Slashdot Mirror


FBI Agents Don't Have Email Access

the_bikeman writes "According to CNN, many FBI agents do not have access to an email account, and only 100 of the 2000 New York FBI agents have a Internet-ready mobile phone. Spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan said 'e-mail addresses are still being assigned, adding that the city bureau's 2,000 employees would all have accounts by the end of the year.'"

37 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. How convenient! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have 4 Gmail accounts with 500 invitations left each! How many Get Out Of Jail Free cards can I buy?

    1. Re:How convenient! by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or they could get "Gmail for your domain" :-)

      I wonder what kind of ads they would get?

    2. Re:How convenient! by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Funny

      nah, you need Gman account !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:How convenient! by DerGeist · · Score: 5, Funny
      Looking for TOP SECRET: Operation: Deadbolt? Find it on eBay!

      Can't find Narcotics smuggler Alberto Ramirez? Use AskJeeves.com!

      Make your own heroin, cocaine and ecstasy using our Home ChemLab 2.0!

      ...just imagine them investigating a pedo case.

    4. Re:How convenient! by deviantphil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They don't have access to email, but the FBI has access to my email. How convenient, indeed!

    5. Re:How convenient! by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Funny

      This can be rephrased into a one-liner:

      "The FBI doesn't need their own email access, they have yours!"

  2. It's ALL Vanity by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Agent.Mulder@gmail.com just doesn't have the bragging rights.

    1. Re:It's ALL Vanity by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly he'd try for Agent.Mulder@hotmale.com

      But that still wouldn't satisfy his ego.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  3. It's Clear by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's clear that the greatest protection our civil rights have is abject incompetence.

    -Peter

    1. Re:It's Clear by Aspirator · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll bet most of us would like an employer who told us
      by the end of the year
      to get 2000 email accounts set up.

  4. pre-9/11 by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    "FBI agents not having e-mail or Internet access is much too much a pre-9/11 mentality."

    Funny, I thought it was a pre-1995 mentality.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:pre-9/11 by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know... you crack a joke, but I have to deal with this seriously way too often.

      Recently our boss decided that any account that we have on our web applications needed a mode of contact. Something consistant for everyone. We debated a little, but the obvious solution was to simply require an email address, which in turn becomes their username. I mean it's 2006... who DOESN'T have an email address.

      A week later, we get an excited new client. It is my job to set up the handful of user accounts for our webapps... and I simply boggled at the first guys response when I asked for his email address:

      "3657 Washington Roa..."
      "No, your Email address."
      "3657 Wash..."
      "EEEEEEEEEEEE Mail address!"
      "What do you mean?"
      "What do you mean what do I mean? What is your email address?"
      "I don't know what that is"

      He DOESNT KNOW WHAT THAT IS!!! That's like saying you don't know what a road is. Someone please explain to me how and why such people still exist? Keep in mind, these people are going to CONSTANTLY use a WEB application, yet ... no... idea... of... what... an... email... is.

      *boggle*

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:pre-9/11 by itismike · · Score: 5, Informative

      Phil Agre's article entitled "How to Help Someone Use a Computer" http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/how-to-help.ht ml explains very clearly why such 'dumb' users may make the mistakes that they do. I was fortunate enough to come across this before my job at the Helpdesk and it has helped me realize how many problems are the user and how many are the system they find themselves entangled in.

  5. No email is fine by me... by JargonScott · · Score: 5, Funny

    I prefer my FBI agents to be out attempting to protect me, not forwarding something to their 10 closest friends so Jesus will bless the kittens that day.

    --
    Nuke Gay Whales for Jesus.
  6. Where did all the money go? by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We just don't have the money, and that is an endless stream of complaints that come from the field," he said.

    So let me get this straight, $9 billion goes missing in Iraq, the war has cost US taxpayers about $250 billion so far, oil companies have record profit$, our national debt ceiling was raised to $9 trillion and we can't afford to supply email to the FBI?
    What is going on? And, does anyone even care?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Where did all the money go? by interiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that gigs and gigs of GMail are available to end-users for free, and HTTPS-secured web-mail is available to end-users for free as well, how expensive can it be for the FBI to set up email addresses? Answer: email is nearly free. It's not really a cost issue, it's a management or incompetence issue.

    2. Re:Where did all the money go? by RedneckTek · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are not seriously naive enough to believe that technology is free are you?

      Behind every tech, whether free or not, is a cost. In the case of the FBI, I personally can see an email service necessitating many additional costs, such as: IT personnel to manage the service, hardware to run the service, AND (a biggie) securing the service from inside and outside. That's not even taking into account encryption setup and maintenence that you can bet they are going demand before even considering such a service.

      If you think you can just setup an Exim server, you're dead wrong.

      --
      I gave up thinking of a cool sig
  7. This makes sense actually by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a world where secrecy is necessary, what you whisper goes unrecorded, but what you put in an email gets published just when you need it to never have been written down....

    With record keeping comes accountability... is it any wonder they don't write things down? Until rather recently, there was no satisfactory manner to keep such communications to mobile devices secure/encrypted. If anyone knows if the govmint is spying on people, the FBI should. Makes you wonder..... ????

  8. RTFA. We're talking about law enforcement. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of the bureau's employees have secure mail accounts for use within that organization. Publicly available accounts, and accounts from which bureau employees can send mail to the public are indeed more complex (think about the tracking they'd require), and would require a lot more than typical corporate non-training when it comes to what they can or should do with that type of communication.

    One mis-step in a CC or Reply-All and you could completely torpedo an investigation or a trial. Just look at what one lackluster prosecutor did with some ill-conceived e-mail sent to prospective witnesses during the ongoing 9/11 trial happening right now. This subject is a lot more complicated than meets the eye.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:RTFA. We're talking about law enforcement. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if intentionally exposing them to forbidden court material is "ill-conceived". It's kind of hard to accidentally send transcripts to witnesses... I'm sure she'll get to write a book about the trial.

      Of course it wasn't an accident in the "oops, I forwarded this to the wrong addresses" sense. It was poor judgement. But the technology that made it so easy for her to do it was: internet enabled e-mail. My point is that the "cost" of turning on publicly-transcieving e-mail accounts for investigators and other people with legally critical jobs involve more than some server admin mouseclicks and a little more storage... there's substantial training and oversight involved.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:RTFA. We're talking about law enforcement. by a2800276 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just as easy to accidentally stuff crap into the wrong envelope and accidentally put the wrong address on it. Is it too much to expect that people think about what they're doing? Maybe people that stupid shouldn't be in such "critical" positions.

  9. Email, problem. Cell phones, not a problem. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and only 100 of the 2000 New York FBI agents have a Internet-ready mobile phone.

    So? I make my living as a geek, and don't have an internet-ready cell phone.

    Why would I pay more, for a service redundant with something I already have, yet with a far lower quality presentation?

    When I want to do something online, I'll use a PC. When I want to call someone, I'll use my cell phone. They each serve entirely separate purposes, and as long as my eyes work better scanning large surfaces than a 1.5 inch square, they will continue serving different purposes.

  10. Boo Hoo by codepunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Boo Hoo, our exchange licenses costs to much. Us poor folks at the FBI could not possibly just load up a linux box and postfix. I love the comment that the one senator made about this, our agents need better access to technology.

    Clue: It is right under your nose, use it!

    --


    Got Code?
  11. Stuff like this makes me realize... by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how right my parents were about the FBI when I was a kid. My dad was very high up within Customs and my mom was a GSA IG agent, and all of their friends I knew growing up worked for other federal agencies ranging from the IRS to the DEA. The one thing that all of them had in common was a disdain, bordering on hatred, for the FBI's management. See, the FBI doesn't have its own charter and can expand into whatever it wants, which naturally causes turf wars with other agencies. Customs and the DEA are the two main anti-drug agencies, especially Customs which is the agency responsible for keeping them out of our country on the borders. The FBI would routinely come in and try to to take cases away to build up publicity and then royally fuck up the case, and when you're dealing with wealthy criminals, usually that leads to no conviction, even if there is no technicality, because the lawyers are that good at ripping the FBI a new asshole.

    The FBI screwed up on 9-11 because it wants to be the American KGB. It wants to be THE main federal agency and has been jockeying for a foreign intelligence **field work** role. Hello people, that naturally conflicts with the CIA's exclusive jurisdiction there. Didn't stop the FBI's management from refusing to work with the CIA since the CIA has legal jurisdiction over all foreign operations. The FBI has also had problems with management blowing off field agents. The management simply has to go. A top down attack on the FBI management, decentralizing power and putting the bulk of it back into the hands of the lower-level management and field agents is the only solution. From the stories I have heard from the people I know in law enforcement at all levels, the FBI is dominated by middle management hell. The field agents, and the press is quick to point this out with the agents who warned about terrorism but were told to go fuck off by FBI management, and the IT people alike are hamstrung by management that cares more about image than doing its job.

    Most importantly, give the agency a clear charter and jurisdiction once and for all. Take terrorism out of most of it too. Let the CIA and NSA deal with terrorists. They don't have the time, the jurisdiction or quite frankly any interest in what non-national security things the people are doing. If there is ever a crackdown on dissent, it'll be done by FBI agents with KGB-level powers, not CIA special ops who tracked down a Jose Padilla and discretely shot him dead like a dog in the streets of NYC.

  12. And if they forgot their password by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    And if they forgot their password to the account they could just get the Justice Department to subpoena their emails for them...

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  13. Would it be just like the movies? by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they did get email addresses, would it be just like the way email is in the movies, where the font is 24-point white or yellow lettering that scrolls in real-time across a black background that takes up the entire screen?

    --
    This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
  14. Re:Email, problem. Cell phones, not a problem. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Repeat after me, the Web is not the Internet

    No kidding... Your point?

    I also don't want to read email (which increasingly includes web-like formatting), chat on IRC, or read UseNET on a 1.5 inch screen; And my phone doesn't make the best destination for downloading files via FTP or any P2P; And it takes far too long to enter alphanumeric data to make anything even remotely interactive (ie, ssh) useful on a cellphone.

    I suppose getting an RSS feed might prove vaguely useful, but not nearly enough to justify the increased expense - And y'know, with a government that can't seem to spend our tax dollars fast enough, I can't say it really bothers me that the FBI hasn't caught on to yet another way to waste our money.

    So, repeat after me - Contextually useless distinctions don't require enumeration.

  15. Not to defend Gov't stuff... by ursabear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The CIA, FBI, and any other governmental agency should have efficient, extremely-monitored, very safe email and email systems. It is very important that modern communications are fostered and maintained in governmental activities.

    I know from personal experience that government-funded/government-used technical systems are generally either:
    1)Ultra-over-engineered to be sure that the system/thing is ultra-safe or ultra-reliable or ultra-accountable
    2)Woefully inadequate because the person(s) in the bureaucracy don't have the tech expertise to foster the effort correctly - and yet place massive, uninformed, and inappropriate amounts of pressure on the worker bees to get the job done as per the way the non-tech person thinks it needs to go.
    3)Many projects die on the vine because mis-direction (and management that honestly doesn't have the knowledge they need to lead the effort) makes the project wander in the desert for huge periods of time.
    4)I could go on...

    But in all fairness, governmental technical efforts have many different and sometimes unique pressures on them. The government literally has to have permission from someone to do anything with public systems. The public (rightfully) wants as much transparency and accountability as possible in governmental efforts - which means everything is debated, re-documented, justified, cleared, reviewed, managed, re-managed, scrutinized, over-then-under-funded, micro-managed, and finally finger-pointed-to-somebody-else'd when the project doesn't go right.

    Our government cannot (or doesn't know how to) operate as smaller, more agile private businesses work. The pressure and accountability of every move has created a monster of over-administered and over-micro-managed web of forms, functions, procedures, and other things...

    What's the solution? Frankly, I don't know. I want my government to be accountable, and I want the government to be "of the people, by the people", but I also want it to be intelligent, well-led, and a great deal less dysfunctional. If only governmental technical tasks could be more agile...

  16. Access by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> many FBI agents do not have access to an email account

    Not true, not true. They have access to many email accounts, they just don't have accounts of their own.

  17. You laugh by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You laugh, but every time I hear people convinced that the FBI/CIA is maintaining a detailed file on them, I just know that there's no way either organization has that kind of manpower to care about them.

    Not that I'm thrilled that they seem to be intent on gathering scattershot information when they can (taking pictures of protesters, granting themselves the right to listen in to phone calls). They don't even have time to process the information they have.

  18. Re:"But can't I fax it to you?" by caffeination · · Score: 3, Funny
    You have it easy. I work in 2056, among college graduates like in your job, but in my job, monkeys have taken over the world. It's not all bad, I mean even these monkeys know to use email for big papers like the ones you mention, but they fucking stink of shit. I mean jeez!

    I would have got a job in a better timeline, but that's the price of taking a liberal arts degree..

  19. Re:Internal communications == borked by erik_norgaard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the article:

    "Christine Monaco, a spokeswoman for the FBI in New York, said Monday that all FBI agents can communicate with each other via a secure internal e-mail system, and about 75 percent of the New York office's employees have outside e-mail accounts."

  20. I don't get it by iminplaya · · Score: 4, Funny

    They have access to my email...

    --
    What?
  21. That's Just Crap... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >look at what one lackluster prosecutor did with some ill-conceived e-mail

    Jesus H. Armadillo! Are we going to drag our whole government operation down to the level of the least competent person in the organization? I have worked in companies that had the philosophy of creating new restrictions every time some idiot abused or misused some tool or benefit. This served to limit the ability of the competent to actually get things done.

    After a while, I got so frustrated that I quit and found a better job. There is a better way to run things: Fire The Morons! This "lackluster prosecutor" has at least seven years of university education and a six-figure salary. Am I wrong to expect competence and accountability? It's not like there's a shortage of lawyers in this country. Fire the fool and hire someone that can follow simple instructions.

    The FBI is supposed to have the best and the brightest cops in the country. If they can't be trusted not to send the case file on some mass murderer as an email attachment to the guy's uncle, we're just screwed anyway. If I hear one more time, that we can't get rid of some idiot, because we have all this time and money invested in his training, I'm going to scream. We may have spent a lot of time and money, but it didn't work. Fire The Morons! I guarantee we'll be better off.

    Thank you for listening. I'm going to go take my medication now.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:That's Just Crap... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Are we going to drag our whole government operation down to the level of the least competent person in the organization? "

      Yes! In fact, we're going to put that psrson in charge!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  22. Re:Good lord, I hope you didn't really say that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it incredibly humorous that you accuse the grandparent of only being able to communicate with "technobabble," yet your solution is to tell him "...we're going to have to engineer a solution that will connect to your internal [electronic] mail system..." If the guy didn't understand the grandparent, he sure as hell is not going to have a clue what you're saying to him.

  23. Re:Good lord, I hope you didn't really say that. by Grab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, no. If you don't know by now what email is, you are one out-of-touch individual.

    Every advert and TV programme for god knows how long has had a web page attached, and most also have an email address. Every phone-in programme or radio programme I've heard for the last 10 years has had the "ring us on xxx or email on xxx". For the last 5 or more, they've also had "or text us on xxx".

    Bad analogy time? OK - failing to know of the existence of email is as bad as failing to know of the existence of mobile phones. They've both been around for about the same length of time. Their very existence stares you in the face every day. To not know about them would require that you are unaware of any new inventions created in the last 10-15 years.

    Note that I don't require you to have one, or to be fully conversant with its use, or to know what the latest-and-greatest version is. That's all your technocrat stuff. But simply to know that it exists qualifies you as an active member of Western civilisation. I don't think it's too strong to say that if you're so out of touch with the world today that you've never heard of email, then you are not an active member of society. It indicates that you never talk to other people, never read the papers, never read books, never watch the TV, and never listen to the radio. Society-wise, you could be dead and no-one would notice the difference.

    Grab.