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."
What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, let's face it... even though it's perfectly legal to file a Freedom of Information Act request, doing so for topics like this totally out of the blue is certainly suspicious activity.
One thing to point out is that the agents called and said they wanted to speak with the student, but it doesn't appear they ever arrested him. That means he could have told them that he wasn't interested in meeting with them, or he could have walked out of the room at any time. He also could have at any time brought in a lawyer.
The moral of the story is that if you ask for some creepy information, and it's not exactly clear why you asked for it, then the FBI and Secret Service are going to have some questions to ask you, and they'll open a file on it. They won't deprive you of any of your freedoms over that alone... being confronted by men with badges who are looking for you may be a scary thing, but he could have just as well told them to leave him alone and they would have had to. He agreed to meet with them, so that's that.
US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone please explain to me how in the hell that make sense.
Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically what your saying is, regardless of what you may actually plan on doing with that information, you should automatically be considered suspicious and investigated? Its like assuming that someone is guilty of being a terrorist until proven otherwise. That's bullshit.
God forbid someone actually USE the freedom of information act!
So WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its kinda usless to have a right if you are harassed every time you use it.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
America, land of the secure (formerly the land of the free).
What'd you expect... (Score:2, Insightful)
But, assuming he's not a terrorist, why did this student want to know about the underground tunnels? He clearly isn't going to get authorized access to them. So, what value was that information to him?... that's a point that the article totally neglects. Without this kid being willing to give that explanation, no wonder he's being presumed a terrorist.
If he's got a perfectly legit reason to want to know, then he should tell us. Otherwise, I don't mind him being given extra attention every time he walks by airport security. He should have known that'd happen for making such a request without a clear reason for doing so.
Creepy (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't tinfoil hat stuff folks, this is for real.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:0, Insightful)
Tinfoil hat time (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it.
You know I'm right.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are innocent until proven guilty. There's only one way to prove stuff; investigation. God forbid we declare everyone permanently innocent and unfair to even think they might be guilty. The Catholic Church got it with the Devil's Advocate; he attempts to find any negative information about a beatified person on track to sainthood. That's not BS, that's common sense: humans will be human.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting the proper thing to do is to wait until something bad happens? Or to investigate completely in secret so as not to hurt the feelings of the principal person involved?
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that they perhaps figure that it is better to be prudent and be careful, rather than let be swept under the Freedom of Information act.
He was just interrogated - if his freedom were taken away, or if he was warned or if something along those lines had happened, I can understand your reaction.
However, he was interrogated because the law enforcement is being careful (and maybe justifiably so), or maybe they are acting on the basis of some kind of information that we do not know about (who knows, they may have received threats or information of such a possibility) and over-reacted because of that.
The truth is, we will never know. I'm not saying that what they did was right, but it was not wrong either. Its just being cautious, and I do not see anything wrong in law enforcement being careful.
Re:So WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
I tend to agree that the US seems to be becoming more and more USless every day. Somewhere, your founding fathers are saying "WTF?" (paraphrased).
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
They didn't arrest him, they didn't throw him in jail. They just questioned him... that's what they do when they have a suspect but not enough evidence. He didn't give up any info that let them go forward, but he also didn't convince them that he was on the up and up. Therefore, the FBI and Secret Service don't know if he's a terrorist or not... so all they can do is keep a file.
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Its almost impossible to enforce complete border regulation, and making it strict only flies in the face of the US policy of being open to immigrants.
Most of the real threats come from people who have entered US through legal means, or are already inside the US. And the reason they questioned this guy is not because he sought some information, its the kind of information that he sought - they merely thought that kind of information could be used for other purposes, and were careful.
Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:4, Insightful)
the article specifically says that the tunnel network was made secret as a result of 9/11 (along with the surveilance system), so obviously if someone asks for that information it is going to be investigated.
seems fair enough.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, in the post-9/11 world, it has become a lot harder to draw the line between security and the free flow of information, but I believe the policy should still basically be one where the government must show why you *don't* need (non-classified, obviously) information, as opposed to you showing why you should be allowed to have it.
This isn't everytime. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an abnormal request - a student doesn't have an obvious need for information about the tunnels at his school. If you went and bought 10x the amount of ammonia-based fertilizer that anyone would need, they'd investigate that too. Not because owning a lot of fertilizer is illegal, but because purchasing that amount of fertilizer is a decent sign that you may be about to do something illegal.
I'd much rather have the FBI taking the time to ask some intelligent questions when confronted with suspicious activity than letting universities be blown up.
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I read a little too much of Infiltration [infiltration.org], but I am really interested in underground tunnel systems, abandoned subway lines, etc. If there were any in my area, I would be checking them out too.
If he's got a perfectly legit reason to want to know, then he should tell us.
Papers please, citizen.
So what you are saying is (Score:5, Insightful)
That's gonna work real well!
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
He does have perfectly legit reason and he's told them (as stated in the article): he was curious about the underground tunnel network, and wanted to know its dimensions.
And, how exactly should he have "known that'd happen for making such a request without a clear reason for doing so."? What next? Someone being investigated for looking up the whitehouse on a map "without a clear reason for doing so"? Why should anyone who doesn't work there, or is planning to visit, look it up on a map? He was simply curious, and made a legitimate request for the information, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:3, Insightful)
you probably arent a geek or a hacker then... By all means, the security services should investigate this... indeed any act that could have a nefarious purpose... but you should NEVER be aware the security services are investigating you until there are sufficient grounds to act.
For all you know, he is a cave clan member or just seeks knowledge for knowledge's sake... but to be subjected to a visible investigation due to a request for information is Draconian at best and definately Fascist; Im just glad Im not an American!
err!
jak.
I want in those tunnels too. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same place where the suits did everything they could to keep the FOIA and other legal mechanisms from revealing information about the post-9/11 surveillance system. UT even went after our state attorney general over this. [dailytexanonline.com] A friend of mine said it best: "Never sue someone when they have a law school."
The whole reference to UTWatch [utwatch.org] in the article creeped me out. UTWatch is a student-run organization which follows up on what the regents and other suits do. Like Ralph Nader in the 70s, its a mere watchdog organization checking if proposed policies will adversely affect the student body at large. Recently they have been very vocal speaking out concerning tuitition deregulation and the involvement of UT managing the Los Alamos laboratories. Not simply fact checkers, UTWatch does get [dailytexanonline.com] involved [dailytexanonline.com] when it smells something fishy.
I applaud what Mark Miller did. There is all sorts of cool things under the ground here at UT. Under ENS and RLM you can find a retired tokamak! More than just he are interested in whats buried. Simply put, what UT did (assuming it did something to spur this) simply lacked honor [utexas.edu].
Paranoia causes stupidity (Score:1, Insightful)
Up here in Canada we were apologizing to the Japanese-Canadians who were interned during World War two. We said that such a thing should never happen again. One month later, the Japanese were forgotten and we were threatening to treat arab looking people the same way. Sigh
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
And a suspect until proven innocent.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Twilight1
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest that we, as a country, conduct ourselves in such a manner that not everyone wants to see us dead. While that won't stop the truly crazy people, it is not crazy people who are causing the feds to see monsters under their beds.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the underground tunnels are that critical, or a weak point in the infrastructure and hold the potential to facillitate a disaster, they need to be protected, not just hidden away. Keeping that information from someone looking to cause harm will not help anything.
I hate this attitude... you can investigate people right up the asshole with a flashlight everytime someone makes a "funny" request, but if the problem is that you're not protecting the goddamn thing in the first place, then you're not going to stop anyone. You can't just investigate everyone who comes into the bank and leave the vault wide open and expect to not have a problem.
Here's a thought for you: what if this guy was just a decoy to see if they could get the information, and now the mysterious, miscellaneous "evildoers" are just going to jump the fence with dynamite in their backpacks? What good would the FBI sticking it's nose into FOIA requests do then?
As usual, the people in charge are just covering up the fact that they're ignoring the real problems by pretending to protect us through this sort of bullshit...
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
The US goverment is tasked with the job of guarding our borders. We are currently using a much higher level of tech on guarding the borders of Iraq and Afg. then we are using to guard our own borders.
I would think that someone crossing our borders with a man portable missile is a much greater potential risk than a college student asking about some tunnels.
Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
The day after the Columbine tragedy. I was asked by some teachers to pull a map of the school hallways and classrooms off of the web. I told them I'd do that if administration asked me to, but I wasn't going to do that on my own. See, the perpetrators of the Columbine tragedy already knew their way around the building, they were both students. If it was our school, they would have been handed the maps as part of the book on day one. The teachers took that explanation, and never did elevate the issue to the administration.
However, our administration did hire a new secretary to sit just inside of the main enterance to check student IDs and issue guest passes for all vistors. I nicknamed that woman the "Columbine Canary" because as long as she was alive, we could be assured a Columbine-style attack was not in progress. She would have been powerless to stop students with guns... only friendly people would bother to register for a guest pass, insane shooters wouldn't.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
That sounds like a good idea, but where will we get that many burkhas to cover all our women? And remember, we gave them a lot of rights that would be hard to take away.
Anything less wouldn't please the noisiest and most destructive wing of the 'terrorists' (okay, we can call them 'freedom fighters' and gloss over the burkha issue...)
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I don't believe that was the entire line of questioning, but I think people in positions of such power need to be very careful about how they conduct their business. My bet is that as law enforcement professionalism increases, the general population's image of cops at the donut shop decreses, and this, I think, can only be a good thing.
Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "underground tunnels" with anything else, and you realize exactly how inane this question is.
The point is you shouldn't be investigated just because you want some information. You don't see FBI questioning bio majors or chem majors at colleges, do you? (Not happening yet but if this terorism BS keeps up then maybe they'll imprison them).
There's no good information or bad information. There's just information. The problems arise when you start introducing people.
If I want to learn about something or want to know something, it's nobody's god damn business other than my own. You don't tell the government when you learn a new programming language, even though you could write viruses in it. You don't tell the government where you're going when you buy a car, even though you could use it to smuggle explosives.
Your stand-point on this issues is chilling to say the least. Do you actually want to provide a reason to big brother everytime you want some information? Do you want to file a report everytime you search the web for fertilizer?
~X~
"Clues on eBay! Starting bid is $.01!"
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is Mark Miller just out for publicity (Score:2, Insightful)
1
Ask for Information, get information, go public about how easy it was and how FBI etc.. are slipping
2
Ask for information, get questioned, go public about how fascist the FBI etc.. are acting
3
Ask for information, get denied, go public with FOI being overturned by FBI etc...
This is not news, it's a public troll.....
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter which side of the argument you support; this much can be agreed upon: public information is less free now than it was.
Re:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:1, Insightful)
You're kidding right? Big big money in this country supports illegal immigration, and the government goes right along with it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed! The constitution does not guarantee you the right to not have your feelings hurt.
He agreed to meet with them, he has not been arrested or lost any of his rights.
If you want information that could be used in an extremely bad way, be prepared to be harrassed about getting that information. If he is in fact a terrorist and blew up a bunch of people, I am sure many of the same people who are all up in arms about the investigation would be pissed at the FBI . I mean shit, he made the request for the information IN THE OPEN!
With these asshat's, you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't...
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:2, Insightful)
What if denied the "right" to fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are innocent until proven guilty
With the Patriot Act, this isn't so much true any longer. It depends on whether the FBI was investigating under normal laws or under Patriot Act laws. Consider that the Patriot Act allows our government to hold people without charging them, without admitting they are holding them, and without warrant. This is why people worry about kinds of things like this story.
All that said, it's reasonable for the FBI to investigate certain kinds of FOIA requests, and this one seems reasonable to at least quickly investigate. If someone bought a couple tons of the kinds of fertilizer that can be used to make weapons, the FBI should at least quickly look into that as well.
This doensn't mean the student did anything wrong, nor that the FOIA request should be ignored.
(And I'm not saying you said any of that! I'm just using your post as a jumping off point.)
Re:I know this guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, let's all slashdot the person directly! That's so much better than some inanimate server.
As if being under investigation by Big Brother wasn't bad enough... I'd be pretty pissed at you if I were this fellow.
Re:slightly off-topic but indirectly related (Score:5, Insightful)
perhaps I should keep this to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring back McCarthy! In so many ways I feel like the Govt is acting like a cornered badger, and I am honestly not sure who is more scared, us or Govt.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on, I bet in the next breath you shout about how 9/11 could've been prevented. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
There would be no excuse NOT to follow up on request like this, or information regarding the structure of any public buildings, power plants, infrastructure, or nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological agents, bombs, etc.
What would you say if McVeigh made a similar request that was ignored by officials prior to blowing up the federal building? Take off the tinfoil hat and step outside your box.
Sounds like coersion (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that without another cause, this would constitute coersion in order to deny access to information which is otherwise not secret. Even if they "approve" the request, there is a chilling effect on other requests. Probably the intent.
Consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a terrorist organization and you are wanting to research potential targets for an attack it would stand to reason that, especially in these times, you wouldn't use someone with even a hint of a criminal record or known ties to a terrorist organization. You're going to plant people who are your "upstanding citizens" that can operate under the radar.
Really, when you think about it, college students are excellent recruits. They need money, they tend to be idealists, they tend to be socially liberal, and they tend to be blank slates politically. With all this going for them, they should be at the top of the list as far as "potential terrorists".
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay maybe the request was slightly suspicous, but really any response other than asking him to explain his purpose for the request (i.e. "Why did you need this info? Due to the post 9/11 security situation we have to ask." Then deny the request.
Fine but at least according to the article (I know, aJust my $0.02
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
No?!?!?
I suggest you lift your head out of the sand and see that terrorists have been attacking other countries for a LONG time...not just the USA.
There is plenty of incidences where they attack even members of their own religion (not just talking about so called Islamic fundamentalists)
Australia is a target even before the Iraq war (Bali Bombing)
There is an issue of generic hatred
There will always be people that hate other countries simply because that country does better then them. This has some foundations to it in that all countries normally do what is in their best intrests. Are you ready to give up most of your personal wealth so that those disadvantaged in central Africa are going to live a better life? Do you give 50% or more of your earnings to charity so that others can be as fortunate as you? Do you work for the peace corps? If not then don't be a hypocrit. It isn't the US government alone causing some countries to hate us. It is us in the US wanting a lifestyle we have become used to that our government tries to protect and promote that causes this and we are far from the only country that does it.
What's unusual? (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon, asking for his student affiliations? Why he wears long hair?
This is a case of bureaucratic stupidity.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Investigating a "suspicious" request is one thing, and in that the FBI did nothing, however to then deny the request, after having investigated and found no foul-play or cause for alarm, is the dangerous part.
Re:Consider... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not likely. They were devout Muslims and consumption of alcohol on Earth is forbidden by Islam, though I think its allowed after death in paradise along with a lot of other things Islam forbids on Earth. Maybe the strayed from the path, I gather a couple of them splurged in a strip club during their last days.
A devout follower of Islam leads a pretty Spartan life and I imagine it helps to make them formidable foes.
This isn't so difficult... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this bogus maxim comes up so frequently. The student made an extremely abnormal request. Was he within his legal right to do so? Of course he was. Did he have a reason, other than to get some hidden info? Nope.
We know this *after the fact*. *After the fact* security is the only type there is: if you're already dead from someone on a murderous rampage (see paragraph one), your forfeitsure of liberty does no good whatsoever. That's why we've got folks like the police, who make sure that these sorts of things can't happen.
I saw Viet Dinh speak at Tufts University (author of the Patriot Act, in case you were wondering), and the ACLU person who was suppposed to be speaking Against him openly said (quote): "Mr. Dinh, I hereby declare you an honorary Civil Libertarian".
While you may have the right to much information, there is a good deal of informaiton that should be protected for the sake of protecting other people. This is a case where the information was given and the motive was questioned. I have difficulty believing anyone finds anything wrong with that.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
A mere investigation is not, can not, and never will be a violation of anyone's rights. So long as the officers have a reasonable lead and aren't simply randomly investigating people, there is NOTHING wrong with it.
If I went out and bought a gun tomorrow in cash, or happened to fit the description of someone who committed a crime, or just happened to walk into a falaffel house when the FBI thinks a terrorist cell is meeting, I would be investigated. I might even be haulted down to the federal building and yelled at.
Investigations happen. Forget death or taxes--the only constant in life is that people will judge you, and when you do suspicious things they'll suspect you of doing something wicked.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
you are right, innocent untill proven guilty. i'll give you that.
"There's only one way to prove stuff; investigation."
i would have no problem with that, IF THEY WERE INVESTIGATING AN ACTIVE CASE. Tell me, what are they investigating? investigating if you're a terrorist because you want to know information? there should not even BE investigations into someone for matters like this unless there is probable cause that they are linked with organizations of terrorists. Otherwise we are ALL potentially suspects.
Perhaps in 10 years, we'll have automated systems look up our financial background (for terrorist links) because we bought a 5 lb bang of fertilizer for our lawns (and we all know terrorists use fertilizer to make bombs!)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what you are saying is (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me cold, but we're dealing with two very hypothetical extremes. In one corner, we have a society where so-called martyrs are running around blowing up buildings. In the other corner, we live in an Orwellian police state where even the right to wear a tinfoil hat has been abolished.
You might argue that terrorism has already begun to happen. So has the suspension of civil liberties (both directly affecting our lives equally), and to a much greater extent.
In the middle, you have a goverment that isn't quite so naive, and makes an effort to prevent terrorism before it happens, whilst maintaining civil liberties.
The question is, how Orwellian are we willing to get? At what point do we decide to draw the line and say "we know that there is a certain risk involved with everyday life, and although we could take further measures to increase our security, we do not feel those measures are justified, and we'll live with the off chance that something horrible might happen.?"
I personally think that calling people in for open questioning (meaning, the questioning is filmed and released under the FOIA) based on purchases is fine. When the feds throw you in a dark room, interrogate you, pretend you have an accuser which you are not allowed to face, and hold you until they get a confession, things have gotten too far for me.
That's why I think the Patriot Act was a bad thing. Please don't pretend that crazy neighbors concocting fertilizer bombs is as much of an issue as abolishing liberty.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you don't understand the questions doesn't mean they were not intelligent questions.
They asked if he was part of student activist organizations, why he had long hair, etc. You assume these are dumb. I think they're pretty smart - if the guy says he's a big student activist that's part of these organizations that have a beef with the way the University does things, well, then you know why he wanted the information, that it has nothing to do with terrorism, and you can move on.
Student activists asking for wierd information makes sense, and the goal of the investigation here would be to determine whether the request for odd information had a reasonable explanation other than terrorism.
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:1, Insightful)
(None of them ever consider that the Almighty's shield was lowered because of the 2000 *cough* election).
Nothing like having the anti-christ running the Justice department.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Insightful)
a student doesn't have an obvious need for information about the tunnels at his school.
And suddenly if you don't have a "need" for information then you're suspected of being a terrorist? Good god man, students being interesting in the tunnel systems underneath Universities is as old as the tunnel systems themselves. Your argument then diverges into a massive straw man argument about fertilizer and blowing up the school.
A simple OPEN request for information about what countless people are interested in (secret tunnel systems) is completely different than ordering massive amounts of amonium nitrate when you're not a farmer. The former has obvious other reasons why someone would be doing it, the latter has very few justifications.
Re:Sounds like coersion (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about fucking with your civil rights not protecting you from terrorists.
just look back to J. Edgar Hoover and the Nixon era for examples of how the FBI works.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is not that someone can hide there, rather that the tunnels are part of the campus infrastructure one can damage, for example there are gas pipes that runs through them, or, heaven forbid, the fibers that carries all the data. Terrorists can probably incite a riot by cutting the p*rn supply to the campus :-)
Re:Consider... (Score:2, Insightful)
What does being socially liberal have to do with being a good target for recruitment into a terrorist cell? Just curious because terrorism is actually driven in part by a hatred towards America's liberal image put forth by Hollywood and thusly exported to the corners of the Earth. Not to mention the whole foreign policy thing. Remember that many of the terrorists we're fighting these days are religious fundamentalists, who just so happen to have ideals which many people would consider conservative, especially when it comes to social issues.
If I went off the handle here about what you said feel free to let me know. ;)
Re:Sounds like coersion (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if they actually did start going after and meting out harsh penalties for this kind of theft (the "small" stuff), a lot of other problems would fix themselves.
I'm thinking more specifically about credit card and identity theft. I suspect that alot of the small time stuff is done in an organized manner, and that following up on some of those "small potatoes" thefts would pay off.
Probably not a popular view around here, but I think that identity theft should be a capital offense. So should wire fraud.
For whom do you think they work? (Score:2, Insightful)
they: "we're the fuzz, come to interrogate ya'"
he: "fckoff"
they: "we think you're a terrorist, why ya' askin' questions?"
he: "'cause i'm gonna do bad stuff!"
If they were really looking at this guy, don't you think they'd be somewhat more more careful about tipping their hand. It's about the unsaid public statement that we will look at you if you ask questions.
--Insert obligatory "In Soviet Russia" line here--
Re:Sounds like coersion (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to make 911 seem insignificant here by any means, but think about this: The thousands that died in the attacks were only a tiny percentage of the US population, but the threat to our leaders stability was enormous.
So no, the FBI could care less about your money that was stolen (Even though you could be quite impoverished and needed that money to eat that week), but threaten their system, and they bring out the big guns.
Just giving some food for thought.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with 9-11 was communication (Score:5, Insightful)
I want my rights back. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem there is that we no longer have any real rights. Now, before you dismiss me for taking some kind of extremist view, think of it this way:
The governemt currently can, at its option, declare you an "enemy combatant", with no due process or judicial review. Then they can detain these "enemy combatants" indefinitely. Hence, if he told them to bugger off when they questioned him, they may see that as being suspicious, and decide he'd make a good Enemy Combatant.
Rights that can be arbitrarily taken away at any time aren't rights at all. They're an illusion. What it boils down to is that you have a right to due process, except when the government says you don't.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. If information is so bad that it is likely to be used only by a terrorist, then it should (and is) subject to various secrecy provisions. At some point, however, information is just information and without any surrounding circumstances or evidence to make a request suspicious, there is no reason to investigate it.
Furthermore, as a number of people have pointed out already, it has a chilling effect on the use of Freedom of Information laws if you have the G-men knocking on your door every time you make a request. I would have thought that the recent photos coming out of Iraq would give you some idea of why the intelligence/federal law enforcement-type agencies aren't exactly trustworthy.
Also, I feel some people aroud here would do well to read up a little about Senator McCarthy and his un-American Activities hearings. You don't have to actually *do* anything to have your life ruined in the land of opportunity...
you'll be looked at (Score:2, Insightful)
Dumb question but I'm gonna ask it anyway, I mean, you KNEW you were gonna rattle cages with that request, correct? I don't care one way or the other, why you asked is your business, I don't get a sense from what you have written or are quoted on you were doing more than being curious,perhaps pushing the envelope a tad, but surely you must have thought of the ramifications of it beforehand? Either way, now you know for sure you are dealing with a paranoid government who hires paranoids, and I mean both delusions of grandeur and persecution types. The more you find out about power politics, the more you will find out there are no rules, no limits, no one plays fair, lies are more common than truths, and they are usually always mixed together anyway, and there's no such thing as the constitution or born-with rights. None. Zee-ro. That went buh bye decades ago, but now they are *serious* about it.
Anyway, interesting story,welcome to the being on the lists club, Good Luck, have a good time in yurrpe if you get there!
Did the aliens forget to take their probe out? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would only take ONE agent a few minutes to make the calls to find out the information they needed (police record, major, classes taken, etc). That one agent could then move on to other, more important activities.
Instead, there are TWO agents talking to this kid.
There are TWO agents wasting their time.
This is fine if there are an unlimited number of agents. But there aren't. Therefore, the agents need to spend their time in the wisest fashion.
Travelling to that kid's dorm, waiting for him to show up and then talking to him does NOT sound like the best usage of their time to me.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
honestly, i have not followed what the bush administration did (or didnt do) prior to 9.11 to make an informed opinion.
what i do know is that much of the police-state-like policy that was REACTIVELY put into effect following 9.11 is incredibly unnerving.
Loss of our liberties at the cost of an illusion of increased safety is crazy. especially over a mere few thousand deaths. Many times more people die every year to drunk drivers in the us. Should the feds start questioning someone who comes in and buys a couple bottles of liquor? or perhaps only the people who buy 40 proof or higher? How do you differentiate from someone who will drive while intoxicated, versus someone who will not--perhaps the slobby unkept ones? we better question them at least, just in case one of them kills a family on their way home from church. After all, wyoul you rather we question them, or wait to question them after a family is dead!!!
i suppose when the day comes around that computers can be used for reliable voice recognition--perhaps we should let the feds wiretap everyone, and screen and then interview people based on combinations of worse used in conversations, or their accents? Hell, if we investigate everyone as it will potentially prevent a disaster.
fools.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's put this in terms geeks should be able to understand: If you own a decompiler and similar tools, you are obviously planning to hack something and should immediately be investigated!
"But decompiling a building is different, because it's out in meatspace!"
What, it's "different" because hacking doesn't kill people? it could if the target is a hospital's network.
Haven't we slashdotters already decided that there is no reason why something should be *more* criminal because it's a "cybercrime"?? Well, the reverse also applies -- something isn't MORE criminal because it happens in meatspace, either.
Geez, the level of unthinking hypocrisy around here...
Re:If I were king... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would use licensing systems not to enslave people. but to give the illusion of service. After all, if I have granted them a license to do task X, then I must restrict others who aren't as good at it. Licensing would thusly be a form of reimbursed flattery.
Taxation would not be considered theft, but rather a gift. Payment due for tasks rendered. I would make sure that the more desirable, less expensive of these tasks -- such as publically supported welfare and unemployment -- were quite visible and subject to open debate. That way, nobody would much notice the size of defense budget. Money would be backed by the only thing that HAS any value in a world of industrialization and uneven distribution of material goods: it would be based on energy, coal and oil mostly.
Education systems would be very good, but optional, with plenty of choices for those without education. Since the majority will take the easiest route, there will be less cause for complaint.
As for the propaganda...well, people willingly giving up their income for high profile services such as decent public education they don't use and freedoms they don't exercise will no doubt perform their own propaganda. I would hasten the process by subsidizing the cost of vinyl stickers for trucks that read "these colors don't run," feature crying eagles or Calvin urinating on an A-rab.
Remember: people who believe your bullshit will belive their OWN bullshit even more.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are lives too (lots of which were innocent).
Underground Railroad (Score:2, Insightful)
It is well known that tunnels from these times exist beneath our roads, lawns and buildings and it would be quite interesting to find out where they are - Not to go explore or to plan a route of attack, but out of pure curiosity.
I see a need for caution on the part of the authorities, but this is, indeed, overkill.
__________________________
Oh yeah, and there is a local myth(?) that there is still some whiskey down there somewhere.
What I wouldn't give for a shot of Al Capone's finest 80 year old blend.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
J. Edgar Hoover would be proud (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I dislike Kerry and the modern Democratic party, if this is the kind of crap we can expect from the Republicans, I can't see how I can vote for them in good conscience. Expect me to vote for a 3rd party candidate in November. What is the world coming to when a brain-dead jesus-freak holy roller and a neo-bolshevik nimrod communist are our choices for who is going to lead this country?
What I found especially disturbing is the fact that they thought his hair was somehow significant. The level of ignorance that displays is really sickening. This isn't the summer of love, lots of guys have long hair and it's no more a political statement than the color of someone's shoes. I used to have hair down to my ass, and I'm a southern boy and a card carrying member of the NRA, hardly an "activist" who is going to blow up something. Well...nothing bigger than a coke bottle anyway.
In a way I almost wish I'd been the one they were picking on just so I'd have the opportunity to tell them to kiss my ass.
Am I the only one who feels we have more to fear from the abusive power of unchecked law enforcement than we ever will from terrorism?
I'd much prefer to limit my concern to those criminals who DON'T have the power of the state backing them up. It's stuff like this that makes me write checks to the NRA and pray it's enough to make a difference. There are times when I'm tempted to send money to the ACLU as well. Its the leftist propaganda that seems to be their driving philosophy that stops me, but if Ashcroft's goons aren't told to sit down and shut up I might just not care anymore and send them money anyway!
Lee
Why isn't this modded up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
A more relevant example is if you kill my brother, and then I kill your cousin. I leave the analogous comparison to your examples as an exercise to the reader.
hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, there's a middle ground between isolationism and invading third world countries for oil. Just a little.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Insightful)
As I said before I have no problem with them saying, that due to the post 9/11 security situation they would appreciate a brief explanation of why he wants the details. But unless he was obnoxious to the Agents there is no reason any American Citizen should have to be interrogated as to his associations.
Hmm and we all know that long hair is an automatic sign of a subversive activist.Further the only acceptable reason for asking such questions is if they are doing a brief background check prior to releasing the info to him. Somehow I doubt that is the case.
In my opinion: The fact that people are willing to defend such tactics simply because they hear the word Terrorism, means that Osama and his cronies are winning the battle.
I am not happy with giving up any freedom for the illusionary Security people think we are getting in return.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
While every loss is to mourn, he's perfectly right: What terrorists did in the USA, Spain, Turkey and elsewhere in the world is ridiculous compared to the number of deaths in (for example) car accidents. Please also note that such accidents are probably way more easy to prevent than terrorist strikes.
Wanting to prevent terrorists from obtaining means to do more serious damage (nuclear/biological weapons) is of course reasonable. (The war in Iraq is IMO doing the exact opposite of that, but that's not the topic of this discussion.)
Re:Why isn't this modded up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who beat thier swords into plowshares will plow for those who dont...
Wake up and realize that you can be nice and understanding and want to get along as much as you possibly can, and people will STILL want to use force to take away things from you.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Funny? Funny?? Who in their right mind would mod this as funny? F--k you. And not because I disagree, but because my life quite literally depends on it.
"... reduce the benefit of investigations..."
Believe me, I do take privacy seriously, but this person is promoting intentionally and actively hampering the ability of the FBI to find terrorists. You are actually saying that we should all work ACTIVELY to help those with ill intent get away with their VERY deadly deeds.
How can you possibly defend such a position? How can the moderator possibly defend a "Funny" rating?? This not funny; this my mortality you're joking about.
I am a liberal, and I can't stand Bush, but I can't possibly fathom your stance, (poster or moderator,) which I feel actively encourages terrorism.
Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not much really, but as a guy with long hair (usually longer than my female friends) I'm not surprised when I'm asked if I'm ever going to cut mine. I mean, it's not that common a style for a guy anymore, and I think it tends to connote a lack of societal involvement to not give a shit about what others think of one's appearance. But that's partly why I like it, because fuck what people think. (well, except chicks, chicks really dig my hair) Maybe that attitude makes me a dangerous loose cannon. Maybe it doesn't. I'm still innocent until proven guilty, and that's good enough for me. Civilization has to have mechanisms that drive it, which means a certain amount of order and conformity. Those of us that like to buck the system to make a point may be completely innocent of real subversion, yet I still think it's worthwhile to take a second look when confronted with a potentially unstable element like myself. As an example, I occasionally get tipped with small amounts of pot by customers that are total strangers to me. It didn't come up in conversation or anything, but as I'm leaving the house, they may put a bud in my hand and say, 'I have the feeling you might like to have this.' I guess I look like a hippie or something. I'm well-groomed, wear clean clothes, but that long hair is just such a giveaway, heh...
Beating around the Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
So is anyone watching Mister G. W. Bush and making sure he is ruling the US truthfully?
You would think subversion, lieing and starting groundless wars based on false intelligence was some sort of offence?
Last I heard, there were some kind of commitee set up to do some sort of investigation, but I really haven't heard anything more.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the computer world, we speak of security policies in the form of how is one authenticated and what authorizations they have. If this tunneling system is a direct route to something so sensitive and so crucial as the water we use everyday, I definitely want Joe Schmoe being questioned by authorities about his interest in it. Only a select few of authorized people should EVER have access to something like that. I'm no expert on these types of things by an stretch of the imagination, but I would imagine one of the quickest ways to spread some sort of biological weapon or perform a "terrorist attack" would be to pollute the water. I'm not convicting the student of anything and in all likelihood he wanted to know these things out of curiousity, but it pays to be paranoid in such a case as this.
And don't get me wrong, I'm allow about having information open to the public about a great many things, but in this instance I could definitely make a case for it not being open.
My 2cents.
Re:Consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
It just sounds too stupid.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
I watched George Bush's statement to the Arab world and it didn't include any apologies so far as I heard, he said it was abhorrent, un-american etc but not "Sorry".
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
That being the case although the terrorists can be blamed for their act of terrorism they can't be blamed for most of the actions of the US Government afterwards since in the main they have very little to do with countering terrorism.
FBI: customer relations (Score:2, Insightful)
"In regards to your recent request for information:
Dear sir, Due to recent events it is now routine that persons requesting certain record types are given a short security interview."
instead of
"Get your fucking ass down here you terrorist traitor you should thank god we dont send you to concentration camp X-ray right now!"
Who Decides? Re:This isn't everytime. (Score:2, Insightful)
The conflict with Freedom is highlighted by the question arising from your comment, "Who decides what is 'Normal' and 'Obvious'"?
The catagorization of things into "Normal" or "Obvious" has traditionally been the responsibility of an empanelled Grand Jury. Who determine if the facts of an alleged criminal case require prosecution.
With all the recent (unConstitutional Back Door) Legislation that's gone on recently, the duty of a bunch of your peers is being delegated (unlawfully, btw) to a bunch of Law Enforcement Officers. (and also outsourced to a bunch of Unsworn companies without the same responsibilities and duties of sworn folk, but that's Another Problem.)
Now, in a Free Country, you don't need to justify your actions, or worry about being investigated by the Bundespolizei without committing a crime. That's what Freedom is! We shouldn't be playing such games as "Guess the Intent". Investigations happen AFTER Crimes Occur.
It's crazy to even think about replying "How about an interest in Civil Engineering, or Architecture, or Industrial Design, or maybe he's just a dork who likes looking at Infrastructure?"
I've identified the issue really to be a conflict b/t two groups.
a) Scared People, who believe The Government Can Save Them.
and
b) Confident People, who watch out for Them and Theirs.
No one said there weren't fatal risks associated with living. You may get into a fatal car crash, a fatal fall, or the proverbial "get hit by a bus".
Seems to me, that those saying "We need to DO SOMETHING" should go buy a gun, and be ready to take down a Terrorist, should they need to.
And I'm getting really tired of paying for your Securfare. (as in Welfare)...
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
+4 Interesting? what are people actually buying this bull shit?
Al Qaida aren't fucking script kiddies. They're not doing this for the "thrill" of it. They want to destory Western Culture because it directly conflicts with their radical views Islam.
None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads
That's exactly what they felt! it's why they want to destory western culture, which the U.S is the forefront of. Western culture is in direct conflict with their core beliefs! Almost Everything that defines Western Culture is the anti-thesis of their ideology. From Sex to Freedom of Choices such as Abortion and Religon.
The guys that flew the plane aren't some 'kiddies' who decided to take a plane and fly it into a building for the 'sheer challenge of defeating America'. They are fucking radicals who believe the U.S is the devil incarnate and they believed they were serving Allah in destroying the devil! Everytime a Macdonalds opens up in the middle east Qaida gets new recruits, not because it's 'fucking cool to blow up stuff'. It's because they believe America is corrupting their society and infecting their people, who they believe are suppose to be following the Koran word for word. Because fundamentalist nuts are like that.
Why am i even bothering to explain why Al Qaida do what they do? Do i really need to explain the motivation behind Al Qaida? i guess so cause apparently now they are likened to 'script kiddies'...wtf...
They hate us. Do you understand that concept? they want us destroyed. Not for fun, not cause it's a challenge. They want us gone because our beliefs don't fit with theirs and in fact conflicts with theirs! and they don't want our beliefs and way of life "infecting" their society.
I mean the church and kings only did the same fucking thing for hundreds of years throughout Europe, That is trying to destroy those that would conflict with their beliefs. Which is why everyone fled to America in the first place. But i guess the Popes back then were just glorified script kiddies.
The logic of the attacks isn't to cause damage, death, or even really fear. It's more the elegence of the plan itself that's the deciding factor.
the elegence of flying yourself into a building? or ramming your truck filled up to the hilt with semtex into a building? that's elegant? the deciding factor is that they believe they are doing god's will. The logic of the attack is that they are on a crusade, they are holy warriors. What you're implying is they are like the fucking morons from JackAss!
Hence the embassies exploding simultaneously and trying to film your exploding tugboats. There's no reason to do that, other than that it's cool.
other than it's cool? So Al Qaida are determined to destroy western culture cause it's the cool thing to do? or wait...maybe just maybe they are trying to punk'd the U.S.!
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez; I wasn't aware that more buildings had been attacked, or that any convictions were made to stick with any of the thousands of detained individuals after the attacks.
You can walk around being paranoid all the time and letting the SS do whatever they like to you and submit to anal probes too for all I care, but some of us really aren't into having to hide our curiousities.
I should be allowed to ask about how a tunnel was built; it might be MY life in danger if there's a problem, it might be MY safety.
Go do some research; how many people in the US die every year from engineering failures, and how many die from terrorist events.
Get over yourself.
(I'd love the karma from this; but I'm not into the hatemail from the morons)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. Our principle sin according to the extremists is that we are not an Islamic theocracy and have the temerity to thrive to such an extent that our culture is spreading throughout the world.
Oh and finally, torturing prisoners Nazi-style may also cause some foreigners to start hating u.
While I certainly agree that the abuse suffered by Iraqi prisoners was wrong, I think torture is too strong a word. Your lame Nazi analogy further fails when you consider that real torture (including medical experimentation, forced labor, mutilation, starvation, and various other means) was policy for the Nazis, whereas humiliation and emotional abuse (by a small group of americans) is unacceptable and perpetrators are being punished.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry if this rambles a bit, I'm in the middle of a lot of work right now. Thanks for the comment, take care.
Re:I want my rights back. (Score:5, Insightful)
All rights are illusions unless you have your own private military to backup your viewpoint.
Remember StarShip Troopers: Properly applied force is the basis of all government.
Stop Buying into Fear Mongering (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a liberal, and I can't stand Bush, but I can't possibly fathom your stance, (poster or moderator,) which I feel actively encourages terrorism.
For Someone who can't stand bush, you already bought into his fear mongering and propaganda.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Al Qaeda does not blow shit up for "fun" or because it's "cool." They do it for many reasons, and these reasons are not difficult to comprehend. They attack in protest of America's support of Israel. They despise Israel for both occupying one of their holiest lands (Jerusalem) and for oppressing their brothers (the Palestinians.) Regardless of the political motivations involved in keeping the Palestinians as a stateless people, followers of al Qaeda do consider this a serious issue. Usama bin Laden's biggest stated issue is of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land. He's said as much time and again.
Of course, the solution is not to give in, because the crimes have already been committed. We have already defiled their holy land, and have already supported Israel, and this will be used as continued justification for their attacks far into the future. There are two main problems, though, in combating terrorists like al Qaeda. The first is that we have no realistic win-win method for dealing with them. If we kill them, they're martyrs, and they only inspire more to join their cause. If we capture them, they don't care if they die or not, so the humiliation of captivity will drive them (more or less) to suicidal acts, and like-minded individuals will see it as further justification for more violence. If we do nothing, they will still seek to destroy us. The second problem is that they are not bound by any "rules of war" we try to observe. Their specialty is asymmetrical warfare. They cannot compete with us on grounds of technology or training, but they absolutely surpass us in the sheer gutsiness and spectacle of their attacks. It is difficult to fight someone who does not share your rules of engagement or care what government you represent. This is a major, major problem that people often fail to understand. Al Qaeda does not simply stand against the USA and our military. They stand against Western civilization itself. They do not want to endure cultural imperialism, and may see violence as the only means to hold it off. This is not as simple as Bush's claim that they "hate freedom." They do not share the same concepts of rights and freedoms as we do, but that does not make them bad people. That they kill civilians to achieve their ends makes them bad people.
Al Qaeda is only the tip of the iceberg as terrorism goes. We will never be able to defeat them or those like them as long as there is a division between Western civilization and the Islamic world. No amount of war will ever unite us, unless we simply kill them all. And if we can't kill them all, maybe it will suffice to conquer and demoralize them. And even that won't work for long.
Re:Sounds like coersion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
The resuls of centuries of militant fascism reinforced with restrictive religious codes and economic depression have produced a society where all of the populace's frustrations and repressed impulses and desires are easily channeled into anger at the infidel Americans with the full support of their country and their god. Just as in communist nations where liberty is restricted, the populace begins to get anxious to go to war. What makes this worse is that these nations have a philosophy based in their religion that rewards eternally killing those that oppose their god. In the absence of even the most rudimentary system of theological orthodoxy, the interpretation of just who is opposing Allah is up to whoever the people will listen to. And, because of the structure of their society, only the most ruthless rise to a position of dominace.
Evidence of this was seen when some of the captured Americans in Iraq were tortured and killed. The manner in which they were killed was specifically described in the Quoran as the way to treat those in opposition to Allah. Given the chance, those who performed this act and those that taught them that this is how their god wants them to act will perpetrate the same kind of actions against all Americans.
Your simplistic viewpoint and conclusions that ignore the facts, hyperbolic attributions of character and history, and expectation of cruel and racist views by the American people lead me to believe that you either have a seperate agenda that is helped by your post here, or that you are truly ignorant and just plain hate America and those who live here. It would not surprise me if you did, and it is human nature to adopt a viewpoint and then seek evidence to support that view, filtering out contradictions until they find something they can use to validate their closely held belief.
However, your post reveals no depth of thought, thinly disguised lies and attacks, and a singularly acrimonious viewpoint, that if based on the content of the post itself, is sadly lacking in foundation.
In other words, I think that you are looking for a reason to hate America, and regardless of what is done by America you will find a reason to do so. You want this so much that you are unwilling to accept facts that would contradict what you think and will strech the facts you do have and color them with hyperbolie in order to feel justified in your mental position. Furthermore, I think that you ascribe total blame for 9/11 on the USA and that you see nothing wrong with holding this attitude. Lastly I think that you are not the least bit disgusted with what happened on 9/11, and that you probably feel that it is what those "pig-americans" deserve.