Slashdot Mirror
FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading
wabrandsma writes with this excerpt from The State Hornet, the student newspaper at Sacramento State On Monday, Sacramento State's Career Center welcomed the FBI for an informational on its paid internship program where applications are now being accepted. One of the highly discussed topics in the presentation was the list of potential traits that disqualify applicants. This list included failure to register with selective services, illegal drug use including steroids, criminal activity, default on student loans, falsifying information on an application and illegal downloading music, movies and books. FBI employee Steve Dupre explained how the FBI will ask people during interviews how many songs, movies and books they have downloaded because the FBI considers it to be stealing. During the first two phases of interviews, everything is recorded and then turned into a report. This report is then passed along to a polygraph technician to be used during the applicant's exam, which consists of a 55-page questionnaire. If an applicant is caught lying, they can no longer apply for an FBI agent position. (Left un-explored is whether polygraph testing is an effective way to catch lies.)
What if you don't lie and admit to having downloaded songs, movies and books? Will they force you to pay for them? Put you in jail for theft? What can they do?
Hopefully at some point in time the FBI will realize that their mission shouldn't be to protect corporate rights, but to protect rights for the individual citizens.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
The polygraph, along with IQ tests, are a very American forms of superstition.
Guess they're full!
I mean it exists in a legal grey water, I think. I'm talking about sites like pornhub.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Of course. They are only interested in people involved with other illegal activities, such as computer fraud. Illegal downloads don't do them any good, but illegally breaking into computers and falsifying evidence are great for them!
Is downloading copyrighted material illegal? I downloaded copyrighted material by opening this page with the /. logo.
What a bunch of fucking morons. They're eliminating a huge number of potential candidates who would otherwise be qualified for the job. I just ... I don't even have the words to describe how ridiculous this is.
Of course, if all they want are upper middle-class drones who follow every rule that has ever been made, just because it's a rule, then I suppose this is effective.
I suspect this will be quietly dropped in the near future when they see their supply of young recruits dwindle to nothing.
Am I out of consideration if I refer to the polygraph as 'truth dowsing' while it is being administered? How about asking if it can detect witches?
Guess they can't reach out to the NSA for candidates.
The FBI and other TLAs are constantly engaged in illegal downloading of the private information of Americans. How ironic that they're so anxious to recruit only people who have never committed the very types of "crimes" they're being hired to do. What, do they find it cheaper to train beginners than to hire someone already experienced in the job? (I wish this post was purely a joke.)
I guess with criteria like that, the FBI isn't going to have a cybercrimes division. Awesome. Seriously though, where the hell are they going to find people with IT skills who match these ridiculous criteria. The definitely won't be pulling the best and brightest of computer hackers.
I thought polygraphs were most notable for giving a lot of false positives.
That's really not such a bad characteristic for security clearances.
Lie detectors themselves have been proven time and time again to be utterly unreliable in actually detecting lies.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
All they are really doing is looking for candidates that are smart enough to know that "Lie detectors" are bullshit.
Let us exclude everybody from society!! easy fix. done.
I've held a security clearance before, and they asked me at that time (8+ years ago) the same question. I answered truthfully then, considering "AllOfMP3.com" to be legal and obtained the clearance.
The clearance lapsed, and since then I've downloaded several albums I was too lazy to dig out the old CDs to rip into my iTunes library. I've also downloaded British TV broadcasts that are unavailable even on satellite or cable in the USA. If I am interviewed again, I will admit these things. If I'm denied a clearance because of it, whatever.
Which, as we've just learned, is a problem.
... is whether "piracy" is actually stealing much less criminal.
In my experience, about 99% of videos on Youtube and images on Google image search have been illegally published without the rights holder's permission, so I guess they have to further restrict their applicants - good luck finding recruits that have never used those - maybe try the Amish?
That was my thought. They're going to make themselves even MORE out of touch with even MORE of the various American subcultures.
I can see the fnords!
Anyone who doesn't understand the function of the FBI is a naive idiot.
The FBI exists to preserve the power of those in power.
The FBI doesn't give a damn about an average person.
Anyone who would work for such an organization deserves
the most extreme derision possible. I'd shit on you if could.
> Of course, if all they want are upper middle-class drones who follow every rule that has ever been made, just because it's a rule, then I suppose this is effective.
You can drop the "upper middle class" part, as this is about following the law. Full stop.
The FBI and especially the intelligence services will tell you that they very much try to hire people who follow the law and other rules. In some cases, being sloppy about following the rules can have huge consequences. So they lool for military people and people from certain social groups who culturally tend to follow the rules.
The irony of that is obvious.
As to "just because they are rules" -
Not that we need to debate it, and you'll probably never give up your excuse for taking stuff without paying for it, but my family and coworkers have been greatly harmed by the seachange shift to a culture of most people taking what they want illegally rather than paying the 99 cents to buy it from those of us who create it. The rule that what I create with my own hands os mine to give away, trade, or sell exists for a very good reason. Yes, it does mean that app or song I spent a year working on will cost you a whopping $1, but that's just how it is. (Coming from a guy whose daughter would be MUCH better taken care of if everyone who uses my software regularly had paid a dollar for it. Buying another candy bar is more important than doing the right thing, though. )
Of course, a brief, public overview is going to lean towards zero tolerance. There are plenty of legal grey areas, and most folk aren't fully versed in copyright law nor would they knowingly violate such laws even if they might casually do so unknowingly. People in law enforcement know full well that absolute purity in the eyes of the law is very rare, and also strange. If they have a large enough applicant pool that they can take the rare ones who are both exceptionally qualified and squeaky clean, that's great, but otherwise I'm sure they'll bend a bit.
Like this, or this, or this.
besides, if your going to lie like an idiot. You might as well just run for office.
IMHO, if you work for the government, you're assumed to be a scumbag until proven otherwise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
deal with it.
Anything different from business as usual?
I wonder if the FBI would hire Jesus when he comes back. They are hiring no one but saints.
From a reliable source I can also say that you can fail out from reasonable mistaken discrepancies. You see, tbe length of tbe questionarre is no coincidence. They dont want you to be able to recall what you put down as an answer originally and if you originally said you had moved 4 times in the last 10 years and during the poly you remembered a 5th move, and simply just forgotten originally, and you later say 5.... will easily disqualify you. Their method is flawed and im sure they've disqualified potentially amazing would-be agents over ridiculously stupid technicalities.
This program sounds like a bluff to me. You are correct in that no one would meet the hiring criteria.
Default on student loans? Sickening.
Or perhaps what they are really screening for are people who can lie really well.
FBI: Have you illegally downloaded music or video?
Candidate: Why yes, hundreds of times! In fact I illegally downloaded the latest rap video just before I came here.
FBI: We find that you are telling the truth. You're hired and welcome aboard! Please join the coffee fund if you intend on using the company coffee machine.
New employee: Do you have high speed internet? Can I load up iTunes?
It could be like the "three felonies a day" thing -- they know that everyone will be in violation, and are totally okay with this because it gives them official grounds to fire anyone they want to.
"Are we including porn? Many, many terabytes."
Belief is the currency of delusion.
They will just not US citizens. This rules are obviously written with H1B's in mind. :P
I joke....but seriously when confronted with obviously illegal orders, who is more likely to say "fuck you, that is illegal" and then become a whistle blower A) a smart 'snowden' US citizen or b) "call me sam" from India. Now which would the US gov be more interested in having in their cyber crimes division? Tinfoil hatish, but its the only thing that makes sense with such BS questions that are obviously meant to make it virtually impossible for any US born to 'pass'.
Copyright infringement has been criminal for a while now--they just very rarely treat it criminally because they have limited resources and it would usually be ridiculous to treat it criminally. Basically you have a felony for what should get a parking ticket.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fair use explains all this downloading behavior.
the paranoids don't like lies.
I had a similar situation.
Answered truthfully, detailed in writing at application time.
Was interviewed about it.
The questionable activity was past history and promised it would not happen again in the future.
paperwork approved.
did not get a single question on it ever again.
now false allegations by another person in a court case that were plea bargined to a small fine.
other person's testimony was not allowed to be questioned in court.
Bad advice by a lawyer, should have fought it tooth and nail.
the save time/money plea bargin deal caused me many problems later with that job and every job since.
Apple and Amazon will be surprised to hear that downloading music is stealing. On the other hand, it's fine with the FBI if I lend my backup drive to friends so they can copy my complete collection of music, since clearly this isn't downloading?
How many really technologically savvy people have NEVER "illegally" downloaded some form of music or movie? The FBI will have none of those people working for them. While at the same time the next article on Slashdot is about yet another network intruded into for the theft of financial information. Way to go team USA.
They didn't say they won't hire people who illegally downloaded things. They said they won't hire people who lie about it, all police forces work the same way.
Then they won't hire you.
They may hire you if you did something illegal and are honest about it. They will not hire you if you did something illegal and lied about it.
Who the fuck would ever want to apply for an FBI job? Oh ya, anally insane people.
The Pentagon certainly employs many pedophiles. I was wondering if the FBI had any higher moral standards.
These stupid idiots are still so duped in believing that the lie detector is more than junk science that they think they are going to be able to determine if someone has made an illegal download.
if you want a conservative monoculture.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
shoot, thought everyone already knew how to beat them?
(butt "clenching" technique, anyone?)
Downloading free music is perfectly legal. Apple just claimed that 23 million people downloaded a free U2 album. That's perfectly legal. I've probably downloaded about 500 songs that were free. Legally. Quite a few books and audiobooks as well.
There are tons of free books at http://www.gutenberg.org/ and tons of free audiobooks at librivox.org . JSB's complete works for organ at http://www.blockmrecords.org/b... .
I would have hoped that the FBI would know the difference between "free" and "illegal".
The FBI does not want people to LIE to them. I can understand that - they need to trust their agents. Anyone who has been through the process for any agency knows they may let you slide on a few things as long as YOU tell them and they don't find out about it later.
who the f*ck would want this job ?
The trick here is request your file via a FOIA request. Then you would only be telling them what they already know!
The organization is a joke anyway...
The only people that know what's really going on are the guys that can't sleep without serious prescription medications.
The guys that don't know what they're doing are the gung-ho patriots who are steeped in enough ignorance to let them stay at their job.
Wow, I soooo want to work for you guys. NOT!
What they call "piracy" or "illegal downloading" is properly called copyright infringement (I don't think they refer to happenings in Somalia when they refer to "piracy"). The copyright infringement defines the infringement as "unauthorized distribution." So, if you distribute the copyright material without the proper authorization from the copyright holder you're committing a copyright infringement. Now, downloading itself is not the distribution, so downloading cannot be illegal (can, but not currently). It's the same idea as you walking into a grocery store to buy napkins and the store didn't have the proper clearance from the napkin manufacturer to sell those napkins, so the store might be in violation, but not you -- the purchaser. Same with downloading. It becomes murky with cases where files get uploaded at the same time as they get downloaded. But I don't expect the average user to know such details. But if you're just downloading, you're not committing the copyright infringement.
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
turn away otherwise excellent job candidates for stupid little things.
That continued use of polygraph testing continues to be tolerated without these agencies is beyond amazing. Is this the 21st century or the 11th?
Shameful employment at FBI is limited to those lacking principals enough to allow themselves to submit to whims of mysticism and voodoo.
> Most piracy does not represent lost sales, but sales that never would have happened.
That's true, based on my knowledge of tens of thousands of content producers over the last fifteen years. That is, however, irrelevant to their take home pay. Suppose that 90% of piracy is cases that would not have purchased. The other 10% is people who would have - the producers income stream. What matters is that people who used to buy no longer do, the pirate/steal. People who used to buy one album per year now take twenty albums and pay for none. The 19 you take that you wouldn't have paid for don't matter much. It's the one you would have paid for but no longer do that matters. When is the last time you bought an album, or some porn? Sure, most of the content you consume now you didn't consume in 2000, that just costs bandwidth. But in 2000 you probably paid for one web site or one album. In 2014, you probably didn't pay for any. Instead you used pornhub (mostly stolen content) and unlawfully downloaded music. When most people don't pay for your product, it's hard to make a living.
> In fact I would bet that piracy tends to make money for less well-known producers of content.
I know one case where piracy worked as branding, and the lady who produced the content. I know of thousands where it didn't. Ten years ago, if your marketing was poor but the branding on the product itself was good, piracy could make you money by getting your name out there. These days, 20,000 will pirate it and zero will buy it. Getting your name out doesn't do any good when almost nobody pays for things they want.
Seriously, have you ever met anyone technical who hasn't downloaded at least one song/movie/whatever?
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
You're letting your hate of H1B's screw with your mind. The US government only hires citizens for classified positions. Any job that would have anything remotely worth blowing a whistle on would be limited to US citizens only. There are things that aren't outsourced.
Piracy is no longer on the FBI background check investigation, the thing is public, you can read it yourself with the smallest modicum of Google-Fu.
Either casual piracy (especially music) is extremely prevalent or I live in a bubble surrounded by people who are okay with downloading some songs from time to time.
Also, what about all the people who would innocuously say yes thinking that they meant downloading media from iTunes or amazon or whatever after paying for it, rather than the illegal kind that the FBI meant.
I guess it's good that they have high standards... but how do they weed out the people who would become power hungry or corrupt? Or do they like that? A real human being with some leniency to stupid/corporate-greed-based laws would have a much better rapport than some hardliner jerk-off.
The FBI doesn't want its agents to lie, or default on student loans (the latter is often simply a matter of economics, not honesty), but yet the Snowden documents reveal that the FBI commits perjury in federal court to hide the true, illegal sources of information they got from the NSA. Described here, http://www.alexaobrien.com/sec... Search for "Parallel Construction"
AccountKiller
FBI faces a critical and acute shortage of personnel as policies have limited the list to only Amish candidates
One of my former bosses said "you can get good people, available people and people with no police record. Pick two"
Time and experience has shown me that "good people" and "people with no police record" has become more and more synonymous as more and more inane laws are being pushed into existence. You don't get "good" in this field if you're learning it from text books. Ponder this for a moment: Malware analysis consists to a rather big portion of looking at decompiled code someone else wrote and quickly identifying specific sections, often involving reverse engineering some kind of encryption or obfuscation. Now where do you think you would almost invariably have to develop that skill set. Little hint: It ain't really a very legal activity.
Most of the "good" security people I know didn't get there by choosing it as a career and studying. They got there because they ... well, wanted to accomplish something.
And if they're good at it, they never got caught doing it...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Didn't the FBI just have to relax it's restrictions against pot smokers, in order to attract the talent they need? And are not illegal downloaders more common?
What a dumb as shit policy. That's almost as bad as the days they wouldn't hire anyone who smoked pot. When you fix those kinds of absolutes you start selecting for a specific personality type that's not always going to make the best agent.
It's so backwards it defies logic.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The NSA has a position for you! And the CIA, DEA, IRS, FB... oh wait, not during election season.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So if the FBI does not want people who have criminal tendencies, are they not going to have to fire their entire work force and start over? I thought one of the prime requisites of being an FBI agent was the willingness and ability to perjure yourself on the witness stand convincingly.
This is how they will keep the FBI ideologically pure in the sense that the entire agency will be on the side of the MPAA/RIAA.
Not everyone is susceptible to polygraphs. Sociopaths and con artists probably won't have much trouble with them. Just the kind of people you'd want as police officers.
whatever will i do now. i guess i'll drown my sorrows in some illegal music and books!
Well, if the selection process requires people to lie under scrutiny about mundane transgressions, the FBI will have some good liars working for them.
The new order took effect 1 October 2014 so all FBI employees hired before that date are in the clear.
Wheeew! That was a close one! Last Fiscal year FBI hired a "computer guy" from NSA to hack and download the entire Ricky Martin Catalogue from Apple iTunes!
This will be "Compromising" intel to blackmail the FBI recruiter in the next job interview; Honk Honk. :-D
Thank you for doing the right thing.
I don't like some of the things the MPAA and RIAA have done. I do like Pulp Fiction and I Like Big Butts. The song, not the butts. I want Hollywood to make more big movies with Samuel L Jackson, and I don't want to get ripped off. What to do? I think the Netflix/ Hulu / Amazon Prime model along with the Red Box model can fund big movies and also provide good value to the consumer. So my message to Hollywood is this - of you want my money, you'll have to get it by putting your movies on Netflix or Red Box. That way I get good value and you get money to use to make your next movie. I won't let you rip me off, I will work with you only when you give me good value for my money.
Fyi, it's copy right - the right to copy. Please feel free to lecture me about the history after you at least learn what it's called.
Just how much piracy goes on inside the FBI?
Polygraphs are legally inadmissible in just about every first-world country. Except, strangely, the US. Honestly, it's at least fifty-years since most places realised it was a load of hokum.
It's bollocks. The fact that the FBI even *entertain* the idea shows that they are all about the *appearance* of security to the general populace - while being laughed at by those they are supposed to be detecting. You might as well tell me that their interview process involves reading your palm - it's really that ridiculous. That you don't see this is probably even sadder.
Honestly, America... polygraphs are voodoo. Like homeopathy, spiritualists and psychics, there is ZERO evidence that it means anything, no matter what expert claims to run it or what equipment they claim to use. You cannot detect lies. Not even with MRI's and all kinds of equipment scanning your head.
Hell, we can't even control a cursor on a screen accurately when we focus all our efforts on doing so and concentrate like mad. How the fuck are we supposed to detect the inclination of an internal thought by a bloke sitting across the room looking at how clenched your arse is?
the FBI is expecting critical personnel shortages.
I fully agree, terms are ridiculous. I'd cut them dramatically if I were a veteran senator. Unfortunately, I'm a lowly programmer, and my customers mere photographers.
Ten years ago, gnutella and similar were easier than even just filling out the payment form for each purchase. Today, Amazon has a very nice, easy store with one-click purchase and most digital goods cost a dollar. It's actually EASIER to use the app store on my phone than it is to get stuff illegally. There are dozens of good stores to choose from. You mentioned tracking- Google is in the ad business, and logs the heck out of advertising- related data. Apple is in the hardware business. They don't much care about the data.
Personally, I choose to use Google products, fully understanding that they have database rows for ad viewer #8943384683783 (me). I don't care too much, partly because I understand they aren't a) tracking b) me. Their computer is logging purchase and viewing history and correlating a viewer number. They aren't interested in me as a person, just a purchase history. If that's not your thing, maybe you'll prefer Amazon, or another store.
They are only hiring confessed music/tv pirates now?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
This may be the most hillarious demonstration of slashdotters inability to read and correctly parse article summaries, ever.
The FBI is barring you from employment for lying to them. The summary mentions downloading, incidentally. Every comment here is about how the FBI shouldnt punish you for downloading.
Somewhere between the screen and the commentors, there is a lack of comprehension.
As a matter of fact, agents of both the FBI and various intelligence entities were at our offices just recently. Remember on 9/11 the guy who whispered into Bush's ear? He was just here talking about how they tried to reform the intelligence agencies to cooperate better and share information about threats. (There is a good reason the CIA wasn't allowed to share information with the FBI before, but that seemed less important just after 9/11).
Congress didn't follow the law (Constitution) when they passed laws allowing the NSA crap, and the politicians and the friends they appointed didn't follow the law. I said they like to HIRE people who follow the law, not BE people who follow the law. If you're APPOINTED to head the agency, you're probably a weasely political type. If you're HIRED as an agent or analyst, you probably learned to follow the rules closely while in the military or certain other organizations. Loose lips sink ships.
Well it was really my neighbor stealing those songs. I was only stealing his Internet connection.
My IQ is 54 points higher.... and I am Young Earth Creationist.
This is probably not the point you want to make while arguing that IQ tests are accurate....and the fact that you did make it only compounds the irony.
Never understood the polygraph requirement when entering a position where you are expected to keep tight lips about their secrets. How does it make sense to hire people eagerly willing to divulge their secrets and then expect them to keep your secrets.
If you're gonna lie, you need to be really, really good.
I applied to the CIA when I was looking at finishing grad school about 4 years back. As with the FBI, one of the things they mentioned was illegal downloading, of which I had done quite a bit while in college. I mean, we're talking hundreds of films, thousands of TV episodes, thousands of audio tracks, both foreign and domestic for all of those, from any number of decades, genres, and budget sizes.
I was upfront with them about it during a pre-screening interview held at my school's campus. I actually brought it up with them and asked if it'd be a problem. They indicated it wouldn't be, and formally invited me to fill out a proper application with them so that they could advance me through the process.
I answered truthfully regarding it on the application and any subsequent questionnaires that I had to fill out. I never got any word back regarding that specifically, but their response was to ask me to fly up to Washington D.C. for a three-day session with them, which I did.
I provided exacting details regarding my illegal downloading to the polygraph examiner at my polygraph session, as well as to anyone else who asked about it. I let them know the quantity, nature of the content, and how recently I had engaged in it. I passed the polygraph with flying colors and was told I didn't even need to come in for the second session they had scheduled since they were confident I told the truth about everything (and I had...in excruciating detail, in fact, just because I knew, being the pedant that I am, that if I left out any little detail, I really would be considering myself to be lying; as an aside, one of the other applicants I was hanging out with lied to them about the recency of his drug use and got caught in his lie).
And how did they respond to all of this? They asked me when it would be convenient to move on to the final stage of the application process (a thorough background check...which I'm confident I would have easily passed), since the folks I'd be working with were excited about bringing me onboard and wanted to keep things moving. Which is to say, the fact that I had downloaded loads of files illegally in the past clearly wasn't a problem. They let me know that it'd need to stop and that it would come up again in the every-five-years polygraph everyone working there submits to, but otherwise, they made it clear to me, both explicitly through their words and implicitly through their deeds that they really didn't have a problem with me having engaged in it at a relatively large scale in the past.
P.S. Just to state what I hope is obvious: an actual polygraph session is NOTHING like what is shown on TV (the room was well-lit, there wasn't an angry detective yelling at me, beads of sweat were not pouring from my brow, and no one was pounding on any desks). I don't want to get into a load of details, but suffice it to say, the environment was heavily controlled to eliminate external stimuli, the questions and their meanings along with the terms and their definitions were all explained in detail to me in advance, I was able to voice any misgivings I had about them to the examiner (in fact, we spent 2.5 hours of the 4 hours doing just that, since my inherent pedantry meant that I had all sorts of ideas like "well, technically I've compromised government systems when I lent a friend my password at our state university" or "I can't rule out the possibility that I unknowingly supported terrorists through a front that they're maintaining", which led to a lot of the questions getting rephrased to be prefixed by "insofar as you know" or "besides what you have disclosed here"), and the questions were all read to me over and over and over again in even, metered tones that were about as un-aggressive as you can imagine.
They do not care if you have downloaded anything legally or otherwise.
They are looking for people who can reliably pass a polygraph.
They need these people on staff in case of investigations into FBI activity.
App stores may make a big difference, by making it so easy to pay a dollar. Before, just the hassle of filling out the payment meant it was rarely worth it to sell anything online for less than $30. (There's a reason that 99.9% of paid web sites are $29.95. Lower cost doesn't increase sales due to the hassle of paying.)
After 15 years programming for the web, and millions of people using my software, including Slashdot.org, I ended up having to take that 8-5 job. An 8-5 with a government agency. Probably few people on Slashdot would say that having a computer security person end up working for a government agency is a good thing.
fucking hell, can you retards stop saying downloading is illegal? please?
Most people don't think about the fact that regardless if you pass or "fail" the polygraph, a record of the test and the "analysis" is kept in your permanent FBI file . Five years later go for any goverment job or any job that requires a security clearence or background check, and suddenly that failed test or those confindental confessions are an automatic fail. Several courts have ruled that you have no right to see or dispute the evidence the determines your background checks or security.
You took the stuff I made , without my permission. That makes you a crook.
My expectation was that people who wanted the little bit of software I didn't opened n source would pay the small price I charged for it, not rip me off.
Do you shoplift, and justify it by saying "the store owner expected me to pay for what I got from him, but times have changed"?
You're simply low life scum, simple as that. I kind of wish I had put a trojaned copy of my software on the torrents for guys like you.
I'm not doing it anymore, not programming mostly open source software for general use. I'm no longer contributing to the Linux kernel. Instead, I now work for a government agency.
After 15 years programming for the web, and millions of people using my software, including Slashdot.org, I ended up having to take that 8-5 job. An 8-5 with a government agency. Probably few people on Slashdot would say that having a computer security person end up working for a government agency is a good thing. Really, since you took wanted to use my work, you'd have been better off paying for what you took than ripping me off, turning me bitter, and having me apply me security expertise to advance the government's projects rather than projects around open source.
The thing is, Vemont, you're probably a brilliant person, but (literally) don't know the very first thing about copyright . It's the right to make copies. That's like the first sentence in the "Introduction to Copyright" pamphlet, and it"s news to you. Again, you're probably very good at what you do. Clearly, what you do is not copyright law. Arguing copyright law with you would be like arguing international monetary policy with a second grader.
Your "argument" is a good example of the expression "not even wrong". If you're not familiar with the expression you may want to Google it.
So you can honestly answer "no" to whatever dumbass question they ask you.
Considering that most FBI agents are pedophiles, who knows. But, if they were enforcing the law equally most of them would be in prison for possession of child pornography.
How many really technologically savvy people would work at the FBI given a choice between that or an honest living supporting telemarketers and used car salesmen?
If the FBI won't hire you, probably could still make it for the CIA.
The FBI's job is to keep the monied elite in power. It seems pretty obvious that they do not want to hire anyone who does not give the proper deference and respect to the elite. I mean if too many people download movies the power brokers in New York and California will start having to send their kids to a public school with the rest of the riff raff.
In other news the IRS has started to track down and prosecute USians who do not pay their taxes.
Let's just assume for a second that a polygraph actually was fairly good at detecting physiological discomfort caused by telling a lie. This is a dubious claim, but let's just take it at face value and consider the logical extension of using this policy for disqualifying candidates. This will let two very extreme personality types through: -Those who are so incredibly rigid and moral they cannot lie, not even a minor (and very human) fib about something as inconsequential as how you consume media on a computer.
-Those who are so incredibly indifferent to lying it's pathological for them.
Neither of these personalities make ideal FBI agents. They are two extremes of a spectrum of morality and they both suck. I'd much rather our federal law enforcement agencies were staffed with people who are imperfect, but capable of empathy. They feel uncomfortable with fibbing, they understand it's not good, but they're capable of small doses of it. The discomfort they experience will prevent them from escalating their actions to extreme self-righteous or evil behavior.
In other words this practice applied in this extreme will almost certainly disqualify the most emotionally/morally stable candidates.
So if you caught an FBI agent illegally downloading stuff they would be fired? Interesting...
I go listen to a copyright song on Youtube. Illegal copyright infringement? Not on my part. Not on Google's part either, as long as they comply with the take-down request when it comes in. In fact, I think it would be very hard to illegally download something (Yes I know bittorrent yadda yadda but that's not JUST downloading, is it?) So I'd view a question like that as a trick question to weed out people who don't know copyright law, or a stupid question by stupid people who don't know copyright law or anything about computers. If it's the latter, they might have an easier time hiring people who know something about copyright law and computers if they didn't ask stupid questions like that. If it's the former, well I reckon that might work pretty well.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
All future FBI agents will be blind and tone deaf.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
The results of the polygraph will not be used, they will just look at your recorded internet sessions.
The polygraph is just there as an excuse, a distraction.
And tomorrow they will ask.. have you ever masturbated. If you do they won't hire you. If you lie they won't hire you!
"During the first two phases of interviews, everything is recorded and then turned into a report. This report is then passed along to a polygraph technician to be used during the applicant's exam"
Don't worry, polygraph are pseudoscience and the tests do not work. They have never been tested under rigorous scientific double blind tests. Remember through out the cold war against the commies, the Feds didn't once catch a double-agent through the use of a lie detector. They're a kind of psychological scam, wherein at the end of the test the 'polygraph technician' gives you a fuck-stare and declares you a liar, expecting you to cope-a-plea. Never ever self incriminate to any alleged legal infractions you may have been allegedly involved in your past. The real function of recording these 'potential traits' is to get leverage against you that may be used against you later on, when you move into politics.
an Amish would make a bad FBI agent...
which, IMHO, is the point....
if i wanted to cripple an organization that fights crime, i'd put archane rules about hiring that ensures only Mormons who do what they are told always without question could get a job
nice...this way, the criminals only have to bribe the boss
everyone else will just do as they are told without question
Thank you Dave Raggett
(Left un-explored is whether polygraph testing is an effective way to catch lies.)
And here I was watching from Europe thinking that this question had been settled years ago. Nobody else in the world is taking the polygraph seriously, it's a leftover from the time shortly after WW2 when too optimistic pseudo-scientists (mostly, some scientists as well) thought very soon now technology will solve every problem of the human race.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Firing a USG employee is not easy. That's what contractors are for.
Stealing a movie or album would mean physically taking it and leaving the original owner without it.
Downloading is essentially copying; in which case it is copyright infringement - not theft.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Only scam test which want to sell you stuff makes them open ended. The reality is that the scale are relatively well defined from 50 to 150 IIRC where about 99.9% or so of the populaztion fit (3 standard deviation about). Anything beyond that is simply not defined at all. Not even with or without the qualifier "well".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
They obviously want to hire people who are too stupid to understand what the questions are asking and/or too stupid to know what is legit and what is not.
Because those skills will come handy later, when they're testifying in congress that they did not use any illegal techniques in obtaining or fabrication evidence - or when creating crime that they later solved.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This!
still using it?
"illegal downloading music, movies and books."
Since I only download TV-series, I'm still a prime candidate for them, good to know.
I understand, downloading something pirated is illegal.
So do they also disqualify any person who has also committed speeding, jaywalking, underage consumption, or parking violations (or lies about having done so)?
Those too are all "crimes", clearly?
Perhaps the ubiquity of criminality says something about our society, or maybe more about the laws we've written to circumscribe citizen behavior.
Certainly excluding every person with a trivial illegality in their history will do 2 things for the FBI:
1) seriously reduce their potential employee pool, meaning those that get the jobs will get paid more (good for them), and
2) end up staffing the FBI with people that have led inhumanly-detached lives like beauty queens and the sorts of nearly-sociopathic weenies who have been cultivating themselves for public office since 3rd grade.
-Styopa
If you think it is true, it is true!
The government seizes upon a religious doctrine because it serves its/their purposes of control. Everyone is guilty of something.
> So they should never ...
My post is descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm talking about what they do, not what they should do.
> People bend the rules all the time and usually aren't even aware they are until they're caught.
Yep, many people don't even notice when they're breaking the law. They want people who pay close attention to the rules. They think that Russian spies are after their secrets, so that attractive woman at the bar might be a Russian spy. Bending the rules by bragging about your work could risk national security, they believe.
My dad was like that - careful to do exactly right. He may have never received a speeding ticket in his life. We're pretty sure he did some work for ONI, our nation's oldest intelligence agency. The intelligence agency will use people who travel, such as celebrity entertainers and top business executives, as part-time spies. We think they did that with him because he used to meet with royal families in the middle east in his role at an oil company and when he died the navy immediately came for a box he had in the closet. He was in the navy before, and circumstances suggest he might have done work for them. We'll never know because if it was a secret, he'd keep the secret.
At one point when I was younger I wanted to work for the FBI. However, considering what they've turned into, it's fine if I can never apply for one of their positions again. They've really become something despicable.
It would appear that the only people allowed to be FBI agents are those with bizarre moral or ethical codes that bear no resemblence to anything typical or people who, for some unknown reason, have no interest in sex, fun, social relationships or curiousity. And this does somewhat agree with what current agents seem to be like. You have to wonder if an applicant would be rejected for admitting he masturbated or had impure thoughts! Or sex before marriage. In a world where several presidents and state governors have admitted to using pot (and even inhaling), being policed by a priestly class that doesn't commit sins is troubling. After all, there is a big difference between not sinning and not knowing how to sin.
There is no such thing as copyright in this country. Not until Mickey Mouse is public domain.
They reneged on their side of the bargain... there is no reason for us to honor our side.
Alright, but downloading content online is not illegal, unless it is child porn. Otherwise sharing content without permission on p2p networks is merely copyright infringement. So most people can say they never illegally downloaded something if they used a p2p network, since downloading is legal, just not the sharing. Sure we know what he means when he says it, but dealing with technicalities are suppose to be something the FBI is use to doing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've never been arrested or tried in court for it. I am not a judge and am therefore not qualified to decide whether anything I may or may not have done is illegal or not. If I'm not sure anything I've done is illegal, then I can answer this question with a "No" and not be lying.
Lists like this, including "morality clauses", are always fascinating and depressing to see. There are many activities of questionable morality, and they can only focus on so many. I suspect things like "speeding" and "sexual harassment" are not on the list for instance.
Yeah, like the FBI has NEVER done anything illegal themselves.
By only hiring the liars that are able to escape detection, aren't they effectively guaranteeing corruption throughout the agency? Isn't that effectively what this policy means?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
a lecture by Wes Cecil. And yes, it is uniquely American. The rest of the world tests on aptness, not "smartness".
I'm sure that criminals will all be quaking in their boots to find out that the only people trying to catch them are people who couldn't even figure out how to get music for free.
How about, I would never work for a law enforcement division that does not know the legal difference between stealing and copyright infringement.
I look forward to the FBI having effectively no employee pool for anyone under the age of 40. As time goes on, I hope this rolled out government wide. In a few more years, there will be no more eligible government employees.
Is that you, Ron Swanson? :)
Siily Americans! It's like your retarded Jury system: you can't get on a Jury if you've read about the case in the newspapers, or watched the TV news. In other words, they just get complete braindead morons (which works out well, btw, as those hicks can be easily manipulated). In fact, if I were the FBI, I would not hire anyone, under 50, who HASN'T downloaded music! Just to ensure I'm not hiring yet another autistic recluse, utterly estranged from the world we live in.
Stupid FBI.
Great, so now their future agents are either going to be too stupid to know how to download an MP3 or psychotic enough to pass a polygraph while lying.
I don't know about catching lies, but I know that a polygraph test is an excellent way to convince people that an honest person is lying.
I propose we give out Peer Block update subscriptions to all promising youngsters as a means of encouraging safe downloading and in this way precluding only the best liars from becoming FBI cogs.
...are exactly the kind of people that should never, under any circumstances, have any authority over the public whatsoever.
How about this: they're looking for someone who will stare back and say "Can you define exactly what constitutes an illegal download". Given that it's a civil offence, there only illegal download would be something like actual CP. Therefore the TLAs get an intake of newbies who are adept at obeying the letter of the law while skipping the spirit, which would be quite useful under the current climate.
Like you, I also wish I was entirely joking.
The FBI is limiting themselves to people who have no understanding of online behavior.
It's like hiring undercover drug snitches that have no experience with illegal substances beyond TV.
Have we finally discovered the secret to keep from being drafted - violate copyright laws?
Not that I would ever promote illegal downloading...
But this is a little bit like looking for expert medical marijuana growers who have never smoked anything in their lives.
If they want to hire cybersecurity people who also happen to be millennials, they are basically restricting themselves to hiring "white hat" home-schooled Boy-scout types who've learned everything they know from some technical school. There's nothing _necessarily_ wrong with this -- but they are SERIOUSLY shrinking the size of their talent pool to about to maybe two to three thousand people who've never done this. Out of this small pool, they will have to find the applicants who are both ridiculously qualified and interested...
and they cannot work, if you do not know, what is stress to the person and what is not. Questions like name, birth place and so on can be used to test "no stress". To test "stresses him", you need something you know its stressing. Illegal downloading is not. A questions about illegal downloading, which prevents you from getting the job will be quite stressing.
the polygraph is about as reliable as chicken bones and as trustworthy as a politician's promise. It is not used in evidence in military court, or criminal court, and has only limited value (for arbitrary definitions of "value") in civil court. I do not know why the FBI insist on using it as a compass to honesty, because the process is a scam. The only truly deceptive person throughout an entire session is the examiner.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Being in financial trouble will fail you for any security clearance. Not only does it show bad judgement, but it is a strong indication of susceptibility to bribes. While I'm sure you personally would not do that, how would they know?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Now we just need the FBI to vet all our politicians. It'd be interesting to see what our government would look like if noone lied.
The best and brightest don't work for the feds anyways. Hence the problem with them keeping up with the bad guys. They will recruit the mediocre and non thinkers who have never done anything. And as far as a polygraph, an easily beaten prop, and just as worthless.
I remember that there was a polygraph show on tv in the 80's and they said that you have to do at least a dozen tests and the average of those will only tell you if you're talking to a person who is basically dishonest or basically honest. Probably been some advances in the technology since then though.
Given the relative unreliability of polygraph tests, why would the FBI think using them is a good idea? Anyone willing to take one probably knows how to beat the exam.
Now that you want to wage cyber-war against the world, or protect against cyber-terrorism, good luck finding recruits. So instead of the best and the brightest, the NSA kow-tows to protecting the intrests of large corporations instead of the public at large. Anyone really supprised.
But yeah, I don't think the FBI is recruting top tier people anyway. You'll get the same shit-tier bean counters who learned all they knew about computers in 4 years of college, who can't remember any of it because they are disintrested in the subject matter.
A former coworker of mine sells pirated movies at the office ($5 per DVD). She says it's legal because she downloads the movies using her paid Giganews subscription, so the movies are "hers".
True story: her husband (who works in the same office) went to court to challenge a speeding ticket. He got caught driving 94mph in a 60mph zone, which puts him in the reckless driving category (max + 20mph). But he claimed that since other drivers were on average driving 75mph (says he), he would gracefully accept a fine for driving 19mph over the limit, not the higher fine for reckless driving. The "rising tide" defense...
lucm, indeed.
Does saying yes equate to admitting to a crime? Will they arrest you on spot? ... nooooooo"
"...I just wanted a job man
They is a lot more to them than an IQ test and they don't pretend to cover everything like an IQ test which is why they are useful.
Sooo if you go in as a sharpminded smart ass and just say yes and or no to everything. Litterally just that, then what?
So called lie detectors (ash show on myth busters) doesn't prove anything. They want to see if you'd crack under pressure. Did you puff pot could well be minimise the chances of some Evil Doer from having blackmail material. What if your to OLD to be in the military being as they don't have any interest for anyone over 30 even if that person is a bodybuilder and runs in marathons, or you might in a wheelchare ala Steven Hawking. If someone like that applide would they be turned down?
Have you noticed, Agent Smith, all the new recruits seem to have sticks up their asses.
All it takes is ONE puff of MJ or a downloaded torrent to completely ruin your life forever! Good job throwing away what could have been a career full of very long hours at embarrassingly low pay, you thief!!!111
"Don't screw your neighbors wife" is a social norm in most parts of 21 century USA, but it's been a punishable law in most places for most of the last 10,000 years. "Gave the law unto Moses ..." is a familiar phrase to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Even in 21st century USA, it's enforced by a court who will formally throw the offender out of town.
If you ever took this unseriously, you disrepected the FBI, in a very personal way.
Who really whats to work for these assholes anyway??
Not me!
Next they will refuse to hire you if you ever went 1mph or more over the national speed limit.
Like that study where they tried finding men who hadn't seen any porn, they wont be able to find anyone who hasn't done it.
"FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading" - Newsflash to everyone: The FBI will not hire anyone who lies about anything. This is standard for FBI and also for all government jobs where a security clearance is involved. If you lie on your application, then you won't get the job. It's as simple as that. See for yourself with an Army example here: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/ - Anyone who is caught lying during the clearance process is denied. All these FBI applicants had to do was tell the truth.
They said they weren't going to hire anybody who lied about it-- not anyone who admitted to it.
"Shit, you should have seen my MP3 collection when I was in college..." is always a truthful answer.
If previous drug use doesn't disqualify you for presidency, downloading a few albums won't either. But lying about it might.