand suspicious requests for infrastructure information to the police for further investigation, and they're free to share that with other law enforcement agencies." I'd HOPE that's what they'd do, in fact, and would feel more comfortable if that was their answer. But "I dunno"?
Overall, I'd call it disconcerting, but not really that big a deal. Am I in the minority here?
TSG
I used to be a resident of the UT system and heard all about the tunnels - even got to pass through one between ENS and RLM on a tour once. Would have loved to have gotten a big map of the tunnels to overlay the standard UT map just to see how quickly I COULD get from RLM to anywhere else but never thought to file a FOIA request ... Duh!
.. not surprised the SS got involved ... Y'all know one of the Bush twins attends UT right ... The SS has been all over UT since summer of 2000. They're discrete but not exactly in hiding.
But
It would seem his IRC channel is a public forum. The two party consent laws would thus not apply.
I don't get it, you have an organization with some of the brightest and powerfull people, and they jump on some kid going to school??
You would think that the situation could have been handled by the FBI in 1 of 2 ways.
1) Allow the information, apply surveillance. using the ample US budget they should be able to determine without a reasonable doubt what this kid is upto and take him under coustody and let the legal system do what it does best.
2) Disallow the information and the surveillancething.
Why would they freak out on the kid and come up with nothing?
That doesn't seem right to me are they panicing? Do they know what they are doing? Being much more powerful then a post-secondary grad, you would hope that US would have a better idea of what is going on.
We always bitch about all of our rights taken away for Homeland Security but what are they really doing?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Now if he is denied the right to board an airplane from this point forward and put on one of the terrorist watch lists the government wishes to share with private industry and hence potential employers, then yes, I would see a VERY SERIOUS issue here.
First of all, my government's power would not be the product of my people, but rather would be the product of myself. Freedom would be a priveledge extended by the state, not by the Almighty Creator. In fact, if any religious propaganda, such as a plaque of the Ten Commandments, be found anywhere, said propaganda would immediately be removed.
Second, everybody would be my slave. Nobody would be allowed to do anything without government approval in the form of licenses (from driver licenses to business permits to rental unit occupation permits), because otherwise they would be considered terrorists and would have all of their property seized for my use.
Third, a tax system would be put into effect to steal half of everybody's income, from a numeric standpoint. I would pass legislation to make it extremely difficult to purchase and own property, and renters would be affected by high prices because their landlords would similarly have to make ends meet. Thus, with this tax system and property ownership legislation, both parents would have to work very hard to feed their children, and would be so concerned with making ends meet that they would ignore the above, because there are more pressing matters (food) to worry about. (The same tax system would further benefit me by providing detailed information, down to the finest detail, of everybody's business, because they would need to detail the source of every penny of income, and back it up with evidence. Failure to do this would constitute a felony, and would be selectively enforced to strike fear into peoples' hearts.) To steal the other half of everybody's money, the money itself would not be backed by anything of value. Thus it would be easy to continuously print money, thereby constantly increasing the total amount in circulation. This way, my government would steal the peoples' money, without reducing the amount they have from a numeric standpoint, by stealing the value of their money.
Fourth, the educational system would basically turn out people who can barely read, so they won't be smart enough to figure out what I'm doing to them.
Fifth, there would be propaganda all over the place telling people how free they are, etc.
That's how I'd run a government, if I were the king of my own country.
I fully expect that the FOIA will be repealed or severely scaled back within the next few years. It won't happen during an election year but it will happen.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
I probably should....but does anyone remember the Good Times episode where the younger son was doing reasearch on the USSR. The feds started questioning everyone he knew, his father lost his job so on and so forth.
Bring back McCarthy! In so many ways I feel like the Govt is acting like a cornered badger, and I am honestly not sure who is more scared, us or Govt.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
If an Agent Knocks - Federal Investigators and Your Rights
People opposing U.S. policies in Central America, giving sanctuary to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador, struggling for Black liberation, and against nuclear weapons, are today more than ever likely to receive visits from FBI agents or other federal investigators. Increasingly, agents are also visiting the families, friends, and employers of these activists.
This pamphlet is designed to answer the most frequent questions asked by people and groups experiencing government scrutiny, and to help them develop practical responses.
What is political intelligence?
Political intelligence is information collected by the government about individuals and groups. Files secured under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that government officials have long been interested in all forms of data. Information gathered by government agents ranges from the most personal data about sexual liaisons and preferences to estimates of the strength of groups opposing U.S. policies. Over the years, groups and individuals have developed various ways of limiting the collection of information and preventing such intelligence gathering from harming their work.
Do I have to talk to the FBI?
No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address see errata), to permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do anything -- unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don't have to answer their questions.
Under what laws do the agents operate?
In 1976, FBI guidelines regulating the investigation of political activities were issued by Attorney General Edward H. Levi. Criticized by liberals and conservatives alike, the guidelines were issued in the wake of a Congressional committee's report of highly questionable activities by the FBI, monitoring the activities of domestic political groups seeking to effect change. The report exposed the FBI's counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) under which the agency infiltrated groups, compiled dossiers on, and directly interfered with individuals engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
The FBI COINTELPRO program was initiated in 1956. Its purpose, as described later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities" of those individuals and organizations whose ideas or goals he opposed. Tactics included: falsely labelling individuals as informants; infiltrating groups with persons instructed to disrupt the group; sending anonymous or forged letters designed to promote strife between groups; initiating politically motivated IRS investigations; carrying out burglaries of offices and unlawful wiretaps; and disseminating to other government agencies and to the media unlawfully obtained derogatory information on individuals and groups.
In 1983, Attorney General William French Smith issued superseding guidelines that authorized "domestic security/ terrorism" investigations against political organizations whenever the FBI had a reasonable belief that these groups might violate a law. The new guidelines permitted the same intrusive techniques the FBI used against organized crime.
The Smith guidelines were justified by the Attorney General's observation that "our citizens are no less threatened by groups which engage in criminal violence for political... purposes that by those which operate lawlessly for financial gain." He concluded: "we must ensure that criminal intelligence resources that have been brought to bear
I can understand them asking why he wanted to know this information, but the questions concerning if he belongs to perfectly legal organizations are really troubling (if he is to be believed). Should belonging to a watchdog group (UT Watch) or communicating with the ACLU make any difference at all in the investigation of a Joint Terrorism Task Force? How is that relevant? There has been an ongoing trend of using new powers granted to "fight terrorism" to harass people and squelch dissent.
The feds should never have been visibly involved in something so trivial unless there was an indication of something else.
It seems that without another cause, this would constitute coersion in order to deny access to information which is otherwise not secret. Even if they "approve" the request, there is a chilling effect on other requests. Probably the intent.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
If you are a terrorist organization and you are wanting to research potential targets for an attack it would stand to reason that, especially in these times, you wouldn't use someone with even a hint of a criminal record or known ties to a terrorist organization. You're going to plant people who are your "upstanding citizens" that can operate under the radar.
Really, when you think about it, college students are excellent recruits. They need money, they tend to be idealists, they tend to be socially liberal, and they tend to be blank slates politically. With all this going for them, they should be at the top of the list as far as "potential terrorists".
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
This reminds me of a kid I knew when he was in high school, back in the Vietnam War era (when the internal security systems of the various levels of government in the US had gotten 'WAY out of control).
..."
His use of a university's computer while a high school student (something he got started on as a guinea pig in a University program doing research on learning and teaching) had attracted the attention of the FBI.
A couple years later he decided to use the shiny-new FOIA to see what records the FBI and the state and local cops had on him. And while he was at it, he sent FOIA requests to several other agencies.
The first one he sent to the CIA was a classic self-referential hack: He requested their internal document describing their procedure for responding to FOIA requests. B-) (Obviously useful for generating the next round of requests, too.)
Needless to say the agencies involved didn't respond as required by the law. So with the aid of a Libertarian lawyer he started suing them. He won, and they eventually were ordered to give him what he asked for. Then they flaked on that, too, and he got a contempt citation and more court orders. Eventually he got much of his info (with big chunks blacked out). Then he sued them for his lawyer's fees and won that, too.
After a few iterations of this he was sitting on quite a number of interesting documents. So he started a newspaper to give them wider circulation and created a business of generating FOIA requests and publishing the results. This became quite popular with the CIA watcher, privacy advocate, private detective, and tinfoil-hat sets. Advertising revenue flowed in from such folk as buging and debugging equipment manufacturers.
At one point he got the petty cash records from a New York area CIA office. Items he found in it charged to one project (air compressor, flit guns, briefcase, auto exhaust system, washing a car) led to blowing the lid off a project to obtain information on how a biowarfare plague might spread in an urban environment by exposing the citizens of New York City to a "mostly harmless" bug that caused severe enough respiratory system symptoms that it could be tracked by hospital admissions. (Spread techniques included spraying subways with the bug from the gimmicked briefcase and spraying commuter traffic via the car's exhaust system.)
He also got hold of and published one year's version of the IRS procedures manual. And put out a pamphlet on how to use the FOIA. (Eventually he was enjoined from distributing either of these.)
Eventually the FOIA was modified to give the security agencies some loopholes against such requests.
Bob Dylan had something to say about this: "You have to pay to keep from going through these things twice." Also Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time
He's still out there doing stuff like this, by the way. Last time he looked he had a web site dedicated to exposing personal information trading in the information age.
The above-mentioned kid was part of the Boomer's round. I guess now it's Generation X's (or maybe Y's) turn to pay some dues. (Sigh.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
C'mon, asking for his student affiliations? Why he wears long hair?
This is a case of bureaucratic stupidity.
It would seem his IRC channel is a public forum. The two party consent laws would thus not apply.
Washington State prohibits recording conversations between two parties unless everyone agrees. That applies to party lines as well (potential public forums).
That is the foundation that some states are using to attack IRC logging. The conversation is carried over regulated carriers within the states.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Step 1. Apply for information which someone thinks is suspicious.
Step 2. Your noted on a government database as having requested that information. (You're the only one most likely). The reason is because of likely crime or terrorist activity associated with that information, otherwise no one would bother adding you to the database. You are initially interviewed by authorities.
Step 3. Someone commits crime/terrorist act related to the information. Because they were a criminal/terrorist, they got the required information from other sources.
Step 4. You are detained without warrant and held without charge. You disappear. No one knows where you are. You are not allowed to make a phone call.
Step 5. Further investigation yields no clues. Law enforcement officials with an average IQ of 100 are under pressure to make an arrest, and charge someone.
Step 6. Based on your comments under (mild) mental torture and previous slashdot posts, you are arrested and charged. The circumstantial evidence of your having asked for the information without a valid reason otherwise may be enough to convict you. More recently, they can also hold you without charge or communication until you confess too now.
Step 7. You are convicted.
That's why this kind of stuff is scary. It does happen. All too often. After all, there is a real chance of the crime/terror incident happening or otherwise you wouldn't have been questioned in the first place.
Bottom line, if you don't want to face the risk of being interrogated/charged for something you didn't do, then be careful what you ask for and how you draw attention to yourself. Even comments in forums like this can be use against you, and they are kept for a very long time... Everyone who reads slashdot is probably considered a potential terrorist/criminal by anyone who doesn't understand what geeks are. Some people feel threatended by geeks. Especially hackers - white or black hat - and those sort of people are the most likely content of a jury.
It is a bit chilling. And it's not recent legislation or the US. Check the history of academic dissidents throughout recent history. This is a common theme.
GrpA.
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
This isn't so difficult to understand. You live in a society, which is trading liberty for security. You give up certain things you would otherwise be free to do (Run rampant and kill people) for the security that no one will do the same thing to you (run rampant and kill you).
I'm not sure why this bogus maxim comes up so frequently. The student made an extremely abnormal request. Was he within his legal right to do so? Of course he was. Did he have a reason, other than to get some hidden info? Nope.
We know this *after the fact*. *After the fact* security is the only type there is: if you're already dead from someone on a murderous rampage (see paragraph one), your forfeitsure of liberty does no good whatsoever. That's why we've got folks like the police, who make sure that these sorts of things can't happen.
I saw Viet Dinh speak at Tufts University (author of the Patriot Act, in case you were wondering), and the ACLU person who was suppposed to be speaking Against him openly said (quote): "Mr. Dinh, I hereby declare you an honorary Civil Libertarian".
While you may have the right to much information, there is a good deal of informaiton that should be protected for the sake of protecting other people. This is a case where the information was given and the motive was questioned. I have difficulty believing anyone finds anything wrong with that.
Honourable though his intentions may be, he also demonstrates a lack of knowledge on how corporate politics works. He gave true reasons for his actions.
In the chat log, he gives a reason for an investigation thus: "To satiate my curiousity." This is the wrong thing to say. If you are up to anything that is remotely dubious, never give the exact *real* reason you are doing anything. Instead, make up another reason that is plausible and legitimate and always give that reason instead. Never divulge the real reason to anyone you don't trust. If you cannot think up a plausible reason then you may need to rethink your actions.
In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.
Concealing real reasons is commonplace. The leaders of the MPAA and RIAA do this. Politicians do this. Corporate CEO's do this. And we know what fine, upstanding citizens these people are. *cough*. So if it's okay for them to do it, why can't the masses?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
From what has been posted so far, it looks like the information was already available, and the request was pretty aimless in intent - to not investigate could have potential security problems. But like one poster said - students at some universities frequently use tunnels for all manner of reasons - weren't cables strung on campus by individuals this way before the present state of affairs? The problem is those days are gone, and many places simply will never allow that degree of freedom - for access to places - or information - anymore.
/. could actually agree on something to file massive FOI requests for a single item - what type of response that would bring. I'm sure it would be a total cog in the system. The point is that when an individual who is fanatically devoted to some cause - they may have lived for years building a *clean* life just to act on that one moment - and in fact plans on not living through the time of carrying it out - if they can slip something though - they may have just what they need.
My brother is an ex-pat - works all over the world - and a few years before 9/11, on a visit home he said *people in this country have no idea how loose our security is viewed worldwide. Something big will happen and the attitudes in the country will change forever*. That was about the time of the Oklahoma City bombings, when - if you were watching the first reports and speculations - everyone believed it *had* to an international organization. Palestine got the first blame - then nobody really woke up to the idea that people in our country could be every bit as extremist as is *others* are portayed in a xenophobic cultural lens.
I am generally very suspicious of all these government investigations - they make me uneasy in too many ways because the Patriot Act has been too loosely applied in ways that have already been well reported - and in fact have become good sport - as they should be in an open and free society.
Had the request had some intent - like the student was an architecture major - technically - not that he had to be to make the request, I think this would have just faded away very quickly.
I wonder though if a large group of individuals - say if a group as large as that as subscribe to
In the chat log, he gives a reason for an investigation thus: "To satiate my curiousity." This is the wrong thing to say. If you are up to anything that is remotely dubious, never give the exact *real* reason you are doing anything. Instead, make up another reason that is plausible and legitimate and always give that reason instead. Never divulge the real reason to anyone you don't trust. If you cannot think up a plausible reason then you may need to rethink your actions.
---
Umm...dude, I don't care enough to fight it. It was IRC, I did not think I would get Slashdotted.
In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.
---
No...I just wanted to know how flippin' big the tunnels were. That's all.
We have so much time, and so little to do - strike that! Reverse it. Tryn Mirell
[2004/05/06] [21:17] Mirell mspencer! ;p
[2004/05/06] [21:17] Mirell I know the guy (Mark A Miller) being described in this article. I use IRC mostly as a contact list, and have a channel for users of my unremarkable non-profit server. Mark has been a regular in my small (under 20 people) channel for months. I know this is the same guy as the Mark Miller in this article because the user in my channel talked incessantly about these freedom of information act requests, months ago.
[2004/05/06] [21:17] Mirell BAD BOY!
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Mirell sets mode: -o bl0d
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * mspencer was kicked by Mirell (mspencer)
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Joins: mspencer (spam@michael.mspencer.net)
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * ChanServ sets mode: +o mspencer
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Mirell sets mode: +o bl0d
[2004/05/06] [21:17] _{\Zealot Mirell: Hence all the freaks around here
We have so much time, and so little to do - strike that! Reverse it. Tryn Mirell
UT pulls this kind of shit all the time. An open records request for information regarding the on campus security cameras was submitted by the Daily Texan; UT denied it. The Texan appealed to AG Abbott, who ruled in their favor; the University appealed and it continues to fester in the legal system.
Although it is possible.
What I'm wondering about is why TWO agents had to meet with this guy to discuss this.
For everyone who does NOT understand, there are a limited number of agents (FBI, CIA, SS, etc). The more agents handling what are BLATANTLY obvious cases of non-terrorist activity, the FEWER agents doing any actual anti-terrorist work.
You are correct. If any investigation was done, it should have been done quickly and quietly. They can find his major. They can find what classes he's taken. They can find if he has any police record. They do not need to waste the time of two agents.
Yes, I think I do know a bit about what I think. As for what they should be doing - I think it is safe to say that they would not be visible about a real investigation:
they: "we're the fuzz, come to interrogate ya'"
he: "fckoff"
they: "we think you're a terrorist, why ya' askin' questions?"
he: "'cause i'm gonna do bad stuff!"
If they were really looking at this guy, don't you think they'd be somewhat more more careful about tipping their hand. It's about the unsaid public statement that we will look at you if you ask questions.
--Insert obligatory "In Soviet Russia" line here--
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
These are the same tunnels that law enforcement "officials" used to enter the UT Tower on August 1, 1966 to get at Charles Whitman, the sniper.
Had it not been for this covert entry, he'd probably still be up there. Well..., I guess he would have ordered out for pizza at some point.
g
September 11 could have been prevented with the information that was available at the time, before the patriot act or any other recent erosions of civil liberties had taken place. The problem, according to most of the evidence at the inquiry and a lot of analysis and commentary, both official and unofficial, was not that the police/FBI/CIA didn't have the information, but that they were unable to put it together due to cross-institutional barriers and a general lack of cooperation and coordination.
Read Pynchon.
But if all they did was ask and he volentarily answered then not a big deal as far as I'm concerned.
The problem there is that we no longer have any real rights. Now, before you dismiss me for taking some kind of extremist view, think of it this way:
The governemt currently can, at its option, declare you an "enemy combatant", with no due process or judicial review. Then they can detain these "enemy combatants" indefinitely. Hence, if he told them to bugger off when they questioned him, they may see that as being suspicious, and decide he'd make a good Enemy Combatant.
Rights that can be arbitrarily taken away at any time aren't rights at all. They're an illusion. What it boils down to is that you have a right to due process, except when the government says you don't.
they'll watch you for quite a while now, and you'll always be in a database someplace. A "person of interest". Whether or not they'll let you fly won't be answered until you try to board the plane, and even if they don't let you fly, you should check on "refund" status. Heh, try a short cheap trip first as a test!
Dumb question but I'm gonna ask it anyway, I mean, you KNEW you were gonna rattle cages with that request, correct? I don't care one way or the other, why you asked is your business, I don't get a sense from what you have written or are quoted on you were doing more than being curious,perhaps pushing the envelope a tad, but surely you must have thought of the ramifications of it beforehand? Either way, now you know for sure you are dealing with a paranoid government who hires paranoids, and I mean both delusions of grandeur and persecution types. The more you find out about power politics, the more you will find out there are no rules, no limits, no one plays fair, lies are more common than truths, and they are usually always mixed together anyway, and there's no such thing as the constitution or born-with rights. None. Zee-ro. That went buh bye decades ago, but now they are *serious* about it.
Anyway, interesting story,welcome to the being on the lists club, Good Luck, have a good time in yurrpe if you get there!
Repeat after me, "There are no X-Files. It was only a TV show."
It would only take ONE agent a few minutes to make the calls to find out the information they needed (police record, major, classes taken, etc). That one agent could then move on to other, more important activities.
Instead, there are TWO agents talking to this kid.
There are TWO agents wasting their time.
This is fine if there are an unlimited number of agents. But there aren't. Therefore, the agents need to spend their time in the wisest fashion.
Travelling to that kid's dorm, waiting for him to show up and then talking to him does NOT sound like the best usage of their time to me.
You'll have trouble convincing people because most of them are reacting emotionally.
The fertilizer bomb was a unique instance. Every day, millions of people go about their lives in the US without building a fertilizer bomb.
Yet that single instance is used by people who feel threatened to justify any amount of governmental "protection".
If you live in the US and are NOT in a combat zone, you are STATISTICALLY more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
What you're seeing is a fear reaction. Fear does NOT understand statistics. Fear does NOT take reasonable precautions.
First, let me say thanks for an interesting analysis, it's always good when people actually apply their brains to this type of debate rather than just yelling 'fascist!' or 'terrorist lover!'.
However, I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment that terrorism and a police state are at different ends of the same spectrum. My reasoning is that terror is terror whether perpetuated by the state or individuals; creating a police state to counter the threat to individuals from non-state terror is an essentially irrational response driven by the myth that the state is inherently trustworthy. A glance at the history books should convince us that this is not the case: far more people have died or spent their lives in fear of persecution due to state terror than have died or been oppressed due to a few extremist nutters fighting against the mainstream of society.
I would suggest that there it is the elements of civil society that are far more useful as a yardstick against which to judge the issue of terrorism and the state. This runs contrary to the 'too much freedom leads to terrorists running wild' theory: instead, it is more important that a society have extremely strong and well defined laws to control the interaction between the state and the individual, and the way the fight against terrorism occurs plays out against this backdrop.
So, for example, Russia has virtually no civil institutions or rule of law, placing it far from the centre of my ideal state. It citizens are threatened by both terrorism and the government's jackbooted (and increasingly uncontrolled) response to terror. See for example, Chechnya, the theatre siege last year, the shutdown of non-state media, and the general consensus that the KGB is basically still operating in new forms in the Kremlin.
By contrast, many European nations such as Germany, Britain and Spain have very strong rule of law and civil legal institutions. Britain has lived with the problem of terrorism for many years thanks to the northern ireland situation, likewise Spain thanks to Eta. Nonetheless, these countries retain a high level of civil liberties (although Britain is certainly wavering in this regard) whilst still having a strong domestic response to terror. Based on my watching of world news I would say there have been more successful terror investigations in the UK and Germany since September 11 than there have been in the USA.
At the moment I place the US somewhere in the middle, not as strong institutionally as Europe (especially because of the lack of true seperation of powers through the judicial appointment process and the strong ties between congress and the president, the president and the military, and the military and the military justice system), but not yet in the zone of corruption occupied by Russia and many South-East Asian nations.
So... in the context of this story, I guess I would ask the following questions:
- was the investigation started through a clearly defined process?
- were records made of the investigation, the reasons for the investigation, and the steps taken, and are those records public (or will they become public at some stage in the reasonably near future)?
- was the kid in question informed of his rights, for example the right to not speak to the investigators if he didn't want to?
- was the interview taped, videod or otherwise recorded and available to him on request?
- is he able to know where and how the information relating to his request was used, stored, or communicated to other agencies?
- was the process free from any element of threat or coercion (e.g. did the FBI rock up wearing dark suits, trenchcoats and overcoats and carrying weapons, or did they come dressed like normal humans and approach him in a friendly manner)?
If the answer to all of these is yes, then things are fine according to my theory. If the answer to any of them is no, there is cause for concern. I would be interested to hear any reasons why there would be any benefit in not doing any of these things in the context of terrorism.
Read Pynchon.
Well, I live in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Known for being both a port for alcohol during prohibition and for being one of the final stops on the Underground Railroad (Uncle Tom's Cabin is located just outside of town).
It is well known that tunnels from these times exist beneath our roads, lawns and buildings and it would be quite interesting to find out where they are - Not to go explore or to plan a route of attack, but out of pure curiosity.
I see a need for caution on the part of the authorities, but this is, indeed, overkill.
__________________________
Oh yeah, and there is a local myth(?) that there is still some whiskey down there somewhere.
What I wouldn't give for a shot of Al Capone's finest 80 year old blend.
//i have as many lives as people i know.
This sounds like the kind of crap that went on back in the 60's and 70's that eventually led to the creation of the FOIA in the first place.
As much as I dislike Kerry and the modern Democratic party, if this is the kind of crap we can expect from the Republicans, I can't see how I can vote for them in good conscience. Expect me to vote for a 3rd party candidate in November. What is the world coming to when a brain-dead jesus-freak holy roller and a neo-bolshevik nimrod communist are our choices for who is going to lead this country?
What I found especially disturbing is the fact that they thought his hair was somehow significant. The level of ignorance that displays is really sickening. This isn't the summer of love, lots of guys have long hair and it's no more a political statement than the color of someone's shoes. I used to have hair down to my ass, and I'm a southern boy and a card carrying member of the NRA, hardly an "activist" who is going to blow up something. Well...nothing bigger than a coke bottle anyway.
In a way I almost wish I'd been the one they were picking on just so I'd have the opportunity to tell them to kiss my ass.
Am I the only one who feels we have more to fear from the abusive power of unchecked law enforcement than we ever will from terrorism?
I'd much prefer to limit my concern to those criminals who DON'T have the power of the state backing them up. It's stuff like this that makes me write checks to the NRA and pray it's enough to make a difference. There are times when I'm tempted to send money to the ACLU as well. Its the leftist propaganda that seems to be their driving philosophy that stops me, but if Ashcroft's goons aren't told to sit down and shut up I might just not care anymore and send them money anyway!
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Despite the use of one letter words (uyou) this is right on the money. The last two generations have really dug this country into a hole and pissed off a lot of people by doing so. Unfortunately, the people affected by this won't kill the parties responsible, they'll just kill people from the next generation (aka me, my peers, and my friends... yay). This generation is far more openminded than the last, but the retards are still playing their power games. I can't wait to see what sort of Iran-Contra shit this administration has been doing while we haven't been looking...
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I've heard the argument about Two Party consent for IRC logging before, and it doesn't hold water. First, there is no expectation of privacy on an open channel discussion like IRC. (private message may enatil a different assumption) Second, logging is a "normal part of most client applications." Thus, not only do you have no expectation of privacy, you have every reasonable expectation that your conversation will be logged by someone in the channel. Third, at least some servers have a disclaimer in their MOTD stating that all traffic is subject to logging, and by connecting you acknowledge the fact.
For example:
--- - POSTED DISCLAIMER - Internet Relay Chat is an open communication system
--- - and may be subject to random monitoring by your ISP, our ISP, various and
--- - sundry carriers in between, Martians, Spooks, and god only knows what or
--- - who else, as well as Quality Control checks by admins or staff for any of
--- - a hundred valid reasons. If you are sending clear text traffic, you can
--- - have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and by connecting and using an
--- - IRC server, you acknowledge that simple fact.
(Bold emphasis isn't in the actual MOTD)
So, basically, the logging is covered by the AUP of the service. You could not read the MOTD and claim ignorance, but it wouldn't excuse you from the net's AUP.
Of course, that doesn't explain why the FBI and the Secret Service (Hmmm . . . SS . . . how appropriate) are reacting like pricks about the requests. I guess the concept of "Probabl cause" no longer applies.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Granted, there's a lot of crazy, or ignorant zealots out there who hate the united states, and their allies.
But there are a lot more out there who are sick of being served puppet dictatorships, having their children, husbands, wives and friends killed, hooked on heroin, sexually abused(?!!), bombed to oblivion, and tortured.
For every afghan, iraqi and former soviet who starves to death or doesn't make it through the winter because of the collapse of their local ecconomy, further enforced by american influence, nevermind things like land mines, undetonated bombs, etc, another few are going to remain everlastingly resentful of america.
For every iraqi, afghan, guatemalan, haitian, phillipino, soviet, Chilean, Nicaraguan, columbian, spaniard, korean, palestinian, vietnamese or cuban killed, one or two people at least are going to live their entire lives with hatred for the united states. We are talking in tens of millions of dead, here, and therefor tens of tens of millions with everlasting, generational hatred for the united states and all those who support them.
'The easiest way to reduce the number of atrocities in the world, is to stop committing them.' Even if the united states stopped pissing the rest of the world off, the hatred against them may never go away. This is the great success of your military industrial congressional complex...due to it's former actions, it's now constantly going to be at war, continually increasing the intensity of 'the cycle of violence'.
There's good reasons for the world to be pissed off at the united states. I'm pissed off because of treaty orginisations influencing laws into my own country(Canada) which make me a terrorist, and tear all the rights away from anyone accused of terrorism. They, alongside with my democratically american supported candidates are responsible for this. Others may be pissed off about (American supported, if not outright run) Genocides effecting them, or further worsening ecconomic conditions due to the resource heavy american style capitalism, Which Australia is at least somewhat of a supporter of. Many many things are going wrong in the world, and not all of them are caused by americans, but many are, and these are the things that if stopped, may reduce the amount of people out there with a valid reason to hate the united states, and therefor you will eventually stop the massive support that those *without* reason to hate the united states are getting from the aforementioned class.
Decrease the amount of oil consumed in your country, and put emphasis on long term goals including efficiency instead of short term production.
Stop sending arms to isreal, turkey, columbia, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Stop your war on drugs, and at least try win the war on terrorism by not supporting terrorist states.
Acknowledge and Abide by International Law.
Tear down guantanamo bay, and give the land back to cuba.
Stop all trade embargo's on cuba.
or if you cannot do any of the above, try at least to not make me add another item to the above list in the future, specifically related to me or my family.
You see, generic hatred is not even a significant part of the story, when you consider the hatred that is not generic. [/rant] As for being a hippocrite, I'm getting some skills which will be applied later on in life. I, for one, feel it better to give yourself tools to help others, and thereby have at least some efficiency in doing so than to help others with no efficiency at all.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
If 'radical fundamentalism' was not compatible with western democracy why was the major current threat(mujahadeen/alqaeda) Completely funded by the United States prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union? If radical fundamentalism is so incompatible with western democracy why does the united states harbor so damn many religious christian cults and fanatics which are most definiately radical fundementalists?
By the way, there's a middle ground between isolationism and invading third world countries for oil. Just a little.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
So is anyone watching Mister G. W. Bush and making sure he is ruling the US truthfully?
You would think subversion, lieing and starting groundless wars based on false intelligence was some sort of offence?
Last I heard, there were some kind of commitee set up to do some sort of investigation, but I really haven't heard anything more.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Perhaps they could have put it another more friendly way
"In regards to your recent request for information:
Dear sir, Due to recent events it is now routine that persons requesting certain record types are given a short security interview."
instead of
"Get your fucking ass down here you terrorist traitor you should thank god we dont send you to concentration camp X-ray right now!"
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The conflict with Freedom is highlighted by the question arising from your comment, "Who decides what is 'Normal' and 'Obvious'"?
The catagorization of things into "Normal" or "Obvious" has traditionally been the responsibility of an empanelled Grand Jury. Who determine if the facts of an alleged criminal case require prosecution.
With all the recent (unConstitutional Back Door) Legislation that's gone on recently, the duty of a bunch of your peers is being delegated (unlawfully, btw) to a bunch of Law Enforcement Officers. (and also outsourced to a bunch of Unsworn companies without the same responsibilities and duties of sworn folk, but that's Another Problem.)
Now, in a Free Country, you don't need to justify your actions, or worry about being investigated by the Bundespolizei without committing a crime. That's what Freedom is! We shouldn't be playing such games as "Guess the Intent". Investigations happen AFTER Crimes Occur.
It's crazy to even think about replying "How about an interest in Civil Engineering, or Architecture, or Industrial Design, or maybe he's just a dork who likes looking at Infrastructure?"
I've identified the issue really to be a conflict b/t two groups.
a) Scared People, who believe The Government Can Save Them.
and
b) Confident People, who watch out for Them and Theirs.
No one said there weren't fatal risks associated with living. You may get into a fatal car crash, a fatal fall, or the proverbial "get hit by a bus".
Seems to me, that those saying "We need to DO SOMETHING" should go buy a gun, and be ready to take down a Terrorist, should they need to.
And I'm getting really tired of paying for your Securfare. (as in Welfare)...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
What I love the most is the hypocracy of the right wingers. It's ok to send people to a foreign country to die for our freedom, but we give all of our freedom here in the US up because a relatively small number of people have been killed by hostile action. Voluntarily giving up your liberties completely negates the sacrifices of our service men/women made in the name of liberty. If we're willing to sacrifice troops for freedom, shouldn't we also be willing to occasionally sacrifice civillians. I know I'd rather die than have every man woman and childs civil rights curtailed to protect me, and the last thing I'd want to come out of my death is fear mongering and totalitarian government.
I am a liberal, and I can't stand Bush, but I can't possibly fathom your stance, (poster or moderator,) which I feel actively encourages terrorism.
For Someone who can't stand bush, you already bought into his fear mongering and propaganda.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
This may be the single most short-sighted and ignorant post I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Al Qaeda does not blow shit up for "fun" or because it's "cool." They do it for many reasons, and these reasons are not difficult to comprehend. They attack in protest of America's support of Israel. They despise Israel for both occupying one of their holiest lands (Jerusalem) and for oppressing their brothers (the Palestinians.) Regardless of the political motivations involved in keeping the Palestinians as a stateless people, followers of al Qaeda do consider this a serious issue. Usama bin Laden's biggest stated issue is of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land. He's said as much time and again.
Of course, the solution is not to give in, because the crimes have already been committed. We have already defiled their holy land, and have already supported Israel, and this will be used as continued justification for their attacks far into the future. There are two main problems, though, in combating terrorists like al Qaeda. The first is that we have no realistic win-win method for dealing with them. If we kill them, they're martyrs, and they only inspire more to join their cause. If we capture them, they don't care if they die or not, so the humiliation of captivity will drive them (more or less) to suicidal acts, and like-minded individuals will see it as further justification for more violence. If we do nothing, they will still seek to destroy us. The second problem is that they are not bound by any "rules of war" we try to observe. Their specialty is asymmetrical warfare. They cannot compete with us on grounds of technology or training, but they absolutely surpass us in the sheer gutsiness and spectacle of their attacks. It is difficult to fight someone who does not share your rules of engagement or care what government you represent. This is a major, major problem that people often fail to understand. Al Qaeda does not simply stand against the USA and our military. They stand against Western civilization itself. They do not want to endure cultural imperialism, and may see violence as the only means to hold it off. This is not as simple as Bush's claim that they "hate freedom." They do not share the same concepts of rights and freedoms as we do, but that does not make them bad people. That they kill civilians to achieve their ends makes them bad people.
Al Qaeda is only the tip of the iceberg as terrorism goes. We will never be able to defeat them or those like them as long as there is a division between Western civilization and the Islamic world. No amount of war will ever unite us, unless we simply kill them all. And if we can't kill them all, maybe it will suffice to conquer and demoralize them. And even that won't work for long.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Holy shit - heh heh. Here's an interesting question that I haven't heard anyone put forward before.
You remember all the old "anti-echelon" noise people would put in their e-mail messages and joke about all the time?
I wonder whether that contributed to a 9-11 intelligence failure.
*Seriously* - the recent British arrests of the people with a tonne of fertilizer was apparently started all by a sigint intercept. aka Echelon.
No one will ever be able to know, but certainly it's possible that there was a Al-Qaida e-mail that was ignored due to a large number of other anti-echelon crap on the wires at the same time... an e-mail that if intercepted might have broken the whole thing up.
If me signing a book about explosives out of the library wastes resources, it's not me doing it. It's policy makers who allow/advocate/fund that type of investigation. For every smartass doing it to rock the boat, there are many people that have legitimate reasons for it, or maybe they're just curious. The FBI et al is wasting resources on them too.
The answer is not to shut up and cooperate. The answer is to change policy such that resources aren't being wasted anymore.
Signing books out of the library shouldn't be a form of expression. It should be private. If someone expressing themselves by doing things that should be completely private, and that can not possibly cause anyone to come to harm is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
Thanks to everyone that still has a sense of humor. Yes, I was kidding. Barely.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Everybody is bitching that the FBI didn't investigate why people wanted to know about crop dusters and 727s, but god forbid they DO investigate something odd.
It's an investigation. They showed up and asked him a couple of questions. Ooooh, what fascists. Next thing you know, they'll be doing something REALLY outrageous, like asking him THREE questions.
Just like the original poo-poo'd reports on torture in Iraq, this story is just the tip of the iceberg.
The postings here interested me in looking around for more info.
Unfortunately, it led to this horrendous rant!
In similar news . . . Photographer arrested for taking pictures of vice president's hotel
The Patriot act, Secret Courts and Homeland Security
It only gets worse. The new Patriot Act extension recomendations by Ashcroft includes:
The Patriot act, linked with the Homeland Security Act, has gutted the Freedom of Information Act.
In other News from the press: everything is classified now, and won't be released anytime soon. (See "Amendment To Executive Order No. 12958")
How much is this being used now?
How much abuse has been identified?