Slashdot Mirror
Richard Feynman's FBI Files Released
v3rgEz writes "The FBI files of noted physicist, esteemed author and all-around geek Richard Feynman have been released. Feynman and the FBI had an extended encounter after the Bureau discovered he had been invited to speak at the USSR, which set off a flurry of investigations into his loyalty — even as he pestered the State Department for guidance on whether he should or shouldn't go, guidance they only gave belatedly. Of particular interest to the FBI was his avid devotion to the art of lock picking, his high school membership in a socialism club (for social reasons, he swore), and the fact that he was a godless scientist who loved his bongo drums. Original documents are available. One other element? A seven-page letter detailing a conspiracy theory that Feynman was a sleeper agent for enemies unknown, but probably communist ones."
No, they wouldn't. Actual background checks take too long and return far too much information. Today, your visit is recorded in a database, correlated with the fact that your plane had held a suspected terrorist in its last flight, so the conclusion is that you must be the recipient of a secret package hidden inside your seat cushion. That's enough to get a GPS tracker on your car and addition to the no-fly list.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
>>> the conclusion is that you must be the recipient of a secret package hidden inside your seat cushion.
>>>That's enough to get a GPS tracker on your car and addition to the no-fly list
That's enough to get you thrown in jail without a right to trial under the NDAA which Congress passed by ~65% and Obama vetoed..... ooops, I mean signed. (I would have vetoed.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Fortunately, FBI agents apparently were more reasonable even during the Cold War than they are in the War on Terrorism, because he'd probably be in jail for that prank today.
Its not so complicated as an individual's judgment call, its simpler; back then we were the good guys. Not so much now.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
That was a whole different era; government was different, indeed, human nature was entirely different.
There is NO chance of another generation looking back at all the surveillance of every Muslim community picnic and shake their heads in wonder at our paranoia. All of our investigations are justified and wise.
I find it funny that the term "security-minded" is used when describing the scientists upset by Feynman's lock picking, when the impression I got from reading his memoirs and biography was that he was not concealing it and was indeed pointing out security vulnerabilities at Los Alamos. He was able to open a colonel's office safe using the default combination, if I recall correctly. After all, it's not like Feynman was letting the Germans or Japanese know about the weakness of the locks, let alone about the existence of the Manhattan Project. It's basically the same problem as seen in computer security today: people who point out vulnerabilities in a non-destructive way still get criticized (or worse, ignored).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
Possibly someone like Klaus Fuchs. Secrets are being leaked. Counter intelligence is certain to find out and come looking for an insider source. Better to divert attention towards a plausible suspect than have them spot you.
Law enforcement (in general) seems to develop a theory of a crime and then go looking for supporting evidence rather than keeping an open mind. So if you give them a plausible hypothesis, they'll stop their wider investigation. Its an old trick and still works quite well.
Have gnu, will travel.
I find it funny that the term "security-minded" is used when describing the scientists upset by Feynman's lock picking, when the impression I got from reading his memoirs and biography was that he was not concealing it and was indeed pointing out security vulnerabilities at Los Alamos.
"Security-minded" people always hate it when holes in their security systems are pointed out. It's practically a law of nature.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
So? Veto it anyway. Make them declare themselves to be for the reasons that he vetoed the bill.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj