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?

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

[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