Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist

The power of privacy by bonch · 2012-02-02 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

"[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's. ... Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power." - EFF

Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.

Re:The power of privacy by repapetilto · 2012-02-02 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you... do you trust them to keep your info safe from hackers? Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:07 · Score: 1

Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments
So says the guy with a registered account.
Re:The power of privacy by Hatta · 2012-02-02 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not an error in logic. Eric Schmidt knows exactly what he's arguing for.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is just another example of just how far out of touch the US Government is in technology.
I swear...armed uprising might soon be the only way to restore the country to some semblance of normalcy, where the government works FOR the people, not against us all.
AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.
Re:The power of privacy by bonch · 2012-02-02 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pseudonymity is one form of anonymity.
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 1

What's your Facebook username, citizen?
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:18 · Score: 5, Funny

What's your Facebook username, citizen?
You have to ask?
Re:The power of privacy by Ragun · 2012-02-02 06:18 · Score: 1

Its all tradeoffs. When you go to the store to buy something, people have an opportunity to notice your activities. If you use Google, its absurd to demand they forget what you tell them to of the encounter. The government should have certain limits, because we cannot chose to not do business with them, but to pretend that perfect anonymity will exist just seems silly.

That being said, this flyer is hilarious.
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:19 · Score: 1

You have a subscriber star. Your money is extremely trackable with the right subpoenas.
Additionally, even if you weren't a subscriber, the time and dates of your postings along with your user ID can be used as inputs to track you down (even with an anonymizer like Tor).
Re:The power of privacy by sconeu · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:The power of privacy by Tsingi · 2012-02-02 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you...
I do care. The government has powers it should not have. The less they know about me the better. And everyone else for that matter.
If you want to know something about me, ask, if I want to tell you, I will.
Re:The power of privacy by stanlyb · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 1

FBI. OPEN the door, you filthy terroriste....
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's an email address assigend to your account with an IP address associated with that - even if is assigned raondomly; just look at logs.
And then there's the IP address associated with your (and my) posts.
So, now there are two ways of finding you if I were some sort of secret police. With a couple of letter with a certain letter head, it wouldn't be too hard to find out what ISP account these posts came from and the billing address and who you are - or at least find your parents and tell them what you've been doing in your basement.
Secondly, as someone with such a low Slashdot account number (with a star too!), I'm really disappionted in you for having such an attitude regarding internet accounts. I expected better from you and everyone who modded you up.
I am a disappoint.
Lastly, you have lousy taste in porn.
Re:The power of privacy by what2123 · 2012-02-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Yes, but good look trying to figure out who is really behind "Barrett Williams."
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 1

Schmidt is correct in his phrasing.
Not wanting anyone to know is very different from not wanting everyone to know.
Re:The power of privacy by tqk · 2012-02-02 06:29 · Score: 2

It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information.
Someone in the halls of power has finally got around to reading both 1984 and Brave New World. "Don't forget to take your Soma, citizen, and remember we'll be doing drug testing later to assure you did. It's for your safety, for the children, and to stop terrorists."
Don't worry, DHS, people like me will soon be dead so you needn't worry further about people like me. "Land of the free, home of the brave", my ass.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are some people who are simply intensly private. Nothing to hide, no borderline paranoia, no affairs, no extreme opinions political, religious or any other kind. You know. Average. Introverts.
I remember once I found a website translating strings into binary code. Used to chat with my brother like that for weeks. We both have laptops, and travel, not frequently, but enough to encrypt the hard drives. I might buy another laptop if I lose it, and lose forever the data on it, but nobody else gets to access my mail or other websites accounts, and other things, like work or personal projects.
There's this thing called identity theft in case you haven't heard of it. Dumbass cops. Suits or uniforms, they're the same damn stock.
Re:The power of privacy by mrclisdue · 2012-02-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

...AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door...
I could do the old ftfy crap, but posting AC perhaps adds a weak layer of obscurity, but it won't necessarily prevent our rulers from showing up: your anonymity depends hugely on what other steps you may have taken to shield your id....
But the old "only terrorists have something to hide" ideology has become so ingrained in our society that it's sickening. In these parts there was a campaign to swab all the men in town for dna (they were looking for a serial rapist, or something along those lines.) At the press conference, the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something." And pretty well everyone I mentioned this to over the next few weeks absolutely agreed. I didn't get swabbed. Two detectives showed up at my door. I *think* I convinced them that I was refusing, on principle, but I really can't be sure now, can I?
cheers,
Re:The power of privacy by dgatwood · 2012-02-02 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The funny thing is that if everyone felt the way Eric Schmidt did, or for that matter, the TSA, we wouldn't have the iPhone. You want to talk about things developed in secret by people taking borderline insane measures to keep other people from reading their screens.... So is he saying that such products should not have been created in the first place?
In fact, what's interesting is that the people most strongly in favor of privacy are the ones most likely to change things—for better or worse—because they're the ones who see things differently. They look at a piece of wood and see a table, or look at an old car bumper and see a sculpture. They see things not for what they are, but for what they could be. But they know that their ideas must be fully baked before they are unleashed into the wild, or else the public will not understand them—will not accept them—will not appreciate them.
This scares those who have vested interests in the status quo. They call them names like terrorist, radical, or crazy to diminish their standing, further isolating them from society. Eventually this actually drives them inevitably to take some extreme action that changes things anyway, in spite of the establishment's desire to avoid that.
What that action is depends on the person. It might be blowing up an airplane, or it might be releasing the most amazing new piece of technology the world has ever seen. It's the same fundamental way of operating, but with vastly different goals. The problem is that there is no good way to tell the difference as an outsider. The only real option is to accept that there will always be a few people who will try to change the world for the worse—blow stuff up, kill people, etc.—and accept that we can't feasibly stop them all without also stopping those who would change the world for the better.
Food for thought.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:The power of privacy by hobarrera · 2012-02-02 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

In that case, Schmidt, can I have access to all your files, including google's algorithm?
Re:The power of privacy by cheekyjohnson · 2012-02-02 06:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, but some people download movies on the internet, and some people's feelings get hurt occasionally.
Privacy has to go. The internet can't be the wild west!

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:The power of privacy by rst123 · 2012-02-02 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
So I assume that Google has posted their financials, algorithms, complete business plans, etc on the open web? or maybe they are planning on shutting down and disbanding?
Re:The power of privacy by mhajicek · 2012-02-02 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would like to report the FBI for suspicious terrorist activity as described in the above referenced brochure.
Re:The power of privacy by master_kaos · 2012-02-02 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok Eric Schmidt, I want to know your SSN, CC info, bank account numbers. Oh you don't want me to know that? Guess you shouldn't do online banking, purchasing from amazon, etc.
Re:The power of privacy by repapetilto · 2012-02-02 06:44 · Score: 2

I agree with you. However, there are many people who say "well if they're watching me they must be pretty bored, hahaha". Usually putting a face on it (whether your own or someone you know) can drive the point home that this stuff is creepy.
Re:The power of privacy by bonch · 2012-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1, Informative

Secondly, as someone with such a low Slashdot account number (with a star too!), I'm really disappionted in you for having such an attitude regarding internet accounts. I expected better from you and everyone who modded you up.
I'm not really sure what attitude you're referring to. I never claimed that having a registered account guaranteed anonymity. Anonymity can never be guaranteed, nor can any form of security, but it can be greatly strengthened.
Re:The power of privacy by Moonrazor · 2012-02-02 06:56 · Score: 1

The FBI does NOT tell you to open the door. They politely knock once, then cut the door down with a chainsaw! This is usually followed with stunned expressions when they discover they'd entered the wrong apartment.

--
Burn the land and boil the sea........
Re:The power of privacy by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:05 · Score: 2

I would define it as
"Pseuonymity is Identifiable Anonymity"
Re:The power of privacy by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:08 · Score: 2

This comment has been reported to the authorities and we are tracing your IP address.
Re:The power of privacy by demonbug · 2012-02-02 07:11 · Score: 1

You have a subscriber star. Your money is extremely trackable with the right subpoenas.
Additionally, even if you weren't a subscriber, the time and dates of your postings along with your user ID can be used as inputs to track you down (even with an anonymizer like Tor).
No, no, no... you think he/she uses their own money to pay for it? Like any privacy-conscious person, they threaten somebody else with physical harm in order to induce that person to pay for their pseudonymous account, which they then use in an attempt to influence political discourse.
Re:The power of privacy by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:11 · Score: 1

And replacement puppies for the one they blew away.
Re:The power of privacy by w_dragon · 2012-02-02 07:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Do you have a source for that quote? I've seen something similar that could be taken out of context that way, it was along the line of "If you're doing something you don't want people to know about, why are you telling Google about it?", and the context was that Google isn't going to break the law to cover your tracks if someone knocks on the door with a warrant.
Re:The power of privacy by lgw · 2012-02-02 07:16 · Score: 2

Shopping physically has limited anonymity. But why shouldn't anonymity grow> as technology progresses. The ability to shop, and generally interact commercially, anonymously is a good thing. Beyond what's needed for fraud prevention, and the ability to outlaw selling some things, what possible moral good can come from the government or my neighbors knowing what I'm buying. High fences really do make for good neighbors.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:The power of privacy by hierophanta · 2012-02-02 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

that is a categorically false statement. people on facebook and twitter want you to know certain things about them. (for example people dont post when they accidentally shit themselves, but taking shots with hotties = post!)

some people (like myself) make a point to tailor the information that is posted / accessible so that i am seen in only a certain light. this has become increasingly important as companies use our social presence to make decisions about us. to the point that i created a twitter with my real name so that i can have what i post that definitely attributed to myself. (its all work related and makes me seem like a hero). if you havent done this yet, do it now. and post there every so often with a mind to create a stellar professional image.
Re:The power of privacy by suman28 · 2012-02-02 07:20 · Score: 3, Funny

it is Anonymous.Coward@ilikeboys.com
Re:The power of privacy by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-02 07:24 · Score: 1

Uhh, alright. So you do it that way. Others of us might just walk into Wally-World, pick up a pre-paid credit card, pay for it with cash, and use that for our online transactions. And, never reload the damned card. And, most certainly never reload the card using a real credit card. This is the same way that I pay for my prepaid wireless phone. No credit card to trace, no name on the sequence of numbers used to pay for the card.
Sure, the gubbermint can find me, but I'm not doing their work FOR THEM! Let the detectives do some detecting if they really want me.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:The power of privacy by DCFusor · 2012-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Love of money fixed anonymity pretty quick. Can't monetise the Internet if the parties don't know who each other are with reasonable certainty. Then, spam tracking required more info - it's all about money, so nothing new.

--
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Re:The power of privacy by cp.tar · 2012-02-02 07:35 · Score: 1

My posts on Facebook are limited to the things I would not mind anyone to know. Things I could talk about in public.
Pretty much, if you check my Facebook account, you’ll see a bunch of posts related to my political and religious beliefs (or lack thereof), some funny pics I shared from whomever, and a friend list full of bullshit. Good luck getting anything useful.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:The power of privacy by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-02 07:39 · Score: 2

"people like me will soon be dead so you needn't worry further about people like me"
Don't be to sure of that. I have a son who is just as much an asshole as I am. The great pain in my ass made me proud the first time he told a cop that he did NOT have permission to search the car he was driving. From all accounts that filtered back to me, I think the cop was just short of having a stroke.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:The power of privacy by w.hamra1987 · 2012-02-02 07:40 · Score: 1

once upon a time, daddy told us it's forbidden to use our real names on the interwebz, and even worse, god forbids, say what our real age is...
well... not my dad, but most everyone else's did this
it was taken a bit too seriously, some form of identity on the net, traceable across a couple of sites (a slashdot account, linked to a personal blog, and maybe a couple of forums ID) is not that bad of an idea, just adds few more connections between things
but in the long run, if i want to be anonymous, i should have the right to. and which reminds me of another issue... subpoenaing an anonymous poster with help from forum admin is bad law in need of changing.

--
my sig pwns your sig
Re:The power of privacy by msheekhah · 2012-02-02 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well there are those of us that like to keep in touch with family that aren't tech savvy enough for IRC, or even Skype. But then Facebook becomes a tool, and not a community.

--
Mark Anthony Collins
Re:The power of privacy by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-02 07:46 · Score: 1

" I try to be sensitive to the fact that guns can be terrifying to others."
While I would never wave or point a weapon with the intent of terrorizing others - I simply don't give a rat's ass if they are terrorized by my possession of weapons. Their terror is their problem, not mine.
Just as the United State's terror is our problem, not Al Queda's, or anyone else's.
It's time that we, as a nation, put on our "Big Boy Pants" (copyrighted, trademarked, patented, and guarded by rabid pit bulls with PMS) and grew some balls, to get over our terror.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:The power of privacy by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-02 07:47 · Score: 1

Huh? What? Are you implying that I shouldn't use Google to search for "methods to murder my wife and all the inlaws for profit"? Alright, fine, I'll switch to Bing!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:The power of privacy by UnknownSoldier · 2012-02-02 07:48 · Score: 2

> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
> "[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's. ..
Agreed. So Eric Schmidt has no problem sharing his SSN, his PIN, his Phone #, etc. ??
The problem is NOT with the information per se, but with its misuse, namely the PEOPLE who are _irresponsible_.
This is one reason we have privacy.
Re:The power of privacy by Tenebrousedge · 2012-02-02 07:51 · Score: 1

Their algorithms are published. PageRank is even patented. What exactly are you on about?

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:The power of privacy by basecastula+ · 2012-02-02 07:58 · Score: 1

Brave...
Re:The power of privacy by Patch86 · 2012-02-02 08:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

...being reported to the FBI by a barista with a patriotic leaflet.
1984 gets nearer every day.
Re:The power of privacy by KDR_11k · 2012-02-02 08:02 · Score: 2

Ask the guy to drop his pants, if he refuses he has something to hide.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:The power of privacy by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1

Wrong. They charge you for the bullet they spent on the puppy. And the gas for the chainsaw. If you weren't doing anything wrong they wouldn't have shown up at your door, now would they?
Re:The power of privacy by BoberFett · 2012-02-02 08:19 · Score: 1

What about medical privacy. That's even enshrined in law. Does adhering to HIPAA rules make all doctors and patients terrorists? What are they hiding? Maybe a doctor implanted a bomb in his patients rectum!
Re:The power of privacy by slack_justyb · 2012-02-02 08:23 · Score: 2

tech savvy enough for IRC, or even Skype
Email? Hell, snail mail? Fax? Smoke signals? Telephone/telegraph? I mean Facebook isn't the end-all, be-all of communications. From what I've heard we've been seemingly doing it for quite some time before Facebook.
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:26 · Score: 1

Don't worry, mrs. (B|T)uttle, we'll correct the error in our administration. And our sincerest condoleances.
Re:The power of privacy by rot26 · 2012-02-02 08:27 · Score: 1

He's arguing to be the chancellor of the Ministry of Social Networks when they get around to creating such a thing.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Re:The power of privacy by tqk · 2012-02-02 08:30 · Score: 2

"people like me will soon be dead so you needn't worry further about people like me"
The great pain in my ass made me proud the first time he told a cop that he did NOT have permission to search the car he was driving.
Isn't that (at least in Florida) when they charge him with obstruction/a broken taillight, then haul the car back to the shop to be searched for drugs? This was happening last century as I recall. I think he was lucky to get away with that these days.
From what I've heard lately, it's not safe to be a US Citizen. Hell, ask the DHS. They'll tell you, though they may not admit who it is that's causing you to be unsafe. :-(

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:The power of privacy by AnokWati · 2012-02-02 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, everyone in the military because they're required to use display shields and VPN when working from anywhere outside their offices. But, according to Secretary Nepolitano, all military personnel (ex or current) are potential terrorists anyways, so why not?
Re:The power of privacy by Hijacked+Public · 2012-02-02 08:34 · Score: 1

I would never wave or point a weapon with the intent of terrorizing others
I've done so on orders from the US Government, so I agree with you to some extent, but also with the person you replied to. Gun owners sometimes get into this argument over open versus concealed carry.
The reality is that if enough people are afraid of your behavior, whatever it is, and those people organize themselves well enough, your behavior will be made illegal. Then just the act of looking at Noveske's web site on your phone in a public space will be enough to get you in trouble. Now, it can be enough cause for the FBI or local PD to just inconvenience you.

--
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Re:The power of privacy by Homr+Zodyssey · 2012-02-02 08:34 · Score: 1

Lastly, you have lousy taste in porn.
Ouch! Where'd that come from?
Re:The power of privacy by fritsd · 2012-02-02 08:35 · Score: 1

They look at a piece of wood and see a table, or look at an old car bumper and see a sculpture.

I imagine the police would start an investigation if they accidentally looked into Gunther von Hagens' experimentation shed before he became famous..

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:The power of privacy by cayenne8 · 2012-02-02 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

if you check my Facebook account, youâ(TM)ll see a bunch of posts related to my political and religious beliefs (or lack thereof), some funny pics I shared from whomever, and a friend list full of bullshit. Good luck getting anything useful.
Err....those political and religious views could prove to be VERY important/useful to others.
Targeted ads and contact by political parties...
Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt...without you even knowing or being able to prove such.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:The power of privacy by slack_justyb · 2012-02-02 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something."
Yes that's exactly what a investigator would say. The quote doesn't break the law by forcing people to swab. That's the thing, you still have the option to refuse. Dragnet style investigations aren't anything new, it's just the newest label is terrorist. Police officers are out there to catch criminals and if they have no clue as to who to catch, they'll suspect everyone till they, "find their man."

I won't get into the whole legal thing, but basically police officers can say pretty much whatever they want to say about the public at large or to anyone who refuses to cooperate. It's when they *do* something that impedes your freedom that they've crossed the line. However, the story that you gave above, is pretty normal rhetoric.
1. 1. Make everyone feel like a criminal
2. 2. Give a path to salvation (ie: mouth swab)
3. 3. Make the path to salvation optional (to keep it legal) and damn those who do not comply
4. 4. Annoy the hell out of anyone who doesn't comply
5. 5. Stop short, of crossing boundaries, but hey the guy probably isn't a lawyer so let's test the waters.
6. 6. Profit!
I'm not saying that it's moral and at times it could be illegal, but there again, you'd need to be a lawyer to know the diff. [sarcasm]You a have problem with that? The you must be terrorist[/sarcasm] Seriously though, this tactic only works when people buy into the message, so you're looking at a problem of the people and not so much as the cops.
Re:The power of privacy by kiwimate · 2012-02-02 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do you want ME to know everything you do?
Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.
Sigh. I wish this stupid /. meme would disappear. Unbelievably, some people in the world are able to exercise self restraint. Some of them also like to use Facebook or Twitter. These are not mutually exclusive traits.
I suppose you think that most people who are on Google+ also suffer from this lack of ability to self filter?
Re:The power of privacy by tqk · 2012-02-02 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you go to the store to buy something, people have an opportunity to notice your activities.
Use cash?

If you use Google, its absurd to demand they forget what you tell them to of the encounter.
You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy? I prefer ixquick.com.

The government should have certain limits ...
It appears that boat's already sailed. Gmail uses https, doesn't it? That's crypto, so every gmail user is a potential terrorist! When your gov't is telling its people that normal, everyday practices used by millions of average, law abiding citizens are suspicious activities denoting terrorist activities, the gov't is out of control in its quest for control/power over the populace. No, perfect anonymity never existed, but now, any anonymity is seen as suspicious behaviour to be reported to the Stasi, er, authorities.

That being said, this flyer is hilarious.
I think you misspelled atrocious, infuriating, insulting, insane, or something.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:The power of privacy by hairyfeet · 2012-02-02 08:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Besides didn't anybody learn ANYTHING from Watergate? The whole point of that break in was to dig dirt that could then be thrown at the opposition. Now imagine they have a nice little list of every website you've been to for say the last 5 years and you start stirring up trouble. Lets say you start a local occupy chapter, or you start a grass roots campaign to get some crooked official impeached or block some odious bill the megacorps want passed. Do you REALLY want every single thing you have ever typed and every single website you've ever visited to be sitting there in a file waiting for them to distort it? I can just imagine the kind of stuff they could throw at me since I keep a list of "look at teh titties!" topsites and "Free viagra!" crapsites I use to test various free antivirus and antimalware solutions on these off lease boxes I have around. It makes it easy for me to idiot proof boxes for my customers but in the right hands i'm sure they could make me into some giant perv.
All movements that get anywhere anymore start at the grass roots and gain popular support. Having access to all this info would have made someone like Nixon cream himself in delight, as it would be easy to warp and twist even the most innocent thing into something they could use against you. hell working PC sales and repair i can't tell you the number of times I've seen truly innocent mistakes get someone's PC turned into a spambot or infected with a porn bug. Like if you would have seen the traffic logs of a local minister two years ago you would have thought him to be a giant perv but the poor schmuck bought one of those USB external drives with a preloaded malware and when he saw the .exe sitting on the drive he thought it was some free software that came with the drive and ran it. it turned out to be a clickjacker bug that was throwing popups to every kind of topsite and crapsite known to man to crank up the clicks.
Now what if that minister had been trying to build a grassroots support for an investigation into something like say Fast & Furious? Or for some dirty dealing at the Fed? Frankly with the history of the three letter agencies in this country I don't trust them any farther than i can throw them and the LAST thing we need to do is make it even easier for them to build up dossiers on everybody. Between their own dirty dealings and getting in bed with megacorps frankly i'd be less worried about a hacker like you getting it than some corp or 3 letter agency deciding they needed to smack down a few peons that were getting uppity.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:The power of privacy by Mista2 · 2012-02-02 08:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps.
Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
The answer is the same reason governments are scared of RIMs encrypted BB mail system. They cant back door it, so they hope it doesnt gain wide acceptance.
Want to run your browser in private mode and do not track - this actually stands out in the crowd making it easier to see you because noone else is making a stealth attempt, and forever-cookies just ignore the request to not track anyway.
But dont worry, when you walk down the street in most cities now you are going to show up on someones CCTV, and blimp drones can over for months over a city, or anywhere of interest. You have no expenctation to privacy in your own back yard according to the cops now. ANd they dont need a warrant to place a GPS on your car if they do it while parked out in the open. The only place they cant do it is in your own garage. Your driveway is however fair game. And requesting your cell traffic logs - trivial. They can even st up a spoof cell tower without a warrant, catching their target AND every other innocent cell phone that is in range.
Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.
Broder security in the US can conficate any encrypted device if you refuse to decrypt it to show them whtats on it, and your mail can be pulled from GMail if stored form more than 6 months as this is considered Abandoned, even if you are contantly accessing it with iMap.
It's harder than ever to protect you privacy, and this in no way will stop the next terrorist parking a truck full of fertiliser outside a federal building if they are insane enough. Welcome to America - land of the free.
Re:The power of privacy by Bob9113 · 2012-02-02 09:01 · Score: 1

They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.
Poignantly said. I want that tattoo'd on my ass ...

... No. I want it tattoo'd on the forehead of everyone who has ever uttered the phrase, "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear." An iconic scarlet 'P' would be a satisfactory substitute.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:The power of privacy by Per+Wigren · 2012-02-02 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not really. On Facebook and Twitter we tell you only the parts of ourselves that we want to be known. That's very different from having someone snooping around in the parts we want to keep private.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Re:The power of privacy by MurukeshM · 2012-02-02 09:14 · Score: 2

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO
In that case, Schmidt, can I have access to all your files, including google's algorithm?

you don't want anyone to know
Certainly some Google employees have access to their algorithm. And access to all their files. Doesn't mean everyone else should have access.
Obvious troll is obvious. Why is parent modded insightful? It is funny at best.
Re:The power of privacy by Solandri · 2012-02-02 09:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed
The Internet was once a place where your real identity was also your online identity. The schools, companies, and organizations which comprised the Internet all voluntarily enforced a policy where each user's username was their real name, or anyone could easily figure it out from their username.

Anonymity didn't really arrive on the Internet until 1993, when AOL joined. AOL users were allowed to pick up to 5 pseudonyms as their email address (because one AOL account might be shared by an entire family). In retrospect, that change was really quick - a span of a couple years and pretty much everyone was allowed to pick whatever they wanted as a username.

Personally, I think anonymity is the proverbial genie that's been let out of the bottle - it's gonna be really, really hard to put it back in. But a non-anonymous Internet isn't something new; it was the norm a mere 2+ decades ago. The funny thing is that when AOL joined, a lot of people were saying that anonymity would be the death of the Internet due to spam (it was already polluting Usenet), flame wars, posers, etc. When e-commerce was first taking off, people were questioning how online stores would ever be able to validate a customer's real identity when everyone was effectively anonymous behind self-selected usernames. Now the tables have turned and people are saying having your real identity known online will be the death of the Internet.

The Internet has survived both extremes, so it's reasonable to think that it will also survive anything in between.
Re:The power of privacy by Tsingi · 2012-02-02 09:31 · Score: 1

Actually, I'm Canadian. Also, I think a judge somewhere (NY?) said that GPS tracking requires a court order. But yes, it's a sad state of affairs.
Re:The power of privacy by Samalie · 2012-02-02 09:31 · Score: 5, Informative

While I won't comment on everything...

Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.
Bullshit. Repeat after me: "I do not consent to a search"
The cops can ASK you if they can search you, your car, etc all they want. Without a warrant or evidence that a crime is being committed, they CANNOT search your person or property without your consent.
I do not consent to a search. Know your rights!

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:The power of privacy by Gr8Apes · 2012-02-02 09:32 · Score: 1

Facebook especially, and Twitter maybe, are as bad as Google in tracking who you are, where you've been, and linking all sorts of information about you. Facebook also has a nice, nifty huge photo ID DB in hand, easily used to visually identify millions of people, all thanks to the ever helpful "tag this photo" system.
So no, you do not only tell us the parts you want known, you reveal much much more to Facebook, Google, and Twitter and their customers (who are not you, btw, you're the product)
The only way you avoid this is by engaging precisely in some of that activity described above as being "suspicious".
I also suppose my company and clients are "suspicious", since they force me, for some reason, to log into their systems via secure VPNs while I administer or deploy systems. I can't imagine why? And what about those outfits like Sony and Verisign? Oh wait, they both aren't that suspicious, hackers freely access their information.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:The power of privacy by Gr8Apes · 2012-02-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps. Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
This is actually easier than you can imagine, provided you've worked in the space.
I was doing 2048bit PGP email encryption and signing back around 96 or so, until my employer banned it on work computers. (They were perfectly justified in doing so.)

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:The power of privacy by lgarner · 2012-02-02 09:50 · Score: 1

I'd be surprised to learn that the EFF actually believes that "Google, governments, and technologists" don't already understand exactly what doors are opened by ignoring privacy protections, and aren't actively working toward that goal.
Re:The power of privacy by stephanruby · 2012-02-02 09:57 · Score: 1

In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone 'overly concerned about privacy' or attempting to 'shield the screen from view of others' should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities.
It's funny. Anyone who's looking over my shoulder to try to view my screen, or trying to shoulder-surf, I usually consider an identity thief, or a potential terrorist (or a potential assassin) and I'll call the manager on them (or if they're the manager, I'll call the police on them).
If I'm using an encrypted VPN, it's usually because I'm banking online, or I'm doing email, or my work requires me to, or I'm watching porn, in any which case, I really don't want to be disturbed/questioned. And if I know about those types of privacy tools, you can bet your job I probably also know really well about kicking up a fuss with the internet cafe owner, or filling out a report/complaint with the police department/Internal Affairs/Yelp/Google Places/City Hall/etc, because you just know that's the type of person I am at least (even if I'm most likely not a terrorist).
So speaking as a paranoid person, you better leave us alone, and just stick to harassing the non-paranoid people. The non-paranoid people will probably answer your questions, but I won't. And the non-paranoid people will forget the incident ever happened, but I won't. I'll be a bureaucratic thorn in your side for the next couple of years, even if you just question me for less than 10 seconds, or just start looking over my shoulder. That's the price you'll have to pay for questioning paranoid suspicious-looking OCD people such as myself. That's just the type of people that we are. And it's just not worth it, for little to no apparent gain.
Re:The power of privacy by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-02-02 10:04 · Score: 1

yes i have one of the email accounts and by the way i have never used or entered it on any site so no it would not be associated with any other account of mine. in fact the email addresses i use for many sites account is either fake or i will just make a new random account somewhere with no connection to any other account i have and suddenly i am anonymous. i must be a terrorist.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:The power of privacy by jafiwam · 2012-02-02 10:05 · Score: 2

Someone needs to come up with an app or plug in that blocks Facebook traffic unless the parent URL is one of the ones Facebook actually owns. Lots and lots of sites have stuck the "Facebook this!" crap on them, and news sites are dropping their own comment systems (as being hard to moderate, no shit really?) with Facebook. Which has stopped a lot of the real nasty trolling cold... BUT, that also means Facebook basically knows where and what and when you do on the internet all the time, just like Google does.
Ideally, it would be something that could attach to a firewall and would block based on some if/then conditions not being met first.
Re:The power of privacy by turkeyfish · 2012-02-02 10:42 · Score: 1

But with Google every search and its timing, every site you visit and its timing, every location from which you access the net, every email you send and its timing and contents are all known to Google 24/7.
What is there to stop them from selling it to those who would do you harm?
Re:The power of privacy by turkeyfish · 2012-02-02 10:45 · Score: 1

With this technology, its not just the FBI that you need to worry about. It may be a corporation, a criminal data mining ring, other countries, real Al Qieda, etc.
Re:The power of privacy by WilyCoder · 2012-02-02 10:47 · Score: 1

Nice try, Eric Schmidt.
Re:The power of privacy by cbhacking · 2012-02-02 10:53 · Score: 4, Informative

This is actually a good point. I don't know about the FBI, but some friends of mine work for Boeing and have filters on their laptops' screens that massivle narrow the viewable angle (so somebody sitting behind and to one side of you can't read the screen).
The reason? They have security clearance, and might accidentally have confidential info on their screen for a moment when they log on in a public place. The filter screen helps keep their display private... but it's exactly the kind of thing that is being suggested to be suspicious.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 10:56 · Score: 1

They can also detain you until the warrant reaches the scene which they routinely do.
Re:The power of privacy by cp.tar · 2012-02-02 11:00 · Score: 2

Targeted ads not likely. I block ads. Sure, they can try to serve me ads, but I’ll never ever see them.
Discriminating against me on my next job hunt nah. Not because of anything written on Facebook, anyway. Newspapers, OTOH, are about to run an article about the pirate movement in Croatia. And my picture is probably going to be in there somewhere.
My political views are public information.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:The power of privacy by cervesaebraciator · 2012-02-02 11:07 · Score: 2

The very reason for the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that some privacy is necessary for freedom. If those in power can search, at a whim, all one's things (in the modern case, data), they can almost always assemble a case to eliminate people whom they dislike for their political, social, religious, or ethnic affiliations. When nothing is private, everything is subject to public approval or disapproval. When nothing is private, the individual conscience, however good or ill, will be judged according to popular opinion. When nothing is private, all law can become arbitrary. Cardinal Richelieu is reputed to have said, "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of me, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." Schmidt and his ilk should understand that when tyrants arise, as they always do in a democracy, it is the wealthy like Schmidt that such people scapegoat to gain power. Then they will have longed for a time when privacy and due process of law was protected.
Re:The power of privacy by ubrgeek · 2012-02-02 11:22 · Score: 1

>people dont post when they accidentally shit themselves

Yeah. That's what MySpace is for..

--
Bark less. Wag more.
Re:The power of privacy by Ragun · 2012-02-02 11:30 · Score: 1

Use cash?
Sure. Still doesn't stop someone from physically seeing you at the store. You could wear a mask and sunglasses, but it may attract more attention than it helps prevent.

You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy?
Sure, and that's a policy. You chose to use one that promises to forget things after you leave. Whats your point? There is no moral obligation to have such a policy, just like there is no moral obligation for a small store owner to not notice that you like to buy a particular brand of pretzels.

When your gov't is telling its people that normal, everyday practices used by millions of average, law abiding citizens are suspicious activities denoting terrorist activities, the gov't is out of control in its quest for control/power over the populace.

I think you misspelled atrocious, infuriating, insulting, insane, or something.
Whoa there, you seem upset. This flier isn't a law, they just want people to point out things. If you want to protest the ability to hold people without due process, be my guest, but honestly this is just a silly over reaction.
Re:The power of privacy by Ragun · 2012-02-02 11:35 · Score: 1

Shopping physically has limited anonymity. But why shouldn't anonymity grow> as technology progresses. The ability to shop, and generally interact commercially, anonymously is a good thing. Beyond what's needed for fraud prevention, and the ability to outlaw selling some things, what possible moral good can come from the government or my neighbors knowing what I'm buying. High fences really do make for good neighbors.
Technology does exist to help anonymity, if that is what you want from it. Those tools exist and Google will be none the wiser so long as you don't want services that rely on their ability to know who you are.

I just think its strange people seem to think that others have moral obligation to ensure your privacy when using their services. (assuming there is not part of the agreement of course)
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 11:46 · Score: 1

Ive gotta tell you, that this is a farce. Of course you can "say" 'I do not consent to a search'. But in reality, the cops will quickly come up with an excuse as to why they _can_ search you. "Is that marijuana I smell" (when there clearly is none - but how does a judge dispute that the cop thought he smelled it during the arrest/encounter?) "Oh, well our drug dog just hit on your car so we have to search now" (after watching the officer smack the training ball tied to his hip into the car *right* before, and *right* on the spot the dog "hit" on.) In neither of these cases were any drugs found, but you know when I ended up in cuffs? Right after I refused a search and asked for a lawyer.
And _sure_, you can argue this in court all you want, after you've been locked in a cell for 6-9 weeks (or indefinitely for that matter) pending trial, but in reality its just going to aggravate the arresting officer. Ive never run into a police office who was impressed by me trying to stand up for my rights. Will that stop me? No. But saying "I do not consent to a search" is not a magic keyword that suddenly makes cops obey the laws they are supposed to be upholding.
Re:The power of privacy by the_enigma_1983 · 2012-02-02 12:15 · Score: 2

The firewall solution would probably require DPI. An easier solution would be to use Disconnect[1] which is a Chrome extension that blocks exactly this sort of thing.
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jeoacafpbcihiomhlakheieifhpjdfeo
Re:The power of privacy by rtb61 · 2012-02-02 12:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know what I don't mind abandoning privacy but I have to look corporations and governments in the eye and say 'YOU FUCKING FIRST'.
That's what it really all boils down to, if corporations are going to keep secrets and not tell me anything I want to know, well, that's pretty much rock solid evidence that they are not to be trusted. So measure of harm, which is likely to be more damaging and risky, me keeping secrets or corporations keeping secrets. Reality than is who should be first to give up secrecy individuals or corporations.
Now lets look at governments, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning anyone. This is unto itself damming evidence that government should not be trusted with too many if any secrets at all. The individuals within government, those actual, lying cheating and stealing political appointees and those dissembling politicians who routinely lie with false claims of national security are proof that's its a top down change in rules about secrecy that is required not bottom up.
I gather from this report that the FBI is making a public statement that the 'far too many secrets keeping government of the United States of America', can not be trusted and is very likely a terrorist organisation.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:The power of privacy by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-02 12:31 · Score: 1

Only the members who hang out at internet cafes and distribute pamphlets full of propaganda....
Re:The power of privacy by Slashdotgirl · 2012-02-02 12:34 · Score: 2

Do you want ME to know everything you do?
NO, But I want to know everything about you.

Regards
Slashdotgirl

--
The more I know, the less I know
Re:The power of privacy by MidGe · 2012-02-02 12:37 · Score: 1

"You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy? I prefer ixquick.com [ixquick.com]."
Yes, and not only that, it now has a facility for you to do a google search without revealing your ip to Google! Check it out.
Re:The power of privacy by MidGe · 2012-02-02 12:39 · Score: 1

Google may not be a terrorist organization but the probably helping terrorists. Check some of their results in details.
Re:The power of privacy by repapetilto · 2012-02-02 13:06 · Score: 1

Repapetilta?
Re:The power of privacy by ydrol · 2012-02-02 13:10 · Score: 1

Like Facebook Blocker http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/ ( that sorts the buttons out anyway - I think)
Re:The power of privacy by garaged · 2012-02-02 13:46 · Score: 1

I don't have any problem being monitored, as long as I can monitor those who monitor me too

--
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Re:The power of privacy by fyngyrz · 2012-02-02 13:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Repeat after me: "I do not consent to a search"
Repeat after me: "The patriot act allows searches without a warrant within 100 miles of any US border." By which I mean legal in the sense that the law says so, though the constitution obviously forbids this outright, not that the constitution matters any longer. According to 2007 figures from the US Census Bureau, 197.4 million people, 2/3 of the United States' population, including the entire state of Florida, live within this adjacent-border strip.
You might want to start reading here, then Google further.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:The power of privacy by Nursie · 2012-02-02 14:07 · Score: 2

Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt...without you even knowing or being able to prove such.
Yes, of course, we should always moderate how we behave in order that we might better fit into our next interchangeable corporate shoebox!
http://xkcd.com/137/
Re:The power of privacy by Nursie · 2012-02-02 14:14 · Score: 1

It's called Adblock Plus.
Just add a rule that blocks facebook.com and fbcdn.com unless you're on a facebook site. Job done :)
And if you're someone that is of the opinion that Ad Blocking is immoral somehow, then just make sure you run Adblock Plus without a subscription to any adblock feeds, so you only ever block things manually.
Re:The power of privacy by Cow+Jones · 2012-02-02 14:30 · Score: 2

Do you have a source for that quote?
Too lazy to find it yourself? The first hit on a Google search for that phrase is a 30 second video in which Schmidt says these exact words, plus some context.
CJ

--

Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
Re:The power of privacy by thoughtlover · 2012-02-02 14:58 · Score: 1

You know what I don't mind abandoning privacy but I have to look corporations and governments in the eye and say 'YOU FUCKING FIRST'.
And they reply back, "Setec Astronomy, Force Trek Hum"

--
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Re:The power of privacy by crtreece · 2012-02-02 15:02 · Score: 1
Repeat after me: "I do not consent to a search"
Don't forget the 2 other questions to keep nearby.
- Am I being detained?
- Am I free to go?
--
file: .signature not found
Re:The power of privacy by thoughtlover · 2012-02-02 15:15 · Score: 1

ANd they dont need a warrant to place a GPS on your car if they do it while parked out in the open. The only place they cant do it is in your own garage. Your driveway is however fair game.
No, they do need a warrant. However, the recent SCOTUS ruling was a bit more convoluted than I initially understood when I first heard about it -- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-gps-ruling/

--
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Re:The power of privacy by hairyfeet · 2012-02-02 15:17 · Score: 1

Sorry to burst your little smarmy bubble Mr AC, but the gmail is a spamdump i use on all these sites precisely so I can let anybody contact me without giving a shit about my real email. According to gmail my name is igna and i'm a member of the Swedish bikini team, I kinda doubt that the combo of completely random bullshit i put in there plus the huge amount of spam i get for using that as my default "I don't give a piss" email address is really gonna give them any dirt, if anything the huge noise to signal ratio would most likely make it completely worthless. All they can tell from it is I sign up for freeware and every marketer on the planet has that address, big whoop.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:The power of privacy by azoblue · 2012-02-02 15:44 · Score: 1

California would like to have a word with you. A bill to outlaw police from doing this was vetoed.
I find it unlikely that California would be the only state to allow this, but do not have any more information about other states.
Re:The power of privacy by peawormsworth · 2012-02-02 15:58 · Score: 1

The answer is the same reason governments are scared of RIMs encrypted BB mail system. They cant back door it, so they hope it doesnt gain wide acceptance.
Google and other mail clients "could" implement encryption on your behalf. The reason they do not, is because it is in their interest to know as much about you as possible. This is how they maximize their main business: selling ads. Secondly, when the government requests wide or targeted searches on their customer data (your email and chats), they charge the government money for this. I mean having ur data unencrypted is a source of revenue when they sell it to government bodies.
These companies do not wish to offer privacy for u because there is money in having ur private communications available for them to search and sell. If it wasnt this way, then we would all have privacy, because there is a competitive advantage in providing privacy. If one of the major online email companies (like Gmail, Yahoo, MSN) offered true privacy... I would switch to them right away. Instead these companies would rather have you believe they are providing security when they are not. For example, see the "encryption" option for skype. Its a lie, and it does not provide anything close to the protection a regular land line already offers. Another example is in Google Talk which has an "Off the Record" option. Off the Record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging provides encryption and anonymity for chat... but this is not at all what google provides http://support.google.com/talk/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29291.
These companies are not providing privacy or security to answer to the government. They are doing this because it is profitable to keep ur data insecure and as a result they would prefer u remain ignorant of this fact.
Re:The power of privacy by GLMDesigns · 2012-02-02 16:13 · Score: 1

You shouldn't be so blase about your privacy.It's not simply a matter of doing something illegal - it's a matter of you controlling what others know about you. And when it comes right down to it - many times "legality" and what is right have nothing to do with each other. There were miscegenation laws for years. Gay couples still have problems. Take a look at the 4th A to the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. We are to be "secure" in our "papers and effects" against unreasonable searches. The whole question revolves around the question of "reasonable." As data is getting easier to store and filter this will become an ever more important issue.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Re:The power of privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 17:02 · Score: 1

I call bullshit. My uni's usernames were numbers, starting with the 2 digit year.
Re:The power of privacy by The+Wild+Norseman · 2012-02-02 17:32 · Score: 1

for example people dont post when they accidentally shit themselves
\me *cries softly to himself as he gets a glimpse into a far better world than he's in*

--
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Re:The power of privacy by The+Wild+Norseman · 2012-02-02 17:37 · Score: 1

The whole question revolves around the question of "reasonable."

Exactly. The only problem is that the only question the courts are willing to address in the arena of 'reasonableness' is technological reasonableness and not moral reasonableness.
In other words, we need to force the courts to address the concepts of a moral and ethical reasonableness when it comes to the infringements of our rights and not simply if it's technologically feasible to infringe.

--
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Re:The power of privacy by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-02 19:35 · Score: 1

Look, Ma! I'm a TORorist!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:The power of privacy by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-02 20:41 · Score: 2

Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt...without you even knowing or being able to prove such.
Why would this be a problem? It saves having to quit when I find out that I'm working for a piece of shit.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:The power of privacy by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-02 20:50 · Score: 1

AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.
Are you connecting from your own? Are you logged in, but ticked the "Post Anonymously" box? Do you use this PC for anything like internet banking, checking email, using social networking, visiting other sites you have an account on? Are you using public WiFi? Slashdot isn't over SSL; Do you know the guy next to you isn't running Wireshark and sniffing your post data? Are you behind a proxy? Can you trust the proxy owner to keep your info private, either through proper secure configuration or by only complying with a court-issued warrant? How about Tor? Is the exit node compromised? Finally, can Slashdot be trusted to keep your identity private?

I'm sure you've done everything you can to stop the black van. Personally, I vowed not to go to the US again. They can put me on any list they want :)

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:The power of privacy by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-02 21:10 · Score: 1

Run a service he wants to make use of and you can have all that.

Isn't that how Google got into this position in the first place? Making a service people wanted to use, and collecting the data they submitted?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:The power of privacy by Tim+C · 2012-02-02 21:50 · Score: 1

Might be used to discriminate against you on the next job hunt
Good. I wouldn't want to work for a company that did that, so by doing it, they're saving me the trouble of interviewing with them (and perhaps even taking a job then having to quit when I find out what monumental arseholes they are).

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:The power of privacy by w_dragon · 2012-02-03 01:17 · Score: 1

And the context is pretty much exactly as I said, he's pointing out that Google exists under US laws including the Patriot act and if you Google something they may not have a choice to keep it private.
Re:The power of privacy by fyngyrz · 2012-02-03 02:46 · Score: 1

When congress creates law that violates the bill of rights and when SCOTUS supports such law, they are (a) in violation of the highest law in the land, (b) in violation of their oaths, (c) in violation of the public trust.
However, that said, we have no mechanism to deal with this kind of pervasive malfeasance. Also FYI

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:The power of privacy by hobarrera · 2012-02-03 03:11 · Score: 1

My point was really another. I really meant to reflect that we all have stuff we don't want to share with the world, be it personal, or business, so Schmidt is really hypocrite. If he want to prove he's not, he should share those trade secrets, and all the stuff he does, with the world.
Re:The power of privacy by xystren · 2012-02-03 03:44 · Score: 1

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO/

Gee Mr. Eric, why don't you let people see the source cods of your search engine? Why not let people see the algorithms of your advertising routines? Why can't we see the technical boards of your data center computers? What? I can't, because it's private or non-disclosure? Hmm, perhaps you shouldn't be do that in the first place.
Re:The power of privacy by mdm42 · 2012-02-03 03:52 · Score: 1

Uuuhhh... don't have one.

--
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Re:The power of privacy by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-02-03 04:08 · Score: 1

Use cash?
Some think this is behind the push to include RFID tags in money ; once you can identify each note, you can trace it's path through the economy. It's not such a giant leap to imagine ATMs and the tellers desk in the bank having RFID pickup loops to associate a given wad of cash with your account number.
Re:The power of privacy by tqk · 2012-02-03 04:41 · Score: 1

Use cash?
Some think this is behind the push to include RFID tags in money ; once you can identify each note, you can trace it's path through the economy.
Bother. Time to introduce noise into the system:
"Hey buddy, got any twenties?"
"Sure."
"Great. I'll trade you three of mine for three of yours."

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:The power of privacy by jkauzlar · 2012-02-03 05:00 · Score: 1

It wouldn't shock me to find out that a person using anonymous proxies, VPNs, encryption, blah blah, is up to no good, but that's not the real issue here. Why are they jumping to the conclusion that these nerds are terrorists?
A terrorist is someone who performs indiscriminate mass violence to make populations afraid, for political reasons. A hacker is NOT a terrorist. Why do they call them terrorists? So they can treat them as enemy combatants, hold them indefinitely in custody (or kill them) without a trial. Same thing with that dotcom/megaupload guy. They destroyed his business without even going through the courts. This is literally part of a suprisingly successful movement to bypass due process when dealing with anyone that threatens big money. We should really be concerned by the gov'ts use of this word.
Re:The power of privacy by nj_peeps · 2012-02-03 06:22 · Score: 1

Repeat after me: "The patriot act allows searches without a warrant within 100 miles of any US border."
In your link, it states that

The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to stop, search and detain anyone, for any reason within a “Constitution Free Zone,” resident or traveler.
The FBI, local/state PD are not part of DHS, so they would need a warrant, consent, or probable cause (this includes terrorism) in order to conduct a search, even with-in 100 miles of the border.

--
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" --Benjamin Franklin
Re:The power of privacy by jep305 · 2012-02-03 09:14 · Score: 1

I have seen a facebook post where the guy said, "I just sharted." I think that counts as accidentally shitting yourself.

--
In Reason We Trust
Re:The power of privacy by hillbluffer · 2012-02-03 09:41 · Score: 1

Don't you know how it works? The US government and the companies that own it have said for years, "Don't do as I do, do as I _say_ you should do."
Re:The power of privacy by hillbluffer · 2012-02-03 09:45 · Score: 1

You don't have to consent to a search of your cell phone. Police have the explicit right to search it once you're pulled over for any reason. See: http://goo.gl/pKrOf This is WHY I haven't owned a cell in years; why make it EASY for them?
Re:The power of privacy by ddvzlnz · 2012-02-03 09:50 · Score: 1

This is why I have a
tinyHardwareFirewall
eveywhere I go. It runs linux, is powered off of my usb port and has an AES256bit vpn built in.
Add a dot com to the name and see for yourself.
Re:The power of privacy by ronabop · 2012-02-03 09:51 · Score: 1

"Otherwise, spammers would rule the first SERPS"

Nope, and that's what frustrates the hell out of the spammers... all the major parts of their formulas (Pagerank, Hilltop, etc.) *are* published, what isn't published (because they change daily) are some of the constants used in the calculations, but all the algo pieces are out there. It's standard reading in IR (which is what SEO would be if it wasn't a bunch of scammers). It's just that for a given page there are two over hundred measurements per page, and spammers are in search of something "quick and easy", rather than take the effort to make pages, and sites, that would wind up at the top of the SERPS.
Re:The power of privacy by DirtyLiar · 2012-02-03 10:51 · Score: 1

@samalie: "I do not consent to a search".
I believe that assertion constitutes "Reasonable Cause" for a search.

--
THINK! It's patriotic
Re:The power of privacy by GLMDesigns · 2012-02-03 11:35 · Score: 1

That is so true about spam polluting usenet in the early 1990s and that many people were demanding real-person accounts. I remember being a proponent of anonymity back then. I'm still a proponent of anonymity. The same arguments hold true today as then. There are some places where you need to know the identity of someone (school, work, government) and places where anonymous transactions are there for your chosing. The rate at which data can be stored and mined is expanding exponentially and we need to balance the concerns of legitimate police work with that of the 4th Amendment where we are secure in our paper and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Re:The power of privacy by Reziac · 2012-02-03 15:21 · Score: 1

Right-o about the other stuff, but re the GPS thing:
Supreme Court decision on privacy vs GPS devices, from a recent newsletter:
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
===
The Supreme Court has decided "Antoine Jones v U.S." You won and The State lost, 9-0. The High Court ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant before they can attach GPS tracking devices to your
vehicles.
This is an historic decision and DC Downsizers merit much of the credit. You've helped fund many previous Supreme Court briefs, but never before has your influence been so clear. We had an impact with two different briefs at two different stages of the case . . .
First, we filed the ONLY brief asking the court to hear the case.
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-amicus-brief.pdf
Then we filed a brief making a uniquely principled argument. http://www.downsizedc.org/blog-content/antoine-jones-second-amicus-brief-final.pdf
In the Petition brief, we urged the court to take the case, re-examine its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and restore the property basis of
the Fourth Amendment. We wrote, "The original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied."
The Court responded directly. "Petition GRANTED. In addition... the parties are directed to brief ... Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." (Emphasis added)
That's YOUR victory.
But the second victory was even better. It may change judicial reasoning far into the future.
Our briefs asked the Justices to restore the 4th Amendment's protection of your property rights. For the past 43 years the Court's 4th Amendment decisions have been based on a right to privacy, NOT property. But the privacy protection is a much weaker standard. Our briefs, and ONLY our briefs, specifically aimed to restore the property right protection.
Our argument prevailed! Look at what Justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion . . .
"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to 'the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures'; the phrase 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects' would have been superfluous."
This was our point exactly.
Four other briefs mentioned property in passing. Ours majored in it. Only we asked the Court to make a fundamental course correction. Our
strategy prevailed. As a result, the Jones decision even includes a frank admission of how far the Court has strayed from the Constitutional text:
"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century (but) our later cases... have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach" in favor of a more flexible, modernist analysis based upon the Court's perceptions of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
This too shows the influence of our briefs. We explained the history of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and specifically argued for a return to the original text. This "history lesson" contributed to the majority decision:
"The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical
intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."
In addition, we ALONE asserted the valiant proposition that it was NEVER possible for the government to attach a GPS to an automobile for
the purpose of gathering general evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not permit "fishing expeditions." The author of another brief told me
our positio

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:The power of privacy by Reziac · 2012-02-03 15:34 · Score: 1

You may think you were joking, but I once spoke with someone who'd escaped from Nazi Germany, and he told me that "drop your pants!" was a common Nazi method for identifying covert Jews, since few other males were circumcised.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:The power of privacy by lsatenstein · 2012-02-04 01:49 · Score: 1

I promote encryption as I would like to protect myself from identity theft. I recommend encyption for others. For the identity theft reason, and as a former IT Analyst in banking (20years), who knows about protecting confidential data, I make no use of PAYPAL (I have certain negative views about this organization), nor do I do any online banking or online purchasing with my "cards in my wallet". If I must purchase something, I will load up my second credit card (which has a $100 limit and is reserved for online purchases), with the extra amount I need. I do this by going to the ATM of my local bank branch and adding the amount immediately prior to making the purchase. (My bank cards are used only where the retailer uses readers that support "smart card"
I know that you can probably get my phone number, date of birth, driver license, and home address via the web. Because I want to keep some other critical information unavailable (social security number, etc. I will send this information out when I need to, encrypted. Fraud is rampant when there is very high unemployment and encryption protects me and my family.
I also do not trust any business system (blogsite, store, banking or government) that does not encrypt my non public information. Am I alone with these views? I am not paranoic.
By the way, if you are a victim of identity theft, you are a victim for life, as some where someone has a copy of all your information and sometime in the future, it will be used for some fraud.
Do my actions make me a semi-semi-semi terrorist suspect?

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:The power of privacy by GLMDesigns · 2012-02-04 01:51 · Score: 1

Thankfully both the left and right are concerned about privacy. I have hope that the phrase "secure" in our "papers and effects" will become commonplace in judicial decisions.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Re:The power of privacy by adhishm · 2012-02-04 02:06 · Score: 1

Looks like all years after 2012 will be 1984. :-(
Re:The power of privacy by fyngyrz · 2012-02-04 03:49 · Score: 1

This is a distinction without a difference. If the government wants to search you, they can, by the laws they have written. Saying "but the dogcatcher can't" doesn't resolve or ameliorate the problem.
Either we are fully protected by the 4th amendment, or we aren't. And we aren't. The constitution no longer constrains the government. End of story.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:The power of privacy by cayenne8 · 2012-02-07 09:59 · Score: 1

Even if they paid you a shitload of money?
I'm more of a contractor, mercenary type of mindset. I work for one thing and one thing only...money. I dont' care a shit about any company really..but I do care about me and my lively hood.
I'd not have something up like a facebook page or anything else in public identifying what my thoughts are...in that they might jeopardize my money flow.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:The power of privacy by databaseadmin · 2012-02-08 04:55 · Score: 1

I agree, if you ARE the person that facebook or twitter thinks you are, you F-ed up. It should be an online advertisement. Why is AWESOME. and at least 15% of the most personal information, should be just false. City of birth, city of residence, favorite things. Come-on, fake-it, be safe.

They aren't wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.

Re:They aren't wrong by bonch · 2012-02-02 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Re:They aren't wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:10 · Score: 1

You seem to have knowledge of what terrorists want to achieve, therefore you must be a terrorist!
Re:They aren't wrong by Hope+Thelps · 2012-02-02 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.
So in the same sense that being right handed is a sign of someone being a terrorist - not all terrorists are right handed but a lot of them are (and maybe some other people too).

--
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Re:They aren't wrong by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-02 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Have you seen any anaerobic terrorists? Well, have you?
Your pitiful libertarian Taliban-loving communist leaning socialist inspired arguments pale in the face of cold, hard logic.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:They aren't wrong by sconeu · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Has anyone ever seen ColdWetDog and whoever is the current head of AlQaeda in the same room?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:They aren't wrong by stanlyb · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 2

So it seems that all the terrorists are also, GOD NO, human beings. So if you are human being......
Re:They aren't wrong by mrclisdue · 2012-02-02 06:41 · Score: 1

Has anyone ever seen ColdWetDog and whoever is the current head of AlQaeda in the same room?
Come to think of it, no. However, I'm pretty sure CWD has Osama Bin Laden's head on display above the mantle piece.
Buried at sea, my ass.
cheers,
Re:They aren't wrong by TobinLathrop · 2012-02-02 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heck privacy shield, vpn, NO DO NOT LOOK OVER MY SHOULDER AT MY SCREEN, etc are all basic telecommute rules for my day job. So yeah I guess if I have to check something and use the work laptop to do it when I am out and using the library/starbucks/whatever I guess I am a terrorist.
Re:They aren't wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 1

One side of the argument is 'the terrorists won'. The other side of the argument is 'The war on terror is an awesome excuse to push through all the crap we've been wanting to for a long time'.
Re:They aren't wrong by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:21 · Score: 1

One might say the sign of a good terrorist is 'not breathing'.
Re:They aren't wrong by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-02 07:27 · Score: 1

To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
Not all breathers are terrorists, but all terrorists are breathers.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:They aren't wrong by joppeknol · 2012-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1

They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
That's too strong. It is a matter of conditional probability.
Probability(terrorist | using privacy tools) = ????, big enough too warrant suspicion.
I don't know the probabilities, so I can't comment on them, but I feel sad for the Probability(not terrorist| using privacy tools) options.
Re:They aren't wrong by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-02 07:51 · Score: 1

The more important question might be, "Has anyone ever seen bonch breathe?" It's easy to imagine that he might be a zombie, masquerading as a common terrorist!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:They aren't wrong by viperidaenz · 2012-02-02 07:59 · Score: 2

The company I work for suggest the use of privacy screens on laptops to reduce the field of view when used in public. They MUST be terrorists. Oh no wait, they deal with other peoples private data and don't want Joe Bloggs on the train reading it.
Re:They aren't wrong by sjames · 2012-02-02 08:26 · Score: 2

Yes. Use of a VPN could also be a sign that the person is doing work related activities and that their employer requires a VPN for that. Use of SSH might just mean working on a server somewhere that wisely doesn't allow telnet access. Use of crypto is also a decent indicator that the person is logging in to their bank's website.
Re:They aren't wrong by cps42 · 2012-02-02 08:27 · Score: 1

You're one of those Dihydrogen Monoxide supporters aren't you. You know that stuff is used in poisons every day? I heard the Taliban uses it in their mountain hideouts while they plot against the United States of Amerika. You should be ashamed.
Re:They aren't wrong by impaledsunset · 2012-02-02 08:50 · Score: 2

Not completely. The main difference is that probably there is some correlation between using anonymity and terrorism. And the biggest problem is that even then, such tests don't make sense.
The reason that the correlation doesn't matter is because it's a useless for any classificiation due to the extremely small number of terrists and the extremely large number of people doing these things without being terrorists. Even if the test can tell terrorists well, it is practically useless. The classical example given in statistical textbooks is a cancer test with a small false negative and false positive rate (a few percent) - it still leads to way more false detections than true detections, several orders of magnitude in fact. For terrorists even an excellent test is completely useless. If there are a million people ready to blow something up in a terrorist act, and the test has 1% false positives and false negatives, this would still lead to 9 out of 10 wrong terrorist detections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse
It's exactly like racism - maybe a certain race statistically carries certain negative traits, whether it's due to their culture, past segragation or genetical differences, but applying that to individuals is extremely offensive, stupid and produces no real results besides making it difficult for people of the given race.
Re:They aren't wrong by Whibla · 2012-02-02 09:10 · Score: 1

Do you still go to those terrorist meetings where you discuss blowing stuff up and assassinating heads of state with the other members of your terrorist cell?
1. Yes
2. No
Failure to answer will be seen as a sign of guilt.
Re:They aren't wrong by Fjandr · 2012-02-02 09:34 · Score: 1

Ergo, everyone who has died was a terrorist.
Re:They aren't wrong by Exoman · 2012-02-02 09:46 · Score: 2

like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
What you're referring to is really Positive Predictive Value of a test. When you have a low percentage of actual positives (terrorists, in this case) in a population, and a something less than 100% PPV test, then NEARLY ALL of those caught in the dragnet are false positives.
The insidious part is that nearly every target, being a false positive, is not just that a waste of resources to pursue, but that to the extent false suspects are hassled, they may become irritated resisters or sympathizers, fraying the fabric of a watchful citizenry. If I'm falsely suspected, hassled, randomly selected for special screening every time I fly, and treated like a bad guy, I'm going to be far less likely to want to help the "good guys." If you're legitimately trying to catch criminals and terrorists, casting a wide, intrusive net (like suspecting those who want privacy or those who breathe) only makes the job more difficult and less effective.
Re:They aren't wrong by jsfs · 2012-02-02 09:58 · Score: 1

So in this case, if the counter-terrorists win, the terrorists win?
Re:They aren't wrong by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-02 13:05 · Score: 1

I would say more like 99.999999%...

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:They aren't wrong by Thiez · 2012-02-03 02:42 · Score: 1

You think the goal of "the terrorists" is to make you lose your privacy online? You're insane. Hint: nobody hates you for your 'freedom'.

Chicken or egg? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.

Re:Chicken or egg? by mayko · 2012-02-02 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"
It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.
I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.
Re:Chicken or egg? by Entrope · 2012-02-02 06:45 · Score: 2

When they equate seeking privacy with terrorism, only terrorists will have privacy.
They told me that if I voted for John McCain, the Federal government and huge corporations would conspire to take away our privacy rights... and they were right!
Re:Chicken or egg? by dgatwood · 2012-02-02 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mod parent up. Anonymous Coward speaks truth.
Terrorists (at least the bottom-rank terrorists who commit the actual attacks) are almost always people marginalized by society who feel that they have nothing left to lose. The continued erosion of someone's basic rights quite literally can turn them into a terrorist, or at least a criminal (of which a terrorist is simply one type). This is why people getting out of prison in the U.S. have such a high recidivism rate. They've lost everything—job, family, community—and have basically nothing more to lose.
And, of course, the government predictably tries to stop recidivism and terrorism by tightening their control over the relevant population. Unfortunately, trying to prevent people from taking control of their lives in an undesirable way by passing laws that further reduce their control over their lives is like trying to stop a fire by pouring gasoline on it. It is doomed to fail in the most spectacular way possible.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Chicken or egg? by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 06:56 · Score: 2

"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.
I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.
Want your basic civil liberties? You may be a terrorist.
Want freedom? You may be a terrorist.
Worried about your government? You may be a terrorist.
Think differently from the rest of the sheeple? You ARE a terrorist!

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Chicken or egg? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Founding Fathers were largely considered to be terrorists by the British.
My personal definition of terrorists is one who targets and attacks civilians.
Hijacking the planes, an act of terrorism.
Crashing planes into the Twin Towers, an act of terrorism.
Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Had 9-11 involved a UPS cargo plane being crashed into the Pentagon I would not have called them terrorists.
Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of partisan warfare.
Re:Chicken or egg? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 09:21 · Score: 1

> Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Except that there were civilians aboard.
Fail:

Hijacking the planes, an act of terrorism.
The hijacking of a civilian plane was terrorist, crashing a plane into the pentagon is not. It's not hard to understand: there are 2 related but separate acts being committed.

> Had 9-11 involved a UPS cargo plane being crashed into the Pentagon I would not have called them terrorists.
Because the pilots are not civilians??
See above, if they stole the plane off the tarmac without pilots then you can eliminate the hijacking part.
Re:Chicken or egg? by BitterOak · 2012-02-02 09:26 · Score: 1

Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Except for one fairly important point: we were not at war with Al Quaida at the time!

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Chicken or egg? by Whorhay · 2012-02-02 09:36 · Score: 1

That's not entirely accurate. There was no declared war, and they were not at the top of the list of groups to be concerned about. That said we haven't been in a war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all the rest have been policing actions of one sort or another.
Being at war in reality though doesn't require declarations from both sides, or maybe even any side. When one organized group systematically starts commiting violence against another I'd call it a war.
It's not like there needs to be a war declared for hostilities to start anyways. In fact usually the hostilities are what start the war. Remember Pearl Harbor? Even though Japan told their Ambassador to deliver the declaration of war before the first bombs fell, they had started their attack by launching their fleet with Pearl Harbor as the intended target weeks if not months before hand.
Re:Chicken or egg? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 10:27 · Score: 1

I hope I misunderstand you, PortHaven, but...

My personal definition of terrorists is one who targets and attacks civilians.
Aren't they more commonly known as criminals? If someone robs your house, are they a terrorist or a thief? I would say a terrorist is someone who attempts to induce terror in the general population. And I would say a terrorist is only successful if people allow themselves to be terrorized.

Hijacking the planes, an act of terrorism.
Or acts of theft and kidnapping.

Crashing planes into the Twin Towers, an act of terrorism.
Or acts of vandalism, arson, and murder.

Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Or acts of vandalism, arson, murder, and treason if an American citizen. Otherwise, I can go with act of war on this one.
We do not need a vague word to describe actions that are already against the law. Were the people that committed the crimes in the US on 9/11/2001 terrorists? Perhaps, but I was was under the impression that their efforts were to draw attention to or attempt to remove the US from Arab countries. Do they really want to terrorize us or do they want to exterminate us? My understanding is it's the latter. Was their crime terrorism? Never-what they did was illegal in so many other ways.
Also:

Founding Fathers were largely considered to be terrorists by the British.
I'm pretty sure they were considered traitors. Did they really want to induce terror or did they want to secede from British rule. I agree that what you call someone may depend on your point of view (e.g., In war, the people you are fighting are the enemy and you are the "good guys", but the enemy has the opposite view.). The founding fathers act of treason was commendable and necessary to the British that agreed with them and might have been an act of terror to the British who did not agree with them, but to call them terrorist to all Britons is probably incorrect.
Off topic: They way I see many people driving on the road today looking down at their phone trying to dial, text, or play Angry Birds are the largest group of terrorists I know of and I am terrorized by the way they drive swerving in to my lane oblivious to the world outside of their vehicle.
Posted as AC b/c I do not have an account. I blame laziness.
Re:Chicken or egg? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Thank you, I usually don't thank Anonymous Cowards.
But you sir, understand exactly what I was inferring. I was hoping Slashdot readers would be able to infer correctly what I was trying to convey without requiring me to write out every single detail.
I was half right.... ;-)
Re:Chicken or egg? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 11:24 · Score: 1

Oh, so what was Pearl Harbor? An act of war or terrorism?
One does not need to be at war with someone to become at war with someone. In fact, when most wars start, at least one party is not at war.
Re:Chicken or egg? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 11:47 · Score: 1

Criminals are a form of terrorist in my book. But
"And I would say a terrorist is only successful if people allow themselves to be terrorized."
I half agree. A terrorist is successful if they achieve in harming or destructing civilian life (that include individuals, buildings, businesses, etc).
They win, when people allow themselves to be terrorized.
--
You seem to be addressing my comments with a repeated fallacy. You assume that because I declare something a terrorist act, that such precludes it from also being an act of theft or murder. Not so, one can complete an act that meets multiple definitions.
"We do not need a vague word to describe actions that are already against the law."
No, but a word can add clarification of an event or the addition of a crime. One might argue war is a crime. Terrorist actions specifies that an attack was focused on a civilian rather than a military/government target.
"Were the people that committed the crimes in the US on 9/11/2001 terrorists?"
Yes, for the reason above, they targeted civilian life.
"I was was under the impression that their efforts were to draw attention to or attempt to remove the US from Arab countries."
That might have been their motivation for engaging in their attack.
"Was their crime terrorism? Never-what they did was illegal in so many other ways."
I can kill a person. Was it accidental homicide, justified homocide, manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder. Each carries a different weight based on the intent.
So why do you have so much difficulty with terrorism as an addition to homocide. Or should all homocides be the same?
Should a serial killer get the same jail time as an accidental homicide case?
"I'm pretty sure they were considered traitors."
I would consider Britain to be the traitors. But I am pretty sure that many in Great Britain's heirarchy considered them to be both traitors and terrorists.
"I am terrorized by the way they drive swerving"
Then you'd hate me as I watch Star Trek as I commute. But hey, the thing that scares me most. Is that I'm staying in the lines and maintaining traffic flow, and a lot of people are driving a lot worse.
Re:Chicken or egg? by BlueParrot · 2012-02-02 11:54 · Score: 1

Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.
Using civilian passenger planes with passengers in it as a kamikaze vehicle violates the Geneva conventions for sure.
Re:Chicken or egg? by Em+Adespoton · 2012-02-02 12:36 · Score: 1

Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.
That would depend on whether you're an activist or an authoritarian now, wouldn't it? Both have reason to be terrified of the other.
Re:Chicken or egg? by cold+fjord · 2012-02-02 17:37 · Score: 1

Founding Fathers were largely considered to be terrorists by the British.
No, they weren't. They were considered rebels against the Crown by the British, and revolutionaries and patriots in the US and their states. The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted a new government structure, not to massacre civilians. The penalty the British would have imposed may have been death in both cases, but I think most people would agree that founding a republic is a different type of act entirely from mass slaughter of civilians.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Chicken or egg? by cold+fjord · 2012-02-02 17:52 · Score: 1

Terrorists (at least the bottom-rank terrorists who commit the actual attacks) are almost always people marginalized by society who feel that they have nothing left to lose.
Not really, no.
POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND TERRORISM

Both before and after the 9/11 attacks, numerous studies have looked at the economic and educational backgrounds of Islamic terrorists. One investigation by Princeton-trained economist Claude Berrebi analyzed 335 members of the Palestinian terror groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The terrorists surveyed were mainly shahids, or "martyrs," who had died while waging jihad against Israel between 1987 and 2002. Berrebi discovered that 16 percent of those terrorists could be classified as poor, compared to 31 percent of the male Muslim population (between the ages 18 and 41) in the Palestinian territories as a whole. Conversely, 33 percent of the terrorists could be considered “well off,” compared to only 20 percent of Palestinian adult males in that same age group. And another 10 percent of the terrorists were “very well off” according to the survey, as opposed to virtually 0 percent of Palestinian males overall who fit that same description. The study also indicated that the Palestinian terrorists were generally more highly educated than the typical male in the Palestinian population at large.
Given the evidence, Berrebi concluded: “If there is a link between income level, education and participation in terrorist activities, it is either very weak or in the opposite direction of what one intuitively might have expected.”
Another study by terrorism expert Marc Sageman examined 102 Islamist radicals involved in global jihad. Like Berrebi, Sageman could find no correlation between poverty and terrorism; only about a quarter of the jihadis he looked at hailed from impoverished backgrounds. “[M]embers of the global Salafi jihad,” Sageman writes in his book Understanding Terror Networks, “were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality and concern for their communities.”
The relative affluence of Islamic terrorists is by no means a new phenomenon. Indeed, a much earlier study -- of Islamist radicals in Egyptian prisons (and elsewhere) -- was conducted in the late 1970s by the Egyptian sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim; his findings were consistent with the more recent ones discussed above. “The typical member of the militant Islamic groups,” Ibrahim discovered, could be “described as young (early 20s), of rural or small-town background, from the middle or lower-middle class, with high achievement and motivation, upwardly mobile, with a scientific or engineering education, and from a normally cohesive family.” Ibrahim went on to conclude that the Islamist radicals he analyzed “were significantly above the average of their generation” in education, financial background, and motivation. Other studies further buttress these conclusions.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Chicken or egg? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-02 21:19 · Score: 1

I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.
Guy Fawkes was a terrorist. Guy Fawkes was a revolutionary.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Chicken or egg? by notjustanotherhacker · 2012-02-03 05:00 · Score: 1

While attacking the Pentagon may be considered a legitimate act of war, every other aspect was pure terrorism. Merely hijacking a commercial plane full of civilians is an act of terrorism. Murdering those civilians just escalates it.
Re:Chicken or egg? by dgatwood · 2012-02-03 18:26 · Score: 1

I said nothing about income or education with respect to terrorism. I said that many perceive themselves to be marginalized, with nothing left to lose. That's not the same thing.
Terrorists, as best I can tell, generally fall into one (or more) of three camps: members of actual terrorist organizations (who are to some extent shunned because of that membership), the mentally unstable (who are marginalized because of their disorders), and the clinically depressed who decide to kill other people on their way out (whether by suicide bombing, going postal, murder-suicide, or whatever).
All of those folks are marginalized. Not all are marginalized in the same way or to the same degree, and some choose to marginalize themselves, but either way, further marginalization can only make things worse.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

OMGWTFBBQ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:07 · Score: 2

I used encryption (well atleast my browser did) to do a bank transaction, I guess I am a terrorist.
I also work at a local sheriff's office and we use vpn to access a state/federal system. I guess the state and feds are terrorists too

Sounds like the Drug Wars by mbone · 2012-02-02 06:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

I remember the loathsome brochures passed around in the Government during the Reagan / G.H.W. Bush drug wars years. They basically boiled down to

- anyone acting strangely might be on drugs, and
- anyone not acting strangely might be on drugs, and covering it up.

Sounds like the DOJ is falling down the same rathole once again.

Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 1

It's an easy hole to fall into:
Everybody is suspicious.
Then you can run around being all up tight and paranoid. Much easier than thinking, planning or following that pesky Constitutional framework called The Law.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by tomboalogo · 2012-02-02 06:39 · Score: 1

"Everybody is suspicious." - The mantra of the dictator.
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by hitmark · 2012-02-02 06:52 · Score: 1

Witches, reds, drugs, terrorists...

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by mbone · 2012-02-02 07:01 · Score: 2

Yes. I remember one long flyer the Navy put out. It included things like, "drives with the windows down" (might be a drug user, getting rid of the smell) and, then, later on, "drives with the windows up" (wouldn't want the smell to get out). This, note, was in a flyer intended to get people to nark on their co-workers.
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by dgatwood · 2012-02-02 07:02 · Score: 2

It's an easy hole to fall into:
Everybody is suspicious.
Then you can run around being all up tight and paranoid.

Yeah. Which means the government meets the textbook definition of a terrorist organization:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
Where terror is further defined as fear. Roosevelt had it right when he said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It is unfortunate, then, that our government is quickly becoming fear itself.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by lightknight · 2012-02-02 07:03 · Score: 2

And they say Morton's Fork has no modern use...

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by Hatta · 2012-02-02 07:12 · Score: 2

So let's fight back. It would be fairly easy to whip up a similar list for authoritarians. Authoritarians have killed more people throughout history than terrorists. It's time to declare War on Authoritarianism.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:41 · Score: 1

Turn in all communists
Loose lips sink ships - turn in all Nazi/Jap spies
Is your neighbor making booze? Turn in all bootleggers
Fight for America. Turn in all Anarchists
Fight the Hun! Turn in all German spies
And so on and so on.
This is the way Amerika has worked for the entire 20th and now 21st centuries.
1) Pick a group (any group) and say they engage in illegal activities. The more vague the activity and the group definition the better.
2) Vilify the group. Use the press, the police, the army if you need to. Paint the poor buggers with a big, black brush.
3) Tell everyone "you aren't a real Amerikan unless you fight the (group name)."
4) Run a campaign based on being tough on the menace. Get into office. Reap the financial rewards.
I stopped believing anything the government says about 'crime' under Reagan. I stopped listening when Bush took the oath. I stopped caring when Obama didn't close Gitmo.
Re:Sounds like the Drug Wars by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-02-02 08:03 · Score: 1

- anyone acting strangely might be on drugs, and
- anyone not acting strangely might be on drugs, and covering it up.
Don't forget:
- anyone buying drugs is financing terrorism

posted as anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:08 · Score: 1

Sorry guys, I may not be able to post here much longer.

Welcome privacy advocates... by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-02 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Welcome privacy advocates to the Accused of Being A Terrorist While Doing Nothing Wrong Club. Take a seat over there next to the Photographers (because terrorists will really cart around a DSLR and tripod in their terrifying terroristic travels).

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Welcome privacy advocates... by russotto · 2012-02-02 06:19 · Score: 2

Privacy advocates are charter members of that club. Photographers were relative latecomers.
(Remember the Clipper chip?)
Re:Welcome privacy advocates... by hitmark · 2012-02-02 06:54 · Score: 1

What better disguise is there for a terrorist than that of a tourist? /s

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Welcome privacy advocates... by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:19 · Score: 1

A TSA officer? I mean, they get to terrorize and then collect a pay check from Uncle Sam. How can you beat that? Granted, it's not as glorius as blowing yourself up. But hey, if you want a good cushy job in terrorism with longterm career potential, the TSA is the way to go!
Re:Welcome privacy advocates... by squidflakes · 2012-02-02 07:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, nothing like being accused of being a terrorist and a pedophile in the same day then having people tell you they have a right to privacy on a public sidewalk then demand you show them all of your pictures.

Nothing to hide? Really? by Zharr · 2012-02-02 06:09 · Score: 1

Sounds like a lot of businesses are goin to be on the 'suspicious' list.

People are clueless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

The sad thing is, people still believe the US government has their best interests at heart and is not trying to oppress them.
They seem to think a tyranny is impossible in the USA.

Re:People are clueless by mhajicek · 2012-02-02 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or maybe THEY just want you to THINK that most people are complacent.
Re:People are clueless by dgatwood · 2012-02-02 07:16 · Score: 2

Yeah, the latest OWS chaos is making me start to wonder if the American public might have more of a stomach than we give them credit for. We live in interesting times.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:People are clueless by Impeesa · 2012-02-02 12:53 · Score: 1

The sad thing is, people still believe the US government has their best interests at heart and is not trying to oppress them. They seem to think a tyranny is impossible in the USA.
The sadder thing is, I think a lot of the people in the government doing this stuff really believe that too.

a home based ISP? by jaymz666 · 2012-02-02 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you login to you comcast webmail you may be a terrorist?

Re:a home based ISP? by thegarbz · 2012-02-02 12:07 · Score: 1

Ooh puwleeeese. I have a camera, and I took a photo of Air Force Once while Obama visited Australia. Your terrorist activities pale in comparison young padwan.
Re:a home based ISP? by jaymz666 · 2012-02-02 12:46 · Score: 1

I'd love to know how this is off topic, when I am referring to the article, or flyer in this case, that mentions people logging into a home based ISP may be terrorists.

Code? by Bucky24 · 2012-02-02 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc"

To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

Re:Code? by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc"
To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.
To the average (US) citizen, simple declarative English sentences would fit this.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Code? by idontgno · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

According to Esperantist legend, when Zamenhof (the initial creator of the Esperanto language) went to medical school, his father found his initial work notes on the language and burned it all, fearing that it was evidence that young Zamenhof was a spy.
This was in 1881, according to the sources I could find. So the "OMG SEECRET CODEZ" panic is well over a century old, at least.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Code? by stanlyb · 2012-02-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny

The question is who is the biggest terrorist:
1. Java terrorist
2. C++ terrorist
1. C terrorist
1. Oracle terrorist
1. Perl terrorist
1. LUA terrorist

(i bet the Oracle terrorist are the most dangerous)
Re:Code? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:31 · Score: 1

The one-time pad of codes I use to log into my bank account online fits that description perfectly too. I guess online banking is a sign of being a terrorist, then.
Re:Code? by trout007 · 2012-02-02 06:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Ever try reading a bill passed by congress?

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Code? by Bucky24 · 2012-02-02 06:36 · Score: 1

Now all we have to do is get congress to write their bills at Starbucks...

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Code? by mhajicek · 2012-02-02 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Then there's your average, run-of-the-mill Basic Terrorist.
Re:Code? by hitmark · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 1

Was there not someone that was accused as either a hacker or terrorist, because he had a terminal window open on his laptop while visiting a coffee shop? by a cop that walked by, no less?

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Code? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:00 · Score: 1

So texting is a sign then?

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Code? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny

My vote is lisp terrorists. I mean come on they treat code and data as the same, plus they use atoms in their work.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Code? by mbone · 2012-02-02 07:03 · Score: 1

In Russian occupied Poland, with the tsarist secret police, the threat of being sent to Siberia was no joke.
Re:Code? by mbone · 2012-02-02 07:05 · Score: 1

Visual Basic. The very thought scares me.
Re:Code? by Bucky24 · 2012-02-02 07:08 · Score: 1

Considering the way most people text nowadays, yes, I'd say it is. It's certainly cryptic enough.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Code? by zildgulf · 2012-02-02 07:11 · Score: 1

Correct on both counts.

But really most programmer coding looks like C to me nowadays.
Re:Code? by ifrag · 2012-02-02 07:18 · Score: 1

Assembly terrorist is clearly the biggest. You will probably know true terror after reading it.

--
Fear is the mind killer.
Re:Code? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:23 · Score: 1

MOD 6
Re:Code? by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:27 · Score: 1

Hey, no fair to leave off Flash!
Re:Code? by rwise2112 · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1

"Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc" To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.
Even ASCII is a code. So we're all in that box.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Code? by ACS+Solver · 2012-02-02 08:01 · Score: 1

Read the booklet - apparently I'm a terrorist. Or would be if I were in America.
* Concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from others. Sure am concerned about privacy, and I find it rude if others look at my screen, so yes, I prefer to position my computer so that others don't see the screen as easily.
* Use of multiple cellphones. Yeah. I recently moved to another country, so I have two phones, one with a SIM from the old country and one from the current one. Very convenient.
* Anonymizers, etc. Well, I run some anonymity plugins in the browser, also have Tor installed, though I almost never use it.
* Suspicious or coded writings. Ah yes. I like encryption, codes and the like. I also like languages and writing systems, I came up with my own back in school and still sometimes use it. I may also be found reading/writing something in languages with non-Latin scripts, which is, I guess, suspicious.
* Encryption or data hiding. I'm currently doing research on the latter, in fact. Very interesting subject area.
* Communicating through a PC game. What is this about? Sure I've communicated in games. How is that even slightly more suspicious than communicating in Skype or IRC?
* Downloading information about military or defensive tactics. I like tactical games, and there are aspects of tactics I find very interesting intellectually. I don't read about that a lot, but occasionally I certainly do.
* Downloading information about electronics. As just about everyone else with a computer science degree, I also had to study some electronics. It's something I found difficult and very far from intuitively clear, so I did check some online information about electronic circuits and components.
Ah well, it's still good to know that the booklet has small print that says the behaviour may have an innocent explanation...
Re:Code? by whoever57 · 2012-02-02 08:26 · Score: 2

Obviously, the Perl Terorist, because no-one can figure out what they are doing, even when they have all the code.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Code? by tool462 · 2012-02-02 08:48 · Score: 1

Not to mention their frequent use of (car ...) bombs...
And while I'm on programming jokes, here's some quick 'n' dirty perl code I whipped up:
@it = grep { is_idiotic($_) || is_ineffective($_) } @doj_memos;
Turns out, there's a whole lot of $#it.
Re:Code? by Tyrannosaur · 2012-02-02 10:36 · Score: 1

links or it didn't happen.
I'd like to read one too :)
Re:Code? by iceaxe · 2012-02-02 11:01 · Score: 1

I dunno, which one makes you most afraid?
Lua is the one I don't know, and humans fear what they don't understand, so I'm picking that one.

--
WALSTIB!
Re:Code? by Bucky24 · 2012-02-02 12:30 · Score: 1

Perl. The only language you can be an expert in and still be unable to understand code written in it by anyone other than yourself.
And sometimes not even then... (don't deny it, we've all been there)

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:Code? by Anthem1937 · 2012-02-02 17:13 · Score: 1

To the average citizen, so would actual handwriting.
Re:Code? by cbiltcliffe · 2012-02-08 11:57 · Score: 1

You can understand your own Perl code? :P

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:Code? by hitmark · 2012-02-12 09:50 · Score: 1

Sadly it may well be hiding out in a boingboing comment for all i recall.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

I'll Become One by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:12 · Score: 1

If you keep stripping my rights, I'll become a Terrorist

Re:I'll Become One by JobyOne · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rights become crimes, making more criminals out of thin air. Suddenly there's a lot of crime going on, so we strip more rights, to deal with all the crimes. It's pretty damn circular.

--
Porquoi?
Re:I'll Become One by mhajicek · 2012-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1

Insightful.

Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda... by madhatter256 · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

My grand parents knew friends who were arrested as they were suspected communists during the witch hunt years McArthur was going after people who simply had an opinion about the government...

--
Previewing comments are for sissies!

Working = Terrorism? by Wamoc · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

So this means that anytime I am at a public place and fire up a VPN to access work materials I am engaged in terrorist activities? Hopefully tech companies will shed some light over how absurd the FBI and DoJ are being on this.

Re:Working = Terrorism? by kdekorte · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative

This was my first thought. I use VPNs and my corporate security policy discourages allowing people to view your screen. Plus we use PGP and other technologies to secure the company data. So basically if you are a remote worker you must be involved in terrorism based on the summary.
Re:Working = Terrorism? by oracleofbargth · 2012-02-02 06:26 · Score: 1

By their own definition, all the secrecy, encryption, etc, everyone working for the FBI/DoJ may be considered a terrorist.
Re:Working = Terrorism? by euxneks · 2012-02-02 07:02 · Score: 1

It's a terrible state of affairs when our hope is for large corporations to shed some light to our government.

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Re:Working = Terrorism? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:04 · Score: 2

They may very well be, so maybe this was just a public disclosure of that.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Working = Terrorism? by Bob9113 · 2012-02-02 09:52 · Score: 1

So this means that anytime I am at a public place and fire up a VPN to access work materials I am engaged in terrorist activities?
Absolutely. Everybody knows that Patriotic Americans (ie: marketing people and executives) do not understand security well enough to benefit from a VPN. I have seen executives email annual strategy reports around in the clear, to non-corporate addresses, then tell the lower-ranked employees that they can't have a copy of the document for security reasons. I have seen marketing people send spreadsheets to one client that contain data on several other clients. It is only you freak software developers, network admins, and DBAs who get your panties all in a bunch about data security -- about using VPNs or SSH to transfer sensitive data -- and, frankly, you probably are a terrorist.
Don't think we haven't seen who you associate with. There are people on Slashdot who have had the "four boxes of liberty" thing in their sig -- and gotten moderated up to +5. Those people are openly admitting that they are terrorists, and you not only willingly associate with them but your community claims their radical anti-America agenda is +5 Insightful or +5 Interesting. How can you sit there and pretend you are not, at least, a terrorist sympathizer?

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Working = Terrorism? by Burz · 2012-02-02 15:07 · Score: 2

I don't know what tech companies will do as they are increasingly being paid by the govt to perform "legal intercept" spying against us.
One thing is for sure: The working definition of a 'suspicious person' will be someone making encrypted connections with parties who do not define the US govt international "interests" e.g. addresses that do not belong to the govt itself or large corporations. So, if you HTTPS or VPN into large corporations why then you are merely sampling the apple pie from the wholesome cupboard of freedom itself... and God help if you like to connect with anyone else.
Incidentally, the things described here as terrorist tools are mostly things you would also need to defend against public WLAN hacking.

If you like candy... by MisterMidi · 2012-02-02 06:14 · Score: 1

If you like candy, you may be a terrorist, if you can ride a bike you may be a terrorist, if you keep your food in the fridge you may be a terrorist... Hell, we may all be terrorists!

Every child in America a potential Terrorist by Ragnarok89 · 2012-02-02 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game" Seriously!? Communicating through a videogame? By that definition every single child who plays online computer games that allow them to talk to others is a potential threat. I wonder what that means for all those who play Modern Warfare and the like? Maybe they're TRAINING to be terrorists! The US lawmakers sicken me.

Re:Every child in America a potential Terrorist by snobody · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 3, Funny

"Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game" Seriously!? Communicating through a videogame? By that definition every single child who plays online computer games that allow them to talk to others is a potential threat. I wonder what that means for all those who play Modern Warfare and the like? Maybe they're TRAINING to be terrorists! The US lawmakers sicken me.
Well, of course, they're terrorists. Listen in to the conversations of any Team Fortress 2 game and you'll hear people plotting to shoot people with snipers, spies backstabbing people, and pushing a bomb to a checkpoint. Lock those little jihadi bastards up! The FBI and DHS would wet their panties on hearing that stuff.

Or simply wanking to porn by G3ckoG33k · 2012-02-02 06:16 · Score: 2

"Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist"

Or simply wanking to porn. Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?

Re:Or simply wanking to porn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:17 · Score: 1

Users of Chatroulette?
Re:Or simply wanking to porn by Heed00 · 2012-02-02 06:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?
Fans of Tom Clancy.

--
Thought thinks itself.

Function Repeat by ae1294 · 2012-02-02 06:18 · Score: 1

This all sounds very familiar doesn't it...

"Are you know or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

Make it universal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is why everyone should use such tools and practices, all the time.

Re:Make it universal by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:11 · Score: 2

I taught my grandmother how to secure her computer using these technologies since she had heard only about how people can get your personal information off of a computer. So i guess she might now be a terrorists. God forbid we fear the 91 year old grandma.

--
Time to offend someone

Nakedness by U8MyData · 2012-02-02 06:19 · Score: 1

So in the effort to prevent bad things from happening we will take x and if that doesn't work we'll take y. We will keep taking to protect women, children, and the nation until we are all stripped of everything. The only problem with that is so will the bad thing. I am avoiding the obvious use of the term of this topic, but get my drift? What will prevent the bad thing is unity and dilligence of the community, not stipping the community of what makes them unique. This has become sport in some circles.

Re:Nakedness by stanlyb · 2012-02-02 06:33 · Score: 1

But but but it is for the safety of our kids..........Don't you wanna your kids to be safe???
Re:Nakedness by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:12 · Score: 1

No, they will just hurt themselves anyway.

--
Time to offend someone

Utoh by bartoku · 2012-02-02 06:20 · Score: 3

I guess I am a terrorist, where do I turn myself in?

Re:Utoh by game+kid · 2012-02-02 06:35 · Score: 1

You are indeed an un-American terrorist. Just look at that obvious misspelling of Utah in your subject line. You need re-education!

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Utoh by Tyrannosaur · 2012-02-02 10:39 · Score: 1

no, a lot of us actually spell it that way here... I think "education" is the word, not "re-education"

Like a Founding Father, count me in.... by realsilly · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

.... for I relish in my privacy rights. I always try to hide what I do from others. I refuse to have an account on Facebook, or other social media tools. I guess this makes me suspect.

Forget that my Civil Liberties are being stripped away one chip at a time, and my right to privacy is a pursuit to my life, liberty and happiness, which is in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.

Re:Like a Founding Father, count me in.... by Nidi62 · 2012-02-02 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative

So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....
Actually, yeah, they kind of were. They attacked, tarred, and feathered agents of the government. Held ships captive and destroyed their cargo. They secretly met, recruited, trained, and distributed propoganda. They illegally stored heavy weapons (Lexington and Concorde came as a direct result of th British attempting to locate and destroy weapons cahes of powder and cannon). Remember, our rebellion started out as an insurgency more than an open war, and in its early stages there is not much of a difference between terrorism and insurgencies. Probably the only difference is thatour founding fathers did not go out and hurt innocent people or kill civilians. Their targets were always governmetn agents or those representing government interests. That, and they for the most part adhered to the standard rules of war (except for hit and run attacks and snipers/intentional targeting of officers). So, while they could certainly be labelled terrorists, they should not be confused with the terrorists of today.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Like a Founding Father, count me in.... by chronoglass · 2012-02-02 06:39 · Score: 2

So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....
they were.. against England
Re:Like a Founding Father, count me in.... by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:31 · Score: 1

Difference between an insurgent and a terrorist. A terrorist actively targets civilian. An insurgent engages military and government targets.
If on 9-11, they crashed a UPS cargo jet into the Pentagon, it would have been a legitimate act of partisan warfare.

How long until... by mrjatsun · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 1

How long until it's, 'if your not actively posting a log of your daily life to Facebook, you might be a terrorist.'?

Atleast we have a little progress by Ragun · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 2

It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech,
actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not
mean that he or s he is suspicious.

Alright, they at least have the arbitrary discrimination disclaimer. Lets take this one step at a time. Slow but sure...

Well, duh! by IronHalik · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 1

You wouldn't mind getting your email monitored if you didn't have anything evil to hide!

Oh, and that encrypted partition pretty much makes you a pedophile.

Problem solves self in DC by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:21 · Score: 1

Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others
That's every government worker or contractor in Washington. Privacy filters are ubiquitous here, often mandated for anything requiring a clearance above window washer.

Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones
Again, this is pretty much every professional in Washington with a department/company phone and a personal phone.

Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc.
Multi-factor logins are pretty common here, though one-time pads are usually of the key-fob/credit-card variety.

Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.
This is required by pretty much everyone here.

Enjoy your self-inflicted DDoS attack if people in DC actually follow these instructions.

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by iceaxe · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 4, Informative

I think you are referring to Senator Joseph McCarthy and not General Douglas MacArthur. Right?

--
WALSTIB!

Bend Over. by headkase · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 1

"Bend Over"

"No"

"By refusing to bend over that is probable cause for not bending over. Here's a warrant, bend over"

--
Shh.

I may work for a terrorist organization by tverbeek · 2012-02-02 06:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently my employer could be a terrorist organization, because we use PGP and VPN technology routinely. Sure, the boss says it's for HIPAA compliance, but that's what you'd expect a terrorist to say, isn't it?

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Interesting... by fahrbot-bot · 2012-02-02 06:24 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the FBI and DOJ both use encryption and VPN connections for many, many activities and are pretty diligent to 'shield the screen from view of others' in their day-to-day computer usage. Just say'in. So, who's watching the watchers?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Fake by Reservoir+Penguin · 2012-02-02 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is obviously a fake flyer, where is your sense of humour people? Mention "Tripwire", seriously?

--
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

Re:Fake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

"FBI Zeroes In on Potential Terrorists: Operation Tripwire standardizes field offices' handling of clues to locate 'sleeper cells.'"
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/13/nation/na-tripwire13
"Operation Tripwire: Montgomery County Police Department - Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities" (37 page manual)
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/pol/districts/ISB/sid/ViceIntelligence/operationtripwirewebready.pdf
"To identify potential terrorist sleeper cells, Operation Tripwire commissions all JTTFs to ask specific questions of specific industries (e.g., suspicious behavior of airline passengers) then looks for patterns from the collected data. We're collecting and analyzing data on radicalism in prisons. We're coordinating new initiatives for railroads and cruise ships."
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2004/july/njttf070204
Re:Fake by Cow+Jones · 2012-02-02 15:24 · Score: 2

You're right - somebody trolled us good.
- There's no mention of this thing on the BJA or FBI websites
- Never heard of a "Joint Regional Intelligence Center"
- The website is www.jric.org, not .gov
- The whois information for jric.org has been obscured by a Canadian privacy service (irony, eh?)
- The website has no content, apart from the front page and a "send us a tip" form
- The logos on the PDF are distorted and in the wrong font
- Too "good" to be true
What's interesting (to me) is that this checklist fits so well into what we currently expect from US agencies that most of us initially didn't even think of the possibility that this could be a joke. Where's our humor? This thing hits a little too close to the core to be funny, IMHO.
CJ

--

Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
Re:Fake by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-02-02 21:39 · Score: 1

Wow.... Best demonstration of Poe's Law ever.

I'm genuinely in awe.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Fake by marga · 2012-02-03 07:13 · Score: 1

I tried to find .gov sites with this flyer without success. However I DID find .gov or other sites with similar flyers, but for different cases:
On reno.gov, for hotels and motels (does not say FBI):
http://www.reno.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17584
Florida Self Storage Association, for cargo holders (says FBI, low quality scan)
http://www.floridassa.org/form/FBI-Indicators.pdf
The "Columbus, Ohio Police" site (not .gov, I don't know if it's legit or not) has quite a number of these flyers, although the Internet Cafe ones are not included:
http://www.columbuspolice.org/Units/Terrorism%20Early%20Warning.html
This page (supposedly the sheriff's office page for Osceola County, Florida) seems to have a compendium of all of them, in plain text:
http://www.osceola.org/sheriff/113-14385-19137/communities_against_terrorism.cfm
If it's someone trolling, they really did put A LOT of energy into making this look legit.

--
Margarita Manterola.

Hammer and Nail by trolman · 2012-02-02 06:26 · Score: 1

When all you know how to use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Cash by d'baba · 2012-02-02 06:26 · Score: 1

I skimmed thru 6 or so of the local specific pdfs and each one listed 'insists on paying with cash' or 'pays cash for large purchases'. My favorite Threat Area? - The Tattoo Parlor!
--
Gagbrae In - Gragabe Out

Re:Cash by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-02-02 07:15 · Score: 1

Sounds like they have been watching too much "Prison Break"

--
Time to offend someone
Re:cash by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 10:40 · Score: 1

You almost had it AC, but according to the Suspicious Activities flyer from today, paraphrased, buying a $200 stereo in cash makes you a terrorist.
It has to be easy on the tech side, it's being blocked on the legal side, to have name-blind credit cards.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Terrorist Activitie Related to Internet Cafe? by quax · 2012-02-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Seriously? Internet Cafe? That's so quaint how Homeland Security is stuck in the lingo of 1999.

LOL by future+assassin · 2012-02-02 06:27 · Score: 1

>Gather information about individuals without drawing attention to yourself

LOL isn't this what that flayer is about? Look for anyone trying to stay private while not drawing attention to themselves BUT you are ok to do it if you are trying to rat out your neighbour as possible terrorist.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Because Internet Cafes Are So Secure? by crunchygranola · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anyone accessing any kind of sensitive information (like reading email) at an internet cafe is exposing themselves to the possibility of every type of electronic snooping by criminals, up to and including laptop theft. It would be folly not to employ strong security measures when accessing the net under such circumstances.

This is like claiming people who lock their front doors fit a criminal profile, because they are trying to keep people from seeing what they have or are doing in their houses.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age

This goes beyond terror by Morris+Thorpe · 2012-02-02 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's a news story in Ann Arbor in which a pediatrician is accused of peeping involving a minor. Police confiscated his computer based on the investigation. That's great and I'm glad they caught the guy.

But....after analyzing his computer, the cops presented the "evidence" they found.
The detective was (can't find the news story right now, sorry) quoted as listing images, an electronic receipt to a child porn site and....the fact that the doctor deleted cookies and added other privacy measures to his browsing! The quote assumed that he must have been up to no good if he was careful about his privacy.

More telling. Out of the 200-plus comments on the story, none referenced this.

Ask for it by name. by utkonos · 2012-02-02 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I see that the FBI still has a rock hard boner because of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Disclaimer at the end by sloth10k · 2012-02-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Informative

At the bottom of the flyer: "Each indictor listed above is by itself lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." Don't let pesky details get in the way, JRIC...

Re:Disclaimer at the end by Entropius · 2012-02-02 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

All of the above, together, are lawful conduct and behavior. You don't just get the rights in the Constitution one at a time -- you get them all at once, as much as you want.
Re:Disclaimer at the end by Mitreya · 2012-02-02 09:10 · Score: 1

and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
I think it is disturbing enough if it said "may". Communicating privately MUST constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by U.S. Constitution. There is no "may" in it. Let them look for some actual evidence, rather than person's desire for privacy.

Time to smoke out the watchers by radionerd · 2012-02-02 06:30 · Score: 1

This is a nice list of things to use as bait to find out if you're being watched. I think it's time to get out my netbook, and head for the local coffee shops. If I'm approached, I'll immediately turn off the netbook, eject the SD chip, and break it with my pocket multi tool...... will one of you please come bail me out?

Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by AaronLS · 2012-02-02 06:36 · Score: 1

This was exactly what a guy did when I caught him taking pictures up a coworkers skirt. It was extremely stressful for me because I was the only one who saw it, and he had 20+ years with the company when I only had 2. He actually tried to delete the photos when he was confronted by management(he didn't know I saw him) and when they were like "What are you doing with your phone?" he then pulled the SD card out and broke it in half. He did get fired, but none of his friends believed it happened and I became the bad guy in their eyes.
Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by radionerd · 2012-02-02 06:55 · Score: 1

I actually intend to do this with a "squeaky clean" Dell netbook with a fresh install of Ubuntu in it...... My SD chip will be full of encrypted pictures of trees and flowers and birds and mountains..... I've been to jail before for doing this sort of thing, it ain't that bad...... I'm just a nobody, even if they torture me, there isn't much I could tell them....... again, will one of you please come bail me out?
Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 07:15 · Score: 1

No can do, Comrade. But I'll save you a spot in the chow line at Gitmo.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by Rhacman · 2012-02-02 09:22 · Score: 1

So your objective to detect if you are being watched is to behave in an unusual way and see if anybody watches you? You might also be interested in purchasing a geiger counter made out of uranium to see if there is anything radioactive near by. If you behave in an obnoxious way in a coffee shop the management has every right to throw you out of their establishment. If instead you stand there, get obstinate, and start reciting the constitution at the top of your lungs and if the management hadn't already called the cops I would kindly recommend that they did. What exactly is your objective? Is there a statement you are trying to make or do you just enjoy wasting law enforcement resources? There are a lot of unfortunate instances of abuses of power in the world but this little joy-ride you have in mind does nothing to expose any such abuses and certainly doesn't do so in a way that will effect any kind of positive change. While you may succeed in re-inforcing your own attitudes, all the public will see is that a person behaving unusually got dragged out of a coffee shop to cool down at the station, not for engaging in the supposedly suspicious activities in but for the subsequent disturbance you'll create in trying to prove a point that will be lost on all the people who just wanted to enjoy their lunch break. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to bash on you. You clearly have the time, the resources, and possibly even the bravery to face down any challenge you put your mind to. I'd only recommend that you put it towards a more productive goal.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by radionerd · 2012-02-02 11:03 · Score: 1

I think you misunderstand my method a bit..... No real spook would make a scene, they would try to escape at the first hint of trouble. I plan to call almost no attention to myself. My intent is to sit quietly in the corner (back to the wall), drink my purchased coffee and work with the laptop. Most of my internet traffic will be via VPN, with a few encrypted attachments sent through GMail from time to time. If approached, I will immediately power off the computer, collect up my cell phones and prepare to leave, while having as little contact with who ever approaches me as possible. If they demand to see my computer, I will eject the SD chip, surrender the computer to them, and depart without any argument or explanation, if they demand the SD chip I will attempt to destroy it. If they try to detain me, I will ask if they are sworn law enforcement officers, if they are not, I will leave. If they are sworn officers I will repeatedly ask if I am free to go, if I am arrested I will instantly demand a lawyer and answer no questions at all..... Yes, I intend to waste as much of their time as possible. I've used similar tactics before, and I've been arrested for it, several times. I will never post any bail, I have plenty of time for them to waste. I've been held for as long as 4 days for passing out pamphlets in front of our county courthouse, I'm not allowed to discuss the terms of the settlement. When I troll for pigs, I'm very careful to give them no excuse for their behavior, at all. I have the time to mess with them, so I will. My behavior protects honest working people by keeping these idiots busy. Most of the idiots in the field are far too stupid to catch real terrorists, messing with me is far safer for them, a real terrorist might hurt them..... And I do have a Geiger counter too, but that's a different hobby..... My digital camera hobby is more fun, cops hate to have their picture taken. The whole key to getting away with this tactic is having a perfectly clean criminal record, cash in the bank, and lawyers on retainer.... most cop intimidation tactics don't work on me..... in my 50 years, they have never been able to stick anything on me, I'll rot in jail before I take any plea deal, or pay any bail.
Re:Time to smoke out the watchers by radionerd · 2012-02-02 11:17 · Score: 1

OK, I'll be the fat old white guy that keeps getting beaten for flipping off the screws.... save me a few crumbs.

The terrorists have won by cpghost · 2012-02-02 06:31 · Score: 1

That's right. They've won their war by turning this formerly free country into a state of fear and paranoia, where people are being indoctrinated and taught by the State to fear their own shadows and to constantly look over their shoulders. If at all, this FBI flyer is material proof of the terrorists' success, and that's a shame.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

Re:The terrorists have won by dbet · 2012-02-02 07:24 · Score: 2

It's not just that "the terrorists won", it's that they won in a specific way that will undoubtedly turn more people into terrorists. This time however, lots of those people will be Americans, living on American soil. Since you can't combat this with border checks and immigration scrutiny, you go after anyone being "suspicious".

Of course, this is unwinnable. It's a last gasp from a dying empire. We might have died after the red scare, but we were still shitting money. It's easy to keep a ruling power in place when everyone is eating. Now that the money's gone and people are getting angry, it's a different story.

Oh My God.... by Lithdren · 2012-02-02 06:32 · Score: 1

This means my bank is a terrorist!

This would actually explain quite a bit about what happened not so long ago, come to think of it.

I bet there will be many false alarms... by sweffymo · 2012-02-02 06:32 · Score: 1

Caused by people who are trying to look at pr0n.

With that logic... by GReaToaK_2000 · 2012-02-02 06:32 · Score: 1

The FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, etc etc etc are ALL terrorist organizations.

Banks are terrorist organizations too for that matter.

Give me a break...

Re:With that logic... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-02-02 06:59 · Score: 1

Banks are terrorist organizations too for that matter.
Um, well sorta. The fed too. They all just use dollars instead of bombs to kill people so nobody notices as much.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Hilarious Double Standard by tekrat · 2012-02-02 06:36 · Score: 1, Troll

So, if I'm trying to protect my privacy on the internet, I may be a terrorist, but if I'm carrying a fully-loaded assault rifle on the streets, I'm just a red-blooded American patriot asserting my rights.

Sort of like, if I blow up a school or army base, I'm a terrorist, but if I blow up an abortion clinic, I'm passionate about saving God's children.

Or my particular favorite: If a brown-skinned individual dares to open a Mosque within 100 miles of ground zero, it's debated hotly on the airwaves, and politicians even try to block it, but if Neo-Nazis or the KKK decide to march through a Jewish or black neighborhood, that's their first amendment rights, and not even questioned.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Hilarious Double Standard by Dahamma · 2012-02-02 06:53 · Score: 1

Not only a double standard, but mixed messages and blatant hypocrisy. If you get defrauded on the Internet and it's less than about $100K, good luck getting help from the FBI about it. It's your fault, since they already TOLD you that you should have used SSL and WPA to protect your valuable data and identity...

Is nothing private without being suspicious? by bardyc · 2012-02-02 06:36 · Score: 1

So, if I am hiding something, I am a terrorist. Well news for everyone: When you get uncomfortable because I am going through your underwear drawer, well maybe you shouldn't be wearing underwear you terrorist! What's the difference? I guess it's ok to lean over someone's shoulder and read as they write in their diary? If they don't want anyone to know that the person who smeared shit all over the walls of the bathroom was them, it's because they are terrorists. Though arguably in that particular scenario, I would have to agree.

This is a reasonable list by Maudib · 2012-02-02 06:40 · Score: 1

Taken individually these indicators are clearly absurd. However taken as a whole this is a very reasonable list. Its not like the FBI made a flyer saying "Anyone that protects their privacy is a terrorist", and I don't think it is reasonable to interpret this list that way.

If someone is collaborating with others to go un-seen, reading about how to make bombs, obsessing over recent terrorist attacks and studying the blue prints for large public venues over TOR all while paying for everything with CCs in a different name, then yeah they may very well be a terrorist. and probably should get some attention from law enforcement.

Re:This is a reasonable list by blueg3 · 2012-02-02 07:29 · Score: 1

People on Slashdot don't understand what an indicator is. Perhaps they could benefit from Socrates. "This flyer says that terrorists download news coverage of terrorist activities, therefore they think that all people who download news coverage of terrorist activities must be terrorists." No, that's... that's not what they're saying at all.

Re:You might be a ... by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 06:40 · Score: 3, Funny

We need the services of Jeff Foxworthy on this one!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Are "private" 4th Amendment Violations OK? by ggraham412 · 2012-02-02 06:41 · Score: 1

It seems odd to me that the list of "What should I do?" includes the following "Do Nots":

-Do not collect metadata, content, or search electronic communications of individuals
-Do not do additional logging of online activity or monitor communications

Is this a bit of legal cover designed to immunize these agencies against 4th amendment violations by over imaginative barristas, and still have access to the data they collect? Can the government evade the 4th amendment by getting us all to spy on each other, provided they give us some standard boilerplate disclaimer?

Re:Are "private" 4th Amendment Violations OK? by blueg3 · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Use of third-party-collected data is touchy, although your communications on the Internet have fairly little 4th-Amendment protection.
They're probably simply trying to keep overenthusiastic baristas from breaking the law by spying on their customers. It's a fairly common problem that people will get overenthusiastic about these lists (and make a terrible mistake like thinking that the flyer says that anyone using Tor must be a terrorist) and then either getting themselves hurt or breaking the law.

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by b4dc0d3r · 2012-02-02 06:42 · Score: 3, Funny

McArthur was going after people who simply had an opinion about the government...

As well as anyone who left a cake out in the rain, I have heard.

Re:Do you use a pay phone? by RobertLTux · 2012-02-02 06:42 · Score: 1

can actually FIND a working Payphone??

TERRORIST CELL LEADER!!!!

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Boon for Identity Theives by tekrat · 2012-02-02 06:42 · Score: 1

Hey, don't hide your Credit Card Number.... That's terrorism!

I like how banks are now telling us on one hand to cover the PIN pad at ATMs while entering your PIN so it can't be picked up by webcams, and the government meanwhile is telling us that any movement to conceal what we're doing is terrorism.

Dudes, get your message straight.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Even Veterans are Suspect by Slider451 · 2012-02-02 06:43 · Score: 1

Serve your country with honor and wind up on the FBI's terrorism watch list: Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

--
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

McCarthyism by justthinkit · 2012-02-02 06:45 · Score: 1

Who will be the one who pops this McCarthyistic bubble? This witch hunt.

--
I come here for the love

Exaggerating slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

**Potential** Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Café

All they say that is that if someone goes long out of his way to hide something, then what he/she is trying *might* be related to terrorism.

Simple as that.

Re:Exaggerating slashdot... by tqk · 2012-02-02 11:40 · Score: 1

**Potential** Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Internet Cafe
All they say that is that if someone goes long out of his way to hide something, then what he/she is trying *might* be related to terrorism.
Simple as that.
Really? Occum's Razor says otherwise.
What do you say about a multi-billion dollar security agency that comes up with such ludicrous means in which to justify, or perhaps increase, their budget? After all, if all people in the US reported all the people doing such innocuous things as using crypto or sheilding their computer screens or using more than one phone, they're going to need a !@#$load more agents to vet all those potential terrorists, yes?

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist by Panther+Silverelf · 2012-02-02 06:47 · Score: 2

So pretty much, every government agency, every corporation, why limit that, every business can be considered as terrorists, based on the information in this flyer. That being said, the whole thing invalidates itself because there is no safe organization to report any of the suspicious activity to because no one is above reproach.

AOL!? by Dahamma · 2012-02-02 06:50 · Score: 1

Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)

Using Comcast or AOL email makes you a suspected terrorist? Wow, I just thought it made you a suspected grandparent...

So is this because no one with a home ISP would need to go to a cafe to use the I think the Internet? I guess FBI forgot that some people still go to cafes to get *coffee*...

Employees of ALL public companies are terrorists? by MasterOfGoingFaster · 2012-02-02 06:50 · Score: 2

Every publicly traded company has to keep some of their activities confidential. We make heavy use of encrypted hard drives, encrypted VPN and train them not to allow others to view their screens. I can't wait for the firestorm after the CEO gets turned into the FBI for his "terrorist" activities. He has a building full of lawyers at his disposal.

I wonder if the candidates for US President are using these "terrorist" tools?

--
Place nail here >+

Self-generated work a problem with law enforcement by Animats · 2012-02-02 06:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

A useful metric for law enforcement organizations is what fraction of their work is self-generated, and what fraction is complaint-driven. When a police department responds to a call to 911 or a crime report, they're performing a service function. When they run a drug sting, they're doing self-generated work. Some self-generated law enforcement work is useful and necessary, but too much of it corrupts an organization.

The FBI was traditionally complaint-driven. Historically, their self-generated work didn't go well. The Red Squads and the investigation of the civil rights movement of the Hoover era are historical examples.

The FBI's anti-terrorism operation is mostly self-generated work. So is their Internet operation. (40% of FBI Internet investigative resources are devoted to kiddie porn. Most of the rest is "national security". Fraud on the Internet, about 4%. The FBI is soft on Internet fraud - stopping that takes real work, and results are measurable.)

Measurability is the big issue here. On their complaint-based work, law enforcement success rates are easily measured. There were N bank robberies last year, and the people who did M of them were caught. Success rate: M / N. Running a law enforcement operation on that basis keeps it productive and honest. Metrics for self-generated police work tend to be less meaningful. The US has had so little terrorism in the last decade that metrics for that are mostly have an N of zero.

Measurability was William Bratton's approach. Bratton headed the Boston PD, the NYPD, and the LAPD, and is generally considered to have improved all of them. He was big on measuring results, and put in systems to track, on a daily basis, how his cops were doing against crooks. There was a lot of software and mapping involved, and twice-weekly crime strategy meetings. In a big department, it was quite possible to have a whole crime spree before someone at the command level noticed a pattern. He fixed that. Focusing his cops on solving identified problems tended to keep his departments pointed in the right direction.

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by offsides · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 1

The only reason the government doesn't go after everyone with an opinion about the government these days is that they can't afford to go after every resident of the USA...

Re:Gotten around to reading by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's worse than that Jim!

They hired an evil professor to design an entire literature class about How To Implement Big Brother.

1984
Animal Farm
Brave New World
Minority Report
Fahrenheit 451
Harrison Bergeron (short story)

Your choice of five more.

Maybe some cop porn would make up for it though.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Sauce for the FBI goose is sauce for the gander... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-02-02 06:57 · Score: 1

So we'll just pass a law, compelling the FBI to publish all internal documents on-line. If they have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

I saw someone using encryption for banking by kawabago · 2012-02-02 06:58 · Score: 1

I just saw someone using an encrypted connection with his bank! He must be a money launderer, who do I call? How do I report this obvious terrorist activity. Didn't we learn anything from the McCarthy era?

Uh-oh by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-02 07:00 · Score: 1

I think I fit all of the behaviors mentioned here :-(

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Report your suspicions to the FBI! by L3370 · 2012-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1

...because the FBI can't be bothered to actually do the real police work.

Pot and kettle by Stumbles · 2012-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1

Then the FBI and the Department of Justice needs to declare themselves terrorists. Oh wait, they already are.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.

I'm Guilty by afabbro · 2012-02-02 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd like to point out that I was, indeed, using a computer (with privacy tools) in an Internet Cafe in California (an airport, no less!) only last month, after having traveled an illogical distance and despite having robust residential Internet access.

While doing so, I did download content with extremely violent themes and military tactics. Indeed, the material enthusiastically described the ruthless, near-extermination of a freedom-loving people by a warlike, non-Christian foreign power bent on world conquest. The material was written by leader of these warlike people, and frankly I was rooting for him.

If I have to go to prison for reading Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, so be it. Sic Semper...wait a minute...

--
Advice: on VPS providers

Re:I'm Guilty by blueg3 · 2012-02-02 07:37 · Score: 1

I'd like to point out that I was, indeed, using a computer (with privacy tools) in an Internet Cafe in California (an airport, no less!) only last month, after having traveled an illogical distance and despite having robust residential Internet access.
You didn't travel an illogical distance to use an Internet cafe. You traveled an illogical distance and also used an Internet cafe. Totally different.

capitalism = terrorism? by Creepy · 2012-02-02 07:05 · Score: 2

I have to use a VPN connection when I meet customers offsite or connect to work or work from home and I also do e-banking using SSL so I'm in the same boat.

If the government believes capitalism is a form of terrorism, I guess I'm OK with that...

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 07:07 · Score: 1

Only if it was left in the park. Suspicious packages, ya know...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Orwell by roxteddy · 2012-02-02 07:07 · Score: 1

Just picked the wrong year ...

Worst by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:09 · Score: 4, Funny

The average (US) citizen probably would not be able to say what a declarative sentence is without looking it up a dictioanry / wikipedia first. You outed yourself as a foreigner probably a sleeper cell terrorist.

(well not only in the US but that would otherwise kill the joke).

Re:Worst by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1

That would require them knowing how to spell "declarative" though.

Hydrogen peroxide by future+assassin · 2012-02-02 07:11 · Score: 1

Oh oh they are going after weed growers. Every hydroponic store in Canada and the US sells 29-35% hydrogen peroxide as a water disinfectant. In Canada it had to reduced to 20% from 35% a few years back because if was a possible chemical for terrorist bombs.

A few ways that its used

1 To boost the oxygen content of the water before its fed to the plants.
2 To kill off/stay off pithuim and other fungi/bugs in full water gardens (not grown in peat/coco based mediums)

Its actually sold quite a bit through indoor gardening stores.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

The system is totally hosed! by no-body · 2012-02-02 07:13 · Score: 3, Informative

The Genie is out of the bottle and won't go back easily, if at all.

Examples: National Security Letters

"The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
(from: http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters )

Catch 22:
From: Susan Herman's book, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy:

"A number of courts have declared that no one has standing - that is, the right to bring a lawsuit - to challenge eavesdropping programs unless they can prove that the government has been listening to their own telephone calls or intercepting their own-mails. That is a true Catch-22, when the whole point of secrecy is that the target is unaware of being the target."

Bingo!
Issue a NSL to an ISP for all web traffic of a particular person, erroneously accuse a person of {something}. Defense lawyer can't do his job, person disappears.

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by oodaloop · 2012-02-02 07:16 · Score: 1

Are you saying General MacArthur was pro-communist?

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Re:Yet even more proof... by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 07:19 · Score: 1

When did we stop actually trying to look for terrorists, and instead started trying to look for American citizens we could paint as potential terrorists?

When it looked like there weren't any terrorists to throw in Gitmo anymore cause they were all dead or someplace else. Gotta justify the DHS budget somehow ya know.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Ever see an FBI laptop? by Above · 2012-02-02 07:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Most agents don't carry laptops...those who do?

Full disk encryption.
Smartcard access.
VPN back in to do anything.
Have those screen polarizers on them so you can't look at the screen for an angle.

Wait a minute, the FBI is full of terrorists!

Re:Ever see an FBI laptop? by ewanm89 · 2012-02-02 08:36 · Score: 1

Aren't they required to have separate provided cell/mobile phones for work use?

Re:Terrorist tools for everybody by BlueStrat · 2012-02-02 07:22 · Score: 1

Governments are evil by definition [slashdot.org] and the real terrorists are in government and people need protection from government, which is what Constitution is supposed to be in at least in US.

It's this kind of terroristic thinking that endangers the whole of modern society! Governments are there to help and are always good and right, or they wouldn't be in charge.

What's this "Constitution" thing you speak of? A task force must be assembled to destroy any and all copies of such inflammatory, anti-government terrorist propaganda, and hunt down the authors and kill them with a drone strike! Terrorists, all of them! Particularly this one guy who signed it, Thomas Jefferson. That guy advocates that people have a right to keep GUNS!!!1ONE!! Not only that, but he even advocates using those guns against the GOVERNMENT!!!

Such obvious terrorists and their violent philosophies must be erased from the public's consciousness for the good of a safe and predictable society (for us, your glorious leaders, not you).

>E. Holder
>J. Napolitano

In other news, powdered wigs, parchment, and quill pens are now contraband items under the new BATFE regulations governing terrorist tools and implements of mass destruction.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:anonymity growing as technology progresses by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 07:25 · Score: 1

Oh, we have the tech - this one is handled on the legal side, with some good ol xenophobia/______.

Imagine if we were allowed to go shopping in "Privacy" suits. You could order stylish outfits that look like Master Chief. Sure, there would be different styles of suits, so it's that "pseudonym anonymity" theme, and some people are good at remembering voices, but it wouldn't readily be "sellable data".

That, and we need the credit card to be like a 1-sided swiss account that the bank would know, but not the shop keepers.

Maybe the adults need to take over Halloween.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

The fifties is calling ... by Coreigh · 2012-02-02 07:26 · Score: 1

They want to negotiate terms and fees for the use of scare tactics like "The Red Menace is among us!"

--

"Waitress I need two more boat-drinks..."

Reasonable security needs = reasonable methods by Shoten · 2012-02-02 07:27 · Score: 1

I don't think for a minute that using encryption and VPNs and the like are in any way indicative of terrorism. Banks, financial institutions, engineering firms, etc...they all use such things widely, and this is clear evidence that there's no clear link. But some methods are only worth the effort if you're dealing with a very different risk model than what normal people face. Do I care of my credit card gets compromised? Yeah. But not so much that I would use something like steganography. Nothing that I wish to keep private is THAT dangerous to me that I'm willing to go through all the trouble of something like StegFS, or of hiding the bits of data inside pictures or MP3s. And if I tried to use stego to communicate with others, they would think me crazy...because it's not worth it to them, either. So while this pamphlet that's going around is ridiculous for its scope and breadth of accusation, there is a nugget of truth to it.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Just another pretext by kheldan · 2012-02-02 07:30 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like just another reason to arrest anyone, anywhere, anytime, for NO valid reason, and hold them indefinitely, without charge or legal representation, with the option of stripping them of their citizenship and "deporting" them ("To where?", I keep asking? Work camps? Medical experiments?) or just dropping them in a military prison for the rest of their days.

When are you people going to stand up and say "HELL NO!" to this shit? Hasn't it gone far enough?

..oh, and the first person who says "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide" is going to get punched in the mouth.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Okay, then lets turn this around. by Nyder · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Our Government hides stuff from us, so obviously they are terrorist.

It's time we got rid of the terrorist in our government, which of course, is probably all of them, so lets start over.

--
Be seeing you...

You might be a terrorist by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1

Can anyone picture Jeff Foxworthy doing a "You might be a terrorist" skit to this stuff?
Too funny

Re:This isn't so bad by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1

You just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

The truth is, 9-11 couldn't happen today. Americans will beat to death anyone who attempt to hijack a plane again.

In fact, DHS/TSA fails a huge portion of the blind tests (even when some aren't so blind).

Re:Employees of ALL public companies are terrorist by blueg3 · 2012-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1

Not only that, the flyer says that if you're downloading news coverage of terrorism, you're a terrorist! So apparently anyone who watches the news at all is a terrorist.

Either that, or you're (perhaps deliberately) misinterpreting the flyer.

Re:Terrorist tools for everybody by roman_mir · 2012-02-02 07:34 · Score: 1

The most dangerous tool that a person possesses is found in his head, and the political system understands this really well, that's why it established an agency known as 'department of education'. War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

--
You can't handle the truth.

My other thought by Nyder · 2012-02-02 07:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does anyone pay attention to history?

Seriously?

I had a public school education, yet i know how this ends.

--
Be seeing you...

Re:My other thought by marga · 2012-02-03 06:42 · Score: 1

> I had a public school education, yet i know how this ends.
How? In a civil war/uprising like happened in Egypt? In a yet more oppressing tyranny like North Korea?
The whole wide word is going at a very fast speed towards giving more and more control to the governments. Some countries are further into it than others, but the whole world is going in that direction.
I'm afraid that the most likely outcome is a 1984-like world :-\

--
Margarita Manterola.

Hmm by echo_kmem · 2012-02-02 07:39 · Score: 1

Return of 'McCarthy'ism?

Wilkomen! by El+Fantasmo · 2012-02-02 07:39 · Score: 1

Wilkomen!

Re:I am a terrorist then, I guess by PortHaven · 2012-02-02 07:40 · Score: 1

Free with purchase of a car

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/car-dealer-offers-free-ak-47-with-purchase-of-new-vehicle

So the Fortune 500 Companies are all terrorist by misosoup7 · 2012-02-02 07:41 · Score: 1

So PGP and VPN is often used by companies to secure it's data. So all the top Fortune 500 companies support terrorism? Encryption of data is a legal requirement for some of our work.

Re:So the Fortune 500 Companies are all terrorist by GiganticLyingMouth · 2012-02-02 11:01 · Score: 1

Not just Fortune 500 companies, I have to VPN into my school network (a public, UC school no less) in order to check out license files for certain software and to access scholarly journals when I'm off campus

Chemicals, acids, fertilizer... by mrjb · 2012-02-02 07:46 · Score: 1

Let's see - I've got at least acetic acid, citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium chloride, fructose, sucrose, maltodextrin, and monosodium glutamate. I might order in some sodium nitrite too, one of these days. Then there's ethanol, Iron (III) chloride, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide and, AHA! some fertilizer. Then of course there's the precision scales and an improvised dragee pan - can't do without those for the good stuff, obviously.

Point in case - I happen to be a rather passionate amateur cook (thinking I should try making my own smarties one of these days). Most of the above chemicals are just cooking ingredients. Also, occasionally I like to grow my own veg. Peppers, tomatoes, that kind of stuff. And when I'm not cooking, sometimes I play around with electronics and make my own circuit boards.

Extremely suspicious, I'm sure.

Can we stop the "AAAAH!! TERRORISTS!" bullshit already, please, and get on with our lives?

--
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book

Window blinds by sochdot · 2012-02-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Also, closing the drapes or blinds on the windows of your house are signs that you're probably doing something illegal inside.

--
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

Re:Well..... by fuzznutz · 2012-02-02 08:09 · Score: 2

Hey----Why not just LOGIN to the internet. So if you pirate something or say something stupid it is ON YOUR ACCOUNT. It DOES NOT punish the rest of us.

Well said, Anonymous Coward

I like to think... by ChasmCoder · 2012-02-02 08:24 · Score: 1

That the internet is place for me to give prying eyes miss-information ;)

Re:I like to think... by ChasmCoder · 2012-02-02 08:25 · Score: 1

And a wonderful place for me to make heinous spelling and grammatical errors :) *misinformation

Privacy != Secrecy by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-02-02 08:25 · Score: 1

A agree with the parent post. And also, government always try to confuse you with the word privacy. Often, we have stupid sentences like: "why should you care about privacy? Do you have something to hide?". That's not the point. Privacy isn't about hiding things, it's about CHOOSING what you want to make public or not. It's the right to decide what you want to keep for yourself.

People updating their status 24h per day on twitter, telling everything they do, are deciding that this isn't private, and make it public. It's their right. As much as it's mine to not reveal it. I have nothing to hide, yet it's not a reason to put a camera in my home and spy every single of my moves. The very same applies to the right to anonymity on the Internet. It's not because I have nothing to hide that someone has the rights to spy on me.

And in this day and age, there's so many evil companies that are spying on everyone all the time, that we got to react to it, and protect our right to keep things private. I may well decide for example to decide to hide my IP to google who might otherwise do statistics about my search, which really, I don't want to. And there's all sorts of valid examples like that, where privacy and anonymity makes sense.

Could this document be a hoax? by Froggels · 2012-02-02 08:28 · Score: 2

I dislike the erosion of our civil rights just as much as anyone else, but I really have to wonder if the PDF that TFA links to is genuine? For starters looking at the PDF's properties it seems to have last been edited on March 16, 2011 and we are only now seeing it. The PDF file also has no Author or Title information and no security. Additionally the PDF is being hosted on a website with a clear agenda and hidden whois information. What is the original source of this "flyer"? Can it be downloaded from the FBI or DOJ's websites? I call BS

Re:Terrorist tools for everybody by roman_mir · 2012-02-02 08:29 · Score: 1

Only if you're a communist.

- or if you are a fascist. Of if you are running a ruse, called a 'Constitutional representative republic', while in reality being a corrupt government with two faces that uses Marxist ideology to sell government spending to the public while simply stealing the money from everybody and sharing it with the most privileged elite closest to the government, and then you really don't want anybody to learn the true nature of things, so you set up an federal government department of "education" and push propaganda through it to ensure that nobody figures out what is really happening.

I take it you grew up in some socialist hell hole so you think education is only meant to brainwash. Pity. You could have been so much more.

- born in the USSR, and I believe education is very important and that what government does is not education but propaganda and both of those views are completely consistent and correct.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Specificity and Sensitivity by SecurityGuy · 2012-02-02 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let me introduce everyone to those two important concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity

The problem is that while terrorists may indeed exhibit those behaviors, a massively larger number of people who are not terrorists also do. Like, oh, doctors, nurses, your insurance company, finance companies, any company that has trade secrets, any individual who has a sense of privacy, etc.

In other words, the positive predictive value of that test is extremely low. Nearly every time you report someone, you're reporting someone who is not a terrorist. In fact, I seriously doubt the pool of suspects generated by this would be any higher in actual terrorists than random selection would get you.

I work at a Medical Software Company by gubers33 · 2012-02-02 08:34 · Score: 1

I have my hard drive on my laptop encrypted and use a VPN for work all the time. I must be a terrorist. Or maybe I need these because I deal if I am troubleshooting an issue at a customer it is possible for me to have patient data on my computer. As well I have tons of company data on the laptop, including programs internal to the company. This just goes to show how poorly educated our government is on Information Technology.

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.

So, Federal Agents... by ewanm89 · 2012-02-02 08:34 · Score: 1

How many of those points fit them?
I think the feds need to be reminded about intent, lets do it the hard way and report every federal agent and investigator as a suspected terrorist after all they fit the list?

You Guys Realize This Is Fake, Right? by neoform · 2012-02-02 08:45 · Score: 2

Did anyone bother looking at this thing in detail?

JRIC? BJA? Wtf are these supposed government agencies?

I'd like to see a link on an actual government website that is distributing this document.....

--
MABASPLOOM!

Re:You Guys Realize This Is Fake, Right? by forkfail · 2012-02-02 09:04 · Score: 1

JRIC - Joint Regional Intelligence Center in Los Angeles
http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/32984
BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/
Basically, the BJA appears to be a bridge organization intended to funnel intel to the feds and provide control over local agencies:
http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/about/index.html

--
Check your premises.
Re:You Guys Realize This Is Fake, Right? by peawormsworth · 2012-02-02 16:38 · Score: 1

I think ur right. Its either a fake flyer or it is fake in the sense that someone was paid to do something they know nothing about... and now they are producing bogus security flyers in order to justify their the pay they are getting for their fake credentials. This is a stupid flyer. It was produced either by stupid people or faked to look like it was drafted by stupid people. What makes it believable is that recently some British tourists were recently sent back to Ireland because they tweeted "I am going to destroy America". And then they were forced to apologise because some idiot took these words literally. I hope ur right tho... I hope this sort of information is not produced by people being paid to protect us.

Right by AverageWindowsUser · 2012-02-02 08:47 · Score: 1

" ...a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious..."

The FBI is 100% correct. HTTPS encryption is used by every single bank.

One has to wonder... by Zamphatta · 2012-02-02 08:47 · Score: 1

At what point does the erosion of basic freedoms, make Americans realize they're being controlled by their enemies?

Indeed? by Kupfernigk · 2012-02-02 08:59 · Score: 1

Come on, somebody that stupid is far from likely to be a terrorist. Whereas reporting them to the police would simply get you put on a file - why were you taking an interest in what they were doing?

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Aging paranoid surveillance state. by Paracelcus · 2012-02-02 09:15 · Score: 2

Extreme paranoia is one of the early signs of imminent collapse! All authoritarian governments become increasingly paranoid & delusional about plots against them (usually because they know just how much harm they are doing) until they just implode!

It ALWAYS happens & they ALWAYS think that it'll be different "this" time!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by mrclisdue · 2012-02-02 09:15 · Score: 2

Do you have the recipe? I've been looking all over the place for a man called "Horse"; apparently he was upset, because it took so long to bake it.

Re:Gotten around to reading by RealUlli · 2012-02-02 09:30 · Score: 1

I guess I should mention Little Brother by Cory Doctorow.

It describes a very similar scenario. Has a happy ending, though. :-)

--
Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.

This text should be way bigger: by dthx1138 · 2012-02-02 09:36 · Score: 1

"... there may be a wholly innocent explanation for conduct or behavior that appears suspicious in nature. For this reason, no single indicator should be the sole basis for law enforcement action. The totality of behavioral indicators and other relevant circumstances should be evaluated when considering any law enforcement response or action."

That would probably have made this document a lot less stupid.

--
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].

RTFF, it's a treat! by janeil · 2012-02-02 09:39 · Score: 1

What should I consider suspicious?
People who use computers to: "...obtain photos, maps, or diagrams of transportation, sports venues, or populated areas."

DO NOT forget the current legal conclusion to this by Torodung · 2012-02-02 09:42 · Score: 1

And if you may be a terrorist, or appear to be supporting terrorism in any way, you legally can be detained indefinitely by the military, without trial, according to the NDAA.

SO DON'T STAND SO CLOSE TO THE ATM, YOU TERRORISTS.

VPN's really? by Tiger_Storms · 2012-02-02 09:43 · Score: 1

The Government and almost every business in the world that has people working away from the office uses VPN's so they are saying that their own employees are terrorists? This is just another one of those 'people with power' don't understand a god damn thing on how shit works. Unless you know of all 'good' and 'bad' uses for VPN's you shouldn't be aloud to say shit on the matter let alone call people names because of it.

--
This is a Mac, what you have there is an embarrassment to your fellow computer users.

Not just privacy... by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-02 09:51 · Score: 2

Apparently there's a whole list of "potential indicators of terrorist related activities," broken down by "threat area:"

http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/

Among the most prominent:

- paying with cash
- requesting information
- taking pictures
- use of "anti-government slogans"
- traveling "illogical" distances or requesting home delivery
- "Significantly alter[ing] appearance from visit to visit (shaving beard, changing hair color, style of dress, etc)" No, seriously. Shaving is to be considered suspicious...
- missing appendages
- reluctant to provide complete personal information(hmmm, didn't know submission to interrogation was compulsory when shopping)

... and here are a few 'location specific' activities that I just couldn't resist listing:

Tattoo Shops:
- People or Groups Who:
-- Make repeated returns with multiple individuals requesting identical tattoos
-- Inquire about unusual methods of tattooing or placement of tattoos which could allow the concealment of extremist symbols ('cause, you know, most employers these days are totally cool with neck tats...)

Electronic Stores:
- asking questions about:
-- Radio frequencies (used/not used) by law enforcement
-- VoIP
-- Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address
-- Products/components related to "military-style" equipment
- purchasing "unusual combinations of:"
Electronic timer or timing devices, Phone or “bug” detection devices, 2-way radios, Batteries, GPS, Switches, Digital Voice Changers, Wire and soldering tools, Infra-Red Devices, Night Vision, Police scanners (wait; you can still buy those retail???), Flashlight Bulbs

Storage Facilities (i.e. 'U Stor It' type places):
- Using cash to pay rental fees in advance
- Failing to pay rent for a storage unit in a timely manner (yes, you're reading that right; paying in advance and paying late are both considered 'suspicious')
- Inquiring about security and surveillance equipment utilized at the storage facility (as we all know, only terrorists would be concerned about the security of their possessions)

Hobby Shops:
- Demonstrating "unusual interest" in remote-controlled aircraft
- Demonstrating interest that does not seem genuine (sounds like every teenager I've ever met)

Financial Institutions I won't get into, but suffice to say we should probably report Goldman Sachs, BoA, and many others since they totally fit the profile according to the FBI...

Martial Arts and Paintball:
- Interest in learning offensive moves in a confined space
- Interest in learning the use of hidden weapons
- Interest in learning kill and restraint techniques with no occupational need (who has an 'occupational need' to learn techniques for killing people??)
- Individuals who together are interested in learning group tactics
- Incorporating close combat or hand-to-hand fighting into training (yea, self-defense is for terrorists!)
- Operating a private facility that’s not available or advertised to the public

So, in summation, all Americans, from the top to the bottom, are potential terrorists. Nice to know our 'of the People, for the People' government thinks so highly of us...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Not just privacy... by cervesaebraciator · 2012-02-02 11:18 · Score: 1

Police scanners (wait; you can still buy those retail???) Believe it or not, I saw one the other day at Radioshack. Apparently they've been inspired by the DIY/Make trend and are starting (and I do mean just starting) to get some cool stuff again. I think they might have figured out that doing the same thing BestBuy does, only doing it worse, is not a successful business model. À propos your list, it makes me want to create one of those waiting-room-magazine style quizzes. Instead of figure out your neuroses, binge dieting, or co-dependency quotient, this one will be to calculate your chances for being detained indefinitely on suspicious activity. But hey, if you've got nothing to hide like paying with cash, taking pictures, being critical of the government...

Re:Employees of ALL public companies are terrorist by moco · 2012-02-02 10:05 · Score: 2

I can't wait for the firestorm after the CEO gets turned into the FBI for his "terrorist" activities.

right, like this is going to happen...

The rules are made for YOU, peon.

--
moi

Everyone here line up! by scruffy · 2012-02-02 10:22 · Score: 1

Terrorist suspect #29773 checking in!

Re:Everyone here line up! by Skapare · 2012-02-02 10:25 · Score: 1

I'm lining up ahead of you.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

re: people's willingness to give up privacy by King_TJ · 2012-02-02 10:23 · Score: 1

I agree with everything you said, except I'd say that honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a small minority are revealing all in the interest of "avoiding suspicion from overbearing governments"?

That would indicate a level of paranoia I'm not sure most of us are at (yet).

More accurately, I'd say the vast majority is sharing a lot of personal information via tools like Twitter or Facebook because it satisfies some needs or desires. For starters, I think most people enjoy the idea of publishing content. In the "old days" of the internet, the "geeks" did this by way of Usenet message discussions or even networked message forums on BBS's. As more of the general public got on-board though, there weren't really many good outlets for them. (The majority of people aren't really very good writers, and often don't even LIKE trying to write very much at a time - so message forums weren't for them.) You could build your own "home page" on the web, and tools proliferated to do it with increasing ease (including PICTURES if you didn't want to write much!). But you still had the difficultly of driving traffic to actually look at what you put up. Many people lost interest in "personal" web pages after the initial thrill of building them subsided.

The social networking sites solved 2 problems at once in this area: They made it easy to generate "personal pages" that actually looked decent and were easy to update/modify, and more importantly, they brought along an audience for the content by encouraging linking up with acquaintances or friends who would actually have SOME reason to care about the relatively unimportant "little stuff" their connections were likely to publish.

All of a sudden, you could post a silly joke or describe a situation you had that day and get rapid feedback ... people LOLing at your material, contributing their own stories, etc.

The realization that advertisers might collect up the info you post and use it to target market to you doesn't seem like such a horrible thing, at least on the surface, to most folks. We all take advertising and marketing for granted as part of our daily life.If you're going to be faced with it anyway, why not for products or services you actually might be interested in?

Where I really start to have a problem with all of it, though, is when the providers of the social networking services betray people's trust..... I'm talking about such things as archiving information permanently that one would assume was deleted, by way of deleting a user account on the service. Or constantly changing privacy features so if you don't regularly keep on top of it, new posts are visible to more people than your intended audience you USED to have the service configured for.

Microsoft...a terrorist? by Petersson · 2012-02-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Why Microsoft just doesn't show the Windows source code to the public? They must be hiding something! Logically, they can be terrorists!!!

--
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.

This is great! by RevSpaminator · 2012-02-02 10:29 · Score: 1

This is going up next to my "Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?" poster. :)

A Question of Privacy by turkeyfish · 2012-02-02 10:34 · Score: 1

Can the management of Google and Facebook be arrested as an accessory to a robbery or burglary if the thief or burglar uses both to monitor the activities of their victim using Google and Facebook technologies?

This is no longer a theoretical question. The number of robberies, burglaries, and assaults associated with crimes involving the use of these technologies is on the rise. These companies are making it easier and easier for criminals to prey on unsuspecting citizens.

When everyone is a possible spy for the state.. by nurb432 · 2012-02-02 10:38 · Score: 1

Sigh.. haven't we been down this path before? Don't we learn from history?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Terrorist tools for everybody by BlueStrat · 2012-02-02 10:40 · Score: 1

- born in the USSR, and I believe education is very important and that what government does is not education but propaganda and both of those views are completely consistent and correct.

Bravo, sir!

It's a testament to the very indoctrination system US "education" and the mainstream media has become that it takes someone from outside that system, someone that has actually suffered under the type of government system that is slowly being erected in the US, to recognize what is happening right in front of everyone.

Nearly every single person that I've met that's from the former USSR or a former Soviet "satellite" or "client" State hold similar views to yours on where the US government is headed. They're very concerned at the general blindness of the people to what's occurring. I just wish more native born citizens had as clear an understanding of freedom and how easy it is to lose, how hard to get back once lost, as well as the ability and willingness to recognize and actually do something about a threat to that freedom when it slaps them in the face.

At this point, I'm not at all confident that a major upheaval/collapse/civil war, nation-destroying-level event in the US in the very near future is avoidable. Those in power will deliberately provoke violence and chaos using Marxist tactics like the current class-warfare propaganda rhetoric, and use the resulting cries for restoration of order from everyone stuck in the middle as pretext to then seize total power.

Game over for freedom. From there on, the world will be divided up between the Sino-Russian and the USA-Western blocs, with maybe one or two less-major players. None of which will have much in the way of individual rights or freedoms as we think of them for their people. Reagan was right, that the USA is the world's last and final bastion of freedom, and once it falls, there will be no place anyone can go to be free left.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Joke Setup? by nurb432 · 2012-02-02 10:44 · Score: 1

I see it directly references the 'anarchists cookbook', and 'always pays in cash'. And 'mention tripwire'. This must be a joke. Sounds a lot like something out of a movie.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Joke Setup? by WorBlux · 2012-02-02 16:10 · Score: 1

The Anarchists cookbook is just as likely to kill you than to help you kill anyone else. U.S Military Manuals are better sources of information if terror is your aim.

Re:Gotten around to reading by Nina+Brown · 2012-02-02 10:51 · Score: 1

Little Brother

Maybe That's The Answer! by turkeyfish · 2012-02-02 10:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe you have stumbled on how to the privacy problem. Create an open source, open project that puts the private lives of guys like Schmidt and Zuckerberg on line 24/7, so that they can't even go to the John without everyone knowing if its #1 or #2. Let cameras, cell phones, video recorders, monitor the activities of their family and friends 24/7. Better yet turn the entire exercise into a reality TV show and give prizes for the best submissions.

I don't know why, but I have this feeling that all of a sudden they would begin to have a different perspective with regard to online privacy.

Re:Maybe That's The Answer! by anyGould · 2012-02-03 09:49 · Score: 1

I've wondered why AnonOps or one of the other group of that style hasn't tried that yet. RC helicopters with cameras are getting scarily cheap these days, for instance...

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda.. by iceaxe · 2012-02-02 10:54 · Score: 1

Nope, although I am saying that you are mildly funny with that comment. About a half chuckle, but that's better than none. :)

For those who don't get it:

I was clarifying an apparent error in the previous post. General MacArthur and Senator McCarthy were to some extent contemporaries on the world stage, at least during the first half of the 1950s. I guessed that the earlier poster got the two names mixed up, producing "McArthur". oodaloop then made a funny reference to Senator McCarthy's infamous smear campaign tactics.

--
WALSTIB!

Anaerobic Terrorists by turkeyfish · 2012-02-02 10:58 · Score: 1

"Have you seen any anaerobic terrorists? Well, have you?"

Osama Bin Laden is an anaerobic terrorist now, because he surely isn't an aerobic terrorist.

Is this actually real? by marga · 2012-02-02 11:18 · Score: 1

I've been unsuccessfully trying to find an official (.gov) site that has this flier.

The FBI site doesn't include any of the "Communities against terrorism" fliers.

In the Reno government site, I found one flyer, but a different one.

Does anyone have a link to an official version?

--
Margarita Manterola.

Re:Is this actually real? by AHuxley · 2012-02-02 12:21 · Score: 1

Like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Information_Analysis_Center report, information like this take a while to go past the stages of been:
ignored, laugh at, paper worked, then you get it confirmed.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Hiding Code? by Pirulo · 2012-02-02 11:29 · Score: 1

Possibly a hidden vector in getting source code opened. We can frame any proprietary code producer of being a terrorist.

I'm trying to decide which is scarier by davidannis · 2012-02-02 11:37 · Score: 1

a chance of being labeled a terrorist and being indefinitely detained in Guantanamo without trial or having my wife know all about my porn habit? I guess I'll take my chances with homeland security.

Re:Police State? by tqk · 2012-02-02 12:10 · Score: 1

"The Obama Administration has done FAR more to turn America towards police state"

I get so tired of the same yapping by people like you ...

Learn to read, fool. What he said was, "I'm not totally surprised when you have liberal mouthpieces like Thomas Friedman saying we would be better off if we could be more like China ..."

So now, not even the ACs can be bothered to read (or is it comprehend?) ACs. Huh.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Really? by Greyfox · 2012-02-02 12:40 · Score: 1

And I ask this because a seemingly-large percentage of the population appears to be almost clinically paranoid. The gun nuts are paranoid that someone is going to try to take away their guns. The Republicans are paranoid that the Democrats will force them to work in abortion factories all day and then return home to a state-mandated homosexual spouse. The Democrats are paranoid that the Republicans will try to force them to go to church on Sunday and have sex with only people of the the opposite sex and only in one position. The stoners are afraid that the government will take away their weed.

And ALL of those people are terrified that the government is watching their EVERY move. So are you really to proclaim that 100-200 million Americans are potential terrorists? Because Gitmo's going to have to be a WHOLE LOT LARGER if that's what you're saying. Plus technically you're kind of proving the point of all those paranoid people -- just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Grandiose geek visions. by MidGe · 2012-02-02 12:48 · Score: 1

It maybe lore, but the initial research and development leading to the internet today was in part to circumvent some restriction to access information between academic institutions. If I remember rightly the restriction had to do with mixed use academia/military.

I wish I could find some information about this, but I have not got the time for this at the moment. I am pretty certain I did not invent it.

Re:The power of privacy | We are all terrorists. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 12:58 · Score: 1

Subsequent to the Orwellian-named USA PATRIOT Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the FISA/Telco Immunity Act, and now the NDAA FY2012, we are all terrorists now, each and every one of us. Only the degree of which is different, Red List or Blue List, FEMA Death Camp or FEMA Re-Education Camp. Any even minor crime may now arbitrarily considered an act of terrorism. Thought crimes, including even which software you use, can and will put you on a list. Internal (domestic) checkpoints, "enhanced interrogation techniques", "extreme rendition" to CIA "black sites" world-wide, preventive detention, extrajudicial stripping of citizenship, and even extrajudicial assassination of citizens worldwide, and so much more. I don't feel freer, or more secure in the intervening 10 years -- exactly the opposite. How many readers here have been groped by pedophiles in uniform posing as TSA security agents when flying, and now when boarding trains or buses, entering sporting events at stadiums, or entering a shopping mall?

Ironic, but I distinctly remember the uproar by civil libertarians and even many mainstream Republicans against President Clinton's intrusive "Clipper Chip" and "Key Escrow" programs, and those events weren't all that many years ago. So, WTF happened to the Republican Party since then, and where in hell did those "populist" Democrats disappear to? The USA has pissed away over $4 Trillion USD in the past 10 years over national security, but we cannot prosecute financial "terrorists" that have wreaked ruin upon the entire global economy -- while using PGP or a proxy service can put you on a terror watch-list. Welcome to the Twilight Zone Gulag of Orwell's "1984".

I hear 'quacking', as in newspeak by Burz · 2012-02-02 13:54 · Score: 1

Criminals are a form of terrorist in my book.

There are fewer and fewer words these days...

Nope, they can search you anyway by fyngyrz · 2012-02-02 13:58 · Score: 1

Replied, meant to reply to you, but aimed wrong. Sorry. Please see comment here.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:You might be a ... by istartedi · 2012-02-02 15:46 · Score: 1

...you have a truck bomb up on blocks in your front yard.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

"Terrorist" is just a catch-all term by hessian · 2012-02-02 15:47 · Score: 1

Terrorist is a generic term for anyone who opposes us. That means both our government, and the false reality of popular notions that we insist is real through the democratic process.

Thus the word "terrorist" joins many other catch-alls used through history, mixing legitimate fear with a need to smash all dissenters:

1. Communist
2. Anarchist
3. Child molestor
4. Satanist
5. Hacker
6. Fascist
7. Mulatto

Don't trust the crowd or its lap-dog, the government, when it makes up some term and uses that term as a blank check to do whatever it wants to you.

--
Futurist Traditionalism

No, you are wrong: by Burz · 2012-02-02 16:25 · Score: 1

The FBI are saying go ahead and report them because they *might* be terrorists.

It's your desire to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt that is exaggerated.

Start using encryption and privacy by peawormsworth · 2012-02-02 16:27 · Score: 1

The solution to this is to encourage everyone to use privacy tools. This makes this sort of profiling useless. Like the solution to those British tourists who were jailed for a funny tweet recently... is for everyone to begin tweeting "Destroy America". Because these sorts of profiling are written by and for stupid people who have to write or do something to justify their jobs. Searching for a terrorist in an internet cafe is a stupid practice.

If u run linux, using these tools is easy. Fist use Gmail, because they support XMPP which allows u to run OTR encryption for chat. Install Pidgin and the OTR addon. Set OTR to automatically be used when available. Create a PGP under "Passwords and Encryption Keys" in System->Administration. Use Evolution to collect ur email by POP or preferably IMAP. Evolution will allow u to PGP encrypt/decrypt messages with a single checkbox. Install polipio application as instructed on the Tor website. Then add the torbutton plugin to firefox. This will allow u to browse the internet anonymously after a single click of the icon.

All of these steps are easy in Linux. The hart part is getting others to support it on their end.

It bugs me, because I use all of these tools all the time. I just consider myself a more careful Internet tourist then the average citizen. I make my computer a little more difficult to track and attack... so virus writers and hackers will move on to easier targets. If you use email and chat for business... I think all of these tools would be a minimum requirement in order to protect ur assests.

Being careful online doesnt make me suspicious at all. But this sort of document will make ignorant people suspicious of my care.

BTW: does anyone else suspect that maybe this article is BS? Because I cant believe the FBI would have anything to do with encouraging people to look for potential terrorist in an Internet cafe. I just cant believe that our intelligence service is that stupid.

Probably applies more to IP addresses than email by Burz · 2012-02-02 16:29 · Score: 1

VPN and other encrypted communications which are P2P in nature are suspicious in their eyes.

Bring it, don't sing it. by SeaFox · 2012-02-02 18:07 · Score: 1

The use of PGP, VPNs, Tor or any of the many other technologies for anonymity and privacy online are directly targeted by the flyer, which is distributed to businesses in an effort to promote the reporting of these activities.

Let's see the government put it's authority where its mouth is. Outlaw VPNs and encryption at all, watch what happens in the business world next when suddenly companies aren't allowed to secure anything. I believe a lot of congressional brib^H^H^H^H campaign donors will be on the phone with their chosen representatives real fast.

I triple dog dare anyone to by HW_Hack · 2012-02-02 18:24 · Score: 1

call (888) 705-JRIC (5742) and mention “Tripwire”

I triple dog dare you .....

--
Its not the years, its the mileage .....

pi nz by HW_Hack · 2012-02-02 18:28 · Score: 1

fbu nz tipsut

--
Its not the years, its the mileage .....

Cisco by solidraven · 2012-02-02 18:30 · Score: 1

Cisco VPN -- Supporting your terrorist activities since 19xx! (Can't be bothered to look for the original release date of their first software vpn client)

Re:Self-generated work a problem with law enforcem by cold+fjord · 2012-02-02 19:10 · Score: 1

The US has had so little terrorism in the last decade that metrics for that are mostly have an N of zero.

It really depends on the metric, doesn't it? In reality there has been a pretty constant stream of terrorism related arrests and convictions, with many plots being foiled. Here are some recent examples:

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings
Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa
A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story
2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011

Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center
A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011

San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab
Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

More here.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Hello, Uncle Sam! by Randym · 2012-02-02 20:36 · Score: 1

In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone 'overly concerned about privacy' or attempting to 'shield the screen from view of others' should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities.

Yeah, I'm looking at YOU. US Government classifications of material as 'Top secret" and "Classified' has been growing under each successive President. It's not surprising, then, that the GOVERNMENT is concerned about people who are concerned about privacy. Besides, since everything on the Net is routed through the NSA now , I think *somebody* is protesting a wee bit too much. F*** the Fourth Amendment, eh, AG Holder?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..

(In case you've forgotten what it is....)

--
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.

FBI Wishes it was an arm of the Chinese Government by rberger · 2012-02-02 22:44 · Score: 1

The US Government and its Corporate Overlords lust after and are working hard to emulate the Chinese Government

Terrorists are people. by 1s44c · 2012-02-03 01:33 · Score: 1

Terrorists are people. People use internet cafe's. Therefore just shoot everyone who goes to internet cafe's and be done with it.

The US government backlash against so-called terrorism is to create a state where everyone lives in a constant state of terror. The terrorists won but at least that can be used to justify a few more wars and spead the message of terorism worldwide.

When did 'Land of the free' become 'Land of living in fear of the US government' ?

Re:Who knows IF there is a "future"... by hairyfeet · 2012-02-03 05:34 · Score: 1

Oh I'll tell you something about the ME that'll scare your ass white APK, I live next to a conservative college where many of the "men behind the throne" go to lecture and because my bud is an engineer there that helps with the robotics designs I've been to a few of those lectures and got to talk to the real power players about the ME. you wanna know what our ENTIRE ME policy is based on? ready for this?.....Jesus won't come back. I swear to fucking God, these guys are basing the ME policy of one of the most powerful nuclear armed countries on a prediction written on a sheep's ass 1800 years ago about how some 2000 year dead guy won't have a place to park his fluffy cloud if there ain't a Jew to valet park his ass. They can make all these bogeyman stories about the Muslims and Sharia but when push comes to shove our right wing is just as damned batshit religious as theirs, only we have a hell of a lot more dangerous weaponry.

Oh and as for the "pro pedo" guy? Actually if you would have read the book (I actually did read part of it I found online) the majority of his book is teaching pedos how to NOT TOUCH KIDS by using non pedo sources for fantasy and by writing out their thoughts. Basically it was like an AA for pedos but since with our right wing anything other than "kill yourself" is automatically labeled pro he's rotting in prison. But frankly it shouldn't matter WHAT he wrote as its WORDS ON A PAGE. We allow the little red book and Mein Kampf and those books killed millions, because we USED to know freedom of ideas is one of the cornerstones of democracy. now we have the feds demanding lists from libraries of anyone who has checked out "The catcher in the rye" so those people can be put on a watchlist.

I do agree with you though the most powerful weapon out there wielded by the enemies of the people isn't the bomb but propaganda. By simply sticking the right label on you with their MSM they can turn the world against you, have them screaming for your blood, look at the guy they blamed for the bomb at the Olympics that turned out to be an innocent man, they nearly destroyed him and he has PTSD to this very day thanks to a year and a half of constant attacks. Look at that poor bastard in FLA that got an infected laptop from work that had a CP virus on it, he lost his job, his wife divorced him and took his children, His friends all abandoned him and he spent over 2 years in PMITA prison when just 15 minutes of forensic investigation would have cleared him but nobody gave a fuck if they had the RIGHT guy, just that they had SOME guy. Even though this mild mannered schmuck had never had so much as a speeding ticket all it took was someone to point a finger and say "pervert!" to completely destroy a life that had taken him nearly 30 years to build.

this shit is getting scary friend, damned scary. You watch, soon they will have Nancy Grace and the talking heads spewing how the tools we geeks use "is helping pedo ZOMFG!" and simply possessing them will end up being outlawed. It is getting to the point that anyone who doesn't agree with El Presidente and isn't willing to have a camera on them 24/7 is an enemy and a threat. Its gonna be Nixon all over again, only this time they'll be smart enough not to get their hands dirty directly and instead will use the MSM to be their attack dogs.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Welcome to the Soviet Union by alexo · 2012-02-03 06:11 · Score: 1

This is a thinly veiled attempt to turn the once mighty US of A into a nation of informers and people so afraid of being targeted that all potential protest is squashed at the bud.

Welcome to the Soviet Union.

Hmmmph! by vtel57 · 2012-02-03 10:28 · Score: 1

Let's just all swing our naked asses out in the breeze so BIG BRO can kiss them.

--
Nocturnal Slacker

Re:Gotten around to reading by bkcallahan · 2012-02-03 10:56 · Score: 1

Harrison Bergeron (short story)

This is the handbook for Occupy.

This is CRAP by TaxDoktor · 2012-02-03 10:59 · Score: 1

A good example of why people need anonymity on the internet happened to me yesterday. Some person in Cypress tried to rack up my credit card, after I made an online purchase the day before. Whether it was coincidence or a leak in security, my credit card information was in the hands of the wrong people. Thankfully I just had to cancel the card and they couriered a new one to me the next day. But this is just a small example of why people need internet security. If you look at internationalization for business (which I firmly believe we should be keeping jobs within Canada/U.S. not shipping them overseas) companies need VPN/security etc for many reasons to share data which in many cases would be a business disaster if it was public for the competition to see. If the FBI truly believe people no longer have a right to privacy you only have 2 choices: 1) rise up fast and nip this paranoid power mongering in the bud before it becomes irreversible. 2) prepare and accept to be dominated by authority with zero human rights just like Communist China. (which is the mentality I thought the U.S. was fighting against ??? hmmm)

Appropriate Timing by TechieRefugee · 2012-02-05 11:18 · Score: 1

Doesn't it seem odd how they bring up THIS subject of all things after the NDAA got passed? Rather suspect.

Slashdot Mirror

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist

432 of 720 comments (clear)