Slashdot Mirror
FBI May Have Datamined Grocery Stores With Help From Credit Companies
An anonymous reader writes "Recent media reports indicate that in 2005-06, the FBI went trawling through grocery store records in order to track down Iranian terror cells. They hoped to locate 'Middle-Eastern terrorists' through the purchase of specific food items. Many of these items, though, are not sold through big-box supermarket chains, and the majority of mom and pop ethnic markets do not have the detailed computer purchase histories that Safeway or Whole Foods have. What the FBI seems to have done is instead put together a list of everyone who shopped at a Middle Eastern food market. All signs point to the credit card companies providing this data, and not the individual stores. If so, this could be the tip of a (potentially illegal) data-mining iceberg."
Why not just say anyone of middle-eastern descent is automatically a threat? That's basically what it's come down to. How in the world is food purchasing data related to terror suspects. Alienation only leads to more strife. This doesn't do anything but make relations worse.
I got a catholic block.
Buying hunting ammunition? Pay cash. Buying food? Cash. Fireworks? Cash. Whether I have a reason to or not. And don't get me started on those "in-store discount cards".
If that's not racial profiling, I don't know what is?
:-P
Getting the information on anyone who purchased food at a Middle Eastern market? That's just crazy, and scarily over-broad.
Hell, I shop at Middle Eastern markets, and I'm about as pasty white as you get. I mean, where else am I gonna get some of those things? You can't buy them elsewhere, and they're just so damned yummy. Come to think of it, I shop at Latin Markets, Asian Markets, and Caribbean Markets -- does that make me a terrorist? Or merely someone who eats a lot of ethnic food?
This is like that now eerie joke about being arrested at an airport for "traveling while brown". Surely it's still legal and un-suspicious to buy ethnic food for crying out loud -- they're the only ones who have food worth eating.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why is the FBI full of fucking idiots?
Sifting through billions of food purchases is not going to find a serious terror threat, not even when combined with any other data. For instance: John Ahmed Richardson has decided to become a terrorist after being recruited by militant persons. First, his flying lessons will not raise suspicions. Second, his explosives license for construction work will not either. Third, the chemical contaminants he will use to cause an eventual shutdown of a power grid are snuck into the country. Fourth, he hates fscking falafel.
So, all I can determine here is that the FBI is only interested in catching the stupid terrorists, or only able to do that, and does so to give itself a good name in the view of the public. Meanwhile actual and real determined terrorists work in secret and will manage to do what they desire without tipping off the FBI, the CIA, or any other law enforcement group. These law enforcement groups had valid actionable information about the 9/11 plot and ignored it. What good will it do them to find someone that likes Turkish food?
They all look like idiots!!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
How is it more dangerous than the inside threat of Christian Fundamentalists that threaten the very nature of the US?
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
"Because people who grew up having to make their own food from scratch are going to suddenly stop doing that and start buying the Kraft brand."
And how many people who are just trying to eat healthier and get a bit of variety in their diet are they going to snag?
Or who go there because its convenient to rent a movie (a lot of these places rent movies, etc).
Kevin Smith on Prince
1) "The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn't last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI's criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous -- and possibly illegal."
2) "All signs point to the credit card companies providing this data" is a rather generous spin on a theory that the author simply made up.
3) Do Iranians eat falafel at all? I've never seen it in Persian restaurants. Or do none of you people know the difference between them and Arabs?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
You don't understand how datamining works. Records of you shopping for Islamic food by and in itself is irrelevant. Nobody is going to throw you in jail because you love a falaffel now and then
However, once FBI computers have access to hundreds of unrelated databases, they can do things like
RETURN PERSON ID where gender is a male AND between 17-35 AND shops at Islamic stores AND has expired visa AND received large cash transfers from an Islamic country AND bought a one-way ticket on an airplane AND is on the same flight as others of that class.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I think that it's even more insidious than what you describe. It's not even being Middle Eastern that attracts the attention of authorities in this matter, but rather what food you purchase.
This isn't even targeted ethnic discrimination, but rather a blatant foray into the realm of persecuting any deviation from the "american norm". To me, this says: "What, you don't purchase apple pies, soda, and hamburger? Instead you buy pita, chickpeas, and lamb? You're not like us... thus you are an enemy"
This is not just ethnic profiling run amock, but rather the beginnings of persecuting any differences from the average. The logical continuation of this policy would be to data mine television watching habits, and blacklist those who do not watch reality TV... or better yet, flag anyone whose TV is turned on for less than 2 hours per day.
RETURN PERSON ID where gender is a male AND between 17-35 AND shops at Islamic stores AND has expired visa AND received large cash transfers from an Islamic country AND bought a one-way ticket on an airplane AND is on the same flight as others of that class.
;)
(2 row(s) returned)
RETURN PERSON ID where gender is a male AND between 17-35 AND has expired visa AND received large cash transfers from an Islamic country AND bought a one-way ticket on an airplane AND is on the same flight as others of that class.
(2 row(s) returned)
Thank God for the grocery store data!
They can also do stuff like: RETURN PERSON ID where party != party in control of government AND buys anti-Administration magazines AND owns a gun AND actively participates in political protests.
Why do pro-government apologists always sound like they're about to piss their pants in fear of terrorists? Who is more likely to destroy your life, a terrorist or the government?
If you've gotten to the point in life where someone has to explain the difference between working within the system to change it to your liking VS making demands and then blowing up people then really you need to consider furthering your education.
OR... they could look for people who had their families, along with a million other countrymen, blown up, torched, and shot for no damned reason. But that would require us to understand that we've actually made people mad at us. It's all about the EVIL, brown Muslims, not about what we do to piss them off...
Welcome to slashdot, where bigotry is modded insightful.
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
Instead,
- Some have started/supported military action with a foreign country which was unconnected with said attacks, and was not an immediate threat
- Some have put bombs at abortion clinics: i.e., tried to kill people to prevent them from having an abortion. (I think most of us agree that someone willing to kill another to get people to conform to their beliefs about what is "moral" is most certainly a religious extremist.)
Which bothers you more?
- 2,974 people were killed by terrorists on September 11, 2001.
- 3858 US soldiers are confirmed dead by the DoD due to operations in Afghanistan/Iraq
- Roughly 17 times more people get killed by drunk drivers than by terrorists in the US.
If we were concerned about TRUE security and public safety, wouldn't we be far more interested in preventing the deaths due to non-ideological causes (drunk driving, other car accidents), rather than waging war in other nations?
Because generally speaking the Christian fundamentalists are not trying to kill us.
For that matter, Christianity doesn't even have an equivalent of Jihad in either codification or practice. They did in practice six hundred years ago on another continent, but that really isn't relevant in the America of today. We've had a couple of abortion doctor shooters, which were loners and which has been uniformly denounced by all major Christian denominations. Compare this to honor killing.
0 rows returned
FBI Agent: "Damn! Now what?
RETURN PERSON ID where RELIGION='Islam'
May the Maths Be with you!
Generaly speaking, neither are the middle eastern people.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Operating cash-only is a mistake. Instead, the successful terrorist has to separate out his innocuous "cover" activities and his terrorist activities. The cover activities should use a blend of cash and credit, and the terrorist activities should be cash-only. Even better, the cover activities can hide the terrorist stuff. For instance, if the terrorist is making an ANFO bomb, buying a bunch of ammonium nitrate and diesel with cash will certainly set off flags. But if his cover identity is as some sort of farmer, then if he diverts 5% of the stuff he's buying for the farm to his bomb, nobody will notice anything.
So, that whole thing in Ireland was just a little misunderstanding?
It doesn't matter if you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Atheist. What matters is how you treat your fellow human being, and how do you look at yourself. If you think you're perfect, all those "imperfect" beings around you are in trouble. If you think you're 100% right, all those "incorrect" beings around you are in trouble.
Christian fundamentalism is a 19th century phenomenon, so it wasn't around back in the 1600's. Yes, there were religious Christians, but they weren't following Christian fundamentalist philosophy.
Like all other groups religious Christians have been both on the side of good and evil. It was the Quakers back in the 18th century who first spoke against slavery for religious reasons. At that time, all 12 colonies had slavery (Delaware was part of Pennsylvania, and didn't split off from Pennsylvania until 1770s). The Unitarians (Adams were Unitarians) later forced the Northern colonies and states to ban slavery. The Baptists (the first true fundamentalist group) spoke against slavery causing the Southern Baptists to break off. In the 20th century, Catholics and Jews spoke against the treatment of Blacks in the South.
Then again, slavery in the South became a prime Christian doctrine. Many Southern preachers were leaders in lynchings and the Klan. Supremest Christian doctrine in the mid-20th century supported the Nazis in Germany and were involved in the America First movement. In the 19th century, the protestant Know Nothings went on anti-Catholic rampages.
Then there were the anti-Mormon wars in Missouri lead by various religious leaders -- many from Christian fundamentalist churches -- in the mid-1830s. Of course, there was also the Mormon lead 1857 Mountain Meadows massacre.
It isn't Christian vs. Muslim. It is intolerance vs. everybody else. The fact that you so proudly wave the Christian banner and so readily denounce those who you don't agree with your religious views shows which side of the divide you're on.
"Christian Fundamentalists have been here since the 1600s and haven't turned this country into Afghanistan yet. On the other hand you look at sizable immigrant Muslim communities in countries like Canada and the UK, and people are pushing for Sharia courts."
I don't think you can get any more disingenuous than that. It is clear there are no "Sharia courts" in countries like Canada and the UK. So, a more honest phrasing would be, "you look at sizable immigrant Muslim communities in countries like Canada and the UK, and they haven't turned this country into Afghanistan yet."
Yes, Islam is a superstition that some violent, desperate, and insane people use to justify their actions, but so is Christianity.
Sharia courts are a threat to countries like Canada and the UK? Give me a break. The only actual threat to the justice systems of these countries is the War on Terror, which is seeking (successfully -- unlike your Muslim bogeyman) to replace courts and fair trials with kangaroo courts and military prisons.
Exactly. How do people not understand this?
Whenever someone proposes giving the government a new power, there's an easy way to test if the government should have that power. Think of the person or people you'd least like to see in power. Then ask yourself if you would like that person or people to have that power.
If you wouldn't want your opposition to have that power, you shouldn't give it to the government, because, sooner or later, your opposition will be in control.