Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist

schwit1 passes on this snippet from Public Intelligence: "A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called 'Communities Against Terrorism,' lists the use of 'anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address' as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using 'software to hide encrypted data in digital photos' or other media. 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. ... 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."

Comments

The power of privacy

[bonch]

"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

[repapetilto]

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

[Hatta]

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

Re:The power of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your Facebook username, citizen?

You have to ask?

Re:The power of privacy

[sconeu]

Do you want ME to know everything you do?

Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.

Re:The power of privacy

[Tsingi]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[mrclisdue]

...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

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:The power of privacy

[hobarrera]

In that case, Schmidt, can I have access to all your files, including google's algorithm?

Re:The power of privacy

[rst123]

"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

[mhajicek]

I would like to report the FBI for suspicious terrorist activity as described in the above referenced brochure.

Re:The power of privacy

[master_kaos]

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

[w_dragon]

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

[hierophanta]

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

[AnokWati]

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

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:The power of privacy

[slack_justyb]

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

[kiwimate]

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

[tqk]

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.

Re:The power of privacy

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:The power of privacy

[Mista2]

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

[Solandri]

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

[Samalie]

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!

Re:The power of privacy

[cbhacking]

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.

Re:The power of privacy

[fyngyrz]

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.

They aren't wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:They aren't wrong

[sconeu]

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

Re:They aren't wrong

[TobinLathrop]

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.

Chicken or egg?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

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

Re:Chicken or egg?

[mayko]

"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?

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:Chicken or egg?

[PortHaven]

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.

Sounds like the Drug Wars

[mbone]

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.

Welcome privacy advocates...

[Jason Levine]

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).

Code?

[Bucky24]

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

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

Re:Code?

[ColdWetDog]

"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.

Re:Code?

[idontgno]

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.

Re:Code?

[stanlyb]

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?

[trout007]

Ever try reading a bill passed by congress?

Re:Code?

[mhajicek]

Then there's your average, run-of-the-mill Basic Terrorist.

Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda...

[madhatter256]

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...

Working = Terrorism?

[Wamoc]

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?

[kdekorte]

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.

Every child in America a potential Terrorist

[Ragnarok89]

"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.

Make it universal

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Similar to McArthur anti-communist propaganda..

[iceaxe]

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

I may work for a terrorist organization

[tverbeek]

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?

Fake

[Reservoir Penguin]

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

This goes beyond terror

[Morris Thorpe]

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.

Re:I'll Become One

[JobyOne]

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.

Disclaimer at the end

[sloth10k]

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:Like a Founding Father, count me in....

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Or simply wanking to porn

[Heed00]

Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?

Fans of Tom Clancy.

Re:People are clueless

[mhajicek]

Or maybe THEY just want you to THINK that most people are complacent.

Self-generated work a problem with law enforcement

[Animats]

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:Gotten around to reading

[TaoPhoenix]

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.

I'm Guilty

[afabbro]

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...

Worst

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

My other thought

[Nyder]

Does anyone pay attention to history?

Seriously?

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