Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FBI's IT Expansion Plans

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the change-of-careers dept.

Lam1969 writes "The FBI is fast-tracking the hiring of IT professionals, reports Computerworld. Computer scientists, engineers, IT specialists and IT project managers are wanted to develop systems to support FBI analysts and agents working in the field. Large-scale database development projects are part of the FBI's IT expansion as well. From the article: "The FBI is also focusing on data warehousing as well as federated search technology, which allows a single search query to be deployed across a number of databases, regardless of whether those databases belong to the same protocol or platform.""

153 comments

  1. Real ID act by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is likely to implement the Real ID act which essentially amounts to a federally unfunded mandated ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account or participate in almost any way with any federal institution or service.

    The thing about this ID card is what kind of information will be encoded in it. At a very minimum, name, DOB, sex, ID number, image and address, but also additional information that will likely be included are biometrics with some folks even proposing genetic sequences. However, a major problem with these cards is the inclusion of machine readable technologies included in them that has the very real possibility of making ID theft easier. Additionally, the RealID act requires people to have a physical address. i.e. NO post office boxes unless you are a judge or government agent.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Real ID act by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a driver's license, minus the biometrics.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Real ID act by BWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like a driver's license, minus the biometrics.

      Hardly. This is so much more in that it will access a common database that is available everywhere in the nation to any law enforcement official that requests your information or ID and additionally makes that information available to private security companies and other companies that contract with the federal government. There are also a number of other problems associated with this legislation in that it was attached to an appropriations bill and has gone through very little oversight. Lots of folks actually have no idea of what is actually contained in this legislation or who was involved in its creation.

      At the very minimum, there is now the possibility of the federal government tracking the movement and ID of any US citizen at any time and preempts judicial involvement in the process.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:Real ID act by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What about the homeless?

      --
      Cleara
    4. Re:Real ID act by Threni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > At the very minimum, there is now the possibility of the federal government
      > tracking the movement and ID of any US citizen at any time and preempts judicial
      > involvement in the process.

      One way of avoiding all this online infringement would be for offline communication. Sort of like how Bin Laden has managed to evade detection for so long. I wonder how long it'll be before communicating offline will be considered suspicious. Already using cash is - in the UK it's been suggested that people carrying more than £1000 on them should be considered suspect. How long before a judge in a trial poses the question "If you weren't engaged in an illegal activity why didn't you just email/text/im/phone the suspect?".

      As always, of course, if you're not doing illegal then clearly you have nothing to worry about...

    5. Re:Real ID act by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      when no "official people" are homeless, the problem of homelessness is officially solved

    6. Re:Real ID act by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What about the homeless?

      This is a major problem with this legislation as they are likely to become non-persons.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    7. Re:Real ID act by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Read Home land security!

    8. Re:Real ID act by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      It's $10,000 in the states. I believe that law enforcement can confiscate it and not return it if you don't have proper documentation.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    9. Re:Real ID act by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What about the homeless?

      We'll just start calling them Invalids.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:Real ID act by c_forq · · Score: 1

      As I recall if your making a purchase of that amount or greater it is mandatory to do a background check, a kind of small audit, and check for counterfeits. I believe the only time the money is confiscated is to check for counterfeits, and immediately returned less any counterfeits. The rest is just to make sure that you can legally obtain that amount in cash (i.e. you recently came into a fair inheritance, you won a lottery, you have a job and it pays well or you've been able to save up), and to make sure you haven't been lying to the IRS.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    11. Re:Real ID act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about them? if they want to be citizens they can work and get a job. This country needs to return to its roots, John Smith had the right idea.

    12. Re:Real ID act by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Transactions of more than $10,000 must be reported (see the Bank Secrecy Act, I believe)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    13. Re:Real ID act by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Right now ANY Law Enforcement agency can check your license for warrants anywhere in the USA. They just radio back to base, the officer there logs in to the system of the State you are from and checks for warrants, or they make a phone call to that State. This is nothing new.

        I know for a FACT the FBI isn't going to share data with anyone else unless they get ordered to by Congress/President and then it will be only for a specific person(s) such as a suspected terrorist.

      I also know by the time this thing is built, it will be 3-5X overbudget and years late. The requirements will change 6 or 7 times and each change will cost money.

    14. Re:Real ID act by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

      But if they are not people, then they can be forced to work for free or be abused in other ways without any way to stop it. Under such a system, if you become homeless, you're essentially prohibited from becoming a citizen again.

    15. Re:Real ID act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now ANY Law Enforcement agency can check your license for warrants anywhere in the USA. They just radio back to base, the officer there logs in to the system of the State you are from and checks for warrants, or they make a phone call to that State. This is nothing new.

      You have no law enforcement experience, do you? This is simply such an absurd statement.

      I know for a FACT the FBI isn't going to share data with anyone else unless they get ordered to by Congress/President and then it will be only for a specific person(s) such as a suspected terrorist.

      Ummmmm, care to provide a source?

      I also know by the time this thing is built, it will be 3-5X overbudget and years late. The requirements will change 6 or 7 times and each change will cost money.

      This is one thing you are likely going to be correct on.

    16. Re:Real ID act by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How is that different from now? They often have no job, no home, no form of identification.

      Do you really think them not having a "RealID" is going to alter the landscape? Suddenly all homeless people will be put in jail, fed 3 squares a day, etc?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    17. Re:Real ID act by Threni · · Score: 1

      > It's $10,000 in the states. I believe that law enforcement can confiscate it and
      > not return it if you don't have proper documentation.

      Well, let's see if that figure is adjusted to keep up with inflation.

    18. Re:Real ID act by josephtd · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite, AC. Sources? I am working on a large US Gov project right now invlving mutliple federal law enforcement agencies that has real near term benefits and actually has some merit in the protect Americans department. Sadly the FBI has the typical stonewall jackass atitude that thwy always have had. Every agency we have worked with goes out of their way to comment on the piss poor track record of the FBI sharing key data

    19. Re:Real ID act by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      More likely they will just become "undocumented citizens" with rights at least equal to those of "undocumented workers" AKA illegal aliens, who already have right (some of which vary by locality) including drivers licenses, certain medical treatments, basic education, labor rights, and many more, even voting in some localities.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  2. I wonder what these are for? by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
    The FBI is also focusing on data warehousing as well as federated search technology

    Nothing to see here, please move along.

    Seriously though, I'm really kinda scared. But I'm more sad that it'll take a near miracle for some more oversight to be required in US intelligence agencies. The worst part is that by speaking out, you are probably being targeted.

    1. Re:I wonder what these are for? by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Seriously though, I'm really kinda scared. But I'm more sad that it'll take a near miracle for some more oversight to be required in US intelligence agencies. The worst part is that by speaking out, you are probably being targeted.

      Oh, come on now. I'm sure the Bush administration would never, ever ask a Federal agency to do something explicitly forbidden by law. Nor would they ever use secrets for political gain. To suggest otherwise would be blatantly partisan!

      Oh - and as far as the FBI fast-tracking new hires to deal with sensitive information? Two words: Robert Hanssen.

    2. Re:I wonder what these are for? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't get your hopes up. The FBI has had some "master" database system in the works for years and it's been a pile of shit. By all accounts it's been a massive waste of money and it hasn't shown any results.

      What this sounds like is that they finally realized that they need to build the system from the inside out and not rely on contractors etc. todo the job.

      However, I expect much like everything else, once all the people are hired the project plan presented with be full of unrealisic goals and timelines.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    3. Re:I wonder what these are for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the FBI database works as well as the Canadian gun registration system, you have nothing to fear.

    4. Re:I wonder what these are for? by IAAP · · Score: 1
      Oh - and as far as the FBI fast-tracking new hires to deal with sensitive information? Two words: Robert Hanssen.

      Cool! So, you're saying that there's some moonlighting oportunities.

    5. Re:I wonder what these are for? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      It's vought's last post. [sniff] We'll miss you, man.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:I wonder what these are for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      As a contractor in DoD/DoJ, I can tell you this:

      Anyone they hire will oversee (*cough* do nothing) the contractor who will have to get cooperation from a different company's contractor to be able to access a critical network/computer/keyboard which will take ~6 months per, at which point the contractor(s) will be able to implement the design of the warehouse which was written up by analysts with no comprehension of the actual complexities of which they are writing, and be told it has to be done in 3 months.

      I'm currently waiting on my pen and paper order. I think its at 8 months now. I'm not kidding. But if you think I'm going to office depot and spending my money on pens and paper that as soon as I bring it in will be raided by my coworkers / fellow contractors... you're sadly mistaken.

      For the record, the "department" I work in (for lack of a better word) is 95% contractors, working from over a dozen different companies, all fighting for the same contracts. Nothing ever gets done

    7. Re:I wonder what these are for? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Give him some credit. Bush didn't rename FBI to Federal Bush Investigation during his term.

    8. Re:I wonder what these are for? by 955301 · · Score: 1

      No, but the CIA headquarters is named after his dad. http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/19 99/portman_speech_042699.html

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    9. Re:I wonder what these are for? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty much there with you.

      There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

      And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

      But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

      Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

      Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

      Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:I wonder what these are for? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Alright, this is scary. But naming it "The Bush Center" is even more scary.

    11. Re:I wonder what these are for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI and the many state law enforcement agencies have had centralized databases for a long time. I recently worked in the control room for one such set of databases in a large state. When law enforcement agencies in our state ran queries, they automatically checked the state databases and the federal (NCIC - National Crime Information Center).

      There were files for: Wanted Persons (outstanding warrants, at least a class C misdemeanor), Stolen (Vehicles | Boats | Articles | Guns), Missing Persons, Unidentified Persons (think dead bodies and amnesiacs / those unable to speak intelligibly for themselves), some other stuff I can't remember at the moment, and criminal history information (the federal version of this is called the III - Interstate Identification Index iirc).

      These databases are old. Like, we're talking 1960s technology. They work, mostly, at least from what I saw. But it's unbelievably primitive compared with modern systems, and riddled with horrible inefficiencies. For instance, we had to validate records entered into the system by looking at the printouts by hand and going over every single record manually. I guess these people never heard of input validation formulas or something. It was insane. I could only handle a certain number of months of this before the sheer madness of it made me quit. It was stupefying knowing that what I spent 8 hours a day doing could be replaced by a very small shell script.

      And to bring a little of this into focus, let me use the example of stolen vehicle records. The system was set up when data storage was ridiculously expensive, so field sizes are limited and codes are used for things like vehicle make, model, color, etc. The make field is actually a bit longer than 4 characters for special cases when there's not a code for a trailer manufacturer or something. Anyway, I had to check through the vehicles entered, and if someone put "HONDA" as the make for a vehicle, I had to send them a nastygram to change it - it was supposed to be "HOND". So I and my coworkers would send a first notice, then a second, then a third, then if they still didn't change it our supervisor would call the law enforcement agency who entered the record and talk them into changing it. Your tax dollars at work! :)

      Seriously, don't underestimate the fact that should the FBI actually manage to come up with something better than the current incarnation of NCIC, they'll have to alter all the training and certification of the personnel for every single damn law enforcement agency who participates in the system. This is no small feat. It's hard enough getting them all able to use the current system, which is rather simple actually. Changing to something state-of-the-art would take a generation. By which time it's no longer state-of-the-art. They did actually majorly revise it for y2k (I think they probably had to because of 2-digit dates). It's still 1960s technology.

      I'm not too worried about Big Brother having seen the inner workings of just how antiquated and stultifyingly inefficient the system they use is.

      Granted, I know squat about anything that is FBI-internal only, of course. But if NCIC is any indication of the best they can come up with, there isn't much to worry about for a few decades yet. The sheer inertia of the system is a huge impediment to them implementing their dream system.

    12. Re:I wonder what these are for? by bob+frost · · Score: 1
      No doubt, the bushies are malevolent when it comes to respecting our rights as citizens, but they are also monumentally incompetent and clueless (ex: running the Ministry of Homeland Security 100% on the most insecure OS). Bottom line here is, I believe, that their reach far exceeds their grasp. Secondly, their philosophy of govennment is that it exists largely as a mechanism to award contracts to those who've paid up to them. This means that if there's a choice at some juncture between doing something competently and delivering the goods (aka, our $) to their pals, they almost always go for the latter.

      I remember once in my Intro to Info class launching into an EPIC-like disquisition of fear when Poindexter announced the Total Info Awareness (TIA) initiative. I said things like, "the feds will be reading all our email, looking over all out airline travel, snooping into our credit card receipts..." One of my very smart undergrads replied that he wasn't worried because those in govt are far from competent enough to make that work. I replied about "false positives" and the like, but he was correct. These were the people who got the PDB of 2001-08-04 headlined, "bin Laden preparing to strike the US" and did nothing.

      Conclusion: successful systematic malevolence takes far more competence than the bushies have as they do their "heck of a good job."

  3. In other words... by necro2607 · · Score: 3, Funny

    FBI is planning to recruit any/all Google staff. ;)

    1. Re:In other words... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      FBI is planning to recruit any/all Google staff. ;)

      Yeah, just what we need, a search engine for criminal activity.

      the fact that so much fraud happens on eBay on a daily basis is kinda reassuring that these people don't know thier arse from a hole in the ground

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:In other words... by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 1

      The working title at the moment is the Governmental Overall Omniscient General-purpose Lightning-fast Enquirer. (Anyone want to think of an E thats a real word?)

      --
      "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
    3. Re:In other words... by Psykus · · Score: 1

      Eric Schmidt: "Just tell me it's not the FBI...It's the FBI, isn't it? *throws chair* Fucking Robert Mueller is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill the FBI."

    4. Re:In other words... by crazylocks · · Score: 1

      Because of Google's "Do No Evil" policy, as a corporation they may not want to touch the project. Maybe snatching up their employee's is the FBI's best option. I've heard some rumors of one project along these lines and it does sound a lot like what Google does, accompanied by even more extensive data mining. I think it's refreshing that the FBI is finally starting to view the Web as a source of information. Hopefully they will concentrate on what is really important and have extensive filtering in place to weed out the trivial and erroneous. We certainly don't want them going off on innocent Slashdot users.

      --
      My momma gave birth to a winner, I gotta win.
    5. Re:In other words... by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I believe the project you're thinking of is: "PROMIS"

      Use Google to find some info.. ;)

    6. Re:In other words... by wik · · Score: 1

      A few that come to mind:

      Evaluation
      Extraction
      Examination
      Extermination

      Use your judgement.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
  4. Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by gasmonso · · Score: 1, Funny

    According to the FBI site:

    "As a prerequisite for FBI employment, you must be a U.S. citizen and consent to a complete background investigation, drug test, and polygraph."

    I didn't see anything about giving up your first born though so thats good.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Funny

      And people wonder why there are so many openings?

      I fail at least 2 of them even though i live in the US, I'm not a citizen and there is no way I will give up smoking good herbs. I only drink once in a blue moon, but smoke weed on a regular basis, as i have done for the past 30 years or so. Much less problems with weed. As long as you stick to alcohol, FBI don't mind you beeing stupendously drunk each night, but smoking a joint while watching TV is bad. Go figure. And I will while smoking my devil head bong!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    2. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      "As a prerequisite for FBI employment, you must be a U.S. citizen and consent to a complete background investigation, drug test, and polygraph."
      I didn't see anything about giving up your first born though so thats good.

      Yeah, but for some of us collecting and maintaining all the 'background data' on us would require our own dedicated FBI agent. ;)

      So this is a solution, is it?

      "there it goes again, that's the third polygraph machine which has gone up in smoke."
      after i invented the game of baseball, i hit the first homerun! yeah, that's the ticket!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      your post, has single handled thrown the legalization of marijuana effort back to the fifties.
      Well done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think we want you anyway... Mr. Anderson?

    5. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by oldCoder · · Score: 1

      Uh, what drugs do they want us to test?

      --

      I18N == Intergalacticization
    6. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1
      Yeah...read the fine print from the F86 form:
      I Authorize any investigator, special agent, or other duly accredited representative of the authorized Federal agency conducting my background investigation, to obtain any information relating to my activities from individuals, schools, residential management agents, employers, criminal justice agencies, credit bureaus, consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, retail business establishments, or other sources of information. This information may include, but is not limited to, my academic, residential, achievement, performance, attendance, disciplinary, employment history, criminal history record information, and financial and credit information. I authorize the Federal agency conducting my investigation to disclose the record of my background investigation to the requesting agency for the purpose of making a determination of suitability or eligibility for a security clearance.

      I Understand that, for financial or lending institutions, medical institutions, hospitals, health care professionals, and other sources of information, a separate specific release will be needed, and I may be contacted for such a release at a later date. Where a separate release is requested for information relating to mental health treatment or counseling, the release will contain a list of the specific questions, relevant to the job description, which the doctor or therapist will be asked.

      I Further Authorize any investigator, special agent, or other duly accredited representative of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, the Defense Investigative Service, and any other authorized Federal agency, to request criminal record information about me from criminal justice agencies for the purpose of determining my eligibility for access to classified information and/or for assignment to, or retention in a sensitive National Security position, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 9101. I understand that I may request a copy of such records as may be available to me under the law.

      I Authorize custodians of records and sources of information pertaining to me to release such information upon request of the investigator, special agent, or other duly accredited representative of any Federal agency authorized above regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary.

      I Understand that the information released by records custodians and sources of information is for official use by the Federal Government only for the purposes provided in this Standard Form 86, and that it may be redisclosed by the Government only as authorized by law.

      Copies of this authorization that show my signature are as valid as the original release signed by me. This authorization is valid for five (5) years from the date signed or upon the termination of my affiliation with the Federal Government, whichever is sooner. Read, sign and date the release on the next page if you answered "Yes" to question 21.
      Forget about privacy. If you read this, you'll find that by signing the form, you're allowing the federal government to know everything just about you that there is to know about you, including your entire medical history, employment history, educational history, your legal history, any court cases you've been invovled in, etc. etc., for the next 5 years.

      Nah, that's okay. Think I'll pass.

      --
      My blog
    7. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by computational+super · · Score: 1
      you'll find that by signing the form, you're allowing the federal government to know everything just about you that there is to know about you

      Actually, I think the gist of the article was that they're planning on gathering all that data anyway whether you sign the form or not. Might as well get paid while they collect it.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    8. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      As a subcontractor I only had to pass a background investigation (I am a US citizen already though so that was a given for me but it may or may not have been a prerequisite). However every 5 years the security clearance is reviewed and I'm told that is when the polygraph is instituted and they ask such general questions as "have you ever lied to anyone?". Of course no one could say no to that but I'm told it's nothing to worry about. I still have 1.5 years before my first 5 year review comes up.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    9. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by wik · · Score: 1

      You're in luck now: the FBI is thinking about lowering its standards for drug use. Figures.

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
    10. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by periol · · Score: 1

      Why, because he happened to honest about how he chooses to use marijuana? In the long run, marijuana will be legalized as the general public realizes that normal people lead normal lives while occasionally using marijuana. Besides, legalization is a pie in the sky for at least 5 more years, probably many, many more.

    11. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      They don't want you if you gave up smoking herbs 10 years ago if you did it more than a set number of times. I forget exactly what the number is, but the usual response to the question when they ask it is, "A day?"

      Since pretty much the entire population of the USA has smoked more herbs than that, they tend to have a lot of difficulty filling positions (But you can still be president even if you smoked crack every hour of the campaign.)

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    12. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Even if you do give up smoking herbs they won't forget you once did and you still won't qualify. In fact according to statistics over half the adult population would not qualify. Besides how would it look if the FBI allow "the enemy" in the "war on drugs" to start screwing with their computers.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory. . . .

      Except MOST of the anti-drug work is done by, oddly enough, the Drug Enforcement Agency. . . plus the Coast Guard, and the Customs Service. . .

      From what I've seen and read, the FBI is FAR more interested in Terrorism, plus the "classic" FBI-interest crimes of Kidnapping and Bank Robbery. . .

    14. Re:Gotta jump through a few hoops first... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the US, you guys have way too many acronyms for cops.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. they just realised by know1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    how well the information gathered by google for advertising would benefit the fbi so decided that the one stop search all method is quite usefull. integrate all their electronic databases into a google search server that's not online with the main net, and you have a powerfull search appliance for government
    or something

    1. Re:they just realised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Using advertising technology for law enforcement?

      I can see it now, the feds searching for child pornography, skipping the regular results and going straight for the right column: "Live preteens on webcam" "Girl in XXX Videos Porno" "Immature Movies, Discreetly"

      ... and then clicking on the links over and over until the google ad bill drives the child pornographers to commit suicide.

  6. Creepy by TheOneAndOnlyOzzy · · Score: 1, Interesting
    All I can say is... I am scared for the future generations on the world, for humanity, people just do not understand the power in their hands, or worse those who do understand the power but have no soul.

    The FBI is going to become too powerful real soon.

    1. Re:Creepy by TheOneAndOnlyOzzy · · Score: 1
      The two statements are not equal, but are seperate.

      My fear and hopes go much deeper then a government organization, or a government. My fear is of the 'group mentality' that humans seem to get that causes the biggest blunders and errors that could easily doom humanity.

      It is simply is the tone, the simple tone that everything is so light and easy. That people can crack jokes like 'Do you mean, they will higher Google?' That we all have a pretty good idea where things are heading, yet just ignore the bad.

      The FBI organizing it's IT is a simple movement, not hard. The concept of organizing it's search is naturally a good thing on so many levels.

      At this point you would ask, then what the HELL is your point. This sounds more like the ramblings of a mad man.

      Well, the answer is, is it is just ramblings, and I hope I am a mad man. I've just been putting pieces of the puzzle of the world together on my head and those two statements in the parent post where just my mind blurting out through my fingers.

      I still stand by my words, simply though, to explain the full meaning of them is so offtopic it will be a nice -999999.

    2. Re:Creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the saying goes:

      Never argue with an idiot - they will just drag down to their level and beat you with experience

      Sir, I am beaten.

      Montreal!hahahahah

    3. Re:Creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you doing wrong to fear a little data mining?

      Be a good person always, buy p0rn with cash, and be kind to mommy. You will be fine.

  7. It already exists... by theheff · · Score: 1, Insightful
    "The FBI is also focusing on data warehousing as well as federated search technology, which allows a single search query to be deployed across a number of databases, regardless of whether those databases belong to the same protocol or platform.

    You mean google?

    1. Re:It already exists... by kpharmer · · Score: 2, Informative

      > You mean google?

      no:
          * Google is (primarily) a search engine for unstructured data (documents, web pages, etc)
          * Data warehousing is a method of consolidating & distributing primarily structured data
          * Federated searching of databases is a method of spreading a search across multiple databases

      So, data warehousing would be used to consolidate explicit data from multiple sources like:
          - financial, credit, and purchasing info
          - legal history
          - travel info
          - demographics & psychographics
          - personal relationship data (friends, family members, friends of friends, etc)
          - organizational memberships
      Once together within a data warehouse you can easily ship that integrated set of data to data marts for further analysis:
          - trend analysis
          - searching (not freeform like google with tons of false positives, but contextual)
          - scoring - for degree of match between people & organizations and established profiles

      This is considerably more powerful than google for this application, though a google-like solution would also be useful for all the unstructured documents. The warehouse could even incorporate links to documents with the integrated personal info.

      Federated searching is a completely separate solution that overlaps warehousing: in which you use modern capabilities of db2 or oracle (but db2 especially) to create a virtual database that maps to possibly hundreds of databases behind it. One query will be sent to all that it applies to (the optimiser is smart enough to know which to send it to usually). The reason for federation is that it is supposedly easier to implement than warehousing (don't have to move data into another platform). The downsides though include:
          - performance will generally stink
          - aggregate operations like scoring or trending can't be done on large sets of data
          - it's fragile, and prone to break easily
      But perhaps as an initial deliverable it could allow you to provide narrowly scoped searches across a variety of databases very quickly.

      I'm not surprised that they're planning to do this. Ok, well a little surprised that they didn't do it at least four years ago - the data warehousing at least is a set of very mature methodologies & technologies. But they'll probably blow it - remember the $170m fiasco with SAIC over their "Virtual Case File" project?
      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/145 5234&tid=185&tid=103&tid=218

      Note that the Virtual Case File project also included a data warehouse. That wsa probably flushed though, so no code reuse I suspect.

    2. Re:It already exists... by glitch23 · · Score: 1, Informative

      No not necessarily. I know of a study started about 2 years ago that was meant to be the glue between multiple databases/platforms but so far the FBI hasn't finalized requirements and the prototype is barely surviving. Does Google work with databases hosted on mainframes? If not then it won't work for what the FBI would need it for.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  8. Sudden death by PacketScan · · Score: 0

    I could tell you what i'm working on. But then i'd have to kill you.

    1. Re:Sudden death by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      I could tell you what i'm working on. But then i'd have to kill you.

      Everything you need to know you can find out right here.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Sudden death by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you tell me it would be my job to kill you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Sudden death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, you just told me about your job. You are surely a dead man, but I can neither confirm or deny that I am about to kill you.

  9. Firefox by Crilen007 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hopefully they can actually get past the difficulties of Firefox with this new IT Expansion.

    1. Re:Firefox by Crilen007 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I forgot the link. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5845409.html

  10. Worry Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Seriously though, I'm really kinda scared. But I'm more sad that it'll take a near miracle for some more oversight to be required in US intelligence agencies. The worst part is that by speaking out, you are probably being targeted.

    Worry not about such things. I have fun going in and out of high security doors with the chip they secretly planted under my skin. You see, I always hear the alarms going off and know it's driving them nuts tracking me.

  11. Well, duh... by RedNovember · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a government agency, what did you expect? They just let you in without any screening whatsoever?

    The US government wants to make sure that, if you join their ranks, they know more about you than anybody else. IMO, a good thing.

    --
    "MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
    1. Re:Well, duh... by BigDork1001 · · Score: 1
      The US government wants to make sure that, if you join their ranks, they know more about you than anybody else.

      That's for sure. When I joined the military there were a lot of questions asked about my background and all. And then there was amount iformation I had (and soon have to do again) to remember or find out and give them for my security clearance. And they followed up with references and friends and family.

      They definitely do their research to make sure that they know everything than can about your background before they trust you.

      --
      "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    2. Re:Well, duh... by purple_cobra · · Score: 1

      They definitely do their research to make sure that they know everything than can about your background before they trust you.
      ...yet they give you a polygraph test? Those things have a less rigorously-tested scientific background than Intelligent Design!

    3. Re:Well, duh... by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > They just let you in without any screening whatsoever?

      There is a difference between
      a) no screening whatsoever
      b) The US government wants to make sure that, if you join their ranks, they know more about you than anybody else

      You are going to work for the government, not rule it. Did senators have to pass drug-test or the polygraph?

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    4. Re:Well, duh... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      It's all psychological. The polygraph is there to make you want to be as honest and accurate on your application as humanly possible. People will be far less likely to try to conceal or omit things if they know that the accuracy of their application will be asked about during a polygraph. They don't really care all that much about the actual results - it's there as a sort of panopticon for the hiring process.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Well, duh... by Mibblethwarpe · · Score: 1
      They should know enough about you to trust you with whatever it is they want you to do.

      But federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies all want the same thing. The ideal person. You must be young, healthy and pliant. You must be enthused about relocating to the Silicon Valley of the South, Washington DC.

      The FBI has also gained a terrible reputation with software development. The last effort (Visual CaseFile or whatever) was a several-hundered million dollar high-profile spectacular exploding pig. This kind of failure raises questions as to whether the FBI's culture is ready for technology-centric activities.

      If they are seeking to adopt a new culture and new competencies, they should at least be applauded for trying. The hiring spree they're on will probably get them where they want to be in about a decade or two, when people retire.

    6. Re:Well, duh... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      LOL..Fail a Lifestyle Polygraph and see if they (DOD) care. They will terminate your clearances so fast your head will spin. Even just a small "blip" that the examiner thinks is an indication of possible lack of full truthfullness and you'll understand what the Spanish Inquistition was like! Mind you, this test is NOT proven, is NOT admissible in court in ANY state, and is given by hacks with NO psychological training (i.e. machine operators). But it's been held up time and again as "sufficient" when those who failed it challenged it.

    7. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. If you fail the polygraph "test" you don't get the job. And whether you fail or not is purely up to the discretion of the quack operating the polygraph.

    8. Re:Well, duh... by spxero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did senators have to pass drug-test or the polygraph?

      I think blatently lying while keeping a straight face on national television pretty much covers the polygraph...

  12. With salary offers like that, not to worry . . . by mmell · · Score: 2, Funny
    I've gotta figure I'd have to take a pay cut to work for the F. I. B.

    Since they'll get what they pay for, the conclusion is obvious.

    "Hey, Boss . . . I've just finished encrypting all of our communications to make us immune to eavesdropping."

    "Yeah, John? How did you set it up?"

    "I used this really secure CSS encryption . . . I downl - er, wrote the source code myself!"

  13. Just keep the persistent cookies out of it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the FBI doesn't implement persistent cookies to people who visit any new web sites that might occur within the infrastructure, then I'm sure that no one here on Slashdot will have a problem with it! Let the FBI learn not to make the same horrendous, cookie mistakes as the NSA!! There's not enough tin/aluminum in the world to make foil for Slashdot users' hats otherwise.

    There's no bigger threat on Slashdot than a republican administration with persistent web server cookies. Well, okay, maybe Microsoft is a bigger threat.

  14. "Turner Diaries" by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

    system like this used to facilitate id cards and shit was exactly the reason the group bombed the FBI building in that book "Turner Diaries" which allegedly gave McVeigh the idea for the OKC bombing. Sometimes I wonder if the government doesn't get ideas for totalitarian projects from books and movies about totalitarian governments.

    1. Re:"Turner Diaries" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      While collecting data is very usfull to a totalatarian government, it doesn't make the gevernment totalatarian.

      This data collection an information can be a great boon for everyone.

      Instead of shouting into the wind and sounding like a nut, perhaps you should direct that energy to legislation that determines how the data can be used, when it can be accessed, and by whom?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:"Turner Diaries" by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder if the government doesn't get ideas for totalitarian projects from books and movies about totalitarian governments.

      I really wouldn't worry about it too much, the US government is going to have a hard enough time paying the electric bill in a few years when its currency goes to shit.

    3. Re:"Turner Diaries" by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      did i say i was going to blow shit up? no. i cant say shit like that, i already started the process of joining the army (combat medic... got pay back my student loans somehow). I just said, it sounded remarkably similar. as for legislation, i want NO data collection by anyone for anyreasons, regardless of the limitations on who can see it. that's total BS. it doesn't matter how they dress it up, they'll find a way/reason to misuse it. "they" always do.

  15. NSA's reject pool... by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > "The FBI is fast-tracking the hiring of IT professionals, reports Computerworld. Computer scientists, engineers, IT specialists and IT project managers are wanted to develop systems to support FBI analysts and agents working in the field.

    ...to receive an application for these and other exciting careers, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one! No Ph.D in mathematics? Can't hack it as a cryptanalyst? Can't manage to configure a web server without leaving cookies on until 2035? No problem! NSA's loss is our gain!

    1. Re:NSA's reject pool... by Jon_E · · Score: 1
      actually through the DHS I believe they're all tied together now with little oversight and enough problems to sink a battleship

      Now with the NSA's IIS .NET bungle - perhaps they got persistent cookies when they went to rather insecure Passport authentication scheme

  16. It's a cleared job... by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Its no worse than the prereqs a classified or secret level job; except for the polygraph test.

    -everphilski-

  17. What Stock Options Do They Offer? by mrs+clear+plastic · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why would someone want to go there? I have
    a friend who used to work for DHS. He said
    that his medical coverage was crummy.

    --
    Cleara
  18. I already have one. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    It's called a "Passport" and I use it in just about every circumstance that calls for more than one form of ID, since for ID purposes, it counts for three (Birth Cert+Social Security Card+Drivers License). It has name, dob, sex, id number, image, address (also required to be physical and verified, i.e. on your utility bill etc.), is machine readable and is certain to have biometrics included as well within the year. Sure, you aren't _required_ to have one, but, eh, I don't see how having one authoritative ID card is any more dangerous or scary than having dozens, hundreds or thousands of smaller bureaucracies issuing them, most of which already exchange information, including to their federal parent.

    So, really, who cares?

    1. Re:I already have one. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Much of that information is NOT exchange between agencies, hell in some cases it's illegal to to exchange it between bureaus!

      The problem with neding a real physical address is: How does it impact homeless people? will the not be able to do anything that requires ID?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I already have one. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called a "Passport" and I use it in just about every circumstance that calls for more than one form of ID, since for ID purposes, it counts for three (Birth Cert+Social Security Card+Drivers License).

      Well, it counts for birth cert, SS, and state ID, I wouldn't call it driver's license, since you aren't supposed to show it if you are actually pulled over while driving. But the issue here isn't that one ID already exists, but that it will be essentially required. It would be as if you were required to get a passport to get a DL or state ID, and the two are tied together so that any state's info is linked to the national database. Then it doesn't matter what you pull out and show them, they have access to information from the feds and all 50 states.

      But yes, I too show my passport often when I need to prove ID as well as citizenship. It is much easier to have that than worry about carying around my birth certificate and a state ID or other combination to that effect.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:I already have one. by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2, Informative


      Well, you not entirely wrong, just mostly.

      A passport does not "count for three" forms of ID. First, your birth certificate is not a form of ID, only proof of citizenship for the person named on the certificate. Your Social Security card is not a form of identification, only proof that the person named on the card has registered with the IRS and Social Security Administration. Your Passport is not a replacement for a driver's license, as you do not even need a driver's license to get a passport, and try whipping out your passport the next time you get pulled over for speeding. I also normally use my passport as a form of ID. I have never had a situation that called for two forms of ID, where they would accept the passport as more than one of those forms.

      You are correct that a passport has "name, dob, sex, id number, image, address (also required to be physical " however, that address does not have to be verified. If you check the official U.S. passport site. You will see that you are required to bring proof of citizenship(Birth Certificate or Naturalization Certificate except under extraordinary circumstances), a valid picture ID (Driver's license, Government ID, or Military ID) with a picture in which you are recognizable, two photos, and the fee. When I got my passport a couple years ago it wasn't even mentioned that my permanent address on the form was different from my P.O. Box which was listed on my driver's license. On my latest driver's license, they did change it to my home address, but, since I don't have any "official" mail (bills, etc.) sent to my home address, they were content with the pile of junk mail with my name and home address on it. Amusingly, when I bought my new car recently, I had to take my second choice in lenders, because the first refused to accept my application without some "official mail" proving my residence. Even the (now proper) address on both my passport and driver's license was not acceptable to them.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    4. Re:I already have one. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      ...not speaking to the caveats of certain pieces of information, just to the paranoia that a government that already possesses said information in numerous forms will somehow become all-powerful and far more evil by printing it on plastic. Meh.

  19. meh by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    i'm not so worried about the FBI. there is plenty of oversight, checks and balances, internal affairs, etc.

    i'd be more worried about non-official organizations like blackwater or executive outcomes or similar organizations. (I'm sure I haven't even heard of the really bad ones... too secret perhaps). if one has to worry about such things. myself, i do not. there's been far worse threats to freedom and civilization than the FBI hiring a bunch of database administrators.

    but these private organizations have far more power than the FBI could ever dream of, with far less oversight.

    google those companies sometime....

    1. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually know anything about the FBI's history, or are you just one of those "corporations are bad, mmm'kay?" types?

      Start with COINTELPRO and then tell us more about these "checks and balances". If you're not worried about domestic intelligence abuses then you simply don't have any clue what's going on.

    2. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One man's domestic intl. abuse is just a good day at the office for some of us. Laws are fluid an mean different things depending on who is reading them.

      Besides they don't prevent me from doing anything. They just establish guidlines for punishment when I do something they cover. Its not math here folks.

  20. Future News Headline by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny
    F.B.I. Alert Millions of US Citizens After Data Warehouse Security Breach!

    The FBI Liason released at a press conference this statement
    ...we are currently looking into the matter of how they got in. It would appear that the perpetrators used some WMF vulnerability in Windows to get into our systems. We have patched all of our systems and are now relatively confident that no future intrusions will occur

    In other news it was found that 300 low paid FBI employees are missing and several of the core servers that housed other sensitive data are also missing. A yellow post-it note was found at the scene which reads....
    we r teh N54, j00 w1!! p4Y u5 1 milljion j00 ass dollars for j00r d474 back.
    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Future News Headline by n54 · · Score: 1

      And suddenly, even though I'm completely unconnected to the theft, I become very rich because I originally chose a humorous surname to my nick on sourceforge, a "surnick" I've since used more than my real nick...

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  21. Total Information Awareness by Yonder+Way · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, you don't think Bush really turned his back on the TIA project so easily, do you?

  22. What's the chance of me getting hired by IAAP · · Score: 3, Funny

    if I walk into the interview and ask "Guns! When do we get guns!"

    1. Re:What's the chance of me getting hired by flaweddiamond · · Score: 1

      Pretty damn good. So long as you don't ask any 'hot' questions about civil rights, you're on firm ground.

  23. I know quite a bit about cookie management... by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

    Reckon I'd be a shoo-in :)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  24. 7 words by ebooborg · · Score: 0

    im more scared of GOOGLE than FBI

  25. You got off lucky! by IAAP · · Score: 1
    They put cameras in my eyes! So, everything I see, they see!

    Which really sucks for the porn operators, all the FBI has to do, is tap into me and Whammo! they're checking you out!

  26. Remember to add in back doors as you program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe a nice system to purge/normalize all your own data out of the system at regular intervals. After all, you will need to protect yourself from the system you are building to control the population.

  27. Funny thing by geekoid · · Score: 1

    In the military, they gave me top secret clearence accidently.
    They where supposed to be doing it for another person with my same name.
    Imagine my surprise when they showed up to ship me overseas.
    Unfortuantly I didn't ahe the training they needed, so they went through the procedure for the correct person, and gave me some very interesting work for 6 months.
    I could tell you, and I wouldn't have to kill you, but I would certianly go to jail!

    Well, it's been over 20 years, so no one probably cares about that information, since it is alread flying around out there.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Funny thing by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but I held security clearance in the UK that allowed me to view anything bellow 'minister's eyes only,' for a while (it lapsed after I hadn't been actively working on anything classified for a year) and that was relatively easy to obtain (it took two months to process and three references, but not much else). I learned some quite interesting things about various forms of stealthing - to this day I laugh when I hear the F117 described as a 'Stealth Fighter'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  28. FBI hiring marketing students by TrainingGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There seem to be quite a few examples of the FBI engaging marketing students on 'Projects' NPR was talking about it last week too http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/ a/2005/11/22/state/n081156S81.DTL&type=printable http://www.ur.msstate.edu/news/stories/2004/fbimar ketingplan.asp

    --
    Connecting People who want to Learn with People who love to Teach since 1998
  29. Export for the "Third World"? by IAAP · · Score: 1
    This is a major problem with this legislation as they are likely to become non-persons. - See Third World paragraph in the link submitted by parent.

    Just think, the Feds are giving you grief, have yourself "killed" on vacation to some Third world country, and Voila! you have no trace. There may be some biometric stuff to handle, but think of the illicit business oportunites!

  30. My bet by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Knowing the FBI, I am putting my money on a "scalabale implementation of the lastest in RDBMS technology called....Microsoft Access"

    1. Re:My bet by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      If you think they will use MS Access then you don't know the FBI as much as you thought. Not to mention they already use RDBMSes and Access isn't one of them.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  31. Hrm, heard this before by Azarael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, in otherwords, the fbi is starting another big unsuccessful project to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into?

  32. Go, kids. Code us all into prison. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    This is it, the big one. The data warehouse, the meta-file system to rule them all, one system to bind us.

    Are any of you desperate enough for money to take on the task of coding us all into a worldwide virtual prison?

    I hope, i really do, that the truly excellent coders and designers stay away from this nightmare project, and leave the details to the marginally incompetent. A badly designed prison is better than a perfect one.

    1. Re:Go, kids. Code us all into prison. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Sign me up!

    2. Re:Go, kids. Code us all into prison. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, becasue the NSA is full of nitwits..and by nitwits, I mean some of the smartest people in the world.

      It is not a prison. Gah people should rel;izes this.
      1984 was a prison, not becasues you were watched all the time, but becasue the goverment controlled all the technology for watching, and there were no protections in place for the people.

      What we have is everyone caan be being watched be anyone else, and the a government bound by laws.
      If there was some plot to make life a prison, they would erode rights, and quitly implement this technology.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Go, kids. Code us all into prison. by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1
      A badly designed prison is better than a perfect one.

      No. A badly designed prison is a waste of money that makes politicians desperate and willing to spend any amount of money to build the next version, and a populace eager to pay for it.

      I'd rather have some decent computer scientists come in and design something so powerful and dangerous that people will realize the implications and squash the project. If we get something that's 5% better than the last system, then our liberties will get whittled away so slowly that most people won't ever even notice.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    4. Re:Go, kids. Code us all into prison. by dangitman · · Score: 1
      What we have is everyone caan be being watched be anyone else, and the a government bound by laws.

      What? Do you really think the government will let you spy on them equally? Will the government let you spy on your politician or CEO neighbor?

      Also, where are you getting the idea that there will be transparecy, due process and rule of law? The Bush administration has just admitted that they are deliberately violating the Constitution, and they will continue to do so. They called the people who informed the public of this spying, traitors. What makes you think this corrupt government will let itself be held accountable for anything?

      Furthermore, what makes you think the NSA contains such smart people? if so, why are we getting so much faulty intelligence?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  33. No Secrets by jfarnold · · Score: 1

    Every penny the feds spend on maintaining secrecy is a penny wasted. There is not one thing that the feds do that they should be doing that they couldn't do in an above board way.

    Improving their IT infrastructure will never hit all the spots they want it to, and will only prove to be a further mask for their incompetence, similiar to the "training" excuse. "Well, we couldn't make the software work, so all that stuff we've been working on was a waste of time." How many ten year plans do they have to mess up before they look for fresh solutions and stop looking for a bigger hammer.
    They can't use the hammers they have properly, what makes anybody think this is going to get better?
    God help us all if these guys actually get their act together, their idea of efficiency is a horror show of secrets and silence punctuating circumventions of the law in the name of "good."

  34. Re:No Money No Identity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't pay taxes or fund election campaigns so screw them.

  35. Resistance is futile by rolypolyman · · Score: 2, Funny

    New Slashdot stories in November 2006:

    Who's abusing their H-1B privileges? Details, please.
    by CmdrTaco (NYC Div. 4)

    Slashdotters list their favorite fileshare IPs
    by Agent Zonk

  36. Lots of hoops by wayward · · Score: 1

    I've heard that the FBI wasn't the most pleasant employer - all the security requirements could be pretty cumbersome. For example, they apparently aren't even allowed to have cell phones or USB keys at work. So if IT people are getting less desperate, it makes sense that the FBI would have a harder time filling positions.

    1. Re:Lots of hoops by wintermute42 · · Score: 1

      No cell phones and no personally owned UBS thumbdrives or laptops is pretty much standard in any classified environment. It's not just the FBI. You can, however, use a government owned USB drive or laptop.

      I believe that the difficulty of joining the FBI has to do with their "lifestyle" background check. At least for FBI agents, you cannot ever have used illegal drugs. So one party in high school or college where you "inhaled", as President Clinton said, and you can't work for them. Many police forces ask a similar question. But in the FBI's case, as I understand it, this is followed up by a polygraph.

      Even if you've been a good boy or girl your entire life, a certain number of innocent people fail the polygraph just because they're nervious. Especially when it comes to the "lifestyle" questions.

    2. Re:Lots of hoops by Knara · · Score: 1
      I believe that the difficulty of joining the FBI has to do with their "lifestyle" background check. At least for FBI agents, you cannot ever have used illegal drugs.

      This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the FBI application clearly asks particular questions about drug use, specifically because they recognize that not every suitable applicant never, ever smoked pot. I believe there are automatic disqualifiers for admitting to "hard" drug use, but that relies on you admitting to it voluntarily. Granted, they do a pretty extensive background check if you make it to the "long form" application, but the closet, occasional cocaine user who didn't imbibe with their normal friends and family probably aren't gonna be found out unless they let on to a close associate.

    3. Re:Lots of hoops by Knara · · Score: 1

      I should clarify that those are requirements for Special Agents. The requirements for support staff seem to be more lax.

  37. Re: Universal ID DB Not Likely by mpapet · · Score: 1

    This is so much more in that it will access a common database
    Think about this for a minute. You are telling me that whatever agency gets to build the thing will share all with any agency that comes calling? Simple human nature tells me it won't happen. (much less the whole thing working great in my lifetime)

    that is available everywhere in the nation to any law enforcement official that requests your information
    See my comment above, plus, I don't see a federal agency sharing freely with a state or local agency. Sheriff Cletus in Badwater NV checks the criminal record on his favorite celebrity. That's what you are assuming. What about bad cops? We know they exist and the gov't does too.

    or ID and additionally makes that information available to private security companies and other companies that contract with the federal government.
    There are quite a number of commercial information agencies many of which have gov't contracts for your personal data. Let's not forget the latest revelation regarding GWB's authorizing domestic survielance without any oversight. It's water under the bridge. Done.

    A national ID card won't change a thing.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  38. WTF - can't they just upgrade PROMIS ? by justdrew · · Score: 1

    a government of lies is all we've got.

  39. Are you serious? by jaxon6 · · Score: 1

    These guys definitely have a severe need for good IT staff. Can you believe that they have a .exe as a script? To start viewing available positions, you go to
    https://jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/fbi.exe

    To state the obvious, this is bad because:
    It gives the world unnecessary information about the platform you are running on.
    (Debatable).exe's are not exactly a programming environment geared towards web technologies.

    I guess there are others I could come up with, but the basic idea is that of 'I can't believe their script is a .exe'.

    Of course, this could also be an AIX box running perl scripts that are given the extension .exe, just to throw the intarweb community off.

    --
    Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
    1. Re:Are you serious? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      there is nothing wrong with running a .exe.
      How many platforms is a large orginization giong to have? one of 4.
      Not exactly tough to figure out which platform. .Exe are far mor difficult to modify in case of an intrusion. You would actually need to compile something. Not immpossible, but not done too often any more. A script is easy to modify once you are in.

      There are other benefits to a compiled program as opposed to a script.
      IT can also act as a com,plete container. So all your information is compiled. the advantage is you can serve up data and not be connected to a database server, and deal with the pitfalls there. I know, it's for static data.

      They probably compile all there requirements into the program, then put it on someone elses server. Possible several other server, and they can be sure the the data, including layout, is server exactly the same to everyone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. old news by recharged95 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Data warehousing and federated searching have been issues in government over the last 10years. Hmm.. could it be since DBs are usually involved with government data/apps?

    This is not news, especially with the current environment since 2001. Now the challenge has always been non-technical for the FBI:

    hire really IT-savvy folks (i.e. with real experience, not DoD or college newbies) for gov't level salaries and ever-shrinking budgets--and considering the deployment environment is rather boring IMO. Of course, those engineers would be competing with [money hungry] companies like MicroStrategy that offer products they could buy vs. build.

    And throw in the culture/environment, it's a tough pill to swallow for a tech-person to be serious and enjoy the job.

    And really no one should be scared about these types of systems as long as their a policy/laws defined. I mean google already places a "surveillance" factor on the public domain and no one has a problem [yet].

  41. Pedantry. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    I did not say as passport was a replacement for a driver's license, only that it is a more authoritative ID, e.g., when opening a bank account or establishing right to work wherein you may provide a combination of DL plus SS card, birth cert, whatever, or JUST your passport. I've had several passports over the last twenty or so years, but dang, teach, thanks for the info.

    Prat.

  42. So they are going to waste another $170,000,000 by NiftyNick · · Score: 1

    I was just looking through September 2005 IEEE Spectrum. What do you know the FBI has already tried this before and failed. They gave up on this system in April this year. I love to see governments utilising tax payer dollars correctly.

  43. But Have You Smoked Weed 15 Times?? by Black-Man · · Score: 1

    WTF... 15 times?? I guess Bill Clinton smoked it 14 times - and that's the new standard?

  44. FBI and competence don't mix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have never owned a gun and still don't but one day I went to Big 5 Sporting goods and was looking at some pre-war (WW2) rifles that had matching serial numbers. I am a bit of a collector so I was interested in buying them at $200
    dollars for both. One I would give to my uncle and the other put above my mantle. Big 5 had to do a back ground check on me through the FBI. Well, I discovered I was a felon! Funny I did not remember ever going to prison or being brought in front of a judge for anything more then a traffic fine. I called the FBI and they said I match the age, name and description in their computer and to prove otherwise I had to get finger prints. I went to the King county and they took my finger prints but they did not cross their T's and dot their I's correctly so, it got rejected. I suppose someday I will get it all straiten out :(
    However, I would think that the proof of my criminality would on the FBI.

  45. Quick Sherman! To the Wayward Machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Knowing the FBI, I am putting my money on a "scalabale implementation of the lastest in RDBMS technology called....Microsoft Access" "

    Mr Peabody. When you and Sherman get back from the Windows 95 era. You might want to look at the latest from Microsoft.

  46. Translated and simplified... by rindeee · · Score: 1

    The FBI is adopting SOA. Their previous technilogical overhaul (the initiative name escapes me at the moment) was a monumental disaster. At least this round can't possibly be any worse than the last.

    1. Re:Translated and simplified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

    2. Re:Translated and simplified... by Salgak1 · · Score: 1
      You're thinking of the Virtual Casefile System. . .

      And YOU try building a big code-and-hardware system where the basic spec changes fairly massively every year or so. . .you have something that's STARTING to work. . .and the new CIO wants it to do something entirely different.

      And when it fails due to scope creep and requirements drift. . .blame the contractors who tried to do their best to meet the changing needs, but found the needs changed faster than they could write and test good code. . . .

      At least now, they're trying to get some IT guys with a clue inside the walls, instead of just as contractors. . .

  47. Wow... by glitch23 · · Score: 0

    an apostrophe was actually used correctly with an acronym. "Large-scale database development projects are part of the FBI's IT expansion as well."

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  48. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    I told you. You don't get your gun until you tell me your name.

  49. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until justice is done to the murderer of Vicki Weaver and the engineers of the Waco massacre, the FBI has blood on their hands. Avoid them.

  50. Re:I wouldn't be too worried by symbolic · · Score: 1


    The overriding presumption is that they will use their tools effectively - which means, when it will provide them with information that is both necessary AND justified. I wonder sometimes if the massive technology push since 9/11 is nothing more than paper tiger, because what ultimately matters, is not only how the information is used, but how effectively it's used.

    Information is meaningless unless the infrastructure behind it is sound. If the organization using it is just as unfocused as the pre-9/11 government, it really won't matter what they do, insofar as any actual protection from terrorist threats is concerned.

  51. NORA by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

    I have no first hand knowledge, but I suspect that it probably doesn't have anything to do with a Universal ID. Its a response to the demand that the FBI share information with other LEO 's (Law Enforcement Organizations) and get better at utilizing it's own information.

    What the FBI probably wants is Non Obvious Relationship Analysis (NORA) on a set of databases connected by a grid. Other LEO's are trying to build one and the FBI doesn't want to be left out. In addition, after the fiasco's of the past few years, the FBI needs to integrate the information in the various databases they have access to. NORA enables them to do that, it "chains together" information in various databases to detected relationships that are not explicity asked for.

    If you think thats important only for privacy, terrorists or criminals, think again. Take the current bugaboo, bird flu virus. If a "patient zero" carry the virus managed to enter the United States, he, she or it could easily get lost and start a small pandemic before the LEO's could track them down. The information would all be there in the databases, but lack of integration would prevent it from being accessed.

    There is other things as well. NORA technology could identify white collar crime before it got to Enron or Worldcom porportions. As 9/11 pointed out, the job of the FBI has gotten well beyond it's current capabilities. Not their fault, but the problem certainly has to be addressed

    The problem with implementing distributed NORA is that most of that information is under a security regimine that doesn't allow sharing, even with other LEO's or other areas within the FBI itself. Entity anonymization can help to some extent, but it is not yet advanced enough to suit the project, some research will be needed (and one hell of a lot of political negotiation)

    The construction of search queries across federated and autonomus databases is also a very difficult one to tackle, and present technology is not really up to it. Again, it is not simply a technical challenge (though even a shared ontology THAT WORKS is difficult) but also a political one.

    There is only a few architects on the planet that could pull it off, and they are either

    1) currently incredibly busy doing the same thing for DHS, casinos, credit check companies, etc. at even more incredible salaries.

    2) citizens of a foreign country.

    To add to the fun, if you watch CSPAN, the congressional committees that handle oversight have developed this rather annoying habit of demanding that anyone who fails at projects like this be held accountable. Seriously accountable, as in prosecution.
    Dunno if the department heads actually took that demand seriously, though.

    In short, it is highly unlikely that this one is an attempt to set up "Big Brother" invasions of privacy. It's far more likely the FBI is just trying to correct the shortcomings that a highly embarassing set of nationaly televised hearings have brought out into the open.

    1. Re:NORA by kpharmer · · Score: 0

      Randygj2,

      I don't think that it's necessarily that difficult to build this, just need the right people, and they are as you mentioned, difficult to find.

      But it'll be the politics that will kill the project. Horrific waterfall processes requiring Big Upfront Designs - that are notorious death-traps for data warehousing, reporting, searching, and any implementation of fragile technology like federated databases.

      SAIC tried to pin the blame for the Virtual CaseFile project on the FBI's changing requirements. But changing requirements always happen, the real culprit was antiquated methodologies used by both the FBI and SAIC.

    2. Re:NORA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good take on this. As they say "never underestimate incompetence" and I would add "especially in government." If you just look at the hiring qualifications one should be alarmed. There is no requirement for actually having experience in anything! Just a calculus background. I have been building large (1-10TB systems for years and have over 10 years experience, I have a military background, and a college degree but I do NOT meet their requirements. I know who the best people are in this area, systems integration and data warehousing specialist, and they are not Math specialist. I worked on one project where they hired a PhD in Physics and it was a disaster. He was let go and then we were able to implement it.

      I predict another FBI boondoggle. But if the Bush administrations past behavior is an indicator of future behavior, the will continue to call all failures a bright shining success!

    3. Re:NORA by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      kpharmer: You are right about the politics killing the process, but not for the reasons you are talking about

      Those databases the FBI is federating are the basis for a lot of little empires in the various agencies. They are going to be very jealously protected. I am not certain thats not a good idea, since they are also the basis of a number of successful prosecutions. But those concerns still have to be addressed if the project is going to happen.

      Even so, there are no horrific waterfall processes involved, not if they do it right. As I said, its a grid, and the only thing that even touches the remote databases is a small grid agent, managed by the database owner, not the central federator.

      The real trick to making this project work is convincing the database owners that the anonymizer in the agent is anonymous enough, since anything that allows a successful query also exposes a LOT of information. That means that there has to be a lot of manual processes intertwined, since LEO's sometimes feel better about exposing things to other LEO's only "off the record". If you don't do that, you will find that the people you need to work with to implement this in the individual databases are "not available".

      To achieve that, you need someone with the street cred of a top agent (one of the former heads of the CIA might do the trick), the skills of a master politician, and the creativeness of an Edison, because they isn't anything available that can do this, it is going to require a whole new approach.

      Anonymous Coward: believe it or not, they were right in saying your background wasn't right. (And I am amazed they knew enough to understand that.) Let me explain.

      This isn't your ordinary database project. No Tera byte databases involved, heck a lot of the data might be in the form of email, spreadsheets, or Word/OpenOffice documents.

      The remote databases are connected by a grid (i.e. advanced stateful web services), but understanding Web Services and the grid just gets you in the door, it doesn't help you attain the goal.

      You need an distributed agent to ask the right sort of queries at the remote databases. There is, believe it or not, a horrendous amount of math understanding involved in doing that, though using the term calculus is sorta misleading. This isn't your high school calculus, in this case, calculus is used in the sense of "a set of rules for calculating things"

      What sort of calculus?

      Back a few a few decades ago, a couple of mathematicians (Krohn/Rhodes) determined that you could decompose mathematical entities if they had the right properties. This lead to SQL, finite state machines, and the more advanced programing languages. They used some pretty simplistic (and incorrect) math for that.

      Things has advanced quite a bit in math over the decades, especially our understanding of a branch of math known as category theory. To create a successful grid based query mechanism will require designing a query language based on category theory, rather than the set theory stuff that our present database languages are based on. There are only a few labs on the planet (and about 15 companies plus occasional hobbyists like myself) that know enough to do that A lot of them are at least as flaky as a croissant, too. The ones that aren't are either too theoretical or based in a foreign country.

      Of course, you also need the ordinary stuff of NORA, which involves Knowledge representation issues in the area of Logic, Language and Mathematics, again a rather esoteric specialty. If you haven't at least heard of GATE, for example, you probably aren't ready to tackle this.

      Thats whats needed for an ordinary NORA style distributed query Now you get to add in the information security component, which means you get to add in all the stuff about about advanced information theory and multi level security, two more area of math that are not commonly known.

      If you want to read more about this, start with the Category theory area of Wikipedia (which,

  52. Do they hire foreigners ? by DemonSlayer · · Score: 1

    I can manage all their exe-files, X-files and XXXXX-rated files :)