Slashdot Mirror


New US Government Project To Monitor Electronic Communication

An anonymous reader writes "PRODIGAL (Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning) is a recently uncovered U.S. government program created in partnership with the Georgia Tech School of Computational Science and Engineering, ostensibly to monitor IMs, texts, and emails on government networks, is feared to be turned on the U.S. population at large. From the article: 'Cherie Anderson runs a travel company in southern California, and she's convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she's all right with that. "I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind," she says. "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."'"

53 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. First post! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    First entry into PRODIGAL database!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. Encrypt by Neutral_Observer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Encrypt anything that goes "On Grid".

    1. Re:Encrypt by Openstandards.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've had the ability to encrypt email for years, and we battled for PGP, yet no one uses it. The question is how do you get people to encrypt email by default, particularly when it requires participation by both sides. Add this challenge to IM.

    2. Re:Encrypt by Neutral_Observer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have been working on an application that makes this easy for every... hold on, someone is at the door.... ****carrier lost****

    3. Re:Encrypt by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Encryption may not help you here. When we get to talking about graph analysis and learning, suddenly who you are talking to becomes as interesting as what you are talking about.

      You might be identified as threat based sole on what would seem to be unusual information flows. For example, if someone in say HR is trading lots of mails with someone in accounting, an other person in inventory management, and finally a couple of warehouse shipping clerks, such a system might flag it as a possible theft conspiracy to steal inventory.

      It would be unusual for such a ad-hoc group to be exchanging information at high frequency, and might warrant scrutiny. You can discover that and flag it independent of the the messages being encrypted or not. It could be completely innocent of course, they might just be on the company volleyball team together. Still its an interesting technology.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Encrypt by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

      Encryption is standard for XMPP now. Why it isn't for all the other protocols I have no idea. Regardless, unless the encryption keys are self signed the government can get a copy of them anyway. IMHO, your correct about PGP. It should be part of the signing up for an account process. Unfortunately, the most popular email clients don't give PGP any thought.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:Encrypt by Openstandards.net · · Score: 2

      That is very true. I believe there is an opportunity to anonymize communications via P2P technology. Sometimes, the best way to hide a sound is to create lots of noise. When all of our direct communications become meaningless due to the randomness of P2P, and our intended communications require a random number of P2P hops, and the process is protected with encryption, it becomes very difficult to discern the intended communications graph from the random P2P one.

    6. Re:Encrypt by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we get to talking about graph analysis and learning, suddenly who you are talking to becomes as interesting as what you are talking about.

      No, it's interesting, but it's not as interesting. "Looks like he called his wife again," doesn't tell you a whole lot.

      Imagine you're trying to decide which house to burgle. Some sends a message to someone else who is planning a party. You really want to know if they said, "I'll be there and am bringing a few growlers of homebrew quadbock. We are getting so 'faced! Can I crash at your place?" or "sorry, can't make it. I'm teaching the kids how to recycle ammo brass that night."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Encrypt by blahplusplus · · Score: 2

      "We've had the ability to encrypt email for years"

      That was never the issue, the problem is it was OPT IN, encryption should have been built in and on by default from the start. That's the real issue.

    8. Re:Encrypt by tatman · · Score: 2

      The fact that you use PGP could be enough to put you on the threat radar. Heck, I'll go as far as to say, the fact that I engaged in this conversation could be enough to me on it. I feel like I should be some old croney conspiracy theory freak when I speak like that, and yet......

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    9. Re:Encrypt by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Server communications is all that needs to be encrypted really. The end-user shouldn't have to do much, I simply don't allow POP and standard IMAP on my mail server and even SMTP has to have at least TLS encryption if you're going for port 25. The server-to-server communication for SMTP is a bit hairier (my server makes a best effort to either use SSL or TLS) but XMPP can be forced to only accept SSL/TLS encrypted connections.

      Off course if you decide to outsource management of any of those assets to 'the cloud' then you better have some guarantee that stuff gets encrypted.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > PGP is stupid. It's non-standard

      It's not only a de-facto standard, it's *officially* a standard, described in RFC-1991 and 2440. It's also supposed in most email clients, either natively (such as Evolution) or with a trivial add-on (like Enigmail for Thunderbird).

    11. Re:Encrypt by glorybe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For reasons not known or understood by me I am unfortunately aware that some arm of government does, and has for some time, collected in depth information about some people who have no criminal history at all nor have done anything considered wrong either. It gets rough when someone hands you some of that information and because of the life spans of people who apparently contributed that information it is obvious that it was compiled over a period of years and some effort was applied to knowing about your life.

    12. Re:Encrypt by dave87656 · · Score: 2

      You might be identified as threat based sole on what would seem to be unusual information flows.

      And with the recent proposal that the government can arrest you and hold you indefinitely if they perceive you as a terror threat, just sending a text message encrypted might just land you in Guantanamo.

  3. Technology Exists Already by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I interviewed for a major life insurance company. They already have the ability to monitor all that stuff (except for texts, but that seems trivial if you have access). I know for a fact a previous employer of mine had that capability and used it as well.

    The only interesting thing about this is they asked Georgia Tech to help instead of a more traditional defense-type contractor.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  4. wrong images by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."'

    There's your problem.

    People don't mind because they don't understand what is really going on. With this or any other privacy intrusion (ignoring if this particular one is real or not).

    Cherie, no human being is reading your mails. Computers with natural language engines are, and they are searching for and generating patterns. Human beings come in long afterwards. They don't get to read your mails, what they get is a summary of your preferences, opinions, buying habits, and probably some kind of score indicating (depending on who is doing the spying) if you're a good customer, a potential terrorist, have the right political agenda, etc. etc.

    The 1984 "Big Brother" concept is 1984 - in the 21st century, you will not be arrested because some office drone in the ministry of truth read through all your e-mails and decided you're a bad person. No, in the 21st century you get put on the No Fly List and nobody can friggin' explain to you why , because the reason, as far as the humans involved are concerned, is that some score in some automated system crossed a threshold value.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:wrong images by tatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scary isn't it. No one will care until it becomes a problem for themselves; then they wonder what happened....

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    2. Re:wrong images by BMOC · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Future TSA worker:

      "Ah, you can't fly, in fact, I'm supposed to arrest you. Come here please."

      "Oh, you say this is a mistake?"

      "Don't worry, this is just a result of a feature with a work-around. I'm sure they'll fix these bugs in CIA 2.0. In the meantime, enjoy your stay in Leavenworth."

      --
      I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    3. Re:wrong images by CarbonShell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhm, wasn't Sen. Kennedy on the No-Fly list at one time? Not to mention people like Robert J. Johnson, John Lewis

      or

      Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass "because I [Professor Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list." The airline employee asked, "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." "I explained," said professor Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." To which the airline employee responded, "That'll do it."

      source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

    4. Re:wrong images by spidercoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I care. I try to educate people. They look at me like I'm off my nut.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:wrong images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Sarcasm] I'm absolutely sure that any misuse was just a complete misunderstanding. [More more likely never, ever happened.]

      I mean really, counter-intelpro, Iran Contra, Watergate, due-process free assassination of US citizens [on exclusive executive branch say-so] are all just pure misunderstanding. We'd never really do something wrong. [I mean, if the president does it, it, *by definition,* it isn't illegal.]
      [/Sarcasm]

      The Prima facie case of misuse is that it's a "black" program.

      1) The rules for getting on the list are secret.
      2) How you get off is secret.
      3) Who is on the list is secret.

      Secret rules for secret laws for a secret government = abuse.

      That is pretty much all that needs to be said. When people [pretty much any people] are allowed carte-blanche to do as they will, abuses will occur.

      The only way that is [sometimes] prevented or rectified is accountability to the populace.

      Once accountability is lost - and believe me, secret laws, and secret programs, by secret police because we must be *scared*, very *scared* causes a loss of accountability - once that accountability is lost, then abuses happen. It's just a forgone conclusion.

      Examine the written history of man.

      So, while you may want to demand evidence - I say there is no need.

      Abuses happen when the laws, and their enforcement and prosecution are secret. Not might happen, just will and do happen.

      Anyone who takes even the most cursory examination of history will very quickly come to that conclusion. Thus, your asking "show me the evidence" - I think it shows that either
      1) You're woefully uninformed about the nature of people
      or
      2) You're just a shill for whatever abusive authoritarian structure is currently in place and feign ignorance of the results of such policies.

      If it's option #1 - I pity you. You're a stupid git and simply can't grasp that fact.
      If it's option #2 - they I pity me, since you're likely to place me on one of those secret list, based on secret laws written by our secret government. [Because, it's clear, I'm a subversive threat!]

    6. Re:wrong images by tatman · · Score: 2

      Isn't that the truth. In fact, I often feel like Im being judged as someone that has something to hide because I speak up about it. I guess what I meant by "no one will care" is the very large majority do not. I have no statistics but I like its 99.99% do not care, cannot see the dangers, do not think it can or will happen.

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  5. Not News by Prodigal86sc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The NSA has been doing this since 2003, probably before. It's extra creepy that DARPA is now in on the act, but that's about it. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

  6. What's the definition of "prodigal"? by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    People always get that bit confused. What it REALLY means is
    "A person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way."

    Nice name for this program.

    1. Re:What's the definition of "prodigal"? by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, this is the Twitter generation. The worst thing that can possibly happen to you nowadays is that no one cares to listen to anything you say...

      It used to be that ${God} would listen to everything you thought and prayed for, and that used to be enough to let people think their problems and concerns were being addressed. I think it's healthy to have that feeling replaced by the warm, comforting feeling that the government is watching you and might choose to intervene.

      Or at the very least, it would encourage people to actually start using encryption :-P

    2. Re:What's the definition of "prodigal"? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It used to be that ${God} would listen to everything you thought and prayed for, and that used to be enough to let people think their problems and concerns were being addressed. I think it's healthy to have that feeling replaced by the warm, comforting feeling that the government is watching you and might choose to intervene.

      I dunno, given the past few years, I'd say the government is about on par with God in terms of delivering on promises.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  7. Re:Do you think they look up definitions? by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the two criteria for a government technology project. This one is pure gold as far as they're concerned.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  8. Money better spent by FellowConspirator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, as crime goes, terrorism is rare and the threat hasn't change appreciably in 50 years ( no matter what the evening news says ). The type of criminal activity in the US and international finance industries, however, is unprecedented and capable of causing far more damage. Unfortunately, we don't bring as many resources to bear on the greater threat to the country.

    1. Re:Money better spent by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      The type of criminal activity in the US and international finance industries, however, is unprecedented and capable of causing far more damage. Unfortunately, we don't bring as many resources to bear on the greater threat to the country.

      Because the former controls the latter.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  9. On Reddit yesterday... by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know we're supposed to look down on Reddit as Slashdot-lite, but someone posted an interesting question there yesterday:

    The ghost of Plato offers you one of two pills. If you take the blue pill, from now on your government will precisely represent the will of its people. If you take the red pill, your country will be seized by an intelligent dictator whose political views are identical to yours. Which will it be?

    It's almost a difficult choice until you read things like "I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind", and then you realize you'd grab the red pill so fast you'd yank Plato's arm off. Participatory government is dead.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:On Reddit yesterday... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everybody would like a dictator that rules "their way" because everyone else is stupid and wrong, in fact it's a thinly veiled way of asking if you'd like to become that dictator yourself. Except that's not how it works, because everyone can take the blue pill and have their fair share of democracy but only one person gets to pick the red pill. So the question is, would you really take a lottery where one person gets to appoint a dictator for life? I mean you could get lucky, but you might also want a one-way plane ticket out of there before your new randomly-chosen overlord closes the border. Weird as it sounds, the politicians you have are actually moderates compared to what you could get.

      Besides, if you want that dictatorship to not get overthrown in the first five minutes, that dictator has to cease control and keep it - people don't obey by magic. You might find that even if you are doing the "right thing" and have the people's best interest at heart, what you have to do to force it upon them actually makes the cure worse than the problem. It won't be long before your dictator passes mass surveillance laws of his own - for the people's own good, of course. Nothing like a government that's decided they're right and the people wrong, surely some reeducation camps will make people understand. That's worked so well in the past.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:On Reddit yesterday... by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      Democracy isn't some panacea. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."

      The problem isn't that the red pill is a wrong choice, the problem is that there are no benevolent dictators, or at least no reliable supply of them. (Yes, I know the question said intelligent, but presumably the intelligence would be used benevolently, otherwise we already have plenty of countries with intelligent, but not particularly benevolent, dictators.)

    3. Re:On Reddit yesterday... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      The ghost of Plato offers you one of two pills. If you take the blue pill, from now on your government will precisely represent the will of its people. If you take the red pill, your country will be seized by an intelligent dictator whose political views are identical to yours. Which will it be?

      No contest; I'd take the red pill. Of course, my political leanings are such that the "intelligent dictator" would be a pure figurehead, uninterested in exercising any actual political power. It's a bit hard to complain seriously about a "dictator" forever bound from interfering.

      The problem with the first option is that "the will of the people" far outstrips "the standing of the people"; in other words, a truly representative government with no other boundaries would exert its will in all kinds of situations where most of those being represented lack any legitimate standing (i.e. are not at risk of being harmed by the outcome) and thus should not have any influence. Democracy is a great idea in the context of running a voluntary organization, but the only legitimate option for any group you are not able to opt out of is unanimous consent.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  10. it does matter by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the old days, the ATF would just make up some charges against you (meth, guns), keep the press/news 2 miles away from your compound (Waco) and charge in shooting and setting fires to a building with your family in it. Now they can say "we have a report from our security system" that you are a threat. They dont even need to make up anything as a cover story, you are on a list..'nuf said. Theres a saying ive seen on here, around the net goes like this "when they came for the Jews, I didnt say anything because i wasnt a jew. when they came for the gays, i didnt say anything because I wasnt gay. Now they are coming for me, and theres no one left to say anything". The point is, with a system in place like this it is too easy to abuse and we are one step closer the end. And we cant stop it now, without a lot of people getting really upset, the very thing this system will detect and prevent. We are at the point now where we decide the next step in our evolution. Up until now, evolution had a pretty decent set of "rules" where the species that evolved certain traits, stuck around longer. At this point a system like this will make sure someone's idea of the next generation, will be followed, circumventing natural selection, and probably guaranteeing the human race, as we know it, will cease to exist.

    -KI

    --
    #include bier;
    1. Re:it does matter by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Theres a saying ive seen on here, around the net


              First they came for the Communists,
              but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.

              Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
              but I was neither, so I did not speak out.

              Then they came for the Jews,
              but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.

              And when they came for me,
              there was no one left to speak out for me.

      Martin Niemoller

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. Private key by tepples · · Score: 2

    We've had the ability to encrypt email for years, and we battled for PGP, yet no one uses it.

    To use PGP to sign and encrypt webmail, users have to upload their private keys to the webmail server. Solve this and you might find more people using PGP.

    1. Re:Private key by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was an article here a couple of weeks ago about a browser plugin that managed your private keys and worked with webMail. I don't think many people are interested, which is unfortunate.

  12. Retrospective Searches by anorlunda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've assumed that the US government has been intercepting all our communications since they first had the technical ability. Why? Because of the 911 commission. Goverment really reacts and overreacts to that kind of stinging criticism that they didn't protect us.

    What should we expect from them today? I expect that as soon as they find a terrorism suspect, that they are able to review his/her communications retrospectively; and also those whom he/she had contact with and so on 3 plys deep. To do that, they need an archive of everyone's messages 100% of the time, because they can't know in advance whose they want to review in the future.

    I too hate big brother and I hate invasions of my privacy. However, it is unrealistic to expect the feds to not fully exploit 21st century technology. If we were smart, we would give up on trying to restrict what data they gather and focus on restricting what they can do with gathered information.

    1. Re:Retrospective Searches by surgen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've assumed that the US government has been intercepting all our communications since they first had the technical ability.

      I look at this the same way I might view a person who said to me "I've always assumed that an invisible Bigfoot watches me whenever I masturbate".

      Given the US government has given themselves the ability to perform wholesale monitoring of communications (Room 641A is the easiest proof to point to), we must also posit that there is an invisible Bigfoot, and that he frequently watches people masturbate.

  13. Re:Total Information Access (TIA) by russotto · · Score: 2

    Art imitiates life. "Total Information Access" was a real DARPA program. It was "cancelled", but of course that just means they changed the name. Perhaps to "PRODIGAL". As I recall, the symbol for TIA was the all-seeing eye (the one on the back of the dollar bill), which was probably DARPA trolling the paranoids.

  14. Re:Total Information Access (TIA) by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, no, that's art imitating life.

    In 2003, a program called "Total Information Awareness" was created to intercept all Internet traffic and try to process it looking for phrases the NSA and others in government might find interesting. In 2007, the newly elected Congress defunded it (mostly Democrats, with the support of a few libertarians like Ron Paul). The NSA responded by shifting the efforts into different programs that they didn't have to explain to Congress.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Idiot by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article: 'Cherie Anderson runs a travel company in southern California, and she's convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she's all right with that. "I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind," she says. "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."'"

    What an idiot. The problem is not a boring civil servant reading her emails and at most noting "oh how interesting, someone ordered flowers for Charles Manson again". The problem is her competitor donating money to a politicians campaign and inadvertently getting a copy of her emailed sales plan. The problem is a subcontractor of a contractor getting a copy of all emailed credit card numbers, ID thefting them, and she must be to blame, after all, she is the "only" common link. The problem is the civil servant's drug addicted gang member brother getting a copy of her bank statements, and noticing she makes all her weekly cash deposits at 3 pm on wednesdays, and being california, he's heavily armed, and she is completely disarmed. The problem is she tries to negotiate a better contract with her flower supplier, but thru "national technical means" her flower supplier has a copy of all her emailed communication with her accountant, and knows exactly how much profit he can extract from her. The problem is her local political muscle noticing via emailed sales figures that she is not donating the "correct" percentage of gross revenue to the politicians re-election campaign. The problem is the police notice, and blame her, when recipients of her "welcome home" gift baskets have their houses broken into and ransacked after the basket is ordered and before the basket arrives. The problem is she dates a police officer, it doesn't work out, she gets stalked by a guy with total electronic access to her life. Or a disgruntled client happens to work at the station, and has access to all her future emailed delivery plans, and knows just the dark alley to drag her into, and via the emailed schedule, knows just the right time to grab her.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  16. Stop accepting privacy invasion!! This is NOT ok! by bridgey655 · · Score: 2

    I and millions of others protest at the US governments shameful, illegal actions worldwide and increasingly what it is doing to it's own people. With this in place, there would effectively be no opposition, and you'll be in a police state quicker than you can say nazi.

  17. Sounds like a terrorist weapon to me . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    FTFS:

    "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."'

    What a give away! Add her to "The List"! That should fire all analysis triggers!

    I'm not really sure what they are planning with this new "boring" weapon, but it appears to be deadly.

    Maybe it is an acronym: B.O.R.I.N.G . . . ? We'd better investigate . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  18. Is Government snooping without a warrant ok?? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2

    "From the article: 'Cherie Anderson runs a travel company in southern California, and she's convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she's all right with that. "I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind," she says. "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."'

    I recall reading something like this in the beginning of a book I recently finished reading. It was called "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"

    Very insightful book I must add.

    This is a very slippery path we're walking down. There is a reason we have the fourth Amendment.

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  19. It's not exactly the red pill, but by tepples · · Score: 2

    I'll take the orange pill: an intelligent dictator whose views are what's best for humankind.

  20. Re:HTTPS becomes more widespread by pedrop357 · · Score: 2

    what about https://www.slashdot.org?

    Oh wait...

  21. She's already done for Re:wrong images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cherie Anderson:
    Anderson, nordic last name: aryan flag, militia flag, christian flag, racial solidarity flag

    Person match:
    Slashdot, an open techno-social resistance site: knowledge flag, ideals flag, subversion flag, networking flag, anonymous flag, hacking flag, criticism flag, hub flag, unusual interests flag
    Discovery, an unredacted popular science site: knowledge flag, inspiration flag, networking flag, science flag, news flag, hub flag, unusual interests flag
    Travel agency AB7311C2, a "prime interest" industry: owner flag, subversion flag, knowledge flag, hub flag, transportation flag, capabilities flag, insider flag, resources flag, moneylaundering flag, financial flag, offensive category 111F flag, defensive category 02B3 flag

    Quotations:
    Flagged words: Patriot Act, death
    Pattern counts: 2 "I"'s per sentence, narcissist flag

    Location:
    California: troublemaker flag, insolvency flag, social unrest flag, extremism flag

  22. Seriously? by blueg3 · · Score: 2

    The purpose of ADAMS is to detect insider threats. The data is easy to collect because the organization doing the analysis also owns the computer systems that are being used.

    While a government organization might be spying on the American public, that problem is orthogonal to this research effort. (Also, that government organization is probably not DARPA, SAIC, or Georgia Tech.) You'd be hard-pressed to even apply the algorithms they're developing to a such a large and varied population because of the high false positive rate.

  23. I'm shocked! by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    My private communications should be kept between myself, my closest friends, and my sysadmin.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. idle hands... by Thud457 · · Score: 2
    This man traffics in weapons-grade boredom, lock him up!


    Actually, the typical slashdotter's interest in the following topics would probably be regarded with suspicion and get them put on some list:
    • cryptography
    • chemistry
    • non-corporate software
    • aeronautics
    • microbiology
    • libertarianism
    • model rocketry
    • trainspotting
    • privacy
    • tinfoil hats
    • mocking people who wear tinfoil hats
    • fashion
    • animal husbandry
    • crystallography
    • bathhouses
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. Nothing to Hide by StikyPad · · Score: 2

    [S]he's convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she's all right with that. "I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind," she says. "I figure I'm probably boring them to death."

    Anyone who's okay with the federal government reading their email should likewise be okay with a random stranger reading their e-mail. The government doesn't have any more need-to-know than anyone else, *especially* if you're doing nothing wrong. The argument that they are ruling people out as non-threats is fallacious: if you were ruled out, there would be no need for further monitoring, which tells us what should be obvious: that people are never ruled out.

    So if you're really okay with the government reading your email, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is, and post all of your sent and received messages somewhere that's publicly viewable. After all, there's a chance the government might miss something, and if it saves even one life, it's worth it, right? Right?!

  26. Re:gavel.avi by qbast · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sound of drone firing?