FBI Data Mining Students' Financial Aid Records

1000 Records is a really small number by IntelliAdmin · 2006-09-01 05:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Not that I think this program is good, but they only collected 1000 records for analysis. According to the article there are over 14 *million* student loans each year. I would say that this is a very small fraction of the student population.

Windows Admin Tools

Re:1000 Records is a really small number by Chosen+Reject · 2006-09-01 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I just hope that while they are at it they can go ahead and renew my FAFSA for this year.

--
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by RumGunner · 2006-09-01 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

1000 would be a good number to try as a test batch before rolling out a much larger program.
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by Zinnian · 2006-09-01 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure 1000 is nothing, nothing that is until one of those happens to be you or me. It's that small first step that makes them think they can take a bit of a bigger one next time. All of this is done, of course, in the name of tracking the terrorists and keeping us safe.
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by Ruff_ilb · 2006-09-01 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

On the contrary, this could be BAD.

If they're using the records of a MILLION people, they could be doing some sort of statistical analysis. As is, it's rather clear that they're actually looking at each individual person in detail.

--
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by letxa2000 · 2006-09-01 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

This should just be common sense. Branches of government (or departments therein) should share information, and they should do so efficiently.
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by TopShelf · 2006-09-01 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative

From the article:
Mr. Miller said the Education Department had been asked to "run names of subjects already material to counterterrorism investigations" to look for evidence of student loan fraud or identity theft.

"No records of people other than those already under investigation were called for," he said. "This was not a sweeping program, in that it involved only a few hundred names. This is part of our mission, which is to take the leads we have and investigate them."

This wasn't trolling through student data at random, it was for specific names that were already part of an FBI investigation. That point is being entirely missed in the comments here. The FBI has a list of people they're investigating, and are asking the DoE to check if any of them are applying for financial aid anywhere. That sounds like basic police work to me. Perhaps it's newsworthy because it's surprising that two branches of the federal government can coordinate on anything.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by Elemenope · 2006-09-01 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

This may sound counterintitive, but I disagree strongly. I want the FBI to be partially on a different page as the Military, as the local police. Sure, it slightly increases the chance that a catastrophic attack might succeed, but there are much more important variables than this in that equation. No, the drag of having massively powerful agencies collaborating is that it makes their view all the more awesomely omniscient. Where then does privacy live?

Look, if you were able to coordinate all extraneous public bits of data that a person ejects into the environment through paperwork, shopping, loan apps, etc, it would, after a certain degree of sophistication and interdepartmental coopoeration, become nearly trivially easy to identify, say, AIDS patients, or gay people, or people who cheat on their spouse with a very high degree of confidence. At that point, all the on-paper privacy in the world doesn't mean squat. With increased automation and advances in data mining heuristics, the cost of correlating data per person keeps going down. Sure, it may be too expensive to do categorical surveillance on a wide scale now, but just wait twenty years.

The government isn't a collection of scientists at a symposium, and not all information *wants* to be free (or whatever the kids' rhetoric is these days). The government has direct power, to coerce, to control, to detain, and yes, even to kill, and do all of these facelessly and on a wide scale. That awesome power is checked somewhat significantly on paper, but the more important practical check on the use of that power usually is pragmatism brought on by bureacratic inefficiency. This isn't about sharing information in the abstract. This is about sharing personal data, the analysis of which may well control the fate of someone's life or freedom.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by Kadin2048 · 2006-09-01 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

This isn't true. A better analogy would be if a car was wanted on suspicion of being involved in a hit-and-run, and the police went down to the DMV and asked where said car was registered.

It's beginning with a particular piece of information (either the terrorism suspect's name, or the suspected vehicle's tag number) and then searching through records to find out where that person or vehicle may be, so that it can be investigated further.

The police don't need a warrant to do that any more than they need a warrant to check to see if your car is stolen when you get pulled over.

Where it would have become improper, was if the police had said, "give us the names and addresses of anyone from country x, y, and z who has applied for financial aid to college," or instead of giving the Dept. of Education a list of particular names to search for, they had simply requested a dump of the entire database (or access to the database) to comb through at their leisure. Either of those things would be overly invasive and wrong. But to say that the police shouldn't have the ability to search through government records during the course of an investigation is ridiculous.

Many long-term investigations are broken only because a suspect will unintentionally break cover in some subtle way; it makes sense to have individuals who are on watch lists (terrorism/foreign-nationals-of-interest lists, FBI Wanted lists, outstanding warrants lists) to be filtered through existing databases on a periodic basis to see if they turn up. Frankly I'm surprised they don't just have some sort of batch program set up to do this; rather than making it a one-shot, they ought to re-run the names continously and then notify law enforcement if there's a 'hit.' Doing so wouldn't compromise the privacy of persons not on the lists, and wouldn't require that anyone else's information be turned over to law enforcement -- so unless they were interested in you already, submitting your FAFSA wouldn't put you at risk.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:1000 Records is a really small number by foqn1bo · 2006-09-01 08:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact that the names were part of an ongoing investigation is utterly meaningless because the FBI will not tell us who they were investigating or what they were being investigated for. What you are saying, ultimately, is that you trust the FBI to do what is right regardless of your ability to discern what they are actually doing. The lack of transparency in these kind of programs is what is truly alarming, not the fact that they exist at all. Granting legitimacy to a formerly secret data sharing program effectively grants legitimacy to any program like it. And since the burden of discretion is left up to a narrow channel of the federal government without any public, judicial, or legislative oversight, you will not have an opportunity to complain about it when a related (and likely escalated) program goes into effect, because you will never hear about it unless a ballsy investigative journalist picks up on clues, harasses the government for details, or gets a call from an inside whistleblower. Furthermore, it would be naiive to assume the FBI were only interested in investigating terror suspects -- the federal government has a rich history of infiltrating and conducting surveilance on student dissidents and campus organization. Just last year the Pentagon put the UCSC activist group "Students Against War" on a Credible Threat list...for protesting military recruiters at a campus job fair.

Transcript Reform? by patrixmyth · 2006-09-01 05:46 · Score: 4, Funny

If this means I no longer have to submit my 12 transcripts for every educational and career application, then I'm all for it. Then again, if I were named Ahmed Bin Laden, then I might feel differently about it. (Oh, and I for one, welcome our Dept. of Education Overlords!)

--
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel

Re:Transcript Reform? by megaditto · 2006-09-01 06:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Then again, if I were named Ahmed Bin Laden, then I might feel differently about it.
No you would not; the bin Ladens (of Osama bin Laden) are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 hijackers paid cash for their flight schools.

The absolute majority of foreign students are not eligible for FAFSA, and hence do not even file the applications. Monitoring FAFSA hence targets the long neglected domestic trailor-trash/ghetto terror threat.

Of course applying for FAFSA should not automatically give the Govt a probable cause since George W Bush clearly stated being poor does not make one a criminal by itself:
First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill.

--
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Re:Transcript Reform? by rovingeyes · 2006-09-01 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The absolute majority of foreign students are not eligible for FAFSA
That is the most important point, which most people including professors themselves don't know. I don't think there is any federal financial aid for foreign except for very very minute segment. So if the FBI is investigating or analyzing these records you have to wonder who they are "striking back" against? US citizens? FBI sure does have heads up their asses.
Re:Transcript Reform? by MacJedi · 2006-09-01 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative

I so hope you are making this up.

It's a real quote.

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." -- Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

--
2^5

We should be tracking our government. by MrAnnoyanceToYou · 2006-09-01 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It should not be tracking us.

This is unacceptable. The lack of self-control exhibited by this administration and its departments over the last six years is unbelievable. If enough of this junk happens, it is actually going to cause social instability. What a clusterf* modern government has become.

--
My little site.

Re:We should be tracking our government. by popeye44 · 2006-09-01 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

yea.. nothing like the last administration confiscating FBI files on pretty much anyone they didn't agree with. I'm sorry but it's the GOVT period that needs to be stopped.. not this administration or the last or the next. It's OUR Fuckin goverment and its' past time they learned who exactly it does belong to.

--
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded

Big Leashed Brother by Doc+Ruby · 2006-09-01 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them. Not to expose our personal info to ID fraud (and worse). Not to hand the data to their corporate cronies. Not to spy on political enemies for counterstrategy or blackmail. Regardless of which party, faction or person is in power, publicly or covertly.

Not just "trust" as in "the president seems like a decent person", but Reagan's promise to "trust but verify". Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Big Leashed Brother by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-01 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

"All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them."

That's the key, along with the fact that no government, in the history of humanity, has shown itself worthy of such trust.

If someone wants to be trusted with such insane amounts of power, it's not enough for us to check up on him every so often to see if he's abusing it. Power that's only subject to spot checks by loyal lapdogs (Congressmen) is not limited at all.

Someone who is truly worthy of such trust would be under our constant oversight; it would be a government watched 24 hours a day by its citizens. Less than constant oversight leaves a loophole for major abuse. If you permit your ruler to declare something "classified," even if it's only 1% of the ruler's actions, guess where abuses of power are going to end up first?

Even oversight is useful only when it's performed directly by the ruled, or by multiple competing third parties. Anything less is no oversight at all. It's the wolfpack overseeing the wolf guarding the sheep -- taking sheep to jointly feast upon and telling everyone that nothing bad is happening.

Sounds like a great idea by overshoot · 2006-09-01 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

The discovery of this program by Northwestern University journalism student Laura McGann has added fuel to the debate about the Education Department's proposal to start a new database tracking the academic progress of all students."

That's a great idea. It will make it a lot easier in the future to track down people who took subversive classes, classes from subversive professors, or classes with other subversives.

Of course, that does make it a little tricky today for students to figure out who will be a subversive in twenty or thirty years. I know that back when I was in University (yes, it was during Vietnam) I would have bet that the people on the wrong side of a Senate subcommittee would have been the ones throwing Molotov cocktails. I would have been wrong, though. They're the ones conducting the Inquisition now.

Well, nothing in life is certain.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

I Don't Understand by lbmouse · 2006-09-01 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

They are mining data from the "Free Application for Federal Student Aid". Isn't this a federal agency/program? I do NOT approve of what they are doing in any fashion, but why is anyone surprised that a federal agency (FBI) is given access to federal documents (FAFSA)?

So, there's a downside to taking tax money? by jcr · 2006-09-01 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who would have thought it?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:The FBI sits under a bridge waiting for goats? by udderly · 2006-09-01 06:03 · Score: 4, Informative

It trolls for names

Argh. The editing at slashdot plumbs new depths of ineptitude.

It should of course be:

It trawls for names.

You know, I was going to say the same thing but I looked it up to be sure. I was surprised but, here's what I found:

troll1 (trol))
v. trolled, trolling, trolls
v. tr.

1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
Slang.. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: " [Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways" (Pete Axthelm).

"trolling." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Sep. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trolling& x=0&y=0 >

Let me get this straight? by LoTechDave · 2006-09-01 06:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was under the impression that the FBI/CIA/Homeland Security wanted to track the flow of money back to terrorists. And they are looking at the financial records of students who aren't financially supported i.e the ones who have applied for a loan????

Maybe now they will realize by antifoidulus · 2006-09-01 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

how poor a lot of students really are and how hard paying for college can be....but then again, who am I kidding. If Americans could get a cheap education the number of people enlisting in the Army would plummet.

--
Monstar L

Data mining? Hardly. by trigeek · 2006-09-01 06:21 · Score: 3, Informative

They gave the FAFSA people a list of names, and FAFSA gave them info that was on their application. The poster needs to learn what data mining is.

--
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!

Learn how to assess risk by MillionthMonkey · 2006-09-01 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

So our government's response to 9/11 should have been to not do anything except perhaps apologize to the Islamic community for placing our skyscrapers in the paths of the airliners they hijacked?

What exactly should the government be doing? Waiting patiently for the next attack?

You're confusing two things- the demands of justice in response to such an attack, and what a logical response to such an attack should be.

Justice is a compelling motive for a strong reaction, but that reaction should then be just itself. Removing every American's privacy rights is unjust. This is what is not sinking into people's skulls.

What would a logical response to the attack be, if you were wanting to minimize loss of American life? Well it certainly wouldn't be this.

Since asthma killed more people in 2001 than died in 9/11, I would suggest that we should lose as many or fewer of our rights as Americans, than we do in our reaction to asthma.

A lot of people object when I make this argument, but other than ad hominem attacks nobody ever refutes it or explains why it's wrong.

I fly all the time, and I live in one of the blue states most likely to be affected by terrorism, but I do not worry about terrorism at all because I am not stupid. In fact it's clearly the people least likely to be affected by terrorism who are clamoring for our rights to be taken away because of it.

I realize that asthma is not as politically exploitable as terrorism, and the American press fixates on it whenever the JonBenet story dies down, but the alarmism of the press is one reason why Americans are incapable of correctly assessing risk.

Re:Learn how to assess risk by modi123 · 2006-09-01 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since asthma killed more people in 2001 than died in 9/11, I would suggest that we should lose as many or fewer of our rights as Americans, than we do in our reaction to asthma.

A lot of people object when I make this argument, but other than ad hominem attacks nobody ever refutes it or explains why it's wrong.

Ok.. first off.. the bottom sentence - why it's wrong: equivocation. I would argue your fixation on the relation to death and rights loss is incorrect. I have never read a legitimate pro rights loss explanation that cites "the us government is doing this because X number of people died, but wouldn't have if X-1 people died". The explanation is always "terrorism prevention" or because of the act itself. If you continue and claim asthma prevention is linked to a sliding scale for rights loss, then I say this is clearly a case of apples to oranges.
Side note, I agree with Tshirthell.com when they put forth the notion "Asthma's sexy". *grin*
I fly all the time, and I live in one of the blue states most likely to be affected by terrorism, but I do not worry about terrorism at all because I am not stupid.

I am confused here. Worry about terrorism period is stupid, or worrying about terrorism to the point of paralysis is stupid? I would advocate the latter, and believe the former is pretty incorrect. I think people SHOULD be worried about terrorism. And virus out breaks. And unsafe products. And crime. And drugs. And gangs. etc. To not worry is just foolish. The world is not a kind place, and ignoring problems do not solve problems. Again, I am not advocating one should be SO worried about terrorism that a person cannot operate a normal everyday life, but to keep it on the mental radar with all the other worries of life isn't that bad of a thing.
In fact it's clearly the people least likely to be affected by terrorism who are clamoring for our rights to be taken away because of it.

Which people? Republicans? I would say that the federal, state, and local employees that actually INTERACT with terrorists are the ones clamoring for rights erosion. Joe Sixpack problem is not. It would seem reasonable that the folks who deal face to face with Ahmed "dynamite strapped to my chest" Jihad would like as much information as possible. At the same time it is Joe Sixpack's responsibility that the feds don't go overboard. Checks and balances - gotta love'em.
I realize that asthma is not as politically exploitable as terrorism, and the American press fixates on it whenever the JonBenet story dies down, but the alarmism of the press is one reason why Americans are incapable of correctly assessing risk.

I would agree with you here. The media has always been alarmist in nature, though something's get blown out of proportion. The connection between sensationalism and the press is fairly well documented. Second, I would say we need to split hairs on the term 'Americans'. I cannot comment on Joe Sixpack's risk assessment abilities, and quiet frankly don't give a damn. Now Joe is substantially different than the federal employees who deal with risks Joe only reads about. I would say their news sources are slightly more complete, timely, and germane than E!, Fox News, or the New York Times.
Recap: death counts and rights loss are not linked on a slider bar. Asthma's sexy. Being concerned about terrorism is not stupid. Being paralyzed by the fear of terrorism is. The news is alarmist. Who cares about Joe Sixpack's threat assessment abilities. Federal employees who deal with Ahmed "I'm a terrorist" Jihad don't get their information from Fox News.
Clear as mud, right?

Re:So basically by russ1337 · 2006-09-01 06:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

>>As a law-abiding student, I really have no qualms with this unless the government decides to start going after law-abiding students.

Just say, in a few years time you go to run for elected office. Would you be comfortable if your oponnent had this information? Every Form you had ever filled out? What if there was a spelling mistake on an application and your oponnent accused you of fraud? What level privacy are you NOT willing to have?

Why not require a warrant? by bigtrike · 2006-09-01 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

According to the article, law enforcement has open access to this information at any time without giving valid reasons. If these people are under suspicion for valid reasons, why isn't it possible for our government to obtain search warrants to look at the data?

Re:Why not require a warrant? by Bryansix · 2006-09-01 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why should they have to aquire a search warrant to access information that already belongs to them? The FAFSA is submitted to the Department of Education. They are part of the Federal Government. I'm sure they already search through this data in an effort to prevent fraud. Why no search through it to find criminals and known terrorists as well?

If you want to get all pissy about something, get mad at all the Financial Aid offices all over the nation at various colleges and universities who take FAFSA data and use it to come up with Audit plans. They say they are randomly auditing students but really they only audit the poor kids. This is because they are eligable for the most aid. Every year I went to college I was "randomly audited" by my financial aid office based on information I submitted in my FAFSA. This audit put the burden of proof on my to prove that my information was correct. The financial aid office could not be bothered to actually check any of the facts I had submitted. Every year I had to prove to them just how poor I really was. One year, they did not audit me and also did not give me any aid. When I inquired as to why they said that they "extrapolated" that I must have over $100,000 in savings based on the amount of interest I claimed on my tax returns the year before. What they failed to realize is that the interest was accumulated since I was born in the form of savings bonds and I claimed it all in one year when I cashed them in. The information I submitted on my FAFSA said I was poor but they choose not to beleive me and also choose not to notify me that they were not offering me any aid because of their "analysis" of my situation. I had to go dig through my records and give those bastards copies of my savings bond receipts for them to believe that I really didn't have $100k stashed away somewhere. Then finally they gave me my aid. If you want to be pissed off at someone. Be pissed off at the Financial Aid offices at your local University. Those Bastards!
Re:Why not require a warrant? by Miaowara_Tomokato · 2006-09-01 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would you expect information about any loans stemming from your "Free Application for Federal Student Aid" to be kept secret from the government? If it concerns you that much, apply for only private loans - then they can only track you using your bank data and any secret programs you don't know about.
Re:Why not require a warrant? by Antony-Kyre · 2006-09-01 10:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is tricky. Does the government constitutionally need a warrant to search it's own property (financial aid info)?

Out of context, but real by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-01 08:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Lifted from an interview with Philippine president Arroyo, having to do with Philippine killers/terrorists. I'm no fan of the current administration, but I'm even less of a fan of people who try to bend public perception through mis/disinformation. (hmm, come to think of it, sounds like the current administration)

"Q And the poverty problem?

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the poverty problem -- listen, this nation is committed to dealing with poverty. First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill. And so it's important to understand -- people are susceptible to the requirement by these extremists, but I refuse to put a -- put killers into a demographic category based upon income. After all, a lot of the top al Qaeda people were comfortable middle-class citizens. And so one of the things you've got to do is to make sure we distinguish between hate and poverty."

Slashdot Mirror

FBI Data Mining Students' Financial Aid Records

33 of 254 comments (clear)