Slashdot Mirror
Latest Revelations on the FBI's Data Mining of America
An anonymous reader writes "You probably already knew that the FBI was data mining Americans in the "search" for potential terrorists, but did you know that they're also supposed to be looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists. That's what they're telling us now. What else could they be looking for that they are not telling us about?"
They're looking for 'leakers' who spread misinformation through government documents. Once they identify which government official's cell phone was in the same vicinity as the reporter who published the leaks they're gonna smack the leaker down.
Oh. They're also digging up dirt to discredit the leakers.
Did anybody really think they wouldn't find a "use" for all the data they've been collecting?
Every single head-of-department has had his eye on it since day one.
No sig today...
Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.
That was true before 9/11. Now, the CIA and FBI are allowed to collaborate.. in fact, anyone in the DHS is allowed to share information, because they are all one big happy Gestapo now.
This is my sig.
This is why it's critically important to lower the signal-to-noise ratio, by sending filthy pornography to everyone you know.
Do it for America.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"...did you know that they're also supposed to be looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists."
They *should* be looking into fraudsters, identity theft and other such items. These things cross state boundaries which the federal government is suppose to investigate. Frankly, I don't care if they're out there searching *publicly available* information.
The problem isn't that they're doing this. The problem is that the data that is out there isn't fully accurate, so people could effectively be accused on false information. (Not that this doesn't happen anyways). If they're going to use this kind of thing to pursue criminals then there needs to be checks that protect the fourth amendment (due process). In other words if someone was flagged as a possible criminal then any further information discovered as a result of them being flagged (such as them *actually* having committed a crime) must hinge upon the validity of the original data.
.
that's the main problem I have with the leftright scale of political idealism, it's not leftright, it's not even circular, if there's any overlap, then it's spherical.... liberal != socialist, "radical right" != and has nothing to do with conservatism, religious radicalism has nothing to do with conservatism, I'm so sick of these generalisations... why must things be explained in 1 dimension? there are not 2 sides to issues, and most positions that are traditionally linked to either side of the leftright spectrum contradict every other position traditionally linked with that side of the 'spectrum'... stop generalizing and maybe you will understand other people's positions, then, MAYBE then you will be able to compromise, AND ACTUALLY SOLVE PROBLEMS P.S. WTF is this guy getting modded troll for? He has a perfectly valid point of view, it's just founded on misconception of reality is all... P.P.S. I read some of the comments this person made to figure out if it is a dude or chick, still haven't figured that out, but it seems like they are all Right vs. Left.... maybe it is Troll, or maybe he/she is just too rigid/stupid to see other points of view in more than one dimension...
To restrict something requires the use of force (i.e. power). Who are you going to trust to wield that power, the government? A better idea is to give the power to everybody so as to eliminate the power imbalances that lead to the abuse you speak of.
Unfortunately, people seem to accept infringement after infringement always telling themselves that it won't apply to THEM.... And, eventually, we have 1984. War is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. Survalience Is Safety.
/.'s last comment before being completely shutdown will be a resounding "we told you so." But, it won't matter, because no one will ever read it.
And, In the end,
Is this the same FBI that has been in the news in the past few years for not being able to get a decent modern computer system in spite of throwing millions of our tax dollars at the problem?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Since when is it not the province of the FBI to look for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity? It's their fucking job. That's why it's called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If all you people can do is trot out the same old "government bad...GOVERNMENT BAD!" knee-jerk conspiracy theories when shit like this pops up in the news, nobody is going to take you seriously. At least RTFA and comment on the actual issues.
For example...
I can see this being a major problem. I'd hate to have a name like, oh I dunno, Osama Bin Laden, and try to get through an airport security checkpoint. More importantly, what if I do something mildly suspicious that comes to the attention of the authorities? I can imagine the conversation...
FBI Agent: We'd like a warrant to wiretap this man's phone.
Judge: What did he do?
FBI Agent: He wrote a strongly worded letter to his local police department contesting a parking ticket he received.
Judge: I dunno, that seems pretty weak. What's his name?
FBI Agent: Osama Bin Laden.
Judge: Granted.
Maybe in addition to a terrorist watch list we should have a not-a-terrorist-don't-watch list. Just a thought.
What good would this information do them? Not much. I'm not sure what they could use it for. At least you don't have to scan your card to exit the bus when you get off. So they only ultimately know which lines are being used the most. I supposed they could use this to improve service. I've spoken with several employees and they say they're not keeping the data...right...of course they're not...
As usual, there's no possibilities for abuse in the near future, but they're still doing it, which makes you question what they've thought of that you haven't.
It wasn't until Lopez v. United States (and, subsequently, United States v. Morrison) that the Supreme Court had the balls (well, with O'Connor, the ovaries) to draw the line for the first time in seventy years and keep the Feds out of the State's business.
Yes, that would be Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor and Rehnquist. We can only hope that Alito and Roberts will be "conservative" that way too.
If it was up to those nutbags Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter, there would be no distinction between the States' province and the Fed's province. Those of you hoping for a democrat president better be aware that democratic appointees will almost surely give the Feds back all the power they lost under Rehnquist. (Yes, I know Souter was appointed by Bush I.)
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
You mean I unilaterally choose my government officials? Neato!
Oh, you mean I get 6.7e-7% (yes, both the e-7 and % were intentional) of a say I get because I live in a country where my decision is diluted by every dolt who thinks the most important issue is gay marriage/WMD in Iraq (to cover two popular but opposing side's rallying cries)? I blame a collection of idiots, either the leaders themselves or my fellow citizens who are outvoting me.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You fail to understand the difference between spies (NSA, CIA) and cops (FBI).
Spies: Your nation's spies are paid by the number of bad guys they neutralize (kill, imprison, discredit, or blow cover on). That means that they have a second job: to ignore everything else they see. Corollary: Unless you're actually working for the bad guys, your spies are paid to ignore you. Your nation's spies really are the good guys. They're paid to ignore things so that they can come down like a motherfucking hammer on other things.
Cops: Your local cops are paid by the number of guys they turn over to your DA for prosecution, and your DA's paid by the number of people he can convict. Your DA is an attorney; he has no loyalty except to his own political career. Corollary: your cops don't really have the option of having a second job; they're paid to ignore nothing, and to come down hard on anything that moves.
For cops, no crime is too small. For spies, not so much. And that's why I trust spies more than cops.
As a kid who was brought up with the notion that "a policeman is someone you can always trust", that's the second-saddest fucking thing I've ever written. The saddest thing is that as an adult... it isn't that I've been lucky enough to have never encountered a bad cop (because I have been lucky -- I've never met a bad cop -- every cop I've encountered has been both polite and professional)... but it's that I think my experience has been lucky.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
For those who think they're safe from all this, or that all this privacy "nonsense" doesn't affect them because they've got nothing to hide...
One of the reasons I admire the ACLU is that they stick up for the privacy even of insane druggie assholes like Rush Limbaugh. For all those Republicans who think this is some sort of liberal propaganda, keep this up -- in the totalitarian state where the neocon policies are taking us, it won't matter too much what your political affiliations are.
The hostility of many modern Republicans toward Lincoln (the first Republican President!) and the Union side in the Civil War generally is fascinating, in much the same way as watching microscopic images of multiplying tumor cells is fascinating. It really explains a lot about modern conservative ideology to see how its roots trace back to the old plantation: scratch a conservative, find a crypto-Confederate.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
>
>I think I've discovered the terrible future of reality TV.
"Any journalist can tell you the news. It takes a comedian to tell you the truth."
- ???
I first encountered the quote post-9/11, but I don't remember when/where (Colbert? Stewart?) (/2008!). Does anyone have a source for the quote? It certainly explains the subtle distinction between (+5, Informative) and (+5, Funny) that's only become more common in post-9/11 America.
When I first read the story I'm not really too concerning about your right my right (I'm not an American citizen anyway). I'm rather interested in knowing the heuristics behind the data mining.
Data mining of such a large scale is so cool. The most time consuming task of data mining research is always the acquisition of relevant data for testing your heuristics and, most importantly, developing a new heuristics. The larger the mining sample size, the better the chance you come up with a better heuristic.
May be they should reveal the heuristics behind. Ok I'm going back to bed.
I accept that the summary is against data mining - which clearly bothers me as well.
But I do not understand:
I thought that this was precisely the "province" of the FBI: nationally-coordinated police work, including into all sorts of fraud (here: insurance, identity, and wire).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The important components are authoritarianism and unity with the state. This runs heavily contrary to the "freedom" ideals of the US Constitution. Racism is often involved, but usually as a means to promote unity (nothing unites a group like a common enemy, and racial groups are an easily identifiable target to build up into an enemy.)
The current administration would appear to be using terrorists in a similar way. Terrorists have the advantage of not having any civil rights (since they were all legislated away), and not being a productive segment of the US economy (so it doesn't affect profits when you lock them up without trial). Since they are also stereotypically of a different (arabic) race and culture, they make a great fascist unifier because very few of the general populace actually understand them. If the terror attacks were actually genuine, the other advantage of using terrorists as a fascist unifier is that they are actually guilty of being dangerous, so the government doesn't have to make up stuff about them, it just has to make sure they have a high profile in the news.
You can't get away with using ethnic groups common to the US, because the population is familiar with them and even respects them. How many people in New York have never visited a Jewish deli, for example? America prides itself on being a melting-pot, so if you want a target, you have to use a foreign one. Terrorist are ideal.
Just exactly how many terrorists do you think are in Afghanistan? As a fraction of the population? Think that justifies occupying the country? How about Iraq?
just set up an email account and publish the email address, pick all incoming spam and you get enough...
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
As a DB Developer who works for marketing organizations I have to say that you should be VERY afraid of what both parties already know about you via legal channels - done for targeting of campaign funds. Add in easy, near-unlimited access! Say you have a hot-button district coming into an election year (and they already know it's a hot-button district ahead of everybody else because they have a monstrous data store that would be illegal for any other entity). Do you really think info for a nice police sting to that area, targeted to opposition voters/wrongdoers won't be executed to sway the balance? Politicization of non-political offices is a cornerstone of this administration. Another very crucial governmental function becoming too busy serving Washington to serve the people (that being law enforcement, from the CIA down to beat cops) is just be a side effect of this insidious effort. How about clarifying the ROL (Return On Legislation) for tax breaks and coming up with more misrepresetative numbers for bad policies and scare tactics? You want to throw better data at W(ashington) for those efforts? They want data more than they want crooks. This is the information age, people. Privacy has a cost, but so does the lack of it and that cost is our freedom.
Actually, Bush shut down the Bin Laden unit of the CIA. He was probably worried that his friend might get caught.
Here we are again, at police vs criminals, two MINORITY groups amongst our populous.
I'll tell you how -I- see it, being a member of neither minority. (okay, maybe a little bit criminal, but less so than most of you, I tend to limit myself to 2 MPH over the speed limit, 5 on the freeway) I see it as which one of these groups offers me more trouble, and it's not looking good for law enforcement. They are bullies. You see that period on that sentence, it's there on purpose. Not all of them of course (the sample size is too large for that kind of homogeneity) but you'll find it the trend.
Let me give you an example of the last encounter I've had with each group.
Criminal: I was at a friend's housewarming party and a guy asked me if I wanted to buy a bag of weed. I said "No thanks, don't smoke." He apologized and walked away.
Law Enforcement: I was sitting at my house and get a call from my sister (who lives with me) telling me that she's being pulled over right outside the house. I walk outside and immediately get told (not asked) to go back inside by this large policeman. I say nothing and stand there (in my front yard, at least 10 yards from the officer) and he gets louder, more intimidating "I said, get back in the house" to which I reply "If I go back in, I'm coming right back out with a video camera". Oh, he didn't like that at all, told me that if I did that "things will get bad" for my sister so now, not knowing what my sister did in the first place, I get a bit scared and defensive, send my wife in the house, (I hope he thought for the camera) but I'm not gonna let this large angry and threatening man (who for some reason seems very afraid of being recorded) handle my sister without supervision. So I stand on my porch (5 feet back from my original position) and watch while he stammers out something about how my sister shouldn't be driving through a particular neighborhood. Oh, so THAT'S what she was going to be in so much trouble about. Driving home from work taking the most efficient route, because she's not too scared to drive straight home instead of a 2 mile detour through a more 'pleasant' neighborhood. Yep, her "crime" was being in the ghetto while white at night.
Spare me the "hero police" crap. Some of them CAN BE heros if the situation presents itself, but what profession could that not be said of? They are people, some are hero-stuff but honestly, most people are complete fucking turds who I would voluntarily give not one mote of authority over my life. Because some other complete fucking turd gave them a shiny trinket to pin to their shirt I'm supposed to think that they are somehow to be revered and that they automatically have my best interest at heart?
I'm sorry, but as the old saying goes, I may have been born at night but it wasn't LAST night.
This isn't Disneyland, hell Disneyland isn't even as Disneylandish as starry-eyed conservative hanky-grabbers like to think it is, with Andy Griffith walking the streets. Nowadays Barney Fyfe carries a couple full magazines to go with his loaded pistol, and Andy pulls over young women and intimidates them for driving through (not even stopping) through the wrong part of town.