FBI Investigates Open Records Request 860
GrooveMoose writes "A university student at the University of Texas
makes an open
records request for information on the underground tunnel system at the school.
A few months later the FBI and Secret Service come knocking on his door to see
if he's a terrorist. He's still under investigation by the federal government
regarding a completely open request."
A thought... (Score:5, Funny)
Secret Service ? (Score:2, Funny)
Attention (Score:2, Funny)
Sooooo (Score:0, Funny)
Re:Secret Service ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I know this guy... (Score:3, Funny)
shower cams? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to America, Land of the Free*
*Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.
Re:So WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
[answer: ~85 rpm]
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe we could drop forms and pens in the Arizona desert asking them to fill it out
Maybe we could spread Linux computer terminals powered by solar panels throught out the Southwestern Desert. They could fill out a web form. LINUX PROTECTS OUR BORDERS.
Planning a plot? (Score:5, Funny)
"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?
I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.
If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?
Dan.
Good reason to ask for tunnel maps (Score:5, Funny)
wow - what a small world (Score:2, Funny)
No WAY! *I* was investigated by the North Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force, too, back in 98 or 99. They were just curious why we were transporting a bunch of guns from El Paso to Austin in a rental car that was paid for with cash.
Ah, the fun times we had...
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Funny)
Now that you mention it, why do you, Mr. Anderson?
--
Agent Smith
Re:Legitimate reasons (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose asking about the UT basement is a good way to misdirect law enforcement if you're planning to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Funny)
Sign books about explosives out of the library. Go around calculating the heights of buildings. Do stuff that's perfectly 100% legal, but still suspicious.
Never give true reasons but plausible ones instead (Score:5, Funny)
In the chat log, he gives a reason for an investigation thus: "To satiate my curiousity." This is the wrong thing to say. If you are up to anything that is remotely dubious, never give the exact *real* reason you are doing anything. Instead, make up another reason that is plausible and legitimate and always give that reason instead. Never divulge the real reason to anyone you don't trust. If you cannot think up a plausible reason then you may need to rethink your actions.
In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.
Concealing real reasons is commonplace. The leaders of the MPAA and RIAA do this. Politicians do this. Corporate CEO's do this. And we know what fine, upstanding citizens these people are. *cough*. So if it's okay for them to do it, why can't the masses?
Re:Are you in a two party consent state? (Score:2, Funny)
[2004/05/06] [21:17] Mirell I know the guy (Mark A Miller) being described in this article. I use IRC mostly as a contact list, and have a channel for users of my unremarkable non-profit server. Mark has been a regular in my small (under 20 people) channel for months. I know this is the same guy as the Mark Miller in this article because the user in my channel talked incessantly about these freedom of information act requests, months ago.
[2004/05/06] [21:17] Mirell BAD BOY!
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Mirell sets mode: -o bl0d
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * mspencer was kicked by Mirell (mspencer)
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Joins: mspencer (spam@michael.mspencer.net)
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * ChanServ sets mode: +o mspencer
[2004/05/06] [21:17] * Mirell sets mode: +o bl0d
[2004/05/06] [21:17] _{\Zealot Mirell: Hence all the freaks around here
Re:Did the aliens forget to take their probe out? (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't you seen Matrix: Reloaded?
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Funny)
So, "May you live in interesting times." should be updated to be, "May you be a 'person of interest'."