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

Since when

[Herkum01]

Did universities in the United States become part of the FBI?

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld]

Did universities in the United States become part of the FBI?

Tell you what, when they arrest the Attorney General, Vice President and President and charge them with the long list of crimes they have committed against the US people, against the US constitution and against humanity, then lets talk about this stuff eh?

They have by any objective standards ordered torture and committed other war crimes.

Re:Since when

[Shads]

Nice to see we're dipping back into cold war era collective fear mongering.

My government sickens me.

Re:Since when

[KillerCow]

IM In UR Skoolz

Learnin UR Competitive Advantagez

Re:Since when

[Azuma Hazuki]

This is not new, people. What do you think was going on in universities during the Viet Nam War, when people actually had the backbone to stand up and protest like they meant it? This is just the next turn of the wheel; history flows like a river and events repeat themselves.

Re:Since when

[AuMatar]

And the difference is? Other that in the first cold war, the boogeyman existed and had an army, while this one is imaginary?

Re:Since when

[einhverfr]

This is not about a second cold war. This is about combating global radical Islam. And the difference is?

I mean, really the difference between the attempt to combat global communism and the attempt to combat global radical Islam is?

It *is* a second cold war, just with the assertion of different enemies.

Re:Since when

[Registered Coward v2]

Like it or not, commercial espionage is a very serious issue; despite what movies and TV shows say, espionage by "friendly" countries goes on every day. They're not worried about military secrets; rather they want industrial ones that can help their own companies; so ensuring US universities are sensitive to indicators of espionage, just as commercial firms should be aware of the potential as well.

Despite the headline, the FBI is not asking universities to restrict anyone's freedom, all it is saying is "We will be glad to brief your staff on what to be aware of to help identify *indicators* of espionage, and ask that you tell us so we can investigate as appropriate."

The article states:

"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"

and provides a link to the guidelines that purport to do that. However, if the original author ever bothered to RTFG, they'd notice that the guidelines were simply that - a set of things to watch for that *may* indicate espionage; and don't ask anyone to restrict anyone's ability 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"

Anyone who has had a US security clearance has received a similar brief on an annual basis; the idea is simply co-workers, who are in close contact with each other, are the best first line defense against espionage and should be aware of the warning signs.\\Of course, the truth is often not as newsworthy as some sensational spin.

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld]

Well not exactly... US soldiers cannot stand trial before either Hague or Rome Tribunal (newer version of the Hague), since they have immunity :) So, since they cannot be convicted, they cannot commit war crimes :)

That is not the case at all. The International Criminal Court is simply a permanent court to replace the ad-hoc courts convened to prosecute previous war crimes. The US or more particularly the Bush administration opposes the ICC. That can be reversed by a future administration.

The ICC only has jurisdiction if the national courts are unable or refuse to prosecute. US law has multiple provisions to prosecute war crimes in federal courts. The only situation in which an international court would be required would be if Bush were to pardon himself or his accomplices.

The constitution only allows the President to pardon offenses against the United States. Gitmo is in Cuba and according to the Bush administration not under the jurisdiction of the US courts. If the US is not sovereign Cuba must be. I am sure that the authorities there would deal with the situation appropriately.

Re:Since when

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Just as communists were fundamentally different from anarchists, terrorists are fundamentally different from communists.
The fundamental difference is that in each case, the latter has been so overused as a bogeyman as to lose its effectiveness.

It makes me wonder what monster will be trotted out next to justify military expenses. My best guess:

The War on Publishers. Dovetails nicely with the current trend to trade freedom of speech for intellectual property rights.

Although, if I knew anything worth listening to, I'd be rich. Feel free to laugh this off. Doing so costs nothing, after all.

Just be ready to defend your children when the publishers begin peddling their filthy traitorous smut in your backyard. You wouldn't believe what they wrote about our honorable Commander-in-Chief.

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

[Original Replica]

Why then? The FBI didn't do anything useful 10 September 2001. Maybe if the various intelligence agencies had actually made the world a better place they would possibly have reason for more power and wider control. But with the exception of the FBI helping solve occasssional domestic crimes, the work of the intelligence community has resulted in ever greater hatred and violence through out the world. Of course this reenforces our "need" for them, and we have a very obvious cycle. It was the very security agencies that are grabbing more power every day that made America so hated as to inspire international terrorism.

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

[sgt_doom]

If Sept. 11 was done by "real terrorists" why hasn't anyone in the Bush Administration ever appeared concerned with apprehending them????

Instead, he's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Made hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more, homeless in Iraq and surrounding Arab countries where they have fled to.

He refused to convene any type of investigative commission, until finally, he was forced to - and even then he underfunded them and refused to allow them sub peona powers.

And when he spoke before them with his handler Cheney, he refused to testify under oath. Wow, but I'm sure you know best, huh???

I'll bet you're in the crowd that believes torture works? If so, then WTF is Osama???? Or at least, WTF is he hiding out at??? Guess all that torture doesn't work after all, especially not on innocents.....

[Commonly heard phrase in the USA: "I'm a Christian, let's nuke Iran!"]

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

[wellingj]

No, there is no mystical Alqueda organization out there wanting to kill us all, thats a myth used by the government to keep us afraid and consolidate their power.

You keep telling your self that just like Bush did before the attack...
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.

Re:Since when

[Andrew Kismet]

Objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...

Fixed.

Re:Since when

[TimedArt]

Plenty of classified research is done at universities. "Classified" doesn't necessarily mean dealing with weapons or secret aircraft. The university I work for does a significant amount of classified research, much of it medical.

Re:Since when

[mydn]

But saying 1+1=3 doesn't change THE FUCKING FACT IT = 2!!!

That depends on when you perform rounding and what the values were prior to rounding. 1+1 does in fact eqaul 3, for sufficiently large values of 1.

Re:Since when

[WindBourne]

What sort of classified information and research is done at universities?

A lot more than the vast majority realize. Much is done under DARPA grants. In one of my previous grant positions, we were doing DARPA work, to which my boss said that we should keep it to ourselves. It was 1982, so we were not subjected to heavy security scrutinies, but in today's time, no doubt many ppl are, in private if not outright.

And for the record, there are a lot of spies here. In particular, Chinese. I have written about this issue in several other posts.

Re:Since when

[lymond01]

Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.

I think that vocal minority also wants to be left alone and live as they will. People dislike the U.S. for many reasons, but a big one is that our policies and corporations get in their faces. I have a tendency to believe that there are organized units of people with a leadership that feels it has no voice and therefore resorts to violence to make itself heard. Who does it hire to commit the acts of violence? Brain-washable young people and others they can sway by religion which is still a dominant force for coercion in some parts of the world (including the U.S.)

People will fight over anything of course, and our attempts at globalization are just what they're picking on today. Perhaps if we just remained Fortress America, people would hate us because we weren't Muslim/Buddhist/Purple, or didn't allow others into our country, or because we were fat.

But I'll pretty much guarantee you one thing: you're not going to help matters by waging war against these people. You're just going to give them a valid reason to hate you.

Re:Since when

[Zeinfeld]

Of course, that pantie torture is NOTHING compared to the three square meals, prayer time and air conditioning (that part the Prez DID order, that fucker!). I mean, all these guys were doing was planning to blow up a grade school in their home country and then ambushing the American invaders when they showed up to help save the Muslim children. How dare we treat them so rough!

The pictures from Abu Ghraib demonstrate how ridiculous your statement is.

And don't try to pretend that they were an exception. Someone decided to apply the Resistance to Interogation training protocol as an interogation protocol. it is stupid tactically and stupid strategically.

Lets take tactics first. Yes you can make people talk with torture. Everyone talks, even people who don't know anything. And those who do know what you want to know lie. A real life Jack Bauer would spend his entire time chasing dead end leads.

Remember the run up to the 2004 election when there was a security scare every week which would quickly be exposed as fake? Thats the quality of information you get from torture.

Now lets look at the strategic side. In particular lets look at the career of Zarqawi, who was a small time crook who didn't amount to anything until he was arrested by Jordanian police and tortured.

Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them.

The pictures of Abu Ghraib have entirely erased the images of 9/11 in the eyes of most of the world. They are the biggest recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shi'ia insurgents, and all the other groups in the region who mostly spend their time fighting each other but thanks to the incompetent in chief are fighting US forces instead.

Re:Since when

[Vellmont]

when people actually had the backbone to stand up and protest like they meant it?

I believe there was also this thing called the.. draft. Where people could be sent off to a war and potentially die. There were also a LOT more troops and a LOT more casualties, so I'd bet everyone knew at least one person who died, or had a friend/family member who knew someone who died. I'd bet everyone knew someone that was IN vietnam. As far as the Iraq war goes, I'm 3 degrees of seperation from someone who died, and I'd bet even THAT is rare.

The point being, this war has a lot less personal connections to it than Vietnam did. It has nothing to do with "backbone". For the most part people are motivated by what affects them. No one is going to be drafted (especially people on a college campus), and a much smaller percentage of the populace is personally connected to it. So it really shouldn't be surprising that no one is rioting in the streets because of it. On the other hand we did have an election driven by ending this war, so it's not a total disconect.

Re:Since when

[Brad1138]

Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.

There was a "very very small minority", With the horrible things we have done & are doing to/in Iraq, the number grows everyday. It is probably closer to "a minority" now.

Re:Since when

[theuedimaster]

This isn't about terrorists sonny, this is about espionage as a whole. It's a very, very general action they're taking to counter ALL foreign forces. And that's what one of the parents mentioned... what foreign forces? We're going through all this trouble and fear for... what exactly?

It's this atmosphere that our government is creating that is so infuriating... giving unlimited powers to the executive, putting missiles in front of Russia, pointing guns at Iran... shit man, are we protecting ourselves or are we trying to start a war here?

There have always been threats in front of us, but the important thing is to not let it ruin our lives. As another parent said, when did universities become a division of the FBI? The FBI can do their jobs, and they don't have to turn our society into a surveillance tool to accomplish their jobs. The FBI is there to protect us from threats so we don't have to worry about them... injecting fear into America is the antithesis of this mission.

Re:Since when

[toddestan]

Your objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...

It's related to reality's well known liberal bias.

Re:Since when

[PMBjornerud]

Sure, there are lots of terrorists attacks. There are a lot of traffic accidents, too, absolutely dwarfing any terrorist-related deaths whatsoever.

Not to mention world hunger. 24.000 dead per day, was it?

Terrorism sucks, of course it does. But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year? It's time to pull our heads out of the sand, suck it up, and deal with terrorism in a more rational way. At the moment, it seesm we're in some weird from of global panic.

Panic never helps.

Re:Since when

[vandan]

Don't assume that since Emperor Dubya is president that he's in control of anything, including his own bladder. He's a figurehead. There most certainly are people in control of things, and they use Bush to deflect people's attacks from themselves. If you look at Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the neo-con gang, you'll find that they are incredibly capable people ... unfortunately they're also incredibly evil people.

The reason no-one's tracked down Bin Laden is simple: the Bin Laden Group is Bush's biggest financial backer. The Bin Laden dynasty and the Bush dynasty go back a long way.

The reason why no-one's made any serious in-roads into bringing the so-called terrorists under control is that terrorism is the best thing that happened to ultra-conservative politics in the past century. It's vitally important for the Republicans, and increasingly more important for the Democrats, to have a horrible outside threat to protect the masses from, and to justify the increasing militarisation of the world, both domestically and internationally. Look at the rights we've lost in the name of protecting ourselves from the boogey man ... this article is but one example.

Re:Since when

[homer_ca]

Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them.
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= 252

Re:Since when

[cygonik]

There's a great saying, and it's been said a lot, in different ways, but it boils down to this: If we restrict liberty to attain security, we will have neither. No, it's not imaginary. ..and no, it's not being handled well. I happen to think that freedom is not just a good thing, but that it is a necessary thing - just as responsibility and accountability are. It has also been demonstrated that our government, as it clamps down on terrorism, is sacrificing what I consider to be the lifeblood and identity of the nation - that freedom which many hold dear. The more that freedom is taken, the more likely it is that some people will get severely pissed off. The more pissed off people there are, the more likely it is that there will be pissed off people that are more open to persuasion by unsavory ideals. That would mean a higher likelihood that someone here will bomb things, which is, as far as I'm concerned, not a good condition to be in as a country. There are quite a few questions to be answered, that should be funded and looked into. What is more likely to cause a breakdown of social order in the united states - loss of freedom, or terrorist bombings? How likely is it that we will actually succeed at preventing terrorist bombings using methods that destroy or erode the freedom we ideologically base our national identity on? It seems insane that these people want to bomb us. But they are probably not insane. Why did they do it? What motivates these groups? What motivates the leaders of these groups? What methods of preventing bombings are successful, and which ones merely seem like they should work, or provide a false sense of security? For things we implement because of urgency - are those going as planned? Are they working? How can we increase our government's introspection without compromising our capacity to act? ..and most importantly, to me - since we are more and more required to endure the loss of freedoms anyway, are there also government-funded research programs looking into finding new ways to avoid getting bombed -- preferably ones which don't erode or destroy the freedom (and consequentially the security) of the nation? I think we should get sociologists, game theorists, political science majors, former military generals, etc. into a working team to attempt to address these kinds of issues. ..of course.. ..aside from the fact that it would be more difficult than getting a party of twelve to agree on a common pizza, it's probably not likely to get funded and implemented in the first place, even if the idea occurs to someone to make a bill for it or some such.

Re:Since when

[Moridineas]

So, uh... what made all the 19 terrorists in 2001? If you buy UBL's reasons, us having troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula during the first Iraq war. That's what got him going...not supposed to allow infidels, and CERTAINTLY not infidel troops.

What made those that blew up the Cole? more of the same--also having a ship stationed off the peninsula.. same troops thing as above.

What made those that blew up our embassies in Africa? Since al-qaida, same thing as above.

What made those that blew up Marine Barracks in Lebanon? Us maintaining troops in a foreign country? I've never really understood this one as a terrorist action--can attacks on solely military targets really be "terrorist" ?

What made the Turks invade Europe? I don't know, what made Europeans invade Africa, Mongols invade China, Germany invade Poland, etc etc etc... why does anyone invade anyone? turks were conquering places well before they were Muslim, so I don't think you can blame that one on Islam!

Please note I'm not JUSTIFYING any of these... they're complete BS. but saying that there is no reason is also silly--the people doing the attacking have plenty of reasons. Iran doesn't randomly hate us, they hate us for helping to get rid of Mossadegh and supporting the repressive Shah all those years. UBL doesn't randomly hate us (though he comes close..) he has specific reasons. Again, I'm not saying any of these are GOOD reasons, I'm just saying, had we never interfered in the middle east, never supported cruel dictators, and never sent troops over there, things might be different.

One could also make the argument it's good to fight Islamic fundamentalism, period. I might even say that! I do rather think it's one of those self perpetuating things though...the more you fight it, the more it pops up.

I'll also agree that the original poster (the BLAME BUSH!!! guy) is a whacko...

Re:Since when

[TapeCutter]

"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....

Re:Since when

[PopeRatzo]

Remember the run up to the 2004 election when there was a security scare every week which would quickly be exposed as fake? Thats the quality of information you get from torture.

No, that's the quality of information you get from the Bush Administration.

Re:Since when

[ArcherB]

You are a sick fool.

Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.

Disgusting Republican slave.

Drafted? No, I volunteered. I served in the US Army and did two tours in the Mid East. I met the thankful Kuwaitis who fell all over themselves to thank me, no matter how many times I said "No thanks necessary" and "Your very welcome". I saw the kids and parents who were missing hands, feet, tongues, eyes and got to meet them. I am sad that I could not be there to stop the mass graves from filling up. I'm sorry I was not able to kill the men who shot women in the head and threw them into mass graves, still clutching their screaming children. No, I could do nothing for these people because people like you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. It does not bother you at all to know that millions of men, women and children were murdered in cold blood while you rely on corrupt politicians to compromise with thugs, rapists and murderers. It doesn't bother you at all that children starve or die from preventable diseases because YOU don't care enough about them to shut your mouth long enough for me to rescue these people and give them a chance at life.

Yeah, if that makes me a sick fool, then I'll wear that badge with pride. However, don't you dare sit there and tell me I have the blood of Americans on my hands unless you want your blood to be the first! I may have Iraqi blood on my hands, but it was Iraqis that did all the stuff I described above. I'm willing to get blood on my hands for the lives and liberty of the innocent. What will you do beyond going to a "concert for peace" or put a "Bush-Bin-Lying" bumper sticker on your car? Sorry, but neither concerts nor bumper stickers have saved a life or freed a society. So until you are willing to get off your fat, peace-lovin ass and actually fight for something beyond "your right to party", I suggest you shut the fuck up as you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

So, yeah, there is justice and I helped provide it.

(Yeah, it's OT, but don't mod me 'off topic' unless you do the same for the parent)

Re:Since when

[caranha]

Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will. Heh, the funny thing is: I bet there is a minority (very very small minority) of people in any country who would like to destroy the us while the majority want to be left alone.

At least in the country where I live, and the one where I was born, this is true. And both are far away from the middle east.

Probably the quoted statement is true even for the US itself :-/

Re:Since when

[ArcherB]

Get back to us when you work out how and why Saddam came to power....

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)

Re:Since when

[tsm_sf]

If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell

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

Re:Since when

[Vellmont]

you'll find that they are incredibly capable people ...

They're capable, but yet they can't get the facts right about Iraq? They're capable, but yet they've seriously screwed up the Iraq war in multiple ways? They're capable, but yet Paul Wolfowitz gets caught in a conflict of interest giving his girlfriend a position of authority in the World Bank? Somehow these things don't come from capable people.

Seems like the actual evidence points to them being ass-clowns that screw up left and right, but until now have been able to talk their way out of it, or make friends who can do it for them.

You can talk conspiracy theories all day long, but until you actually have evidence instead of motivations, it's nonsense. You can make up anything you damn well please if all you have is motivations to guide you.

Re:Since when

[dangitman]

In the U.S.A., our government is a direct reflection of the votes of the people in the country

Actually, it's not. You can onlhy vote for candidates and parties. You don't actually vote on the issues you want to vote on. If you don't agree with "the whole package" of a candidate, you don't really get a say. You might, say, vote Republican because you are a "fiscal conservative" - but your vote might be interpreted as a vote for the Religious Right, or an anti-gay agenda - even if you disagree with those aspects. Alternatively, you might vote Democrat because they're "not as bad as Republicans" - but that doesn't mean you voted for Democrats supporting a war in Iraq.

It's not a very direct reflection at all. In fact, it's a very distorted reflection, because the most extreme wedge issues tend to drive voters and politicians - not the mainstream beliefs that most hold. US politics is more a reflection of the lobbying powers of the monied classes, and the efforts of splinter groups.

So what you're really saying is that your whole country sickens you.

Most people in America don't vote.

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

[Vellmont]

Oh, you mean the ones that planned the attack? The US is slowly picking them off.

See, the problem here is that "slowly" part. Why the hell did we go into Iraq when we should have been concentrating everything at taking down Al-Queda? I'll grant you that the OP is a nutcase that thinks the administration is a bunch of boobs on purpose (guess he's never run into a real gang of incompetents that back each other up).

The US has lost so much internationally because of this idiotic Iraq war. After 9/11 we had the whole world behind us and it was hard to say no to helping us find Bin Laden. That kind of thing takes international co-operation, not empty threats of "dead or alive" (you can't threaten someone when you don't even know where they are). Now less than 6 years later we've squandered all of that on a failed war and Bin Laden still runs free. Now we've got everyone chasing at their own shadows with the "find the terrorist" business.

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

[Rakishi]

1. Fight them and attempt to deny them success in their attacks and their goal of gaining power. You mean fail to fight them, increase their recruitment numbers, spread anti-American feeling, provide free propaganda for terrorist groups, attack a country that had little to do with terrorism, help spread fundamentalist islam into another nation and in general help them out? This isn't even counting all the fun training and money we gave them in the past. Since of course all those groups we're paying in the middle east to fight for us will never ever turn on us in 20 years, after all Saddam has remained a faithful ally of the... oh wait a second.

You fight terrorism by not talking about it, not publicizing it and not giving it credibility. It's in the end a propaganda war where you you're never supposed to directly rebut the opponents points as then you not only give credibility to his points but also are then forced to play on their field where you likely can't win.

The US isn't fighting back, it's cowering in fear and playing the game that the terrorists want it to play.

Re:Since when

[dangitman]

The choice to not vote is still a choice, and we are accountable for our choices.

So tell me, what exactly are the people who didn't vote accountable for? Not liking any of the candidates?

And if enough people understood that the two party system is what is holding us back, people would work to change it.

I think plenty of people understand it. But how do you change it? The two party system excludes anybody from other parties. So, how do you vote for an alternative, when nobody from one of the two parties will support that alternative? the only way would be to get a third party elected - which the two-party system prevents.

So once again, you can't blame it on those bastards in Washington D.C. Those bastards are there because we willed it.

Bullshit. Why are they blameless? I can certainly blame them for being bastards. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's true, it's not just them. But why can't I blame them for their actions?

Also, it's not true that people really willed this into existence. I don't think many people actually wished for a fucked up government and a two-party system. That already existed before most of us came along. The point is that you can't blame everybody, because not everybody wished for that, and some people opposed it. How am I to blame if my neighbor votes for a corrupt politician? I can't force my neighbor to vote the way I'd like him to.

Is someone born into a totalitarian dictatorship to blame for the dictator being in power?

Re:Since when

[butlerdi]

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.

Re:Since when

[Yvanhoe]

Don't forget kids : a bombing is a TERROR act and we are at war against TERROR right ? Everytime a bomb explodes somewhere, this is these Al-Quaida rascals who organized everything ! Trust us, we know their modus operandi, that's how we arrested so many of them. Don't forget also to report any student curious about things outside his field and who enjoy to get out of USA, that's very suspicious.

Re:Since when

[bytesex]

The first crusade was in 1099. Islam was 1099 years old in 1731. In 1731, the Ottoman empire was on decline. Think about it - such parallels are useless.

Re:Since when

[jez9999]

For those people who don't have a freaking clue why this is funny, I just looked it up. Apparently, it's an:

Internet meme. Protocol is "i'm in ur _____, _____ing ur _____." Started in 2006 on the game Counterstrike, when a player, asked where he was in game, responded "im in ur base killin ur d00dz." The meme gained a life of its own when attached to images of cats doing things. Yeah, I don't get it either. Ha, ha, I guess.

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.

Re:Since when

[Elrac]

OK ArcherB, you're not a sick fool. What you are in fact is a patriotic, loyal, good-hearted, well-intentioned fool.

Thanks to your efforts and the efforts of thousands of others like you, death rates in Iraq have more than doubled; many thousands of Iraqis have fled the country, and life for those who remain has been horribly disrupted by the constant fear of violence. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator who used of torture and violence. But if you look at the bottom line, most Iraqi citizens were better off before the US invasion than after.

The thankful Kuwaitis you rescued are exactly the affluent, self-serving egotists you rant against. They bless you for having rescued their material comforts, and saving their corrupt government from the consequences of drilling laterally into Iraqi territory. Furthermore, when they're not being rescued, they hate Americans every bit as much as the Iraqis do.

The fact that you risked your life does not automatically make you a better person than those who know better. You followed your evil, bumbling President into the greatest disaster in American history and are still blind enough to feel all righteous about it. If you ever come to see the truth, I hope it doesn't hurt you too badly.

Re:Since when

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks for the support. It does matter, because it's not just fun standing up to someone ranting angrily at you who's killed people for a living, and is dehumanizing you the way they did the people they killed before.

But I'm not scared of them. I'd rather die than live in fear. I don't let bullies control my life. And I've found that standing up to them typically reveals them to be cowards so scared that all they know how to do is fight. They're sad, and all too human.

Shows of reasonable support from bystanders is a powerful reminder to these alienated bullies that people can get along without fighting. So I thank you twice, once for the bully who owes you, but could never admit it, for showing them how to act.

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:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath]

Yeah, the FBI wants people to report suspicious activity. Wow!! I'm outraged.

The problem with the mock-outrage and crocodile tears for things like this is that it desensitizes people. When freedoms are actually, genuinely under assault, it'll get posted on Slashdot and everyone will ask "What is Slashdot whining about this time? Should I read the article to find out how it's misinformation again, or should I just save time and assume it's misinformation, like it usually is?"

Freedom is important. It's far too important for this. It's important to be vigilant to protect it. Pretending there's an assault on freedom when there isn't don't count as vigilance -- rather it provides cover so the real anti-freedom measures get lost in the noise.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[MonGuSE]

I actually don't consider this FUD since I've seen suggestions at my university for all students to have to submit a reason with evidence why they missed a class or go before academic review and possibly get a quarter off. It has not flown yet because of so many holes in the argument but I was wondering why it even mattered that much. Sometimes people need a day off, in America we don't get enough of them anymore. Although I will admit students have it comparatively easy in relation to working stiffs.

Also if you watched the Daily Show on Thursday John had a guy on promoting his new book called 'Quantico' that had some interesting information about his interactions with the FBI. He specifically stated that in the near future there would be surveillance tech installed at all campuses assumably in an attempt to combat domestic terrorism. Because you know so much of it happens on a school campus. He also said the higher ups in the homeland security divisions, in the meetings he got to attend and discuss matters with them are showing a keen interest into this 'new' arena of terrorism and not concerned with foreign terrorists as much anymore.

This all sounds like big brother and McCarthyism combined. Do we never learn that while we need agencies looking for the next terrorist attack what we don't need is to create an environment in which we loose the very things we are trying to protect. Whack a mole indeed.

The only information they need to disseminate is be vigilante, it is everyone's responsibility. By trying to become big brother no one is vigilant because they either hate big brother and don't want to help him or they have a false sense of security.

Lastly profiling does not work as one would assume. You can always find things about people that seem to fit into a 'mold' but really it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Profiling only helps to give you a general idea of who you may or may not be looking for but the person you are looking for may not fit that profile and a person that fits that profile is more than likely not to be who you are looking for. Its just a tool to help you get started in a direction when you don't have better evidence to go with or to possibly help you out when you get desperate. When you apply it with no context or no crime then it becomes worthless because you get 99.99% false positives and when you get that .01% positive your already assuming that its a false positive and overlook it. This new approach by the FBI is wrong on so many levels its retarded. Everyone is a criminal unless cleared...

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[fredklein]

the FBI wants people to report suspicious activity. Wow!! I'm outraged.


Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failign to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity?
Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity?
Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?
etc.
etc.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to privacy.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[fredklein]

So your opinion of what's suspicious and your cartoon-version interpretation of the FBI's opinion differ.

The Govt is what is 'cartoonish'.
Stolen from : http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=96:

Back in 1991, the Pittsburgh Press did a survey of reasons for DEA agents taking people's money when they come off of airplanes. It was classic profiling:

Agents in Illinois are told its suspicious if their subjects are among the first people off a plane, because it shows they're in a hurry.
In Michigan, the DEA says that being the last off a plane is suspicious because the subject is trying to appear unconcerned.
And in Ohio, agents are told suspicion should surface when suspects deplane in the middle of a group because they may be trying to lose themselves in the crowd.

What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors

Nothing.

IF the behaviours are not unreasonable vague.

The list of behaviours mentioned here IS unreasonably vague.

It creates a surveilance society. People become afraid to do or say anything because their neighbors might report them for 'suspicious activity'. "I tell you, officer, they left town last week, and didn't tell everyone about their travel plans." "The father leaves for work WAY to early, and gets home late sometimes..." "They bought a new car last week. Where'd they get the cash? Must be terrorists..."

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[gorehog]

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

Look at this list. The problem with it is that it takes things that are NORMAL for intellectuals to try to do and calls them suspicious.

I always thought the "need to know" was assumed to be granted to the people except in special cases where the government classifies information. If it's not specifically restricted then we have a right to it. This mandate from the Feds puts students and professors under a nasty microscope.

How does one explain their affluence? Most rich people are never asked where the money came from. Interrogating affluence leads to nothing more than vindictive sophistry.

Who do I have to report overseas travel to? Isn't it enough to inform the State Department that I travel? now I have to report my summer vacation plans to the school administration?

Information outside the job scope? So, if I'm a humanities student and taking welding classes at night I'm a terrorist?

A lot of people go into academics because of the flexible schedule. In that context what are unusual hours?

Unreported contacts with foreign nationals? Aside from academic and intellectual interest in world affairs and the question of who is the supervisor waiting for a report...this is a violation of the fourth (fifth?) amendment protections which guarantee you to be secure in your personal effects. Oh yeah...there's also something about freedom of speech.

unreported contact with foreign government? same as above. WTF, if I choose to emigrate I have to inform my school administration?

I've only provided one example per case. What it comes down to is that EVERY item on that list has many many legitimate purposes to exist. What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Kohath]

Once again, these are not relevant points. You can congratulate yourself for spotting something inconsistent all you want.

When someone says "The FBI is coming in their uniforms to get us all!", it's not really useful to point out that the FBI generally doesn't wear uniforms -- they tend to wear suits. But the point, again, is that they're not coming to get us all.

The article says that the FBI is asking people to watch out for certain behaviors. Who is less free because of that? What are they less free to do? What freedom has been taken away?

What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.

I suggest building a concrete bunker. Maybe you still have one from Y2K. And tinfoil hats -- always.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Registered Coward v2]

What freedom is taken away by the FBI asking people to watch out for certain behaviors

Nothing.

IF the behaviours are not unreasonable vague.

The list of behaviours mentioned here IS unreasonably vague.

Actually, they aren't because the FBI is looking for patterns of behaviour that may indicate someone is an espionage agent; any one is not really that odd or troubling but a set of them, over time, *may* warrant further investigation.

The list is the result of post-mortums of espionage cases to look for potential warning signs.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[syousef]

Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?

This is university we're talking about. Surely FAILING to pull all-nighters would be the suspicious activity.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[gorehog]

You are wrong. Eliminating wrong leads is one thing. Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong. What is not relevant about the FBI asking for reports on innocent activities? Do you really want the FBI researching every dead end that college administrators could generate?

I never said anything about the FBI coming to get us all. They just want to chill the elements in society who might investigate them. Notice, please, that this request was not made to Construction companies or Bankers. So, on this, you are right. They're not after us all, they're only after people in Academia. But that was stated in the article, right?

They are NOT specifying behaviors. They're not saying "Turn in anyone who spends a lot of time picking locks" or "Please let us know if anyone you see buys a lot of diesel fuel and fertilizer." That's behavior. The FBI is asking people to make judgments and then turn someone in based on that judgment. So, Psych Department head says "Gee, does Adjunct Ahmed really need to know how to use a backhoe? Why IS he learning that? " And he speed dials the FBI, and next thing you know, Ahmed is being investigated because he wanted to do some landscaping without telling anyone.

It's not crazy at this point in this administration to expect illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior from the government. In fact I am simply stating the worst case scenario because I will no longer give the benefit of the doubt. If you want me to believe the good intentions of the FBI then the FBI will have to demonstrate those good intentions and not expect me to grant them "the benefit of doubt." In fact, given all the evidence at hand it is ignorant and stupid to not expect the worst from the current administration.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Descalzo]

Since when is having a bit of cash ("Unexplained affluence") a suspicious activity?
Since when is failing to bore people with every detail of your vacation ("failing to report overseas travel,") a suspicious activity?
Since when is curiosity ("showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope") a suspicious activity?
Since when is working a night job ("keeping unusual work hours") a suspicious activity?

Are you serious? This is how they catch people. These are the very first things the FBI (for example) looks into when granting security clearance.

It's like saying, "Since when is a high heart-rate bad for you? I work out all the time and have a high heart-rate every day!" and getting pissed when the nurse takes your pulse as soon as you walk into the clinic!

When I worked at the grocery store, part of my job was to catch shoplifters. An expert told me, "You can tell the shoplifters because they are watching you, not their shopping." Now does everyone that looks at the night manager a shoplifter? Of course not, and only a fool would believe it, and only a bigger fool would suggest it. But the idea that you can detect shoplifters by seeing what they are watching is still extremely useful. It's the unusual-ness that makes it suspicious. It's a judgment call in the grocery business, and I imagine it is in the industrial counter-espionage business as well.

Over the decades, people whose job it is to prevent espionage of all types have come to the conclusion that unexplained affluence, unusual interest outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, etc., etc., are good indicators of suspicious activities.

Re:FUD-O-Rama

[Lockejaw]

Those are from a document intended for government employees, and make no sense when you try to apply them to academia.

Yes, those guidelines seem like they would generate a lot of false positives at a university:

• unexplained affluence -- generally it's just some kid with parents who pay for everything
• failing to report overseas travel -- to whom? it's really not the university's business
• showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope -- many students are still discovering new interests
• keeping unusual work hours -- I thought this was the norm for college students
• unreported contacts with foreign nationals -- sounds like they're expected to log all their internet discussions
• unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials -- this actually sounds reasonable
• attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know -- this may be reasonable, depending on what they're trying to access
• unexplained absences -- again, this is pretty typical for college students

We all must agree

[lufo]

unreported contact with foreign [...] intelligence officials As well as been called by a 00 number and introducing themselves as "Surname, Name Surname" might be considered highly suspiciuos.

Paranoid

[Wellington Grey]

Federal agents are visiting some of the New England's top universities... to warn university heads about the dangers of foreign spies and terrorists stealing sensitive academic research.

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.

What a paranoid and counterproductive list. Isn't the information in bold just about everyone who works in academia?

-Grey

Re:Paranoid

[shystershep]

Perhaps you missed the word 'unusual.' If it is something that everyone in academia does, it wouldn't be unusual, now would it?

Re:Paranoid

[Wellington Grey]

Perhaps you missed the word 'unusual.'

Well, it's been my experience that the 'usual' person isn't interested in anything that wasn't on TV, so this would have quite a chilling effect for anyone, like myself, who actually enjoys learning things.

-Grey

Re:Paranoid

[Gorshkov]

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.

What a paranoid and counterproductive list. Isn't the information in bold just about everyone who works in academia?

Actually, it's neither paranoid or counterproductive .... if you're working for a defense contractor, the government, or the military directly.

It's a pretty standard set of criteria that's probably been in use since the mid-'50s ... and is very usefull.

It's just not applicable in an academic environment. This isn't an attempt to curtail freedoms as much as it is an example of total ignorance of how academia works.

Re:Paranoid

[porcupine8]

In that case, I challenge you to tell me what working hours would be distinctly unusual in academia. Some people work 9-5, some people work noon-midnight, some people work on the weekends and Wednesday, some people work from home unless they have a class or meeting, some people come in for a while in the morning and then again after dinner... Nothing is particularly usual or unusual, particularly if the academic in question doesn't have a family to get home to (including those whose families live in a different place).

Re:Paranoid

[simon_c_heath]

Sorry, just had to reply to your signature. What part of being a village idiot requires unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals etc.?

Cheers,

Simon

Re:Paranoid

[Babbster]

I'm sure you and others will wave their hands and hyperventilate while insisting that they are sure that the government will somehow not fuck it up, but you're going to have to try harder than that.

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.

One notch at a time

[Colin Smith]

That's how you tighten the cuffs.

Serious?

[BWJones]

Unexplained affluence

Ummmm, that is what an education is supposed to get you.

failing to report overseas travel

Oh, my students are supposed to check in with me everywhere they go?

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope

Hey! I want my students to explore new and interesting things. That is what they are here to do.

keeping unusual work hours

They had *better* be working their asses off. :-)

unreported contacts with foreign nationals

Ummmm, collaboration? There are folks outside the US that *are* doing exciting science you know...

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials

OK, I might give them this.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

Oh, jeez..... these people have been in government too long. Compartmentalized information is certainly appropriate, but in an educational setting, where people are not doing sensitive work? Come on now, if you are involved in classified work, you have to pass background checks and *obtain* clearance, particularly for compartmentalized projects.

and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.

Sure, whatever. They might also be skiing...

Re:Serious?

[bladesjester]

I must be an espionage risk then.

I've had a great deal of contact with foreign nationals.
I have pursued a lot of information outside of the scope of my job (in fact, I'm often called in on projects that have nothing to do with my profession because of my weird set of experience).
I've been known to keep some truly bizare hours.
And, truth be known, I've probably had some contact with foreign gov, mil, or intel officials in the past because of the rather strange set of friends that I've had (some of which had influential families from other countries, and at least one of them had a father who worked for an embassy).

In addition, to be quite honest, I don't feel the need to explain ANY of it to anyone who flashes a government ID at me.

great, i'm going to get into trouble...

[Digitus1337]

"...showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope..." A true thirst for knowledge will arrouse suspicion? Do we really want this? Controlling information is the first step down a nasty road.

Oh crap, i'm a terrorist/spy!

[pcgamez]

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Other than the first point, that describes a large portion of the college population (especially at the graduate level).

The problem with a guide like this is that it returns too many false positives. The odds of a single person who fit most of those characteristics out of a group of 20,000 being a terrorist is almost nil. Yes, it will be true in some cases, but not in enough to warrant the massive investment in time. All this does it put people's minds at ease that the government is Doing Something.

Come on

[chuckymonkey]

OHHHHH NOOOEEESSS! Teh trrists r in ur skools stealin ur secrets! Seriously though, when does it end? At what point do we say enough is enough with this fearmongering?

Those damn kids won't get off my lawn!

[Smight]

Looks to me like 99% of all college students meet quite a few of their espionage indicators.

Here's an idea. How about not passing laws that further disillusion Americans into becoming terrorists?
This is like lowering the speed limit to try and stop drag racing.

Re:Those damn kids won't get off my lawn!

[CrazyJim1]

This is like lowering the speed limit to try and stop drag racing.

I know what you mean. It's not like people will stop drag racing. They'll just be doing it slower.

Blog article seems confused

[Animats]

The DIA guidelines on "combating the insider threat" refer to people with security clearances of at least SECRET. That's a standard list, and goes back to at least the 1950s. The article doesn't make a connection with it being applied to universities.

What's puzzling about this is that it's totally out of touch with reality. The USSR was interested in American R&D, but that's because they had an industrial base and weapons plants that could use R&D. No enemy of the US today has anything like that. (North Korea and Iran, maybe, but they're mostly trying to do things the superpowers did in the 1950s.) Al-Queda consists of loosely affiliated small groups that use off the shelf weaponry. This seems a mis-aimed effort, which isn't unusual for the current administration.

Deceptive headline designed to distort the truth

[mc6809e]

There is nothing in that article the describes the restriction of students' freedoms.

Instead, the FBI is advising these universities on how they can protect themselves from those that would steal important research.

As bad as the government might be, I don't see what good it does to distort the facts.

McCarthyism all over again.

[ErichTheRed]

Replace "terrorist" with "communist" and it's 1950 all over again.

I almost wish we had the Cold War back. At least the enemy was clearly defined and kept 100% of the government's attention. Now that there's no clear enemy, we feel the need to go after everything.

And with the Cold War, at least there was a permanent stalemate on both sides...neither side would even think about launching an attack because they'd get wiped out in the process. Tense, but it kept people at bay.

Read TFA

[Lambticc]

From the guidelines:

We should report observations of one or more of the following indicators pertaining to a person with access to classified information...

This seems to make perfect sense. If schools want the money that comes from doing classified research they should be vigilant in making sure that that research stays classified.

typical brain-dead bureaucrats

[dltaylor]

Obviously, the FBI has a large number of brain-dead bureaucrats that serve no purpose but to create busy-work for others. The FBI needs to have its budget cut severely and get rid of them, reducing the number of Treasury bonds that we sell to the Chinese to pay for them.

That entire list is untenable, and even proposing such a list is entirely out of touch with reality, as well as any oath to "support and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America".

"Unexplained affluence", for example, waiting tables to supplement the trust fund, or the "photo shoot", may be legal but socially unacceptable and, therefore, kept quiet.

To whom is a college student required to report "overseas travel", such as spring break in the islands or Mexico, skiing in Canada, and vacation trips, other, perhaps, than the parents funding their education?

"information outside the job scope" is called education and all students and faculty are supposed to be seeking that.

There are no usual work hours for students.

There are many foreign nationals legally studying and employed in the United States. There is no requirement, nor should there be, for anyone other than holders of certain security clearances to keep track of and report the nationality of the acquaintances, nor their possible position within a foreign government.

"attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know"? What is "need to know" other than an open-ended control trip? It is a bureaucratic tool most usually used to hide information that is embarrassing to some official or agency, not dangerous. The whole "Freedom of Information Act" is exactly the opposite of its name. Unless there is an immediate danger of physical harm to the citizens of the nation, the information should be published, and not hidden in layers of bureaucracy intended to prevent the citizens of the United States from making informed decisions (yeah, I know, as if they could tear themselves away from the celebrity du jour) about the actions of their government.

"unexplained absences"? Explain to whom? Besides, all any potential foreign agent would have to say is "I was: hung over; playing StarCraft(or WoW); picking up my clothes from ...", and no one could be suspicious.

Facts from the source

[CompMD]

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.

Thinking back to my University years

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking back to my University years:

"Unexplained affluence"
I splurged on the xtra large pizza with all the toppings.
The university cops asked where I got the money and I told them to mind their own business.

failing to report overseas travel
U.S. Customs already knows, and it's none of the University cop's damn business.

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope
I'm looking for a promotion, what can I say?

keeping unusual work hours
I have classes during the daytime, I have to work nights and weekends.

unreported contacts with foreign nationals
The South Korean chick was cute. Wait, she was the only chick in the Engineering department. No, I'm not going to tell you what we were doing at the flagpole at 3AM but no it didn't involve whipped cream.

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials
Remember that trip abroad? It was to South Korea. That chick's dad is a Sergeant in their Army.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know
Um, I didn't NEED to know the combination to the Dean's office safe, but how else was I going to get the dead rat in there?

and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.
I wasn't about to rat out my new frat brothers for hazing me too hard. I can still taste the puke but it was worth it since Brother Able got me that first interview 4 years later.

...and?

[Sycraft-fu]

That changes nothing about what the original poster was saying. Vastly overstating a case does no good, and often does harm. If you tell me that the government is severely fucking over my freedoms, and I then come to discover you are full of shit, I am much less likely to listen to you in the future. The whole "boy who cried wolf" thing.

If you want to get your message out you need to be accurate. In this case, this whole thing is amazingly overstated. The guidelines are for people with security clearance, and the FBI isn't suggesting that universities apply them to students. That isn't to argue that this is a good thing, but please let's be accurate with what is going on.

Slashdot could be a pretty good source for news on governmental restrictions of freedom, but most of the time they vastly overstate what is going on. Thus it doesn't take someone long to conclude the people are full of shit and start ignoring it. Trying to rationalize it with a pithy saying does nothing but further show that it is about sensationalism, not truth.

Re:...and?

[IdleTime]

Well, whether you like it or not, things have gotten several magnitudes worse on Bush watch..

And by your signature, one can see you are a bit wacko. Saying Booth was a patriot is like saying Lee Harvey Oswald was a patriot. So, yes, you are a loony.

Great indicators...

[Trerro]

"FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence You mean, like the affluence that lets you afford the world's most expensive university system?

failing to report overseas travel Yes, I'm sure the when the student visits his family on spring break, he's going to be in a huge hurry to file a report.

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope Oh noes! A FOREIGN SCHOLAR is interested in learning. EVERYBODY PANIC!

keeping unusual work hours Ignoring the joke majors, good luck finding a college student who DOESN'T occasionally need to do work at 5 AM, whether the result of too much work, too much procrastination, or as is usually the case, both.

unreported contacts with foreign nationals Yeah, I'm sure he's going to fill out paperwork every time he has an IM conversation with a friend from his home country.

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials This is probably about the only item on this entire list that DOES deserve attention, though even here - it better be military and intelligence, as 'government' includes things like the guys he's getting the loan from.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know Horrifically vague. There's a big difference between asking for a tour of a building relevant to your major so you know how things actually work, and trying to lie your way into a military base. I suppose the 'need to know' clause is supposed to fix that problem, but it doesn't. If you have enough of a passion for learning that you're coming overseas to do it, you're probably a rather curious person by nature, and probably have quite a bit of random knowledge that you don't 'need to know.'

and unexplained absences Does anyone seriously bother to explain to most of their professors why they were absent? Can anyone say with a straight face that they've NEVER cut class without a valid reason - ESPECIALLY when you get that one professor you know you're going to learn absolutely nothing from? Overall, this list might not be quite as bad as the old duct tape announcement, but it does show about the same level of paranoia.

Re:Great indicators...

[Jehosephat2k]

When I was teaching I told my students that they were only allowed one Grandparent per quarter. I had one quarter where someone had both of their gradparents "die". I saw the student at a bar when they were supposed to be in Dallas.

It's designed to not end

[zogger]

The nation has been de-balled. It is a fait accompli. Neutered. It's mostly over, and the goons won. You can't do anything about it besides *talk*, and pretty soon that will be going the way of speech in china, their poster boy model nation, full technology, full police state, one major party, in the US it is the globalist party with two wings and their platform is full technofeudalism...

    If you do anything besides talk, it is considered a major crime, and you therefore are a criminal, maybe a "terrorist", so it becomes self fulfilling prophecy of their's.

  I remember a lot of civil disobedience to try and stop thoroughly disgusting governmental action, and it was dangerous then, but now, it is beyond dangerous, and they just won't put up with it. They have all the power they need now and plenty of order followers and a cowed-enough population who have more interest in entertainments and just making a living, a desperate living for a lot of people. Bread and circuses tempered with governmental "legal terrorism" makes for a controlled population.

Voting doesn't work, that is obvious. Even among the intellectually aware and politically active, the meme of "don't waste your vote!!!" is still quite strong and repeated endlessly, like some cult chant, and results in the same type and form and demographic makeup of government, election after election after election, which is, the completely corrupt R and D power sharing cartel which has hijacked government and runs it as a power and jobs sharing racket.

I vote, but it is inertia, more to say I still vote than for any expectation it will actually mean anything.

The short phrase is *sigh*

What's left, blog about it? You can't even go protest, step outside of the completely illegal and unConstitutional "free speech zones" and their mercenaries will arrest and/or beat you. Be a big enoug hassle to them, you go on the lists, and eventually won't be able to travel or change jobs even. It's coming. The population has sucked up the no fly list so far, no protests, meekly stand in line for the perv search and the humbling glares.

I knew once that got accepted without mass protest it was all over.

And stuff like that. Too tired to list them all, but there's a big list.

I'm not a pessimist, but I will consider myself a realist. We have a defacto low threshold but growing fast one party police state. It is only going to get worse for a long time to come now. They have found out they can get away with the largest crimes, with no revolt from the people, and a mostly controlled and tame media who go along with it, so small crimes are just part of the system now.

I think the best people can do now is try and stay as free and independent as possible, especially inside their own hearts, and see what opportunities present themselves in the future. Who knows, pigs may fly someday and we might get humble and honest and decent government some election time.

It could happen. Low odds, but still possible.

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.

Sounds like any gov. agency is suspect

[grundy]

Warning signs from the FBI document:

Repeated irresponsibility.
An "above the rules" attitude.
Financial irresponsibility.
Repeated impulsive behaviors.
Extreme immaturity.
Willingness to violate the rights of others to achieve one's own ends.
Willingness to break rules or violations of laws and regulations.

Sounds like most gov'ment agencies, FBI, CIA, Congress, Executive Branch, etc. etc. etc. Phone it in, start the investigation...

Let's get some perspective here...

[Independent Voter]

I'm a huge civil libertarian and in fact will be engaging in some ACLU protest activities this week in DC. But this article on Slashdot is really almost to the point of being misleading. Read the original article and guidance document and you'll see that:

1) The guidance doc specifically says it is applicable to people with access to classified info. Not just students (unless they're working on classified info).

2) The guidance doc also goes to some length to say that these signs don't mean someone is a spy, that people should respect each other's privacy and that good judgment needs to exercised when considering whether to report something.

3) These are not being foisted on universities and there is no apparent attempt to try to get universities to enforce these guidelines. This is essentially a "heads up" list of things that often are associated with people who spy.

And remember: these are guidelines for people working on CLASSIFIED info. I HOPE people who work on (legal) classified projects keep an eye out for these kinds of things.

Now if we could only keep the USDOJ from spying on us without any court oversight, I'd feel MUCH better!

Confusing, but

[Antony-Kyre]

Confusing, but here is what I have to say anyways.

Unless the FBI plans on making this into law, their wanting to do whatever has no legal effect.

Do you honestly believe this will affect what students do? Good universities won't stand for restricting freedoms.

no attack in 6 years?

[commodoresloat]

I'm guessing you don't live in London, Spain, Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, or Iraq. There are in fact organized groups of terrorists out there, and they want to cause real damage. And, sadly, there are far more than a "few hundred" of them and they are hardly "nuts." You're right that the US Government has exaggerated the threat to the American homeland for its own purposes -- most of the terrorists are fighting closer to home to affect governments that have more direct interaction with them -- but to say these organizations don't exist is hiding your head in the sand.

Re:no attack in 6 years?

[Builder]

I live in London. I went to work by tube on 7/7. I was back on the tubes by 9/7 (That's 9 July, 2 days after the bombs, just for those of you who write dates the wrong way around ;)) I still ride the tube every day.

And to ride the tube, I don't have to have silly 'extra security checks' or TSA bullshit that I do when flying. Why is that I wonder?

I'm not scared of terrorists. I'm scared of fascist governments, which mine is fast becoming.

Bombing is not new

[aepervius]

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).

It's worth it.

[moxley]

There have already been great points made about this -

But I will say this - the more we allow authorities to destroy our quality of life over fears of terrorism, the less our country is worthy of such 'protection.' If all of our freedoms are gone, what do we have left that is worth protecting; what remains that makes America so great? Don't get me wrong, I love my country, that is why everytime the government says that they are doing something that goes against our very principles to protect us I am suspicious and disgusted.

It is a fact of life that you could die or be killed at any time. It is just a fact, it doesn't matter how much money you have, who you are, or where you live. 20 year olds can have heart attacks, a meteor impact could hit the planet and start the cycle of life all over again from the beginning. Someone could go nuts and kill you - such is the price of living in freedom.

Besides, this government is way too corrupt and self preserving to truly protect this country and it's people, even if that is what they are truly trying to do on some level.

It's worth it. I would rather live in freedom then take up space in a police state.

Re:Those are NOT reasons

[rben]

A well trained soldier will always be able to defeat a horde of fanatics.

Rome thought so, too.

Re:You want to know how it started?

[rben]

It started because of oil. Oil is a strategically and economically vital resource for the U.S. It has been since before Israel was set up, and probably has a lot to do with the creation of that country, since it gave the U.S. a friendly presence in an oil rich region.

Oil is what fuels the repressive governments in the Middle East. If they didn't have oil, the U.S. wouldn't care about them and wouldn't prop up governments that abuse their people. Those oppressive regimes create plenty of unhappy people, who turn to religion for answers as to why their life has to suck so much. They follow anyone who can give them hope for a better future.

Fundamentalism works the same over there as it does here, it preys mostly on the poor and disenfranchised, the people who feel they have no power of their own and want to belong to something greater than themselves. They join, feel a sense of belonging and community, and become willing to do whatever they are asked. Just like the cults here, those fundamentalist sects are run by charismatic individuals. These guys have no regard for the lives of their followers. They offer up the U.S. and the rest of the West as the reason for all the woes of these poor people, and why shouldn't these people believe them? They have very limited sources of information and often have very little education.

The ones who are educated see the U.S. as an interfering power that cares more about the oil than about the people who live on the land. Our actions, as a nation, just reinforce that notion.

If you want to end terrorism, end our dependence on oil. Push your representatives to support alternative energy, preferably the non-global warming kind. That is the only way to turn off the money supply to those governments. Do that, and those governments will eventually fall. What rises in their place will depend on how well we can repair the terrible damage Bush has done to our reputation.

Lets all hope we get wiser heads in our government soon.

Stand up for your rights...

[FuzzyDaddy]

I just finished Albrecht Folsing's biography of Albert Einstein. He lived through, in his life time, two major attempts to suppress academic freedoms. The first was in Germany in the decade leading up to World War II. The second was many years later, while he was at Princeton, during the McCarthy era. He also saw, pre WW I, how german intellectuals got swept up in patriotic fervor, which he refused to do. He spoke out each time.

Which gets me thinking about our own individual roles in safeguarding our rights. I recently turned down a job because the employement contract required would have signed over all rights to all works I produced during my employment there, regardless of when or where I worked on them, or about what they concerned. I wrote a later to HR and the hiring manager explaining my objections, and why I wasn't accepting the position.

I never got a response, and it's quite likely they just thought I was some sort of crank. My wife, although supportive, also thought I was some sort of crank. And perhaps I am.

But I feel very good about it because it was my chance to push back on the systematic encroachment on personal freedoms. At least two people with decision making authority have seen it come up as an issue. And I don't feel like I've sold myself short.

It was a small stand - I can't say I wouldn't have done it differently if I was desperate for a job. But the small ways matter too - it's letting things slip away a little at a time that is the biggest threat to our freedoms.

Re:Shut up cunt

[NEW22]

I am a little confused by comments like yours. On one hand you say your brother is doing a job he doesn't want to do, yet he does it anyways, duty, willing to do the tough things, etc. You also say that just because those men and women are over there doesn't mean they agree with it.

At the end of your comment you say that these people are risking their lives one a daily basis for people like us (non-military types), ready to "step in front of a bullet aimed at you".

I believe that many soldiers are willing to give it all to protect America and Americans, but being a soldier does not automatically mean you are doing so. In the end, whatever a soldier feels, he is at the call of the President. You can obey every order, and sacrifice your life, and yet hurt America. Take these people you mention in your post who are over there, yet don't agree with it. They don't agree with the war, yet continue to fight, because in the end a soldier executes orders, and that duty takes precedence over any personal moral stance they may have.

That is one sacrifice I am happy to say I am unwilling to make.

phd students, students working on research...

[l3v1]

...projects, phd students, researchers, most of them meet almost all of the criteria mentioned in the article. Let's see.

Unexplained affluence

Maybe a valid point, but I fail to see how this is the FBI's concern, tax dept. might be interested though.

failing to report overseas travel

Hmm. So, they need you to report where you travel ? Nice. I remember times in my country when you had to do this, and then they didn't allow you to travel even if you reported that you wanted to go. Moreover, you reporting your traveling wishes made you a suspect of ... well, anything you can think of.

showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope

Which is something I and my coworkers almost constantly do. As researchers and scientists - however funny that might sound to some people - I'd even expect my colleagues to do so.

keeping unusual work hours

Now come on :)) What is unusual ? Working late ? Sometimes coming in late ? Sometimes working during the weekend ? At night ? Then we're all doomed :)

unreported contacts with foreign nationals

Now that's something I like. I mean I shouldn't talk with my foreign acquaintances anymore ? I shouldn't get new ones ? Or I could but report them beforehand ? Rrright.

unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials

I might agree with this to some extent, but it is still too vaguely formulated to be trusted. The problem is, you can't trust these people that they won't use this vagueness in the formulation to turn everyone they'd like into a suspect.

attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know

With this I also have one problem: we're not the military here. Need-to-know is not that black and white in the real world as in the service. And not that black and white like they thought it to be during the cold war. Something that at times might be considered a security measure, might be just a full blown social hindrance later on.

unexplained absences

I can't even remember how many university classes I have skipped. 'Cause of work, of laziness, or 'cause I just didn't like them. Yet I managed to get two masters and a phd and I'm working, I'm paying my taxes and I consider myself a patriot. Bzzt, wrong, you missed your classes, spy scum !
 

Re:Those are NOT reasons

[AndersOSU]

I was with you until we got here:

The Israeli culture is vastly superior to that of their enemies because it's an advanced technological culture. A well trained soldier will always be able to defeat a horde of fanatics.

Really? Value judgments on a culture because of technology, and ultimately wealth?

Besides it isn't really the Israeli "technological culture" it is mostly the US and Europe exporting arms to the Israeli army, which, incidentally, aren't available to the Arab states. I'm not trying to downplay Israel's significant accomplishments, but I'm not about to gloss over their significant mistakes.

My take: a free Jewish state in the Arabian peninsula is a good thing, however, any state that ignores the property rights of its neighbors and ethnic undesirables is acting unjustly.

Iraq

[Khammurabi]

There are numerous places on the earth where great wrongs (like state-sponsored murder and such) are committed. I'm glad that the US occasionally sends troops to try and punish these people. However, I wish the US would act more of a supporter and enabler than a freedom installer. We can not hope to facilitate a false rebellion. Either the people are ready to rise up against the evil forces lauding over them, or they are not. If they are ready our support is merely just to speed up the process. If they are not ready the process will drag out because they are unwilling to support it.

In the end it must be the people that rise up to fight, not the US. Because eventually the US will leave, as we are not often viewed as the legitimate government of the territories we control. And without this sense of legitimacy we cannot maintain control. So in the end if the people do not rise up and fight for the government they wish to have, they will not be able to keep it and the US will not be able to maintain it for them. Because if a person does not wish to again live under a dictatorship, when given the chance they will oppose it's reinstallment tooth and nail.

Our current occupation is fueling the Iraqi people to rise up, but they are rising against us. As such we must respect their wishes and leave (or crush them utterly). Our vision of Iraq is not what their vision of Iraq is. They may be wrong, we may know they to be wrong in this decision, but it should be their decision to make. They will probably be burned by their decision, but there is nothing that I currently see the US can do to change their minds.

Bad things may happen from their decision, but they will learn from it. We can not help those who are now unwilling to receive our help. (And I refer to the people of Iraq, not the leaders of it.)