Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seeks To Restrict University Student Freedoms
amigoro writes with a link to the Press Escape blog, which is discussing new guidelines suggest by the FBI for university administrations. The Federal Bureau, worried about the possibility of international espionage via our centers of learning, now sees the need to restrict the freedoms of university students for national security. "FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators."
It appears that that paragraph is a gross exaggeration of what the FBI is proposing, and indeed further in the article University spokespeople talk about a possible "chilling effect", not about the kind of wholesale assault on freedoms suggested.
I don't like the FBI sticking their nose into other people's business, but let's at least try to represent the problems accurately.
Three Squirrels
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
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
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...
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"...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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.IM In UR Skoolz
Learnin UR Competitive Advantagez
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.
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.
And the difference is? Other that in the first cold war, the boogeyman existed and had an army, while this one is imaginary?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
BTW, having read the actual FBI document, it was not nearly as bad as the blog or summary made it seem. Those arguments seem to apply to people with security clearances exclusively, and the interest in other information is defined later on in the document as other *classified* information.
The next question is: What sort of classified information and research is done at universities? How much of it? What are the counter-intelligence ramifications? What is the appropriate response?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm a grad student and I have a hard enough time turning my student's grades in on time. I doubt I'm going to get around to report anything to the FBI. I'm making less than $13000 a year. That isn't enough for me to spy on my students. Give me a few thousand and I might think about it.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
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.
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!"]
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.
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.
Money is the root of all evil?
Objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...
Fixed.
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.
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.
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.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Your objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...
It's related to reality's well known liberal bias.
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...
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)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Since you asked nicely
It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago.
Here is the whole quote: Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942
A link to the whole Orwell article:
Pacifism and the War
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I know you meant that linking Bush to increased terrorism is just liberal Bush-hating, but to do so you'd have to be pretty ignorant of all the studies and articles pointing out that our actions in Iraq, the secret torture prisons around the world, the renditions, the detention without trial, etc are galvanizing the islamacist community and are basically a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. We're doing a better job than they are of making the USA look evil
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.
That is not actually the case. Bin Laden was the Saudi money man for the Afghan resistance. The Saudis agreed to deliver matching funds to those supplied by the US.
Bin Laden's real issue is that he would prefer to be in charge in Saudi Arabia than the House of Saud. He can't do that with the US army camped on Saudi Arabia.
The real organizer of AQ is a guy called Zawahiri. He was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was a ringleader in the assasination of Sadat.
Taking out Bin Laden and Zawahiri would have a major impact in reducing terrorism. Torturing random Iraqis picked up by the US occupation will only increase terrorism.
And as for the wingnut campaign to mod down the original post as 'offtopic' circulating on their mailing lists. What could be more ontopic here than the fact that the Bush administration is lawless and refuses to comply with the most basic provisions of international law? The use of torture means that every new power grab must be resisted.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
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.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel