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."

Comments

FUD-O-Rama

[rueger]

The referring article does open with:

US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities, according to a set of guidelines given to administrators by the FBI.

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.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Eadwacer]

In fact, when you compare the blog item with the Boston Globe article, you find that the Globe makes no mention of the linked .pdf with the "guidelines" in it. Those are from a document intended for government employees, and make no sense when you try to apply them to academia. What the Globe mentions are suggestions that profs secure their laptops when overseas, and that they know who they are talking when they talk about high tech work with defense applications.

Re:Since when

[einhverfr]

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?

good luck with that...

[bigbigbison]

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.

Re:Since when

[vampirbg]

I might be wrong, but here are the links:

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.

Re:Since when

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Since when

[ArcherB]

I'm wondering where that Orwell quote comes from. I'm reading a collection of his essays right now and find him pretty fascinating.
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

Re:Since when

[misanthrope101]

No, many of us are aware that terrorism has skyrocketed since Bush took office. Many around the world believe that his policies are fueling the increase. Many government studies have noted that our actions are making terrorism worse.

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

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld]

You mean Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban? The guys that the US trained and supplied with weapons back in the 80's?

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.