Data Mining Amazon.com Wish Lists

Dr. Webster writes "In his article "Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists," Tom Owad of Applefritter outlines a way in which one could build detailed personal profiles of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in a matter of hours. Reading habits, personal tastes and even political party affiliation could be inferred from the results, and through the use of Yahoo! People and Google Maps, one could even map out geographically where people with certain interests or affiliations live, down to their address. Most surprisingly, the process of doing this is completely legal, and doesn't even violate Amazon's Conditions of Use."

Comments

Mining voluntary information on a public website?

[Saven Marek]

Mining voluntary information on a public website? Come back and tell us when you can mine the info as easily from say real amazon sales records of what I actually did buy not what I might want the public to think I am buying.

3 Dead Trolls in a Baggie

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory music whenever data mining is mentioned... Privacy Song...

Lie,Lie,lie... Lie about your age, your gender and your race. ... Throw a monkey wrench right up their database.

Re:3 Dead Trolls in a Baggie

[pinano]

Why is parent OT? I think it's very useful advice to know that you don't really have to provide your real name, gender, race, religion, etc... in most online transactions. The song needs a little work, though...

Re:3 Dead Trolls in a Baggie

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the song needs no work.
It fits the tune of "Der Fuhrer's Face" from the wartime Disney short film of the same name. Made me laugh instantly.
If that wasn't the poster's intent, he should claim it anyway.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[markwalling]

but not on ebay. just look at any bidder's history

This is not a story. This is not news that matters

[Doomedsnowball]

Breaking news! People conducting surveys report other people freely giving away personal information! That could be an article from http://www.theonion.com/. Shocking. Call it a "wishlist" not a "voluntary survey about what you like" and it's an amazing invasion of privacy.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Saven Marek]

Yes you can if they set it to publicly visible.

If not then you can't. Up there by choice.

Leaky Collections.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Tom Owad of Applefritter outlines a way in which one could build detailed personal profiles of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens in a matter of hours. Reading habits, personal tastes and even political party affiliation could be inferred from the results, and through the use of Yahoo! People and Google Maps, one could even map out geographically where people with certain interests or affiliations live, down to their address. "

So in other words we'd all be safer being hermits.

I see

[Anonymous Coward]

So THAT'S why I'm on the no-fly list

Re:I see

[psykocrime]

So THAT'S why I'm on the no-fly list

No, that's because you ordered those Paladin Press, Delta Press, and IMS catalogs.

Re:I see

[piltdownman84]

Joking aside i think I have been put on some watch-list. Last month I caught four flights and on each one I was flagged for a 'random search'. From watching the line on my fourth time they seem to do a random search on about every twentieth person so the chances that I was randomly searched four time is about one in sixteen thousand. My luggage was checked each time too and a little letter from the TSA telling me that "Your luggage has been searched for your safety as well as that of others ...". Does anyone know how to find out if I have been somehow put on a list to be searched every-time i try to get on a plane? I mean other than fly again and see if it happens.

The Google Maps paranoia is old

[dannytaggart]

Thanks to Google Maps (and many similar services) a street address is all we need to get a satellite image of a person's home.

Yeah, we've heard it all before. How does this pertain to what you can do with the Amazon wish lists? It doesn't.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[insertwackynamehere]

i was gonna say the same thing, I'm really for people's rights online (i'm like insane about freedom of speech and stuff if you ask my friends), but I honestly dont see what people expect. If you put information online for the public, this is what happens, no conspiracy, no illegal or suspicious activity. This information is voluntarily released for up for grabs, if people want to use it for that I dont see a problem.

Uh-Oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just joking with my g/f about this the other day... how just my casual interests from my amazon wishlist look SO DAMN BAD.

drugs, money laundering, politics, computer security, lockpicking, communications

oh yeah, I bet they love me :/

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people just don't get it - mining for this info is not in the interest of any private citizen (what the hell do I care what you would like to buy, or what you wish for?!?), but it may justify one's $$$ salary, under government's pay, for the hours spent on "research". Then your wishlist may send you right to Guantanamo, and then try to defend your innocence (or existence) from under that jurisdiction ... Oh, who was that again? Never heard of him!

Re:This is not a story. This is not news that matt

[Reverend Darkness]

Actually, if you had read the article, you would have seen that Mr. Owad does not reference "invasion of privacy" at all. What he does do is help people understand how information they share online can be used to create a general profile, and even to link them to others. The point of the article is to educate people. But, like others, you were probably just going on the snippet... I mean, why read the whole story when you can see the headlines via RSS, right?

Point of the article

[terradyn]

Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of: "What use is it to mine wishlists?" You're missing the point of the article. His main idea is from this section of the article:

This is what's possible with publicly available information, but imagine if one had access to Amazon's entire database - which still contains every sale dating back to 1999 by the way. Under Section 251 of the Patriot Act, the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause, for an "authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Amazon is forbidden to disclose that they have turned over any records, so that you would never know that the government is keeping records of your book purchases. And obviously it is quite simple to crossreference this info with data available in other databases. On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did.

Re:Point of the article

[Saven Marek]

And obviously it is quite simple to crossreference this info with data available in other databases. On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did.

And this speculation from yet another Mac Rumour Site should be taken with how many grains of salt too?

This thread should prove interesting

Re:Point of the article

[GoofyBoy]

I still don't get it.

The FBI can find out where I live without Amazon or Google.

If they want to know what I want as a present, well, I want everyone to know.

If I wanted "Making WMD for Dummies" I would just buy it, not ask for it as a gift.

Re:Point of the article

[Perseid]

The patriot act is scary, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the article. If the feds decide to start grabbing information about what people read and buy from Amazon, they would just say to Amazon, "Give me the records." They wouldn't bother to mine the wishlists.

Besides, the wishlists are publically available by choice of the poster. Buying choices and library records are not.

Re:Point of the article

[Tassach]

the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause

This needs to be repeated loudly and often.

Re:Point of the article

[zCyl]

I still don't get it.

The FBI can find out where I live without Amazon or Google.

Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant." The point being, it becomes quite dangerous if the government is allowed to keep tabs on what you read, because the political freedom which comes from freedom of speech requires that ideas can be exchanged and learned without fear of consequences.

Re:Point of the article

[houghi]

the FBI can require Amazon to turn over its records, without probable cause

HTH, HAND

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

Naturally, this has immediately turned into a discussion on government surveillance... so...

Let's see if I understand this...

A bunch of people in America, all from a peace loving and gentle religious background, flew airplanes into skyscrapers, attempting to kill tens of thousands of people and succeeding in murdering more than the Japanese killed in Pearl Harbor. This was 8 years after another group, from the same peace loving and gentle religious background, used a large bomb in an attempt to achieve the same result. Since then, more of these folks have made (loving and gentle) efforts to kill more of us, and some of those efforts were thwarted by wiretaps and data mining. They succeeded in Spain and England and a few other spots.

These gentle people carry out the desires of 10s of millions of their co-religionists, and are funded by huge amounts of money from these supporters and rogue states. In the near future, these gentlemen are going to have portable nuclear weapons, and the clear intent of setting them off in American cities.... Slashdotters should realize that this will, at the minimum, mess up the internet for a while and perhaps destroy some of their favorite porn sites. It will also kill a bunch of their fellow Slashdotters, who made the poor choice of living in the target areas. It will certainly lead to extreme reductions in personal privacy, which will be demanded by most surviving Americans. Oh, and it will destroy the economy, leaving most Slashdot readers with no toy budget (except for those who are drafted).

BUT... most Slashdot readers are more scared of what the FBI might know about them... an organization that doesn't have the time to even keep track of more than a few of the literally tens of thousands of trained terrorists who wish to do worse than 9-11, was shown to be decades behind in computer technology, and hasn't the slightest interest in your reading habits unless you plan to blow someone up.

AND... few of the readers and commenters are aware of the history of civil liberties during times of war in America, the fact that they were seriously limited but with few abuses, and that the end of the war led to an increase of civil liberties beyond the pre-war conditions.

SO Slashdotters will go to bed at night, hiding under their blankets, in fear that the G-men monsters will soon slip from their closets and pop out from under their beds.

SIGH!

When there is a gigantic gorilla in the room, worrying obsessively about the faint possibility that an ant might get in is beyond reason!

Now, I will pause for the next 500 comments obsessing over the abuses this capability *might* be used for against, I guess, innocent Slashdot readers, and of course little old ladies using libraries, and attacking me for being blind to such an enormous threat to my privacy... To which I ask.... so frigging what if the FBI knows what I read? They investigated me for security violations when I was 6 years old (true story), and that didn't hurt at all.

Errr... isn't this sort of silly?

Meanwhile, considering what spammers might do with this information would be more interesting, since the misuse might actually actually bother some of us.

Re:Point of the article

[crazyphilman]

I believe that what most of us find irritating about the Patriot Act is that many of the powers Bush asked for after 9/11 were not used to pursue terrorists, but rather political groups that the president disliked. For example, the airport no-fly list was mostly not used to prevent terrorists from flying (they all had false ID anyway) but rather, to prevent hippies and other malcontents from attending protests.

Now, I believe you and I both completely agree that asshole fundamentalists with bombs should be repeatedly forced to endure body cavity searches performed by a very large man hopped up on speed, with his choice of implements (no lube).

HOWEVER, I also believe that Bush should be prevented from abusing the powers he has received. I believe the FBI should be absolutely barred from using these powers against American citizens unless they can document, to a judge's satisfaction, that the person is in fact up to no good and has actually committed a crime (or is about to).

Now, what's wrong with that? Most of the funamentalists with bombs aren't in fact Americans. So my little restriction of government power won't affect your desire to not be blown up in the slightest.

I await your reply...

Re:Point of the article

[TapeCutter]

"When there is a gigantic gorilla in the room, worrying obsessively about the faint possibility that an ant might get in is beyond reason!

It's especialy unconfortable when the gorilla wears red white and blue and is the one doing the worrying. OTOH: Nobody wants ants to eat their foundations, if someone gives their info freely, don't they also forefiet their right to control what it is used for?

Re:Point of the article

[Breakfast Pants]

Did you read the comment? Wish lists are public. Amazon has access to all of your activity. So your in both scenarios in your comment, "If I wanted "Making WMD for Dummies" I would just buy it, not ask for it as a gift," the FBI can find out what you did without a warrant.

Re:Point of the article

[harmonica]

Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."

But "sleepers" usually try everything not to stick out. Including not going to meetings of radicals or reading radical books (or at least buying them on the Internet). Wouldn't this just be helpful with stupid terrorists?

Just like that whole e-mail interception thing. Do terrorists really communicate using unencrypted e-mail?

Re:Point of the article

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The ACM (Assn of Computing Machinery) newsletter also had a posting suggesting we (ACM members) should apply. Not quite "Mac Rumour Site", dude.

Re:Point of the article

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Obviously no terrorist is going to but "How to build WMD" on a public wishlist. However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism? This isn't about terroism, it is about population control. That is why it is a civil rights concern.

Re:Point of the article

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"if someone gives their info freely", then perhaps a corporation should be required to have written permission to keep that information for more than 10 days? the written permission could have a federaly mandated expiration, so that a verified signature would be required every 30 days to keep continue holding the data? lets limit the ability of amazon to sell information to microsoft or nike or whoever, too...

Just because our system isn't designed to protect privacy doesn't mean we shouldn't be considering these legal options. Remember, if with 30% of the population tracked, an actuary can fill in the gaps...making it easy for them to track ya'll gives them information about all of us.

Re:Point of the article

[GoofyBoy]

>However, what about people who whose name somehow ends up correlated to Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or vegetarianism?

But I put it on a public list. I made it public on purpose. This is not a private information, I made it public for all to use. Good or bad. If I didn't want the public (strangers, FBI, my local newspaper) to know, I shouldn't have made it public.

I made it public, so I don't get what people are complaining about.

Re:Point of the article

[GoofyBoy]

>Yeah, but the FBI isn't supposed to know that you bought a book called "Why Bush is a Tyrant."

If you don't want the FBI to know what you want or bought, don't put it on a public wish-list.

Am I missing something here?

Suppose you posted something about yourself on USENET. Do you have a reasonable expectation that this information would be impossible, through currently legal means, for the FBI to find out about it?

Re:Point of the article

[Anonymous Coward]

> AND... few of the readers and commenters are aware of the history of civil liberties during times of war in America, the fact that they were seriously limited but with few abuses, and that the end of the war led to an increase of civil liberties beyond the pre-war conditions.

Problem here is that you think this war's gonna end. At its current intensity, it ain't. There's billions of taxpayer dollars left to be looted, and gobs of jobs both cushy (nice offices and big-titted secretaries for your golfing buddies) and fun (your golfing buddies' retarded stepchildren can be put in charge of fingernail removal) to be handed out. The longer the war goes on, the more fun there is to be had.

WW1 ended when both sides got tired and called it a draw.

WW2 ended when every major industrial center in Germany and Japan had been turned into ash, and their populations utterly subjugated and demoralized. (Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay may have been bastards, but they were our bastards :)

The current war isn't going to end because the bad guys have been prohibited by their own "holy" books from "calling it a draw" for 800 years. And because we're not yet willing to do what is necessary to break their morale through strategic bombing of their population centers.

Maybe that changes when a nuke goes off in an American city, and our leaders shrug, raise a last toast to the gravy train, end the war with the push of a button, and restore our freedoms the following Tuesday.

At the rate we're going, we've got a choice: Live in 1984, or trade a city for a 25% chance that our leaders decide to end the war on our behalf.

Of course, given that we've already lost a major city, from which the only observable policy decisions were a "plan" to dole out another $200B of favors, and some trial balloons for the repeal of Posse Comitatus, maybe even a 25% chance is optimistic.

*shrug*. I'm not proud. Gimme a spiffy uniform and a Party handbook, and I'll crack the skull of whoever my leaders tell me to. (I work at a small company, and probably a third of the people there will wind up in the camps for being excessively liberal. I'll miss 'em, they were productive workers. But at least I'll be able to earn some stripes on my spiffy uniform when I turn 'em in.)

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

I await your evidence that any of what you describe is true. It sounds like pure paranoia to me!

Which hippies were *prevented* from flying (which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act, or for that matter, privacy invasions other than right at entry to the airport)?

I have yet to read of even one abuse of the Patriot Act. I have yet to read of any action taken by the Federal Government against innocents based on any of the expanded war powers, other than random searches (which included catching a Medal of Honor winner here, and the classic "grandmother in a wheelchair" scenario) - neither of which are abuses, but rather annoyances.

I do agree that using the Patriot Act for non-terrorist related purposes is inappropriate (except in cases where it is an obvious necessary extension of existing powers - such as extending *warranted* wiretaps to include roving ones).

By the way, I am on the TSA list, and am a Bush supporter. I hardly think that got me on the list, but the fact that I have an extremely common name was the cause.

Oh, and please tell me what "no fly" list you are talking about, or any Bush administration action "to prevent hippies [et al] from attending protests."

------------------

On another subject... Troll moderation?

Be serious. I tried to write a funny post, not a troll. In the past, I have written unfunny posts with the same meaning, and never gotten a troll reading. FUrthermore, I would defy the moderators to prove that my "troll" post is incorrect.

Sheesh.

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

So you really think that our government, with *its current set of laws and activities* is more of a threat to your privacy than the terrorists? That the government is the gorilla and the terrorists are the ants?

That's exactly the problem I was referring to.

Just wait. When the terrorists do something *really* bad - something that a large number of Americans can see happening to themselves if the government doesn't stop it.

Then you'll perhaps see the ant grow to the size of, perhaps, a watchdog, and perhaps another gorilla. When a terrorist kills you with a nuke, you have no rights. When a terrorist kills you r kid by attacking her school, your very strong privacy rights are not going to make you feel better. Do you doubt that there are tens of thousands of trained Islamofascist terrorists, and tens of millions who support them?

If so, you need to read more and better.

Meanwhile, excessive paranoia about privacy simply makes that time likely to happen much sooner and to be much worse.

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

You are right that the war may not end. In that case, our current lifestyle and freedoms are, well, your choice: suicidal or going to change. However, history shows that the West, if pushed far enough, will defeat any threat, no matter what level of sacrifice and brutality is needed. In World War II, we firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and intentionally targetted civilian populations (as did our enemy). If our enemy in this war kills hundreds of thousands or millions of our citizens, what do you think we are going to do, here, and abroad. This war can in fact end - the enemy can, if faced with near extinction, undergo a sudden attitude adjustment. Just ask the Japanese, who 60 years ago thought they were prepared to fight to the last school child.

But in any case...

As with any government program (say, environmental remediation), the poorly named "War on Terror" is going to provide goodies for some, and will have corruption. Duh. If the alternative the destruction, I'm willing to pay the inevitable price of government inefficiencies and corruption.

But you seriously underestimate the cost of loosing a major city (and you seem to not mind losing the citizens of that city along with it, which did NOT happen with Katrina). If we lose a major city, Americans NOT IN GOVERNMENT are going to realize that unless they live out in the countryside, their family has good chance getting nuked too. And they are simply not going to put up with that. Our leaders (who are not nearly as cynical or disregarding of the value of life as you appear to be) will be forced to either greatly increase surveillance and other police powers, or be thrown out of office (or impeached). And, they will be forced, BY OUR POPULATION, THROUGH DEMOCRATIC MEANS, to take actions overseas that make the treatment of Japan and Germany look mild.

Now the consequences are A FACT (at least for the US. Europe may have become to decrepit survive) . I dare you to disprove them. Are you willing to increase the odds of these consequences in order to protect the fiction that you have some privacy - in order to keep part of your life hidden from the government but available to any company you do business with you?

I challenge you to deal with the nuke in a city scenario. You don't deny it will happen. But you seem to not care aboutthe consequences.

As to your totalitarian reference ("the party book"...)... which is more likely to lead to that scenario? Citizens who are so uncaring about their fellows that you just sit back and wait - until the whole country is scared to death and willing to follow any demogogue who promises them safety, or citizens engaged enough to consider the reality of the war and support rational but imperfect and sometimes unfair measures?

Re:Point of the article

[NoseSocks]

Oddly enough, how many of the previous attacks on our children in our schools have been made by these tens of thousands of trained Islamofascist terrorists or those who support them? It usually seems to be done by a fellow American that has no ties to Islam.
The problem I and many others have is that we are pretty sure that even if the government had all the data mining capabilities in the world, a large terrorist organization will still find a flaw in the system and abuse it. The issue is not that we don't have enough information. The issue is that most of our governmental systems and security as a whole are lacking even the most basic competence. The overall end result? There are fights on what should be held private and what should not be while a larger issue is appears to be left ignored.
For every possible scenario you can produce on what might happen if we don't infringe more on everyone's privacy, I can produce actual situations where security (be it government or private) is particularily negligent and can let through a terrorist attack without issue right now.

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

When fighting any war, and especially one so dependent on intelligence and counter-intelligence, nothing is absolute; nothing is guaranteed; and government will always make enormous screw-ups (you should read about the incredible messes in World War II). We can't prevent all attacks (unless, perhaps, we reincarnate Pol Pot and let him run things). However, it is absolutist to oppose sensible measures, even though they will have some percentage of abuse and some percentage of failure.

In other words, you can no doubt come up with examples, and any security system needs to constantly use tiger teams to try and reduce them, recognizing that no system will be perfect. Act yes, government is largely incompetent. However, it' all we have, unless you want vigilantes protecting us from terrorism.

Regarding American terrorists vs Islamic... a single attack by Islamic extremists killed more Americans than all previous terrorist attacks in history. That should give you a clue: the old days of terrorism are gone. The world has changed. It is now possible for a few people, aided by advanced technology (whether a 767, a nuclear explosive device, or a bioengineered virus) can kill a whole lot of us. At the same time, terrorists have changed from limited goals to seeking much, much greater death and destruction. Those two changes - modern deadly technology and terrorist cults with limitless goals (Islamofascists are the largest, although Aum Shinrikyo's incompetence is the only thing that kept their use of a WMD from killing thousands) together change the terrorism issue in a qualitative manner. This is a very unfortunate fact, and if we don't do our best to combat it, we deserve what happens to us.

We are truly at war in an existential sense. We didn't choose it and are not responsible for it. A suicidal cult - the Islamofascists - want to destroy or convert the entire non-Muslim society on earth and are willing to kill vast numbers of people to do so. Al Qaeda claims publicly to have dispensation from Allah to kill up to 4,000,000 innocents to achieve their goal. I'm sure they will find ways to justify ten or a hundred times that number. Furthermore, there are at least tens of millions of Muslims who support Al Qaeda, and of that number, some significant percentage are willing to participate and die to kill you and me. That is an enormous threat.

It is hard to put this threat into perspective, because the only thing close to it for the US is global thermonuclear war with Russia.

The problem with privacy fundamentalists is that you are doomed to lose, and you would be better off trying to set reasonable balances by helping the government do the best it can to check this threat. Unfortunately, privacy advocates ultimately lose at the expense of hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of the rest of us. You lose when the next big attack occurs, and the populace stops listening to theorists and demands a fix, and to hell with the details.

If you want to read a different take on this threat, check out what Mark Steyn has discovered.

Finally, for the sensitive. I did not say that *all* Muslims are part of this terrorist cult, or that there were no Muslims who oppose it.

Re:Point of the article

[crazyphilman]

I'm going to assume you actually aren't aware of what's going on, and that you're not deliberately trying to pretend, and supply you with some reading material. Please consider the following articles in support of my statements:

Let's start with the no-fly list:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/25/no_fl y/index_np.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/ 09/27/MNNOFLY.TMP&nl=top
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/reports/prot estersdetained.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957183/po sts

This one's just fun: they barred Ted Kennedy (the senator):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on _terror_watch/

And this one just basically says the No-Fly list is managed rather stupidly:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/aclu-suit/

Now lets look at the Patriot act:

First, this google search returns almost 3 million hits on patriot act abuses:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Patriot+Ac t%22+abuses&btnG=Google+Search

Here's a detailed analysis by the ACLU about what's wrong with the Patriot Act:
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17203leg2003 0214.html

Here's a Register article about how the Patriot Act isn't being used against terrorists, but rather regular criminals (a group for which the act was not meant to be used, I'd consider that an abuse), side-stepping their civil liberties:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/22/us_antiter ror_law_used_against/

Here's an article about an interesting talk that went on at Harvard about the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/2003 10/1010abuses.html

Here's a fun reprint of a Village Voice article about the NYPD seeking to spy on protestors and such:
http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.ph p?aid=619

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. The Patriot Act should be quietly killed off and our civil liberties re-affirmed.

Enjoy your readings...

Re:Point of the article

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yes, *you* made it public. However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware. This is not unlike saying, "hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

I still don't know about a no-fly list. Your numerous links don't describe one. They describe a list of names which trigger special scrutiny.

And that is a very different thing. The demonstrators weren't prevented from flying to their demonstration. They were subject to extra scrutiny, and sine they obviously cut their time before departure too short, some missed the flight.

This just breaks my heart. I mean really, I'm sobbing as I type this. You see, I'm on the same list. And I understand perhaps a bit about why one is needed. And if the government had access to *more* information, the list could be shorter and more accurate.

A few weeks ago I checked into a flight, was not allowed to use curbside check-in (I'm getting used to that), and the airline agent had to call a special number, ask a few questions and relay them, in order to get clearance to give me a boarding pass. Now if you are a protestor, and you arrive late for a flight (remember the 2 hour rule), and your name happens to be on the list, you are now doubt going to scream that you are being singled out to be oppressed.

Guess what! That's an inconvenience, and you have provided no evidence that they were singled out. It's one I'm willing to pay in order to have a safer flight, even though this list is not very well done. A

We are at war. Too many people are unwilling to even pay this slight cost (delays getting onto flights) to help in that war. And the reason is they are clueless about the war, and they are literally paranoid about the government (not that I think the government is not capable of nastiness, but the privacy paranoia is way, way over the top).

As one who volunteered for and went to war (Vietnam), I really have no sympathy for folks whining about this sort of thing.

You have shown NO evidence that peace demonstrators are being singled out for special treatment. From what I have seen of modern demonstrators, though, I wouldn't be surprised if some have contacts with terrorist supporters (without knowing that these people support terrorism). I haven't seen a lot of sanity or deep analysis in many of today's demonstrators. At last year's inauguration, I spoke with a bunch of them as they sat in the street near the procession. Not impressive at all. But a responsible counter-intelligence operation would indeed consider people who are short a brick or too of a full load and associated, however innocently, with possible terrorist sympathizers, to be worthy of special scrutiny.

Remember the lady who was given a bomb by her boy friend before she tried to get on an El Al flight. Get the picture?

So why don't YOU get your facts right, eh?

As for the "abuses" by the patriot act, I don't consider it an abuse to use a federal law, correctly, to apprehend a criminal, when warrants are approved by a court. Don't forget that an ordinary criminal has strong rights, in court, to challenge evidence if it is obtained illegally. The Patriot Act does not remove or modify those rights, since they are *constitutional* rights.

There may be some provisions of the Patriot Act that should be limited to counter-intelligence actions only, which is fine with me. So go argue to limit them. The government isn't perfect or always acting with good intent, and it needs *responsible* citizens who will take action, not whiners and absolutists.

HOWEVER, some provisions should remain in Federal Law, even if not in the act. For example, would you like to debate whether Feds (or other police) should be allowed to use roving wiretaps, with secret court approved warrants? I would STRONGLY support that ability, for ordinary crimes. I can easily defend that position. If you think about it for a while, you will understand why.

You have yet to show a single case where the Patriot Act was used to suppress dissent, persecute innocent people, or gain political power. And *that* is the what should be considered abuse. You have provided a lot of links to hypotheticals. I can provide a whole lot of hypothe

Re:Point of the article

[crazyphilman]

Yeah, yeah, typical republican rant. Let's get a couple of things straight, shall we:

1. if the government REALLY wanted to make air travel straight, it'd mandate a solid cockpit door and allow pilots to carry firearms, plus make sure the door stays locked throughout the entire flight. INSTEAD, it does all this bullshit with the TSA and the NO-FLY-LIST (stop pretending it doesn't exist, you're embarassing yourself) because it gives them a little bit of extra power over us citizens and gets us used to diminishing civil liberties. The fact that you're too dim to understand this means nothing.

2. If you'd paid any attention to the articles about Patriot Act abuse, you'd see that people's civil liberties are being ignored, people are being beaten and abused in jail, and all sorts of activities that SHOULD be illegal are being carried out by the cops and the feds. Of course, you, being a Good Little Republican, wink and nod at all this, because it's not YOUR problem. Fuck you for that. Remember the old saw? "First they came for (group A) and I said nothing. Then they came for (group B) and I said nothing. Eventually they came for me, but nobody was left to say anything."

3. Just because you're willing to bend over and take it for the man doesn't make it right. And I think the rest of us would rather NOT bend over. People like you are traitors in a sense, because you don't stand up and do anything about your own democracy when it's threatened. "People who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

But you go on telling yourself whatever it takes to get you to forgive yourself for voting Bush in.

The rest of us are going to vote Democratic in 2008, and FIX the sorry mess you asshole republicans got us in.

Re:Point of the article

[GoofyBoy]

>However, the aggregation of data about you and others who are privacy sloppy can impact others who are privacy aware.

I say I would like a particular book for a gift. Exactly how does that impact you and your privacy?

>"hey, it was my penis that was exposed, I don't see what she has to bitch about."

I really don't see how this applies.
Do you find my wish list offensive?
How does a group of people publishing their wish list cause you a problem? (If Amazon removes the wish-lists feature, how does this improve your privacy?)

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

Uh huh.

Sorry, dude, but Republicanism has nothing to do with it and being concerned about the future of my country has a heck of a lot to do with it. If 9-11 had happened in the Hillary administration, I would still be in favor of the government trying to stop the terrorists, even though I trust Bush far more than the Clintons to not abuse the system (based on the history of both administrations).

As to your "how to fix it" - did it ever occur to you that they might, just might not use airplanes next time? That perhaps they will instead take some of that Sarin gas that is in Iraq (remember the IED that turned out to contain Sarin?) and stuff it into the air handling system for *your* office building. Then at least we won't hear you rant about what is, for those who bother to think about thinks, simply friendly fire?

But you will NEVER understand that.

It is clear from your language that you are not a person who pays attention to anything. Have you ever heard of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)? It's clear, sadly, that you have a bad case of it.

I won't even bother to refute your points. Your rudeness indicates a closed mind that wouldn't even listen. I see this all too often in Bush haters.

Re:Point of the article

[crazyphilman]

Oh my god, you can't POSSIBLY be this big a sucker. Oh, you poor man. I bet you live in a "red state" and have a little metal trailer with a GTO up on blocks out front. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Redneck moron.

Re:Point of the article

[cicho]

Yes you are missing something. A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list. The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.

This is for all the folks who typically respond with "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?

Re:Point of the article

[TapeCutter]

I don't think anyone doubts there are groups of many colours who seek to unreasonably control others through violent means. I am sure in the muslim world I could find an echo of your sentiments who would say something like... "There are 300 million well armed Americans and a large percentage of them want to kill us".

I disagree with the assertion that "the war on terror" is a war. It is a series of police actions against disparate groups with a variety of causes. The brits did not treat the IRA as a war and start bombing the fuck out of N. Ireland, both IRA and Republican terrorist actions were treated as major crimes. OBL is a criminal not a super power. As for Iraq, the majoriy of people blowing themselves up are insergents, they don't want "infidels" occupying their land. No matter how pointless and tragic the attacks in Iraq you have to ask what motivates them? How would you react if the situation was reversed and your faimly was "accidently" wiped out by the occupiers.

Just because a CIA trained leftover from the cold war managed to pull off a huge military stunt to bring attention to his cause does not mean there is a need for a global police state. Sure his little band wants everybody to "enjoy" a Taliban style government but I seriously doubt the majority of the muslim world are interested in giving them any opportunity to do so.

Every "threat" mentioned in this thread has also been an action taken by "responsible" governments since Hirroshima. As for nukes I am more worried about the "haves" than the "have nots".

"A suicidal cult - the Islamofascists"

Perhaps the Islamofacists could fight it out with the Christafacist and the Ziofacists in a WWF "cage bout" billed as the "identical triplet match". The other 99.9999999% of the population who think all meglomanics are fucking nuts would then be able to get on with something more constructive. People the world over are starting to see themselves as global citizens, global corporations are well established, yet global governance is still no better than a gathering of warlords. Surely after 10-15,000 years we can find a better way to build civilization(s) than simply eliminating anyone who is different in the most efficient manner possible.

"...a single attack by Islamic extremists killed more Americans..."

The other week the representatives of the Christian extremists announced they had (so far) killed at least 30,000 citizens of a different country and religion in retaliation for that single act of barbarisim. The total number of US soldiers killed and wounded may end up being comprable to the original "terrorist act". OTOH: Your govt may be lead by a suicidal-cult who are all looking forward to "judgement day".

"We didn't choose it and are not responsible for it."

If everone took that attitude towards both sides of the meat grinder, there would be no meat grinder. The "war on terror" is like fighting a spot fire with a flame thrower and expecting no more problems. US citizens can assist by making their goverment appreciate that it is energy that drives their long term economic survival not oil.

"you should read about the incredible messes in World War II"

My parents were school children in the UK during the war, I was born in 59 and missed the Aussie draft for Vietnam by ~4yrs but many people I have known didn't. I appreciate the fact that the western military have made efforts to avoid civilian harm in recent times (compared to say: the diliberate incineration of 250,000 civilians in the city of Dressden). However attrocities by "the good guys" was often talked about with pride, until one day an uncensored Vietnam started appearing on TV. Let's hope WW2 was the real "war to end all wars", attempting a trilogy would likely be the end of civilization.

Re:Point of the article

[TapeCutter]

That would be fine but I doubt if it would be practical. I think it is inevitable that corporations and governments will gather as much demographics as they can because it is extremely usefull to themselves and society as a whole (ie: a tool is neither good or bad, it is at best usefull).

The only practicable response the public has is to ensure we have the right to watch those who are watching us. I think the kind of beauracracy you propose would simply make the tool too expensive for anyone other than a govt or large corporation to use (as they did in the "old days"). What about a right to demand an annonomised copy of any govt/commercial data set that contains your data? So if someone passes my data to MS then I get access to the data set after giving MS a short time advantage as reward for tabulating it. I mean if I helped in any way to build the data set I should have some right to use it as I wish (especially in these days of virtual property). If we could reasonably trust each other to "do no evil" (or at least nobody gets away with major evil), then a large and open electronic census could be seen as a good thing.

Re:Point of the article

[GoofyBoy]

>A law-abiding citizen in a truly free country should not have to have second thoughts about putting a book on a public wish list.

If you have problems with putting things on a public wish list, how do you even do anything in public without fear?

How do you have a credit-card? Drivers license driving a car with a license plate? Do anything in any place with security camera? Sign books from a library? Leave finger-prints at a resturant? Use cash with its security-strip and unique serial number? Have a bank account?

>The worst you should expect is to be spammed by the publisher, and _not_ that you'll end up on the no-fly list or worse.

But I really am not worried. I do what I do and am willing to accept the consequences. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me why I read this book; I would just explain why if I could remember. Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me about a person I knew, I would just talk about him.

Lets put it another way, suppose you are on a FBI list right now. Would you have changed what you did in the past? Would you start doing things differently? Just because you are on a list?

>Well, my reading habits were nothing to hide five years ago. Today, I'm not so sure. How about yours?

I am not going to change anything I do just because maybe one day it will come back and hurt me. I choose not to live in fear of something that may not happen. I choose to live free.

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

I'm afraid that a complete relativism, and a retreat to history, fails to convince, and although popular these days, is a complete cop-out and disgustingly cynical. Anyway...

I will lay out the fundamentals of the argument here in its most simple form.

The new and UNIQUE threat is;

1) A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us. We last encountered that in World War II with the Japanese - remember them? But the Japanese never were able to kill as many Americans in America as Al Qaeda did in one attack, and yet we had to use nuclear weapons to end the threat.

COMBINED WITH (for the first time)

2) weapons of *mass* destruction which can be used by one or a small number of individuals to kill thousands to hundreds of thousands of people.

The latter means two things:

A) The threat is much greater because detecting and preventing a massive attack is not always possible

B) When used by non-state groups such as Al Qaeda, Deterrence does not work because they don't care about retaliation, and doing so requires us to kill a very large number of innocent people.
Your relativism or labeling of "good" and "bad" is irrelevant simply because: I don't want *my* family or friends to fall victim to this or its consequences. Unless you are a fool you would agree with that for *your* familiy. And since you and I happen to have the same self-declared enemy, we both face the same threat.

To address the idea that this is police action, not war:

1) A group with strong support from as many people as a decent sized nation has declared a war on us (which means darn near anyone not "them"). They have taken actions consistent with war. Until we invaded Afghanistan, they controlled an entire country and used its assets against us (does *that* sound like war to you)?

2) Their attacks on the West far exceed the damage that "criminal" actions involve, requiring a more extensive defense than police capabiloities can provide. Their potential for vastly more damaging attacks is clear, and their intent is also clear and frequently stated.

3) The brits did not treat the IRA as a war and start bombing the fuck out of N. Ireland, both IRA and Republican terrorist actions were treated as major crimes - The IRA never represented one percent of the threat that Al Qaeda does. They did not have WMDs and would not have used them if they did - because the backlash would have defeated them immediately. The same is true of the Palestinians. But the British did take military action against the IRA, and took "police state" actions within their own country in order to fight the terrorism. That is why Britain already has a huge number of police monitored cameras, which they now plan to greatly increase due to the larger threat of the Islamofascists. Britain also has long had much stronger internal security powers (due to its lack of constitutional rights) than America (can you say MI5? can you say secrecy orders?). Al Qaeda members have been caught (probably using war powers) in Britain working on a potent chemical WMD - ricin.

You are falling into (and loving) the old fashioned view of terrorism: a gang of criminals who can do minimal damage compared to a government. But Al Qaeda, contrary to your assertions, is likely to obtain one important characteristic of superpowerdom: WMDs. They have claimed to desire them, and have taken many steps, by many of their subgroups and their headquarters group, to obtain them. They have tried to use them. It is only a matter of time. If you consider fighting the use of WMDs by a foreign conspiracy and huge cult to be a police matter, you either have vast more faith in the powers of policing than I do, or you live in a country where citizens have far fewer protections, under ordinary criminal law, than in my country.

Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists also have another important characteristic: their goals are much more ambitions than the IRA's - they don't want to control just a few counti

Re:Point of the article

[TapeCutter]

"The new and UNIQUE threat is;"

(1) - Not new or unique, there have always been a "A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us."

(2) - ...and small groups willing to use WMD...think Guy Falks or the "suitcase nukes" Rummy has been banging on about since the seventies.

"The latter means..." everyone has the potential to use WMD, simply because they exist. There is no "new threat" since 9/11, the new threat arrived in 1945. Since then it has been theoretically possible for a "cult" (eg: the kremlin, whitehouse, AQ) to wipe out all of humanity. The technology exsits and it can't be uninvented, the only way to stop it's use is for all the tribes to be at relative peace with one another.

Re: The Brits, the IRA, Palestinans and AQ: The Brits (since the fall of Thatcher) have done a great deal to support International law that could go a long way to curbing the "Saddam like" leaders of "rouge states". The US does not approve of International law because it means they would have to play by the same rules and would loose their absolute status as the world's only superpower. The IRA have been consigned to the dustbin of history, if you want to do the same to AQ then look at the Brits legal fight against the financiers of the IRA or the bravery of the Italian judiciary in their fight against the Mafia. The British forces are under order not to fire on fleeing aggressors. How far any particular "cult" will go to achive their aims or defend their interests is simply conjecture.

"You are falling into (and loving) the old fashioned view of terrorism: a gang of criminals who can do minimal damage compared to a government."

If it is "old fashioned" to realise an obvious fact then I'm old fashioned. The US could wipe out most of Europes major cities with one submarine, AQ have so far been incapable of destroying anything larger than a skyscraper. "Old fashioned thinking" says: "Let's make sure they don't hijack one of those submarines", it assumes it's unreasonable to get rid of the sub!

"Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists also have another important characteristic: their goals are much more ambitions than the IRA's - they don't want to control just a few counties in one country - they want to convert, by force, the entire world to their particular cult, and are willing to die and to kill to do so."

Explain how this is different - "The USA is converting the planet to their capitalist cult by force" - You are simply a member of the most powerfull cult that has ever existed. Personally I think it is possible to have a universal cult against indiscriminant violence for political gain or revenge but I don't think it is likey.

"Now I can understand that you sympathize with the Iraqi peoples' desire to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant..."

I can understand that you want to put words in my mouth but please don't, just because I am against your world view does not imply I am with "them". If anybody can be accused of desiring the Iraqi people "to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant" it would be the people who put him there and supported him, don't ya think so? Little wonder Rummy's blood runs cold at the thought of international law.

"This is not, indeed, a conventional war. Neither was the cold war (which your history left out) in which millions were killed. Since we don't have a nation as a visible enemy, shall we let millions be killed in this "non-war?""

I'm sorry I also left out the the fall of Rome, the battle of Hastings and the french revolution. I agree we should not "let millions be killed", so to this end, as much as is practicable, we should tone down the "under the bed" hysteria displayed in your post before it reaches the level of the Rawandan genocide. We should also maintain a less apocoliptic and more multi-lateral military as an option of last resort, it's primary function would be disaster relief (foremos

Re:Point of the article

[mesocyclone]

I'm not going to waste time trying to debate too much of this, but when you say:

I did not "self-declare" these "enemies", GWB did that on behalf of the entire planet with bothering to ask them

I have to laugh. That statement is very absurd. I didn't self declare the enemies either. THEY did that. They declared war on the west. And the repeat that declaration every once in a while.

As to Guy Faulkes, do you really want to compare the destructive power of that bomb to a small nuke? It's absurd.

Regarding the lack of newness of the threat. You are right in a way - every since nukes were invented, there was the potential that terrorists could use them. But that potential was very low because:L

1) Those who had them wanted and kept extremely tight control over them. Now we are about to have nukes in the hands of a regime whose president "had a green aura" which struck dumb those who listened to him. Dear Leader in North Korea probably had them. These people are crazy enough (unlike the Russians and later the Chinese) that they may very well give (or sell, in the case of the Norks) a bomb or two to terrorists.

2) Those who had them were deterrable - if a nuke went off in DC, it would have triggered nuclear war against the USSR, since they obviously did it. One cannot deter Al Qaeda, and the possible sources for them to get weapons today is much greater. Furthermore, they are willing to use other WMDs even easier to get or make, including bological agents and chemical weapons. They are *not* deterrable.

As for the effectiveness of international law: Is it stopping the Iranians from getting nukes? Did it stop North Korea? Did it prevent *any* terrorist attacks? Did it prevent the AQ Kahn nuclear weapons production and sales network? Did it stop the genocide being committed by Sudan, or the slavery? Did it slow down Al Qaeda in the slightest? Did it keep Saddam Hussein from attacking first Iran, then Kuwait? Did it keep the Palestinians from killing innocent civilians in Israel, or the IRA from doing the same in Britain? Is it worth a popcorn fart?

Your appeal to international law to stop the kind of threat that we have is laughable. My biggest annoyance is that too many people attach magical powers to international law (and the UN for that matter) in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary.

Parinoia and power is a far more dangerous mix than OBL and a suitcase nuke.

Yeah, right. Tell me, is it paranoid to believe that AQ wants to kill you and me, or is it an unpleasant fact? Is it paranoid to believe that if AQ gets a nuke, they will use it in a western city?

Just what "paranoia" are you talking about? The attempt to defend ourselves from a very large movement of people who believe that should either be killed or forced to live in a 9th century barbarism? The fear that perhaps if our skyscrapers were attacked once by those people, with 3000 deaths and a cost of $1 trillian, that it might happen again, and again, or in a much worse form? The declarations of our well funded and widespread enemy that they wish to use WMDs against us? The attempts they have made to do so in Britain and Jordan? Our discovery of the AQ Khan nuclear weapons supermarket?

Many people live in a world that think will just keep on going in the same pleasant way it has been. They natually feel that history is linear, that big changes aren't going to happen in their lifetime. They don't see threats because they don't have the vision to understand that history is replete with sudden changes and huge amounts of violent deaths. Perhaps they are paranoid about lesser dangers (such as US power), causing them to ignore the danger of true malevolence.

I think paranoia is dangerous, all right. I think that those who are paranoid of the US but believe that Al Qaeda is just a few malcontents that can be rounded up and put on trial are dangerous. These people (YOU) fail to understand that the current trend by the Islamofascists resembles more the Mahdi rebell

Re:Point of the article

[TapeCutter]

"I have to laugh. That statement is very absurd. I didn't self declare the enemies either. THEY did that. They declared war on the west. And the repeat that declaration every once in a while."

There is a nut at the local train station who stands at the gate and "declares" where the train is going, he has a very loud voice and is noticed by everyone, guess what: nobody pays much attention because it is obvious he is a nut. The US had a major terror attack (organised and executed by a handfull of nuts), all of a sudden OBL is promoted to station master and declares where the US is going. Why the fuck would anyone want to give a cult leader in a cave that sort of political clout? People declare war on the US every day but nobody pays much attention unless they do something, if they do launch an attack they are found and locked up. In the past the POTUS did not entertain the idiocy of declaring an endless world war on nutcases for the simple reason you cannot insulate everyone against random nuts who might do us harm for political gain. GWB's declaration of a "war on terror" did nothing for your security, rather it gave OBL an hugely exagerated political voice as reward for a relatively minor but spectacular assult. I belive that many of the actual victims of the assult now support an organisation called "not in our name".

"As for the effectiveness of international law: Is it stopping ... Is it worth a popcorn fart?"

How can it stop anything if the only superpower ignores it or any other treaty that may limit it's absolute power? Why should Iran or anybody else play by US rules when the US can do what it likes and change the rules at a whim? You would be far more effective if you lobbied your goverment to put it's power where it's mouth is and live by it's own standard of "all men are created equal". Until the US starts practising what it preaches, international law will never be worth more that a popcorn fart.

"Did it keep Saddam Hussein from attacking first Iran"

Surely you are aware the US nutured Saddam for the express purpose of containing Iran after the revolution, the US used Saddam as a buffer between Iran and the Saudi oil fields. Saddam was just one of the many "strong man" puppets the US have nutured all over the planet since the end of WW2, often by violently overthrowing elected governments to protect their oil interests. As they say "you reap what you sow", while the US refuses to "play by the rules" the problem of "rouge states" will continue. The "war on terror" is not a solution, it is one half of a timeless problem, it translates directly into the sentiment "a war to end all wars" (now where have I heard that one before?).

"Many people live in a world that think will just keep on going in the same pleasant way it has been."

It may be "plesant" for you sit there in your armchair pointing out wiches, you can simply ignore the suggestion that the overwhelming majority are normal people who just want to get on with life. It is a very short distance between your armchair (there out to get us) and the world view of an insergent (there out to get us). You are both more than willing to kill and die to "defend your way of life", the destruction of millions of bystanders lives as a means to that ends is always the fault of the other guy. Yes, AQ want to kill us or better yet get us to kill each other, they see us as their enemy but you should never forget that "us" refers to the world's population, what chance do they really have of realizing their goals?

To "win" the "terrorists" must pull down the beginings of a global civilisation and build it up again in their own image, this is the definition of revolution. Instilling panic, confusion and distrust has always been the primary weapon for a small band with revolutionary zeal and nothing left to loose. Everyone in the existing civilization(s) becomes a powerfull enemy, their only viable strategy is to divide and conqure (eg: AQ in Kashmir), n

Re:Point of the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose the FBI came to me and asked me why I read this book; I would just explain why if I could remember.

The correct response is "None of your damn business."

Lets put it another way, suppose you are on a FBI list right now. Would you have changed what you did in the past? Would you start doing things differently? Just because you are on a list?

When that list interferes with your life, yes. When you get strip searched every time you fly, or are prohibited from flying with no explanation, no trial, and no right of rebuttal, then yes. When you are unable to get certain jobs because you read Mein Kampf or some writing by Marx out of an interest in history, then yes. When you are on a list of people to be harassed every time a crime is committed, or a list of people to be eavesdropped on, simply because of something you read in the past, then yes, you would want to change your past actions. And when these things can happen based on your actions, you are not free, because you are no longer free to learn controversial material without fear of lasting repercussions.

Most subversive anarchists...

[CupBeEmpty]

...that I know freely subscribe to Amazon.com wish lists. They are like "lets overthrow the government that wants to jail us" but they are also all over "Lets let everyone know how we feel about corparations and the government by making wish lists that not only incriminate us but play into the hands of the very corporate droogs we hate... makes sense right." Anyone thinking they will get useful information about truly dangerous groups from Google Maps or Amazon Wish Lists needs to take a breather and sit down for a minute.

Re:Most subversive anarchists...

[TubeSteak]

Anyone thinking they will get useful information about truly dangerous groups from Google Maps or Amazon Wish Lists needs to take a breather and sit down for a minute.

You think stoners and crack heads are that smart?

The first match for "Bible," ironically, was a wishlist containing The Cannabis Grow Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing Marijuana for Recreational and Medical Use.

I imagine that there are people who have various other titles in their wishlists that are blatantly suggestive of mostly illegal activities.

Re:Most subversive anarchists...

[supabeast!]

It always amazes me how many people assume that because some harmless idiots use the internet, the truly harmful idiots don't use the internet. There is no shortage of moronic subversives and terrorists in the world, and they use the internet just like everyone else. The reason that the governments of the world have thousands of analysts poking around chat rooms and message forums is that stupid people do stupid things, assuming that their special forum is a secret, or that their special codes are secret, or that shortage of arabic linguists in the US means that there are no arabic linquists, and so on. I've heard tales from intelligence professionals about all the middle east contacts they lose simply because the people are so stupid they assume that cellular phones cannot be tapped because there isn't a phone line. I know a woman who routinely catches terrorists by watching middle east banking transactions for any large transaction in a woman's name, because the terrorists are so stupid that they try to launder money through their wives, not thinking that in nations where women are slaves, women with millions of dollars floating around might stand out.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were caught because they rented a truck using their real names and drivers licenses, right before using it to blow up a building. Those morons never thought to take the license plates off and strip out the VIN numbers beforehand. If internet datamining had been around back then, the FBI may have been able to spot that pair of morons by looking through things like Amazon wish lists and forum posts.

Re:Most subversive anarchists...

[CupBeEmpty]

Well you have elucidated one of the cetral faults of all law enforcement. Timothy McVeigh was "caught" because he didn't keep enough operational security!? The man was completely successful in achieving his twisted goal. If you are willing to kill yourself for your worthless cause then there is not much that anyone can do... even if they "catch you."

We have "caught" many of the hijackers from 9/11 but they still achieved their goal. Say we find 1,000 people that buy books about jihad against the US... will we stop them from bombing a pizza parlor? The truth is that people who want to kill and don't cherish their life will get it done despite any kind of Amazon data mining. If this was such a powerful tool then how come we haven't had more success using it? Suicide bombers probably don't take a break and order a few books about killing the american satan and make a list of "books on how to make jihad against the Great Satan (the United States)."

Re:Most subversive anarchists...

[nsaneinside]

You think stoners and crack heads are that smart?

You think that stoners and crackheads are that dangerous?

You didn't RTFA

[TubeSteak]

Did you RTFA?

He maps out (using google maps) the locations of the people who read certain books.

A lot of these wishlists have a city, state, full name and birthdate attached to them... which is more than enough for google to give you a street address (though not always with 100% accuracy)

Just to test it, i randomly picked a 'sarah' who had a wishlist. Turns out there's only one Sarah Johnson in Portland, OR.

Re:You didn't RTFA

[kfg]

Is she hot? What's her number?

Come oooooooon, you can't leave us hanging like this.

KFG

Re:You didn't RTFA

[springbox]

The funny thing is that the whole scheme could be figured out just by reading the summary

Re:You didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Kathleen Johnson
(503) 228-6605

http://www.runraceresults.com/Portland2003/5mile.a sp
she's a 26~27 year old marathon runner, born June 24

and from her wishlist, she likes to cook

Re:You didn't RTFA

[kfg]

So she's only got a few years left in her. I wonder if she's going to run or not.

Welcome to the future.

KFG

Re:You didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Sarah Connors are there? ;-)

Re:You didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there WERE three.

Re:You didn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... do you mean the Sarah Johnson at 5224 N Vancouver Ave, the one at 1327 SE Linn St, the one at 2566 SW Vista Ave, or one of the others?

Read the Shocking Discoveries Within!

[skywire]

Discover how many high school kids are planning to order subversive tomes like 1984 and Slaughterhouse Five! See maps that reveal that wishlist owners tend to be in major population centers!

What?

[Perseid]

From the article:
On a final note, the FBI is now hiring computer scientists to implement a project that sounds very similar to what I just did:

"Currently, the FBI is strengthening systems engineering in order to tie new systems together architecturally and ensure that standards for custom and packaged applications are enforced, and it needs engineers to accomplish this goal, the agency said.

(etc...)

Where does he read data mining into this? I read that the FBI wants to update their computers to make their databases better. Their databases.

This article strikes me as scare mongering, and until I hear that the government plans on breaking the knuckles of people who read Aldous Huxley, I don't care about what's merely possible.

Re:What?

[Reverend Darkness]

Yeah... this from an AC...

Actually, if you had even paid mild attention, you would know that Applefritter has a gentleman's agreement regarding a "no rumor" policy.

Besides, like the others, you would probably be better to wait and comment on something once you had actually read it.

I mean, it's like an AC trying to comment on sex... with another person, I mean.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny guy, "no rumors" on a site that has an entire forum devoted to x86 macs. ho ho ho. the only information possible in such a forum is RUMORS or info about installing PIRATED COPIES OF OSX X86 on PCs. Rumors and piracy and you have the gall to talk about a gentleman's agreement?

ho ho ho. funny guy. Going to try telling us green is violet next? I can't promise I won't laugh.

Some people can't see the forest they're in for the trees.

Re:What?

[Reverend Darkness]

Wow... you are suprisingly off-topic...

... and still wrong...

... and still an Anonymous Coward

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... you are suprisingly off-topic... ... and still wrong...

Wrong? And you can't read text that's as plain as day on the site you're attempting and failing to defend?

Wow. And you criticise OTHER people for not reading the whole story.

BZZZZZT come back another day and play again.

and still an Anonymous Coward

Namecalling eh. Wouldn't have expected anything more.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I'm an AC too... and its obvious to me that you are a complete dipshit troll. Oh, some snappy comeback to that? BZZZZZT I'll never see it because I've moved on. Yeah, I'm pointing out to you that you are a moronic dumbass... worse, you make moronic dumbasses look like trend setters. And there's no comeback that will matter because neither I nor anyone else will ever see it... because no one follows a trolls threads. If only your brain were as heavy as the calluses on your sweaty palms. How about this: If you are having a bad night, and all this is just out of character for you, you've moved on... If you simply must post again... get help.

Re:What?

[surprise_audit]

the FBI wants to update their computers to make their databases better. Their databases.

These days, it wouldn't even take an Act of Congress for Amazon's databases to become FBI databases...

Re:What?

[crazyphilman]

Well, what I heard was that the FBI tried to update all their internal systems to make them interoperate better, but the contractor they selected to do the work didn't work out. Now, they're still looking for a contractor who can handle the scale of the project, and they're looking for people they can hire internally as well.

My understanding of it is that it's basically just a big modernization project, with no sinister elements whatsoever. Apparently there's also a big problem with lots of information being handled on paper, of all things. Boxes and boxes of the stuff, instead of a computerized system that would be searchable and streamlined.

Can you blame them? If I was in the FBI I'd be trying to hire some people too. :)

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for your response man and uh... havin trouble sleeping. Are you there ?

Re:What?

[Reverend Darkness]

I've moved on...

From now on, I'll stick to reply to those with a pubic hair or two, and the testicular fortitude to come out from behind their grandmothers DSL IP.

Just to point out

[TubeSteak]

It is one thing to 'mine' information from Amazon, it is another thing entirely, to mine useful information.

Even his crude filtering techniques can yield worthwhile leads for police/FBI. He says that the first result for bible is "The Cannabis Grow Bible: The Definitive Guide to Growing Marijuana for Recreational and Medical Use".

Is it so hard to imagine that a certain fraction of people with that book on their wishlist may either be growing weed, or have it in their possesion? Or that a percentage of people 'wishing' for the Improvised Munitions Handbook (printed by our favorite Uncle Sam @ the DoD) aren't chemists or demolitionists?

/doesn't have an Amazon wishlist and never will

Re:Just to point out

[Sepodati]

If that evidence is enough to convince a judge to issue a search warrant and they come in and find pot or whatever, so what. Good for them and someone breaking the law goes to jail. If I put the book on the list and they come and search my house, who cares. I don't have shit to hide, so let 'em search.
I personally think they'll get _shit_ for info out of this and no judge would touch it. They can make all the assumptions they want and fill their big black file cabinets with files on me if they want. I don't fucking care.
Here is my wishlist. Infer all you want, but at least buy me something! Oh, and make sure you search Google (especially Google Images) for my name to find out where I live. Enjoy!
---John Holmes...

Re:Just to point out

[Lord Kano]

Is it so hard to imagine that a certain fraction of people with that book on their wishlist may either be growing weed, or have it in their possesion?

So what? It doesn't add up to probable cause.

I have all kinds of books that aren't popular. I've never used the information in them to break the law. Sure, I have the recipies for RDX, Composition C1 and Semtex, I know how to construct shaped charges too but I'm not going to make them. I also know how to convert a firearm to full auto. I'd never do it, but I know how. I know how to make a firearms silencer. Once again, not going to.

I've also been visited by BATF agents because they recieved a false report about me. The feds have been aware of who I am for over a decade now. It's not a big deal, if they want to talk to me they have the number. The fact of the matter remains that it's not against the law to know how to do something that is.

LK

Re:Just to point out

[Anonymous Coward]

From your wishlist I infer that you are overweight, pirate awful music and enjoy fart jokes.

Re:Just to point out

[Sepodati]

Ah, fuck... you don't work for the FBI, do you?

Re:Just to point out

[TubeSteak]

the police don't need probable cause to sniff around your place or maybe talk to your neighbors if they're outside.

My general point is that some enterprising police officer might decide to do this, put whatever information he gets together with what they know about their local druggies and start making people's lives difficult.

Anyways, it is one thing to have knowledge, it's another to be using it. Those are the people the police are interested in.

Re:Just to point out

[crazyphilman]

The only thing I worry about in terms of police making people's lives difficult is that not all cops are all that bright.

What if the cop who decides YOU are a freak deserving of "special treatment" just happens to be an idiot who barely passed his coursework? What if he's a big, stupid goon and he just didn't like your face (so now he's going to pick on you)?

That DOES happen, you know. Practically every town in the U.S. has at least one cop whose neighbors consider him a "live one". Maybe he's the guy wearing the "Better dead than red" T-shirt on weekends, who thinks anyone not toeing the party line is a "hippie freak". Maybe he's the buttoned down 55-year old who can't stand "damn kids these days". There's one in every town.

Cops in general may be very professional, smart, and trustworthy -- but it only takes one knucklehead to make your life a living hell. And the abuse of power I'm talking about is so common in our culture most people don't even blink over it.

Sigh... Ok, I'm done now. Please continue. :)

Re:Just to point out

[Lord Kano]

What if the cop who decides YOU are a freak deserving of "special treatment" just happens to be an idiot who barely passed his coursework? What if he's a big, stupid goon and he just didn't like your face (so now he's going to pick on you)?

Or even worse that you're now dating his ex-girlfriend or ex-wife.

Cops in general may be very professional, smart, and trustworthy -- but it only takes one knucklehead to make your life a living hell.

I don't share your positive opinion of Cops. I think that they tend to be unintelligent, dishonest, bigots and bullys by nature. That's why many of them go into the career field of law enforcement. They're very much like a gang that has more firepower than all of the others combined.

LK

Re:Just to point out

[crazyphilman]

Well... Ok, I was trying to be charitable. Of course, you're right, there are plenty of cops who are complete assholes. I agree that the field sort of self-selects for that kind of thing. I didn't want to just come out and SAY it, though... ;)

Re:Just to point out

[njyoder]

But if they have a specific local person in mind, then they could just view Amazon wishlists and other things manually. Old investigative techniques would work better anyway. The only benefit of data mining is to find out about criminals you wouldn't otherwise know about, but if that means getting tens of thousands of people buying books on marijuana in a given city, the data is USELESS. Don't you realize how expensive it would be to just start investigating totally random people because they kinda-sorta-maybe might be criminals?

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Rei]

Profile for Jaish al Ashurah ] Wishlist

Wishlist

This list is for: Jaish Al Ashurah
Birthday: None Entered
Shipping Address: Private
Unique Facts: A shadu la ilaha illah Allah

Total items: 10

"The Anarchist's Cookbook" by William Powell
"Improvised Explosives: How To Make Your Own" by Seymour Lecker
"Ultimate Sniper: An Advanced Training Manual For Military And Police Snipers" by John Plaster
"Crusades Through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf
"The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion With Preface and Explanatory Notes" by Sergius Nilus, Henry Ford, and Victor E. Marsden.
"Explosive Dusts: Advanced Improvised Explosives" by Seymour Lecker
"Creative Cloth Doll Making: New Approaches for Using Fibers, Beads, Dyes, And Other Exciting Techniques" by Patti Medaris Culea.
"The Tragedy of Karbala" by M.A. Naquvi
"51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis" by Lenni Brenner
"How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons Of Mass Destruction" by Frank Barbaby

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was 'Racist' moderation option...

Ah who am I kidding, I laughed.

well

[Nutty_Irishman]

In my county in NC, if you want a party affiliation all you need to do is look it up on the public records website:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/common/PublRecordsdB.cf m

You can also figure out how much someone's house is worth, what they paid in taxes, etc.

It starts to get a little scary though when your search for public records reveals mortage applications with the individual's SS# listed on the sheet. All available online, and provided for by your very own government!

Re:well

[Mortamer2k]

Does anyone know if their is a similar site for California (or a list of all of the states' respective public records sites)?

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the fault of the person who prepares the document and the owners themselves.

Re:well

[psykocrime]

In my county in NC, if you want a party affiliation all you need to do is look it up on the public records website:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/common/PublRecordsdB.cf m

Yeah, but there's only one recognized party - Demopublican - in NC anyway, so what's the point in looking it up? Oh, right, you can also be "unaffiliated." Whoopty-f'in-do!

Re:well

[cgenman]

Don't forget how much they donated and to whom, which is a nationwide database.

WTF is wrong with you?

[Lord Kano]

Most surprisingly, the process of doing this is completely legal, and doesn't even violate Amazon's Conditions of Use.

It shouldn't be surprising, it's common sense. Why in the fuck should it be illegal or against Amazon's conditions of use to read information in someone's wish list? The whole point of a wish list is so that other people will know what books you want.

LK

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[darkstar949]

To me the fact that they didn't take into account someone downloading 260,000 records in chuncks of 25,000 from two computers. Most likely when Amazon wrote the conditions of use they didn't think that the average (e.g. only looking at friends and family) person would try and mass download wish lists.

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down there Lord Kano, bucko. I think he's talking about the whole "don't download our whole public website via scripts" clause a lot of services and companies have.

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[typical]

Very simple principle. Lots of data is individually acceptable, but when compiled or processed, is unacceptable.

For example, say you maintain a Slashdot identity that you don't link to your real name. While no one post of yours may be sufficient to tie your identity to your name, the sum total may be sufficient.

Or security cameras. Most people don't worry about *one* security camera, but a lot of people get concerned when they are constantly being monitored by cameras which are tied together by computer to monitor where they go each day.

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[Lord Kano]

For example, say you maintain a Slashdot identity that you don't link to your real name.

Which I *might*.

While no one post of yours may be sufficient to tie your identity to your name, the sum total may be sufficient.

That is true. I make a common typo. I don't always release the shift key before the second letter at the beginning of a sentence. REsulting in the mistake that I have just intentionally made. I suppose if someone were to parse all of the Slashdot comments in history they could come up with a list of possible alter egos.

Yet, If I didn't want anyone to be able to figure out who I am in the first place I'd post anonymously.

Or security cameras. Most people don't worry about *one* security camera, but a lot of people get concerned when they are constantly being monitored by cameras which are tied together by computer to monitor where they go each day.

It's different. The purpose of a wish list is so that other people will know what kind of books you want.

LK

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[mikiN]

Quoted directly from the Conditions of Use

LICENSE AND SITE ACCESS

[...]
This license does not include any resale or commercial use of this site or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of this site or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools.
[...]

Which part of this paragraph does the article writer not understand?
To me it is loud and clear: No data mining allowed. Period.

Either Amazon changed this in the blink of an eye right after this article was posted (which I find very doubtful), or the author may be looking forward to a peppered letter or phone call from Amazon legal department pretty soon.

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[mikiN]

To add something constructive to this whole topic:

If you want to gather data on lots of people, find out about their political, sexual, whatever preferences, mine Usenet.

Just gulp down all of the soc.* hierarchy, any newsgroup containing 'politics', any sex / gender / race related newsgroups, etcetera, then feed all the articles to your text filter, freshly stacked with any spook words you care to use.

Perfectly legal, too. If the bandwidth use is any problem to your usenet provider, switch to one of dozens of MegaLeech providers usually specializing in binaries.

As an added bonus, the articles will contain an 'NNTP-Posting-Host: ' header which you can use to track down your 'victims', unless they're posting on a privacy-consious usenet provider.

I don't mind publishing this little 'secret', for I'm sure the spooks have been doing this for a l_o_n_g time.

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[Lord Kano]

Either Amazon changed this in the blink of an eye right after this article was posted (which I find very doubtful), or the author may be looking forward to a peppered letter or phone call from Amazon legal department pretty soon.

Good work. I don't use Amazon and as such have never read their conditions of use, but even so. It's a corporate policy, not a law. Their legal department can make all kinds of noise, but in the end all they can really do to the man is cancel his account and/or ban his IP.

LK

Re:WTF is wrong with you?

[typical]

Yet, If I didn't want anyone to be able to figure out who I am in the first place I'd post anonymously.

Sure, but there's a *benefit* to having a pseudonym -- you can accure reputation, yet need not associate your ideas with your real name.

My point is not that it is (or even should be) feasible to do this and remain anonymous -- I don't want to get stuck on the details of this particular example. I'm just pointing out that, assuming that it *is* possible to prevent people from compiling information, there are definite (I would even say many) examples of situations where it is very beneficial to release snippits of information individually. That net benefit becomes a net drawback if the information is compiled.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[daigu]

Not to mention all the crap purchased for other people. Amazon still recommends screen writer books to me because I bought some for my mom three years ago.

Most people use wishlist once and then never again

[loggia]

Look at a dozen random wishlists and you'll find the same pattern. Customer tried wishlist on December 11, 2002. Added Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Never used wishlist function again.

And you thought you were funny...

[know1]

...when you put that inflatable nun and bottle of baby lotion on your wishlist. woops...

the usual melodrama

[csimicah]

Using a pair of 5-year-old computers, two home DSL connections, 42 hours of computer time, and 5 man hours, I now had documents describing the reading preferences of 260,000 U.S. citizens.
They're not "reading preferences", they're deliberately shared gift registries. Funny how if you take every single noun and push it 3 steps towards paranoia you get an interesting article out of nothing at all.

Tempted as I was to provide satellite images of the homes of the search subjects, it just seemed a bit extreme even for this article.
Ooooh, that *is* a bit extreme. Armed with images of the alleged subversives' roofs, we could plan covert chimney-entry ops.

Re:the usual melodrama

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we know how santa does it.

Hate Spam

[JaNiles]

Don't you hate spammers who are desperate to get traffic to their new blog.

Or their website.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Skidge]

Next time you see a recommendation like that, you can click the "Why was I recommended this?" link under it and then uncheck the "Use this for recommendations" checkbox by the items that you don't want to be used as sources for your recommendations. Alternatively, you can go into "Your Store" through the tabs at the top and then go to the Improve Your Recommendations section and find the items and uncheck the same checkbox.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

Quismod auguero suscipit. Ssisci modion dolorer adiam ipisim velisim lorpercidunt quatuer facing, endio leo illuptatie. Esequat estie laortie, ipisim esequat ipsuscidunt nullam senisl facilisi, venibh lore nonsenibh. Quatuerit gait ros mincidunt dolorper dignissim rud ilis dolesecte. Vulla exercilit msandre exeriure nibh curabitur feuipsumsan, torquent alisis praestie xer libero nam. Semper hac in, etum lute commolor henis eugiat leo, dolor iure ex. Esequat sociosqu scillum curae faci coreraestrud sagittis, etum scillum laore eugait ea mincidunt. Ea porttitor enis. Onse sem tinit tisi velessequis, ullamcorper dolendrer alis. Essi numsanismoloreet do sismolore inim exero quissi dolorer corem. Adiam enississe henis endreet uamconum auguero. Dio exeriure hymenaeos, esequi nonulputate susciduipit curabitur la eugiamcorer, niamet esto volutpat. Niam voloreros mincidunt feuisi risus atinit rutrum consequipit esed lacinia suscipit. Sis endre quisi enim. Uissit in utatum utpationse quismod lore prate, iuscing nullaor arcu, corem aliquipismodi amet dolesecte. Niam faciliq etueratem feuisi iustrud dolobor lan, ex ostrud euipit doloboreet iniatue mus. Eumsandre nullum nonsequ, eliquatum adipiscing dolessi accumsan consequis ullutpat, nostissi ese inci. Vero nulputpatum porttitor mollis utat odio justo estie doloborper, proin henim curabitur. Ros facilisi iure consentisl uamconum eetuercil sandigna praesed; eraestrud mattis esto hendip. Vulputate estio commolor enit endre semper acidunt, incinim er erat, magnit modiam iscing velenis. Elenisit exeriure feugiatue dolortis incinci vulpute exeriure. Dolutem psusto nostissi, lacinia velessectem, vulputate ligula, vulput lobortio iliquat numsandre tat. At hendrerit ros ex platea exeros volobore sollicitudin ent; massa nostra doluptat magniat utat erit. Dolorpe sim mincidunt ultricies veliquat issectem im incinim auctor, modipsu velesto eumsan. Dolummy hendipisim inceptos modignis scillum ridiculus lobortis quation; dictum habitasse velisit tem. Issectem quamconsequi leo, nullam modignis quismod interdum, dis ea feugue erostin. Voloreros etiam vulluptatet etuerci eumsan sem quatuerit feuguer feugiam, loborperci dignissim lobor. Faccumsan vullandio feui. Sismolore issendiam loreetue eumsandre dignissequis, curabitur consed el verit facilisi ed suspendisse numsan esse. Erat penatibus laore auguer. Veriusto atis dolendi, porttitor dolobor numsan bla, ridiculus numsandre velenis metus. Incipis veriusto vulluptat dolorpe nulla, doluptat diamcom niscidu. Acipisl vel faciliquis. Iriure nullandigna ornare, aliquis euis, eumsan magnis, acilit conullandiam essisis dolorpe suscipit. Aci blaor ipsustrud mod essisit vullan consequ. Sandigna sequat odolore, volumsan adipis, rcilis vulputate, venit corero vullandigna iliquipisl suscin. Augiat quis neque el rilisit rcilis. Dip coreet modiam, esed nonsequam sagittis dolendi dolobore veliqui, atueros accumsandre praestis. Lore quisi consequis consed patin esed blaore quamet phasellus facidunt gait. Min nulputpatum tet vestibulum sustrud iliquamcon cor lutpat aliscil. Sodales tatet suscil morbi quisi, ipsuscidunt natoque auguer. Hymenaeos aciduipis utetumm, psusto essisit, mod atueros, adipsusting lorpercidunt irit cilit cras. Volor commolor modolore a tin dio aliscil ip acidunt; iniam utatum dolobor suscin faucibus tatet. Elese dit laor, endreet blaor, enississe delendipis, ornare exercilit scelerisque enim iliquiscipis. Adiatet nisl iliqui posuere tatiniat iliqui magnit montes auguero nonulla dolessi. Lobortis hac lectusiscinim tie auctor; sequam alismolum msandre nostissi quamconsequi. Fringilla aliqui tempus. Esto essequis odolupt veliquisit laore; primis nonulput volorerci dionsenit susciduipit. Tisis ipis facilisis, adignit netus sit minit delent nullandigna, num lorper est. Sociis amet faciduisit dolut cillum dolum. Consecte proin lacus eetuercil interdum dignissequis dolor, elese modignis sequis, consenibh nullum dionull coreraestrud. Mincidunt quation amconumsan tempus. Niam dapibus velesse, idunt ssisci ero endre issequi commodo, essisis commolor d

What does that have to do with the article?

[Reverend Darkness]

Applefritter is as much a rumor site as slashdot.org ...

... and what exactly would that have to do with the article in question anyway? ... sounds like someone is just trying to pick a fight...

It may be more relevant that it may appear.

[igrigorik]

It may not be 'real news' but I don't think it should be dismissed as completely irrelevant. (Like 95% of current commentators have done).

First, on relevance of wishlists:
Granted that wishlists are not the most accurate estimates of your preferences, what is? My list contains over 50 books, and for the most part they are all related to each other. In fact, I would say that by looking at my list you would have a pretty accurate gauge to measure my interests. Am I an anomaly? Possibly. (Though I doubt it)

But it still makes you wonder how then does Amazon produce dozens and dozens of relevant suggestions to each of your books. For example, I often add a book to my shopping cart just to see the "what other people have bought when they bought this book x". Click, Wishlist, click, Wishlist. I think it's naive to dismiss wishlists completely. In fact, I'm sure that you will be able to successfully data mine data obtained from the wishlists and extract interesting and useful information.

Now, the actual experiment:
An interesting observation that I've recently read about developments in AI: "It stops being AI once it hits the mainstream". It's true, and it's happening here. The idea does not capture anything new, but the application is interesting. You can find out what people are reading and where. (And that's a powerful tool!) It open a big can of worms: advertising, targeting social groups, other 'moral' and 'immoral' uses. To those who know how to utilize it, this might prove to be a goldmine.

Re:It may be more relevant that it may appear.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Like 95% of current commentators have done).

you must be new here... because that has been my experience of /. from day one. I think this needs addressed... Just why do the majority of people here take a negative stand to every fucking thing they see? Its one thing to have a valid objectionable opinion. Its another thing to have good karma even though everything one has posted is negative. What happened to "if you don't have something nice to say... say nothing at all?" or even "You cannot talk about that which you do not know?"

Wonder how many celebrity wish lists...

[wired_parrot]

I found it interesting that some celebrities appear to have their wish list available as well. Hard to know how much of it is real, since certainly the bigger names would go under a pseudonym, and ordinary joes may just be using the name as an alias, but looking at Steve Job's wish list it appears to list his correct address and birthday, so there may be something to him having a taste for Duke Elington after all.

Re:Wonder how many celebrity wish lists...

[Achromatic1978]

Palo Alto, California? It wouldn't take a huge effort to get that level of accuracy:

"We can put you in Queens on the night of the hijacking."
"Really? *beat* I /live/ in Queens, did you put that together yourself, Einstein? Got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this?"

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

You were totally wronged by modders IMHO. Your comment is completely topical considering its FP. FP is sacred! Modding FP -1 is basphemy! And this story is totally filled with all the bad attitude towards everything posters... and those jackasses are getting modded up... wtf?

Is he Santa Claus?

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing wish lists and the precise locations of a chimney can be very important to the right person

More to the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

The gist of it is that The Gov Mint shouldn't be able to use this to find out that I said "BUSH IS AN ASSHOLE!" CLUE HERE------> It's OBVIOUS! Everyone with a brain knows BUS IS AN ASSHOLE!

IF I'm not doing anything (perceived to be) wrong (by the tyrants in power) I must be trying to hide somthing.

Man these fools are even more stupid than I thought they were.

One Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of terrorists have wish lists on Amazon? Somehow I don't think they will be putting "Bomb Making for Dummies" on their lists so all their terrorist friends will know what to get them for Ramadan.

Social Networking Application

[BarryNorton]

I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.

What could you do with Purchase Circles?

[gbulmash]

Amazon already catalogs bestsellers and "uniquely popular" items for thousands of U.S. cities in their Purchase Circles section.

When they first started the idea, they gave it some PR, but now it's sort of a low man on the totem pole, relegated to the backwaters. When I checked 6400+ cities, only 2800 of them were recording enough activity to warrant a bestseller or "uniquely popular" list.

They generate the 2 types of lists for 5 classes of items: books, CDs, DVDs, toys, and consumer electronics. Now this might not be as potentially compromising as finding out a single person was ordering subversive books. Yet finding out a small town in Alabama's bestselling genre is showtunes is definitely something interesting.

- Greg

Re:What could you do with Purchase Circles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly, the top uniquely popular DVD for Amazon.com itself is this Classic Erotica Collection - Forbidden Movies from the Brothels of Paris (2000)

They're a strange bunch. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/browse-com munities/-/213203/dvd/002-0276363-6327256

Heh.

Re:What could you do with Purchase Circles?

[gbulmash]

They're a strange bunch.

I know. I used to work there. :-)

- Greg

They have this already!

[Derling Whirvish]

I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.

They do! Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:" and it gives three choices: "Anyone who searches for me," "Only people I have invited with the 'Share this list' feature," or "Only me."

Re:They have this already!

[BarryNorton]

Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:"

You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!

Re:They have this already!

[Derling Whirvish]

You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!

Yes, you can name the list. And yes, you can limit who sees it. And yes, it makes the whole article nonsense. It not the first time people went all hysterical over an ant hill.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[AndreiK]

Is it considered bad if I recognize and have read about half of those books?

My wishlist...

[Rank_Tyro]

"Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a little plastic rocket..."

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

I know for a fact how misleading these wishlists can be. In my industry, we use the wishlists for our clients to give us tributes and gifts. Each of my wishlists fit my characters, rather than my own personal tastes.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[hunterx11]

All that text, and the phrase "Lorem ipsum" doesn't appear once. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Everyone is missing the point

[Twid]

If this guys links Amazon Wish Lists, Google Maps, the yellow pages, and personality typing using Ruby on Rails, he can call it a Web 2.0 Mashup and make millions when Google, Yahoo!, or Microsoft buys him out.

I smell a fully monetized eyeball!

Re:Everyone is missing the point

[protoshoggoth]

Wow, you just summarized the entirety of slashdot.

Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[SmallFurryCreature]

Even comments to your posts don't get it. All this guy did was prove just how easy it is to use a seemingly harmless database to prove your a commie. Oh wait, get my mind out of the 50's, a terrorist. Or did the boogyman change name again? Pedo's are an eternal favorite and you can't really defend the rights of pedo's unless you wanna be lynched.

No the FBI or anyone else would never bother with amazon wish list. They would simply get the sales records. This guy does not have access to those so he uses what he can to prove his point.

Yes it is scary. Especially for those of us who have family (or more to the point do not have family) killed for expressing the wrong ideas.

I however don't think we should blame the FBI or similar agencies, they are the instruments of us the people. It is we who have voted the current goverments into power. Corruption you say? Well then it is you and me that have allowed that to happen. I do not believe in the mythical innocent citizen. Others have died for freedom. No reason we should be allowed to sit on our backsides and complain our freedoms are taken away. FIGHT

Not that I will of course. I know deepdown that what is happening is wrong and also know that I am one of the cattle. Perhaps it will make it easier when I am put in a cattle wagon to be gassed.

The problem with fighting for your freedom is that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist.

I ain't got an answer or a solution except to suggest "PAY CASH". Even if your part of the herd there is no reason to make it any easier for them to send you off to the slaughterhouse.

Will it happen? It has happened countless times before. Check the McCarty trials. The treatment of Japanse americans vs German americans. The gunning down of american citizens by police during peace protests. The way england handled the RIA and labor strikes. All of them pretty recent.

Something scary might happen in our lifetimes. Or not. This is one tiny example to prove that it won't be hard on the technical side. Now all we need to is to elect leaders crazy enough to do it. /me looks at the current leaders of the "free" west. Too late.

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Obviously the Feds don't need this. But what about that next job interview you go to? Or loan application? Your credit rating is used by insurance companies as a (usually) better indicator of your insurance risk than your driving record, so why shouldn't your insurance company also want to know what sorts of books and movies and video games you like?

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[sunspot42]

Pedo's are an eternal favorite and you can't really defend the rights of pedo's unless you wanna be lynched.

Unless you're the Catholic Church, in which case you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars - raised from the families of the victims, no less - to defend (and even enable) your pedos.

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[mesocyclone]

Okay, I'm counting for the last 60 years - long enough for you?

Number of Americans killed in the last 50 years by *the federal government* for expressing the wrong views: 0. This leads me to wonder who in your family you are referring to.

Number of Americans killed by government for expressing the wrong views:0
Number of Americans killed by government accidently during protests 4 that I know of, at Kent State.

Number of Americans by or on behalf of Joe McCarthy: 0 (but Joe McCarthy was certainly a person who injured people by abusing his office)

Number of Americans killed by right wing terrorists: about 200 (Oklahoma city, a few at abortion clinics, one at Atlanta Olypics)

Number of Americans killed by left wing and eco-terrorists: a few (Ted Kazynski, a few during the Vietnam war years. an acquaintance of mine was permanently injured, for the sin of being a university computer operator, by a left-wing bombing).

Number of Americans killed by Islamofascist terrorists: approximately 3000, most on 9-11; a few at the same WTC in 1993; a few in aircraft or cruise ship hijackings.

In other words, if one deconstructs your examples, they are best described as nonsense. The bad guys killed a whole lot more than the government. The *abuse* of government power was even less . If you look closely at the events leading up to 9-11, it was privacy rights absolutism that, in at least two events, prevented the attack from being stopped (there is a very good chance it would have been without that extremism).

If you studied World War II history, you would know that during THAT war, privacy rights and some other civil rights vanished. After the war they came back and became stronger than at any time in the nation's history. We are in a war in which counterintelligence is more important than any other we have fought, with the possible exception of the civil war (in which not only privacy rights disappeared, but so did habeas corpus). War requires sacrifice, and one of the things we have to do is wisely and carefully sacrifice some of our privacy rights.

The treatment of the Japanese, while certainly scooping up a lot of innocent people and detaining them, had nothing to do with privacy rights. If you want to see it repeated, just continue to advocate pro-terrorist policies such as privacy fundamentalism, and see what Americans due to Muslims and "Muslim-looking" people after a nuke goes off in one of our cities, which was my point. We already had a Sikh killed here in Arizona, just after 9-11, by a citizen not the much feared government, because they *thought* he was a Muslim. Don't you think that maybe the government would use some acquired personal information to prevent 9-11's in the future, if possible, thus reducing the likelihood of such attacks, and the probability of a generally agreed upon set of measures that make the Patriot Act look utterly trivial?

Finally, let's apply a little reason to government. If you are a libertarian and not cocmpletely looney, you know that the most important reason to have any government at all is to protect us against other citizens and foreign powers (in this case, stateless or state-backed terrorists). That is the FIRST purpose of government. We do this knowing that placing any power in the hands of government is a risk.

So the rational person tries to weigh the risks. I see that rarely in internet debate; rather, what appears is knee-jerk civil liberties absolutists.

Now, please tell me of *actual* cases where the government abused you, a familhy member, or someone you know. Note that abuse does NOT mean accidently detained or surveilled, but does mean intentionally used its powers for purposes of gaining power or money undemocratically.

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[mesocyclone]

Guess what! The Catholc Church did have some pedos, and in too many cases tried to "treat" offenders (and cover up for them) rather than hand them over to government authorities. But the vast majority of cases of "pedophilia" were actually cases of homosexual (most of them) or heterosexual statutory rape or "ordinary" sexual abuse. Pedophilla is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, but few of the victims were children. This is also true of the Boy Scouts and other organizations which work with children and youth.

As an example, there was a priest at my daughter's school who ran a ranch for wayward youth (teenagers). As it turned out, he was a homosexual and abused those juvenile males. As soon as he was discovered, he was handed over to authorities and is now in jail. I would guess that the press rarely mentions this aspect of the "pedophilia" scandal because they don't want to be demogogued as "homophobes* - but if it is the truth and relevant, it isn't phobia, it just *is*.

The Catholic Church rarely intended to "enable" their perpetrators. But they believed in healing and therapy (in other words, the psychology of the '70s and '80s plus Christianity) and thus too often failed to take the correct action (bringing in the police). Furthermore, some responsible officials were too interested in CYA when they should not have been.

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[rheotaxis]

What about counting all Air Force bombing missions during every war of the 20th century alone. The United States Government has financed the killing of millions of people on this planet if you count them too. They may not have been citizens of U.S.A., but they were human beings, and shouldn't that matter more than someone's location at birth? I would argue that most victims of all these bombings were not "enemy combatants," they were innocent people living in the wrong country at the wrong time. Which suggests that we should allow anyone who wants into our country, so they have a chance to avoid being killed by weapons we drop all over the place.

What about counting the people poisoned with plutonium injections during the Cold War? The U.S.A government has a web site about it. Of course, you could read this too. The victims of this testing are mostly dead now, but might have lived long, healthy lives if not for the United States need to know what radition does to people.

And, if we go back to the 19th century, what about the many thousands of Confederate fighters who were killed by the Union forces? I'd say they deserve to be counted as citizens killed by the United States.

Our government has relied upon force to keep itself in control of everything it wants to, and only the peoples' right to challange uncontrolled government authority in court has kept us from becoming a completely facist state. I still love our country, and see it has made progress toward peace and justice for all, but let's not ignore that some people in power want to corrupt the system with facist tendancies, and they need to be stopped now!

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[sunspot42]

Pedophilia is commonly utilized to denote sexual relations between an adult and minors under the age of consent - as the Wikipedia article you linked to points out. Technically it's Ephebophilia, being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to adolescents. Whatever.

The Catholic Church had more than "some pedos". It had a slew, and it went to great lengths to cover up their abuses, harass or discredit their accusers and in the process enable the predator Priests to assault still more children. For every one abuser, there were dozens of enablers within the Church, including a full compliment of the most loathsome lawyers on the planet.

This kind of spin - nitpicking at definitions of pedophilia, blaming it all on "the gays" or "the liberals" - is commonly utilized by apologists for the morally bankrupt leadership of the Catholic Church, in an attempt to deflect responsibility for the abuse away from the Church hierarchy. The only problem is, the Church in which much of this abuse took place was increasingly conservative over the past 25 years, dominated by a conservative Pope and with conservative Priests and Bishops in favor and in power. Many of the diocese being slammed the hardest by lawsuits following the 2002 media frenzy in Boston involving abuse allegations are conservative, were run by some of the Church's most conservative members, and were located in conservative parts of the country.

The Covington diocese in Kentucky announced in June it'll be shelling out an incredible $120 million to settle the suits against it. More than 100 victims had come forward by the time the diocese settled. Heaven knows how many more were too ashamed to speak up. This is on top of a $100 million settlement in Orange County, and the $90 million settlement in Boston. More are probably in the pipeline. The OC Weekly just ran a story about what happened there from the '60s thru the '90s that read like the Nazi abuse of the Jews during the holocaust - it's still online at http://www.ocweekly.com/the-news/news/king-of-the- county-pedophiles_2005-12-14.html if anyone's still interested in reality.

The Priests and Bishops who conducted and condoned this abuse weren't gay or straight - they were child predators, first and foremost. Policies and procedures could have been put into place decades ago to prevent this kind of widescale, horrific abuse. They weren't. That's the fault of the conservative (and liberal, for that matter) leadership of the Church and not anybody else. A leadership which apparently considered itself above the law and more important that the children of its faithful flock. If the buck passing and ideologically motivated attempts to spin the blame elsewhere don't stop now, it's only gonna lead to some other sex scandal in the not-too-distant future, with more innocent victims.

Re:Well 99% of the people here don't get it

[mesocyclone]

Oh, so it is the "church wsa increasingly conservative..." that was the problem.

THAT IS COMPLETE NONSENSE>

In the United States, the Catholic Church was becoming more liberal, as the 60's generation rose to positions of power. Today, the Catholic bishops are still far more liberal than the Vatican. If fact, conservative Catholics blame the *liberalization* of the Church for the sexual abuse scandal. One reason was a liberal decision to admist homosexuals to the seminaries. Now, you may find non-politically correct facts hard to digest, or have some psychological need to simply deny them, but the main problem was homosexual priests. Period. It isn't an accident that the vast majority of the cases were male on male, where the victim was adolescent (and btw, often above the age of consent desired by the gay lobby).

That the church also had true pedophiles is also true, and not surprising. Pedophiles (and some homosexuals) seek out and infiltrate organizations that work with children. If you have ever been part of such an organization and had to undergo screenin and the related anti-sexual abuse training, you learn that. It wasn't until the absurd child care pedophile witch hunts that the issue suddenly flipped and went from being a part of the therapy culture to being one of the lawsuit culture (and at least got some of the critical evaluation and press it needed).

That the church fell for the *liberal* doctrine that pedophiles (and people with any other issue) can be cured with *therapy* is also a fact.

Those who remember the past (and are old enough to do so) remember the times when pedophiles were considered to be curable (especially since they were very good at faking a cure), and in fact every problem (except perhaps conservatism) could be cured with a bit of time with some sort of modern therapist. So when you lay this on a "conservative" Catholic church, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of the issue.

The evidence you cite comes from an apparently left-wing newspaper, consists of a few anecdotes (and btw, the LA diocese is one of the most liberal) and then goes off quoting a lawyer (who has big bucks to make).

Fact: Homosexuals were the abusers in the vast majority of Catholic Church cases (and also the Boy Scouts, which is why the Boy Scouts don't allow homosexuals). All homosexual priests who did this were violating their vows of chastity.

Fact: Too often, but far from always, members of the middle level Church hierarchy either failed to appreciate the depth of the problem, or chose to cover it up. This is certainly wrong.

Fact: The Catholic Church, and in fact all organized Christian religions, are favorite targets of attacks from the modern social left.

Fact: The "pedophilia" scandal, while at times definitely the fault of members of the Cathlic Church, is a gold mine for lawyers.

Fact: Many cases of remembered early childhood sex abuse (i.e. recovered memories) are not real, as has been solidly established in psychological circles.

If you use your full name for an email address

[sl4shd0rk]

You're a fool. And yes, the company you work for is also an idiot for using john.smith@megacorp.com as your mandatory email address. All your doing is making an index for yourself into the biggest rolodex on the planet. People argue that some names are so regular no one could possibly narrow it down, but a simple whois can help narrow things down to a particular state. Public legal records from there can make things more interesting.

Re:If you use your full name for an email address

[kpharmer]

> If you use your full name for an email address...You're a fool.

Keep in mind that if you used that email address to register for a service that required your full name they've probably got both anyway. Or used your email address in a purchase with a visa card. Or etc.

That's what makes data integration efforts so dangerous - data mining on its own isn't really that useful. Data mining on pre-integrated and cleansed data *is*.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Go to the right agency and the field desk personnel had damn well better have read these. It isn't so much what you know, but whether your security clearance indicates you are one of "us" or one of "them".

Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidently according to Amazon, I'm a middle age house wife who enjoyes reading about bondage and wild sex orgies while cooking all meatlovers course.

Wow, I sound really hot... only if it was true, I'd fuck myself right on the spot.

Re:Nobody cares

[Entropy]

So go fuck yourself.

Same trick works in the UK

[Simon Brooke]

Despite our much stronger data protection legislation, exactly the same trick works in the UK. Which just demonstrates that the whole data protection hoo hah is nonsense...

Re:Same trick works in the UK

[mOdQuArK!]

If you can't protect the data, then it might be interesting to require that you be able to find out exactly who was asking for it (the real person, not a fictional identity).

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[jacksonj04]

The eBay profiles of people in my 6th form would make no sense, since people in lower 6th (17 years old) bid using the accounts of upper 6th (18) and then pay should they win. I think mine would profile me to be a girl with a jewellery fetish.

Sept 11 terrorist on Amazon Wishlist?

[PerfectSmurf]

In the weeks after the Sept 11 incident the FBI released the list of suspected airline hijackers:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic .htm

I don't remember why at the time but it popped into my head to search the Amazon Wishlists. Upon entering an Alghamdi in Florida I found the following wishlist containing references to pilots guides to airports:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/registry.html/?e ncoding=UTF8&type=wishlist&id=1UWSWIH3NXQJN

take note of the dates the items were added, well before the sept 11 attack, that this individual is ahmad vs ahmed (on the list), and also that no items have been added since this time period.

I immediately reported this to the FBI via their reporting form and suggested that wishlists could be used to openly and safely communicate needs. I never heard anything back so I can only assume it was investigated. If is was however, and found to be suspicious or related, I have no doubt that all open wishlists are now monitored for known aliases.

Note that this person may not be the hijacker. I've oft wondered since if some innocent pilot could be sitting secretly in jail because I found his wishlist.

droogs

[Gregoyle]

Hey, just to let you know, "droogs" means "friends" not dogs.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

Congradulations, you're reinforcing racism! HA HA.
(This is insulting flamebait but I wish someone would mod it up as funny.)

That was a pretty offensive post, I'm tired of having to say that 99.9% of muslims are not terrorists and that 99.9% of muslims abhor anyone who acts like a terrorist in the name of their religion as it only causes muslims pain. Posts like that just reinforce the damaging stereotype.

For balance I'd like to point to http://islam.org/ so people can know the truth about muslims.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of curious to find that in a previous slashdot post, 90% of the comments were talking about the racial implications of the relationship between "Planets of the Apes" and MLK and other prominent figures of the black population in the USA (african-americans to those that demand politically correctness) and somehow the parent comment gets modded +5 funny when it is explicity racist.

But who is a 'terrorist'?

[gidds]

No-one is born a terrorist, though. And I bet few of them suddenly wake up one morning and think "Right! Now I'm going to be a terrorist" without having had thoughts about the issues before. Maybe read some books that are 'subversive', maybe attended some non-mainstream rallies or religious meetings, maybe happened to know people who knew some people who had slight links to terrorism. Maybe they use encryption on their computers, use 'illegal' software. That sort of thing. And all before they get round to thinking "Now I'm a terrorist, I'd better be careful that TPTB don't find out, so I'll act completely normally."

So there may well be 'warning signs' in the various products, services, activities, associations, and movements of someone well before they become an active terrorist. And I can well imagine some not-so-scrupulous officials trying to get hold of that information "for national security, you understand".

The trouble is that thousands of perfectly normal people who'd never even remotely consider any form of violence, who've never so much as got a parking ticket, also read 'subversive' books, go to non-mainstream events, have things they want to hide with encryption, and probably happen to know someone distantly connected with terrorism. And that's their absolute right!

That's why such things are none of TPTB's business. They conclusions they might draw are dangerous, unfair, an in most cases probably downright wrong.

Of course, anyone who's still capable of thought after the media frenzy of the last few years will realise that 'terrorist' is the new word for 'bogeyman', just as 'communist' was in the US a generation or two ago, and 'witch' a few hundred years before that. In amongst the billions of people in the world, terrorists are so few (and their impact so vastly exaggerated by the media) that they're really not worth worrying about. Why not worry more about, I dunno, road accidents, or obesity?

Because that wouldn't give us a warm, comfortable feeling of anger and a conveniently well-defined, 'foreign' group of people to get angry about, that's why...

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Rei]

If it's racist, please tell me what likely race of the person whose wishlist this is. This is not a trick question; just go ahead.

Data Mining vs Privacy

[gone.fishing]

Using data mining to catch criminals is nothing new and there is nothing wrong with it. Many white-collar criminals have be caught "cooking the books" using this kind of process. Having said that, I also have to say that there is a point where this practice can go too far. It can become an invasion of privacy that could cast the shadow of suspicion on to ordinary, law-abiding people.

Suppose you were a person who likes surfing the net to read things like "The Anarchist's Cookbook" (an entertaining read) who is also curious about Muslim Extremisim (because it is so often in the news) and is planning a car trip with your family to New York City and Washington D.C. Perhaps you have downloaded maps and driving directions to the Capital, the White House and the United Nations Building from MapQuest. Maybe you have visited EBay and bought some reloading equipment (because you are a sport-clay shooter).

Now imagine some data mining application at fbi.gov puts all of this information together and concludes that you are an extremist who is about to embark on a trip where you plan on bombing the United Nations building in New York City and the Capitol and the White House in Washington DC!

Seperate and disparite pieces of data aren't always able to fit nicely into a simple formula. This is where the danger of this kind of information comes in. Taken seperately and considered without an adequate foundation, these "facts" tend to support a totally erronious conclusion. Next thing you know, someone is quietly asking questions about you abd you have no idea why.

These kinds of things have happend to innocent people before. Someone I know faced scrutiny years ago shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. There was no real reason for his being suspect and it took a long time to figure out why they looked at him. The FBI questioned his neighbors, they followed him, photographed his home, and in general made life uncomfortable for him.

It took time to figure it out but, we finally concluded that there were reasons why he came to their attention. They were:

  - He was a gun collector
  - He bought gunpowder by the pound (he was a re-loader)
  - He worked at a facility where he may possibly have had access to amonium nitrate
  - He lived alone
  - He lived in the wrong place (outside of town in an area linked to suspects)
  - He had several 55 galon oil drums on his property
  - He was a member of the NRA

To the FBI all this information seemed to indicate that he could possibly be linked as the third man in the Oklahoma City bombing. Nothing could have been further from the truth but for a few tense weeks, he was the focus of enough attention so that he felt like he could not visit friends, go target practicing, or do much of anything. He got paranoid and asked us to not call him because he thought he may be wiretapped. It really ate him up inside and he had done nothing wrong. The truth of the matter is that he is one of the most law-abiding people around. He had not done one illegal thing to draw this suspiscion on him. Litterally, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is just a kind of quiet guy who likes to keep to himself.

I don't think that data mining brought this investigation on him. I think his name simply popped up on too many lists (which is in a way, a form of manual data mining). Still with computers and access to hundreds or thousands of different data sources, the possibilities have compounded themselves making this kind of process likely to impact too many poeole. Innocent people.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[21st Century Peon]

The racist's race is irrelevant: if you say, "I hate the Chinese," it doesn't matter if you're white, black, or herringbone-twill - Racist A is just as contemptible as Racist B. And don't get me started on the herringbones - coming over here, taking our jobs, stealing our women with their well-cut casual jackets...

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Rei]

Please read more carefully. I asked the race of the person whose wishlist this is, *not* the race of the slashdot poster.

Keep the insults coming, you're just building things up. :)

Re:This is not a story. This is not news that matt

[Doomedsnowball]

What a stupid assumption. I read TFA. I didn't know I was restricted to only use phrases or words contained in TFA. What would you consider it if not an invasion of privacy? Moron.

An intellegent article...

[Anonymous Coward]

on slashdot?!?

Wow. Alot has happened while I've been away.

--Nick

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[21st Century Peon]

*rereads* So you did. My bad.
...
What insults?

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is not a race. There are black muslims, white muslims, semite muslims, far-east muslims, and so forth.

On the other hand the original Planete of the Apes intentionally dealt with racial issues.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[21st Century Peon]

Egad, I'm sleepy. I replied to my own post, instead of yours. Oops.

O good gravy, I did it again.

[21st Century Peon]

I so very need sleep - probably why I misread your post in the first place.

Re:O good gravy, I did it again.

[Rei]

The person below here figured it out ;) Read my reply to them, at the bottom of this thread's comments.

Re: "inavsion of privacy" vs. "available info"

[Reverend Darkness]

I would consider it a method of collecting and organizing data that is voluntarily placed on the internet for all to see.

You are not restricted to using words or phrases within the article, but you should be careful to comment on the facts of the article, and to perhaps understand that there are other sources for information other than the New York Times and the Washington Post.

To compare the article in question with something from theonion.com is not only rude, but extrememly narrow-minded.

Once again, the point of the article is education, not conspiracy theory.

Moron...

My List

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what I found on my wishlist... I wonder what this tells the data miners

Secrets Of Lock Picking, by Steven Hampton
Visual Guide to Lock Picking (2nd Edition), by Mark McCloud
Steel Bolt Hacking,by douglas Chick
Opening Combination Padlocks : No Tools, No Problem,by Carl Black
Modern High-Security Locks : How To Open Them, by Steven Hampton
The Modern Technique of the Pistol, by Gregory B. Morrison
The Truth About Self Protection, by Massad F. Ayoob
Gun-Proof Your Children / Massad Ayoob's Handgun Primer, by Massad F. Ayoob
Ayoob Files: The Book, by Massad F. Ayoob
The Truth About Self Protection, by Massad Ayoob
Stressfire, Vol. 2, by Massad F. Ayoob
Stressfire, Vol. 1 (Gunfighting for Police: Advanced Tactics and Techniques), by Massad F. Ayoob
Tactical Pistol : Advanced Gunfighting Concepts And Techniques, by Jeff Cooper
Surgical Speed Shooting : How To Achieve High-Speed Marksmanship In A Gunfight, by Andy Stanford
Tactical Pistol Marksmanship: How to Improve Your Combat Shooting Skills, by Gabriel Suarez
The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, by Massad F. Ayoob
In the Gravest Extreme Role of the Firearm, by Massad F. Ayoob
Principles Of Personal Defense, by Jeff Cooper
To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth, by Jeff Cooper

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's shia, Jaish al Ashurah means, soldiers of Ashurah event, which the shiites say happened. So thats a shia who probably want to do some fun with american soldiers.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[daigu]

I was vaguely aware that you could influence the my recommendations on Amazon. I guess I just couldn't be bother to correct it. The point I was trying to make was that using Amazon's database of purchases will have to have a much more sophisticated algorithm that what Amazon uses to make recommendations. Even then, it will likely require user intervention - either from the analyst evaluating the data or other ways of eliminating false positives.

Re:This is not a story. This is not news that matt

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, you should enlist whatever hyperbole you can think of when whining about the article being linked to by Slashdot. Go back to harvesting karma for your precious troll account. By the way it's called profiling. How is profiling an invasion of privacy? Moron.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Rei]

Pretty good! :) As you noted, the "name" listed is actually the name of a militant group, not an individual as one would do if they were trying to stereotype an entire race (for example, "Muhammad"). And, at that, it's not Sufi radicals like make up most Iraqi insurgent groups - I chose to deliberately involve a Shia resistance group, to draw from an even smaller potential recruiting subset.

Not only does the group name indicate "Shia", like you noticed, but so does one of the picks: "The Tragedy of Karbala". It is, as it sounds, a book about the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

I actually considered using persian to suggest an Iranian militant group and break the stereotype out further (from "Arab" to "Persian") and give a Farsi group name, but I don't know enough Farsi offhand and didn't feel like taking the time to look for a translator or using an *actual* group name (such as Mujahedeen e Khalq). Even further, I thought about distancing even more and going with, say, the Tamil Tigers or another such group, but I really don't know enough about the conflict to comment.

Anyways: to argue that this was a "racist" post, one would have to argue that:

1) A militant group is a "race"
2) Choosing a minority militant group as the example is the same as choosing a majority militant group.

Of course, you'd also have to argue that a person who was out in the streets before the war protesting, at times, its racist undertones is a racist.

I suppose there's an alternative explanation: ignorance and assumption. That is to say, someone saw the list, and assumed that it was just supposed to apply to Arabs in general and claim that they're terrorists. Of course, I don't think most people here would like to admit that.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[jonadab]

You forgot "Physical Interrogation Techniques", by Richard Krousher.

Hello NSA! No! I don't know this guy! I 3 USA!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon to slashdot.

"Ask Slashdot: Terrorist Rei answers 20 questions about life in Gitmo".

Here's the problem

[cicho]

The moment you think "I'd better not put this title on my public wishlist because if I do, there's a non-zero chance I'll end up on the no-fly list", you're not a free citizen in your country. It's that simple.

Re:Mining voluntary information on a public websit

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose there's an alternative explanation: ignorance and assumption. That is to say, someone saw the list, and assumed that it was just supposed to apply to Arabs in general and claim that they're terrorists. Of course, I don't think most people here would like to admit that.

But to most people it would appear as a prototypical arabic name..forget what it really means. And with that you are reinforcing racism since this prototypical arab is reading fantastic sounding extremist literature. May you and all of us be guided to kindness and truth.

Garbage In, Gospel Out

[edb]

Just for fun I logged into Amazon tonight (haven't for about a year), and looked at my "Wish List". I've never used the Wish List feature on Amazon.com, so I was surprised to find that my Wish List had more than 20 items on it, not just books, that I had never even browsed. And some of them were pretty bizarre choices!

This convinces me just how valuable the data being mined is. It isn't.

Granted, it would be hard for me to prove that I did not put those items into my Wish List. But since I did not, I would expect that they could not prove that I did.

Makes the paranoid side of me wonder how I could protect myself if some PTB falsified evidence against me as Wish List items, and then prosecuted (or persecuted) based on that false evidence.

Shiver...