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.)

43 of 580 comments (clear)

  1. Fewer candidates to draw from... by jsepeta · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The FBI is a federal law enforcement agency. Their mission is to enforce federal law.

    2. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      On the plus side, this will eventually make for a smaller FBI. :)

    3. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only problem is that there is no federal law against downloading. There is about copying and distributing which whoever offers it for download would definitely be doing but no law against you downloading it. All the court cases you see about it stem from the illegal distribution.

      The article says "illegal" downloading. I wonder how many applicants will answer no because they never shared anything and be disqualified because their sweep of meta data indicated otherwise? I wonder how many will admit to illegally downloading who has not according to the letter of the law? And since it is a government employer, I wonder what the constitutional implications are if they have a trove of data which was meant to catch terrorist that they use in validating your eligibility for employment.

    4. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their first mission is to protect the constitution, from all threats foreign or domestic. This includes the part of the Constitution where copyright is for "a limited time" and for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts". Maybe they should exclude from the hiring pool anyone who owns copyright for an absurd period of time, or who uses copyright or patents to prevent progress?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re: Fewer candidates to draw from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Usenet

    6. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course there is. It's a copyright violation to do so.

      Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.

      The difference between uploading and downloading is that there are no statutory damages for downloading, only actual damages for the lost sale. So they could sue you for perhaps $30, but they'd lose money on every case. Uploading is subject to statutory (legally-defined) damages, which are quite a bit larger.

      Nope. There is no provision in law about downloading or any activity close to it. If you purchase a DVD from a street merchant and it turns out to be counterfeit, you have broken no copyright law.

    7. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you use bittorrent, you are distributing while you download.

      Depends on whether you mean the client called "bittorrent", or the BitTorrent protocol.

      There's nothing in the protocol that says you "have to" upload in order to download. That's something that's built into most of the clients, on the reasoning that if nobody shares, there will be nothing to download.

      I disagree: people have shown themselves to be willing to share things regardless of any such rules.

      Further, the laws against "piracy", (which is NOT the same as downloading), were intended primarily to punish people who make bulk copies of copyrighted works and sell them for a profit. That's essentially what "copyright piracy" means. It's a legal term. And downloading doesn't qualify. Downloading isn't a "crime" at all. It's just a copyright violation. Piracy, on the other hand, is a crime.

      Some of the biggest differences are:

      [A] Almost all downloaders are doing it for personal use, not for profit. A reasonable penalty for that would be lost profits to the copyright holder (which is almost always far, far lower than the retail price), so for example copying a DVD might be a total loss of profits to the copyright holder of not more than about 50 cents. PLUS a "statutory penalty", which courts use to discourage such behavior. A rather large fine for creating a "loss of profit" of 50 cents might be 50 dollars... 100 times the actual damage.

      [B] A very big problem with that is that studies have been showing for over 15 years now that in the vast majority of cases of downloading, there never would have been a sale (or rental) in the first place. So even 50 cents "damage" to the copyright holder as in [A] is more theoretical than actual. Further, downloaders give the actual product free word-of-mouth advertising, further mitigating any "damage".

      It doesn't matter what the FBI "considers" downloading to be. THE LAW says it isn't a crime. And it sure as hell isn't "stealing". They are two very, very distinct areas of the law. When you steal from somebody, you deprive them of the use of the stolen item. When you copy a copyrighted work, you haven't deprived anyone of that work. Any "damage" is purely theoretical and must, logically, be tied to any lost profit from that particular copy.

      Statutory damages that were originally intended for bulk, profitable piracy are not appropriate for individual downloaders. At all. That whole mess was nothing but "crony capitalism" at work. And lots of people have suffered a lot, as a result.

    8. Re:Fewer candidates to draw from... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Informative

      Further, the laws against "piracy", (which is NOT the same as downloading)

      There are no laws against "piracy" per se; rather there are laws against copyright infringement, which downloading commonly is.

      were intended primarily to punish people who make bulk copies of copyrighted works and sell them for a profit.

      The statute doesn't require infringement en masse, nor does it require selling them for a profit. Perhaps you'd like to read it? It's 17 USC 501. It refers to other sections, in particular 17 USC 106, and 101.

      That's essentially what "copyright piracy" means. It's a legal term.

      No it's not. The correct legal term would be copyright infringement.

      And downloading doesn't qualify. Downloading isn't a "crime" at all. It's just a copyright violation.

      No, any copyright infringement which meets the prerequisites of 17 USC 506 is a crime. For example, if you willfully download a work in an infringing manner, and that work has a retail value of over $1,000 (easily doable with certain computer programs), that's a criminal infringement.

      And it sure as hell isn't "stealing"

      This is the first, and perhaps only thing in your post that's correct.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. Polygraph by thetagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The polygraph, along with IQ tests, are a very American forms of superstition.

    1. Re:Polygraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The polygraph, along with IQ tests, are a very American forms of superstition.

      Yeah, quite a few hipsters that got less than ideal IQs go out of their way at every opportunity to deride the single most precise intellectual measure known to man.

    2. Re:Polygraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only it was accurate too.

    3. Re:Polygraph by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's an ideal IQ? 200? 500? The scale is open ended at the top, and even a perfect score on different tests equates to a different maximum.

        Plus, I'm pretty sure that your "less than ideal" would apply to some of the most brilliant people in history (James Clerk Maxwell, estimated IQ 115 (note that people who achieved something that applied to practical discipline, such as engineering or medicine, seldom did it nearly as early as precocious musicians and novelists, and so are always estimated lower unless the estimater includes a fudge factor. Mozart gets estimated much higher than Beethoven without that, because he started at 6, not 22. The way the fudge factor is calculated is to simply set both those great musicians to an (apparently arbitrary) 165, and adjust for age of first composition based on that ratio in calculating other historic musicians scores - this makes Wagner among the very elite, and Bach only 'fair to middlin').
                Or try Charles Darwin, and Copernicus, both estimated IQ 160, (The same score, as Dolph Lungren's actual test results). President Bush (41) scored a 98 - his son Bush (43) scored 125. Steven Hawking scored "only" 160, same as the estimated score for Einstein - both are eclipsed by actor James Woods and John Sunnunu (180 actual score each)
                President Carter scored at least 10 points above any other president or presidential candidate of the 20th or early 21st centuries, and of the current crop, Hillary Clinton is 5 points lower than Carter, but still beats everybody else that has shown any interest in running this time by at least anoher 10 points.

      So I'm going to take this oportunity to deride the test - look maw, I'm a hipster!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  3. FBI has no clue by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect this will be quietly dropped in the near future when they see their supply of young recruits dwindle to nothing.

    1. Re:FBI has no clue by bughunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. It will dwindle to include only young sociopaths who can fool a lie detector.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  4. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. NSA are most egregious downloaders by 101percent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess they can't reach out to the NSA for candidates.

  6. The irony is off the charts by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:The irony is off the charts by mike449 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are looking for people who will do anything their superiors tell them to do. This particular bit is about finding people who don't do stuff the authorities declare illegal. This is all about obedience, not about "not doing illegal stuff".

  7. Re:Ok, but by sideslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    Then they won't hire you.

  8. Polygraph by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought polygraphs were most notable for giving a lot of false positives.

    That's really not such a bad characteristic for security clearances.

  9. Re:Ok, but by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So basically the FBI is only hiring people over the age of 50?

  10. yes, they people who follow the law/ rules by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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. )

    1. Re:yes, they people who follow the law/ rules by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oddly enough, they seem to ignore all the rules about constitutional limits to their powers, except perhaps for telling a lawyer so he can spin a way that it can be argued to not be breaking the law. Failing that, he'll find a way to pin it on somebody unimportant or already in hot water. And then there's just run of the mill corruption, abuse, and incompetence. They seem to select for a particular mindset far more than they select for moral superiority and genuine respect for law.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:does streaming porn count? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found one weird trick to stream every GoT episode from bing videos - search for "game of thrones". Seriously. it's so stupid how MS is so viciously focused on licenses and piracy on one hand, but on the other hand in a mad scramble to catch up to youtube will stream all manner of ripped tv shows, movies and pr0n. It's a seriously sketchy place.

  13. Re:Ok, but by alen · · Score: 5, Informative

    they will probably hire you. it's like a military security clearance. they don't like it when you lie to them, but they are OK if you admit wrongdoing.

  14. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Default on student loans? Sickening.

  15. Re:Ok, but by radtea · · Score: 5, Funny

    Over 50 and straight edged boy scout

    I'm over 50 and used to be a boy scout. I don't smoke, drink very moderately, help little old ladies across the street, recently came to the assistance of a young woman who was in a physical altercation with her boyfriend (which turned out to be her attacking him, but I didn't know that 'til I got involved) and just today used my pocket knife (which I carry because I was a boy scout) to help an elderly man deflate a beach ball he and his grandson had been playing with (by prying out the extremely stuck plug, not stabbing it.)

    And I illegally downloaded a movie last night (there were extenuating circumstances, but still...)

    So I'd say the FBI is going to be restricted to Amish who were too wasted during their rumspringa to download anything.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  16. They may still hire you by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Ok, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have just reported your admission of copyright infringement to the FBI. Enjoy federal prison.

  18. Ironic. by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  19. So they hire second grade material? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  20. Re:Ok, but by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, you misunderstand. The FBI is only hiring people who can lie on a polygraph test and not get caught...and those few who are not interested enough in music, games, or movies to bother to download them, legally or otherwise,

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  21. Re:Ok, but by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just means the FBI will only be hiring people who are good at lying about wrongdoing. Which is probably really more useful and what they want in the long run.

  22. Re:Ok, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just means the FBI will only be hiring people who are good at lying about wrongdoing. Which is probably really more useful and what they want in the long run.

    But it's not what they want. You know what the word is for "guy who can blithely lie his way through a polygraph?" It's "spy."

    Polygraphs are pseudoscientific bullshit, but the only people they weed out are the honest ones. I know you're worried about abusive/sociopathic cops, and that's one problem. But if I if I can switch to Fedspeak, for a moment - the risk isn't that the FBI's recruitment policies select for sociopaths, it's that they select for double agents. Moronic ideologue non-threats like AQ/IS and domestic terrorists like the Sovereign Citizen derpers might not make it past this screening, but they're practically begging FSB and PLA to infiltrate them. It's assinine, it's self-destructive, and it doesn't even serve the larger gains of the FBI, just of the bureaucrats who have a vested interest in the revolving door between the IC and polygraph-reliant clearance-processing industry.

  23. Re:Ok, but by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am over 50 and an Eagle Scout. I downloaded warez over a Hayes 2400 modem. Most of the Eagle Scouts I know enjoy the Good Herb. I was thinking of a good retirement career. Maybe the FBI would suit.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  24. Re: Ok, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The law of "don't talk to cops about anything".

  25. Re: Ok, but by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you tell a police officer you smoked pot last week, whaaaaaat law did you just break?

    None yet. If you're in your car, you have now given him "probable cause" to search your vehicle. In some states, if there is one seed, you're under arrest. Never talk to the police.

  26. My personal experience by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:My personal experience by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't believe Manning or Wikileaks had conducted themselves in an ethical manner in their activities related to one another

      Was this new job as a professional Tone Troll? When the state has made legal whisteblowing impossible, the only way to reveal government lawbreaking is "illegally". Manning didn't exactly have his own staff to go over documents, but WikiLeaks did, going out of their way to as the USG for help with reactions.

  27. Re:Ok, but by fibonacci8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nutmeg is a gateway spice.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  28. Re:Ok, but by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just means the FBI will only be hiring people who are good at lying about wrongdoing. Which is probably really more useful and what they want in the long run.

    But it's not what they want. You know what the word is for "guy who can blithely lie his way through a polygraph?" It's "spy."

    Polygraphs are pseudoscientific bullshit, but the only people they weed out are the honest ones. I know you're worried about abusive/sociopathic cops, and that's one problem. But if I if I can switch to Fedspeak, for a moment - the risk isn't that the FBI's recruitment policies select for sociopaths, it's that they select for double agents. Moronic ideologue non-threats like AQ/IS and domestic terrorists like the Sovereign Citizen derpers might not make it past this screening, but they're practically begging FSB and PLA to infiltrate them. It's assinine, it's self-destructive, and it doesn't even serve the larger gains of the FBI, just of the bureaucrats who have a vested interest in the revolving door between the IC and polygraph-reliant clearance-processing industry.

    Likewise, they are insuring their agents are clueless socially broken idiots who are also sanctimonious twatwaffles about it.

    Which makes them neither effective nor able to get the best and brightest. From what I have observed about the next generation of folks entering college about now, they will nave ZERO chance of hiring anybody in that age group. It'll be easy to identify the FBI undercover guy, he'll be the one with the walker and the gray hair.