Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seeks To Restrict University Student Freedoms
amigoro writes with a link to the Press Escape blog, which is discussing new guidelines suggest by the FBI for university administrations. The Federal Bureau, worried about the possibility of international espionage via our centers of learning, now sees the need to restrict the freedoms of university students for national security. "FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators."
It appears that that paragraph is a gross exaggeration of what the FBI is proposing, and indeed further in the article University spokespeople talk about a possible "chilling effect", not about the kind of wholesale assault on freedoms suggested.
I don't like the FBI sticking their nose into other people's business, but let's at least try to represent the problems accurately.
Three Squirrels
Why are slashdot readers more prone to going apeshit insane over a blog post? Here is the website of the actual FBI group that works to protect domestic research and technology. It is a good read and will communicate far more useful, accurate information than a blog post.
Not fuck what up? Taking a report from someone at a university who finds a set of traits and activities of a particular person suspicious and then following up said report with an investigation of the circumstances behind the "suspicious" information? "Hey, why did you work late in the lab last week?" "I had to get some work done." "Really?" "Yeah." "Okay, thanks. Good luck with the project!"
People in this discussion are acting like the FBI is setting up field offices on college campuses in order to nab spies. That's not the case. The linked article only says that the FBI is offering to brief college staffs on possible warning signs that could indicate espionage activity. There's no mandate to attend such briefings, there's no requirement to report anything and there's certainly no per-university quota requiring a particular number of reports be filed per semester. The FBI is offering information and that is all. This is a total non-story.
BTW, having read the actual FBI document, it was not nearly as bad as the blog or summary made it seem. Those arguments seem to apply to people with security clearances exclusively, and the interest in other information is defined later on in the document as other *classified* information.
The next question is: What sort of classified information and research is done at universities? How much of it? What are the counter-intelligence ramifications? What is the appropriate response?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm a grad student and I have a hard enough time turning my student's grades in on time. I doubt I'm going to get around to report anything to the FBI. I'm making less than $13000 a year. That isn't enough for me to spy on my students. Give me a few thousand and I might think about it.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Imaginary? Sept 11, and the London and Bali bombings were all real events done by real terrorists.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=usaicc
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng
Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:
The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.
Not to mention that there are bombings by the hundreds in Thailand and Bangladesh. And others in the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Spain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Russia, Argentina, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, there are failed bombing plots in Canada, Germany, Britain, New Jersey, Chicago, New York, and numerous other places.
To some people, these incidents are all imaginary, I guess. Or they're George Bush's fault, so they'll all magically go away on Jan 20, 2009.
Bombing in the world is not new. What is new is that it is made a propaganda of it, and in addition that people pretend that a single organisation (S.P.E.C.T.R.E.^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z I mean Al Quaeda) is handling the reign and direct all those bombing like a well ordered orchestra. and THAT is the ridiculous part. Long when Bush is gone there will be more bombing in other part of the world. (Heck even maybe in the US, done by one of those anti federal-nut).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So, uh... what made all the 19 terrorists in 2001? What made those that blew up the Cole? What made those that blew up our embassies in Africa? What made those that blew up Marine Barracks in Lebanon? What made the Turks invade Europe? Did Jordan arrest and torture all those guys? Islamic fundamentalists made terrorists long before Zarqawi. It's a numbers game. OBL and Al Qaeda have always had sympathizers through the 90's, but their popularity has only increased since the ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq. Increased popularity and increased recruitment make them a BIGGER threat. If the rate of recruitment exceeds the rate of catching or killing them, we lose. Understand now? Unless you're ready to enlist today, I'd say the U.S. military is just about tapped out in capacity to catch and kill more terrorists.
Take a look at the Pew Research study on US popularity around the world. It's rebounded a bit since 2003 and the invasion of Iraq, but still pretty low.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID
"Islamic fundamentalists made terrorists..."
...and did so with the blessing and finance of the US and other western governments in an effort to rid Afghanistan of the "commies".
"No, I'm afraid that these guys were hating us long before Bush was in office."
Get back to us when you work out how and why Saddam came to power....
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hmmmm. Let me look that up. Here it is: In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals. Wait, that's from the BBC. We all know they are as conservative as Jerry Falwell! Let's try another source. Here we go: At the age of thirty-one (31) he had acquired what could have been deemed the number two spot in the Baathist party. He would continue in the position for approximately the next ten years. During that time, he would continue to consolidate his power by appointing numerous family members to positions of authority in the Iraqi government. In his position of Deputy in Charge of Internal Security, he built an enormous security apparatus and had spies and informers everywhere in the circles of power in Iraq.
During this time, Hussein also began to accumulate the wealth and position that he so relished as a poor sheep-herder in the desert of al-Auja. He and his family, now firmly entrenched in the infrastructure of the country , began to control the country's oil and other industrial enterprises. With the help of his security network and several personal assassins, Hussein took control of many of the nation's leading businesses.
In 1978, Saddam had been working with othe r Arab nations to ostracize Egypt for it's diplomatic initiative in resolving Israel/Arab questions. An ally, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, almost became the undoing of Hussein's ascension. If a Syrian/Iraqi federation were formed against Egypt, Assad, not Hussein, would rise to a position of greater power in the relationship. President Bakr would lead the federation with Assad as second in command. Hussein could not allow that to happen and began to urge the President to step down. Again with the help of his family and security apparatus, Hussein was able to accomplish his task.
On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody.
A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq. Am I missing anything?
(OT, not if I'm responding to a post NOT marked OT)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Since you asked nicely
It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago.
Here is the whole quote: Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942
A link to the whole Orwell article:
Pacifism and the War
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I know you meant that linking Bush to increased terrorism is just liberal Bush-hating, but to do so you'd have to be pretty ignorant of all the studies and articles pointing out that our actions in Iraq, the secret torture prisons around the world, the renditions, the detention without trial, etc are galvanizing the islamacist community and are basically a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. We're doing a better job than they are of making the USA look evil
Having been in University during the war in Vietnam, I can say that in many respects you are correct. However, in the entire term of the war the casualties by US soldiers only numbered around 60,000 over a period of 20 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War. With a population of 200 to 250 million there was quite a bit of separation. From my experience people were upset for many reasons, one being the draft, the other being the fact that it was blatantly wrong and unjust. Oddly enough was also seen as fighting for American Oil interests by many in our University.
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
thanks for a country where nobody is allowed to mind his own business
thanks for a nation of finks
Williams S. Burroughs, Thanksgiving Prayer
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
That is not actually the case. Bin Laden was the Saudi money man for the Afghan resistance. The Saudis agreed to deliver matching funds to those supplied by the US.
Bin Laden's real issue is that he would prefer to be in charge in Saudi Arabia than the House of Saud. He can't do that with the US army camped on Saudi Arabia.
The real organizer of AQ is a guy called Zawahiri. He was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was a ringleader in the assasination of Sadat.
Taking out Bin Laden and Zawahiri would have a major impact in reducing terrorism. Torturing random Iraqis picked up by the US occupation will only increase terrorism.
And as for the wingnut campaign to mod down the original post as 'offtopic' circulating on their mailing lists. What could be more ontopic here than the fact that the Bush administration is lawless and refuses to comply with the most basic provisions of international law? The use of torture means that every new power grab must be resisted.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/