Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Internet Politics

Latest Revelations on the FBI's Data Mining of America 446

Posted by samzenpus
from the just-forward-your-mail-to-homeland-security dept.
An anonymous reader writes "You probably already knew that the FBI was data mining Americans in the "search" for potential terrorists, but did you know that they're also supposed to be looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists. That's what they're telling us now. What else could they be looking for that they are not telling us about?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest Revelations on the FBI's Data Mining of America

Comments Filter:
  • by bladesjester (774793) <slashdot&jameshollingshead,com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:23PM (#19834117) Homepage Journal
    People comiting "moral crimes".

    They have a history of blackmail using that sort of thing.
    • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:27PM (#19834141) Homepage Journal

      After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.

      Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.

      • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:32PM (#19834189) Journal


        After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.

        Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.


        Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.

        • by tjstork (137384) <todd@bandrowsky.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:45PM (#19834277) Homepage Journal
          Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.

          That was true before 9/11. Now, the CIA and FBI are allowed to collaborate.. in fact, anyone in the DHS is allowed to share information, because they are all one big happy Gestapo now.
          • by Anonymous Coward

            FIRST: realize that the F.B.I. is INEPT, then whine all you want. The more data collected, the more it buries the whole lot. Do you really think TBs upon TBs of raw data is somehow magically processed and folded into a nice, neat folder on you? Get real! It's like throwing a 1000s fish in a pond and letting a bunch of urbanites loose to catch their dinner. They look awfully funny trying, and by-golly, sometimes get lucky! The poor fish, you say. BFD! You are much, MUCH more likely to be killed by th
          • by OriginalArlen (726444) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @05:41AM (#19835963)
            Seems as good a point as any to mention that the EFF's continuing legal fight for information on illegal surveillance has turned up definitely evidence that Gonzales was lying [eff.org] when he acted all surprised to hear that NSLs (National Security Letters, the things you're not allowed to tell anyone about if you get one.) Turns out the FBI were well aware NSLs were being abused for routine (non-terrorist) surveillance. In fact Gonzales had been sent a report on one such incident the week before he testified - under Oath - to Congress that there were no such problems.

            I'm actually starting to feel slightly hopeful for the first for years - this century, in fact! - that the tide of BigBrother-dom is going to get rolled back somewhat. The first cracks in the dam are appearing as the end of the Dubya regime approaches. It's just like Saddam's generals doing deals with the US through back-channels in 2002-3. Except without the bombs and bullets and such, obviously.

      • by bladesjester (774793) <slashdot&jameshollingshead,com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:44PM (#19834271) Homepage Journal
        After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.

        No, that would just stop them from acting as publicly. Even if they didn't act directly, they could still do so through an intermediary.

        That would also give them plausible deniability. "We at the Bureau are saddened and angered by the actions of this [rouge angent|hacker|whatever]"

        Never kid yourself that they wouldn't sink to it again if they thought it would work in their favor.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jcr (53032)
        After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.

        You're kidding, right? How can threatening to push Hoover out of the closet stop the FBI from blackmailing you? Hoover's dead, and outed. There's no threat to make there.

        -jcr
  • this is news? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by farkus888 (1103903) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:25PM (#19834127)
    I've been assuming that since before they admitted they were using it to look for terrorist.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:32PM (#19834187)
      Okay, so the FBI collects a WHOLE BUNCH OF INFORMATION about criminals.

      If they're able to form a behaviour pattern from that and provide it to the state law enforcement agencies the I say that it would be okay.

      As long as the FBI removed any individual identifying info (names, aliases, addresses, etc). Even in their database.

      "Each of these initiatives is extremely valuable for investigators, allowing them to analyze and process lawfully acquired information more effectively in order to detect potential criminal activity and focus resources appropriately," Boyd said in a statement.

      Fuck you, Boyd. What is "lawfully acquired" varies with the laws passed. When a private person does it, we often refer to that as "stalking" and it is illegal.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DrkShadow (72055)

        Okay, so the FBI collects a WHOLE BUNCH OF INFORMATION about criminals.


        You're a criminal now, huh? .. well, I suppose I don't care so much about that, but it rather bothers me that you're calling _me_ a criminal.

        -DrkShadow
      • by jimmydevice (699057) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:27AM (#19835069)
        Laws change. You like gay porn? Maybe some shemale hardcore action? Are the actors a little young (18)? How about downloading movies, TV or MP3s? Do you look at anarchist sites? PETA, ALF and ELF will probably get you on the watch list, even if you think their stuff is BS. Everything you type that goes over the net, every phone call, every fax, every communication is being monitored. The trick is not tripping a gate in the NSA spy machine. When the wind changes, all that information will be available to hunt you down.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DrSkwid (118965)
        Show me a man that's not a criminal and I'll show you a man that doesn't drive.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bdjacobson (1094909)

      I've been assuming that since before they admitted they were using it to look for terrorist.

      Right. It's just unfortunate all the places they're mining now. Ride public transit? In Atlanta, MARTA has just recently transitioned to RFID cards that you scan to let you in. The gates have IR sensors that know when you're standing there. Up until just recently you walked up to it and it would let you out. Now you have to scan your card again to get out as well. So they're (and by they're I mean at least Atlanta City Gov, perhaps passing on to FBI/Feds) mining my traveling habits (I ride MARTA daily so I

  • Leakers! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slashqwerty (1099091) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:28PM (#19834157)
    What else could they be looking for that they are not telling us about?

    They're looking for 'leakers' who spread misinformation through government documents. Once they identify which government official's cell phone was in the same vicinity as the reporter who published the leaks they're gonna smack the leaker down.

    Oh. They're also digging up dirt to discredit the leakers.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gilatrout (694977)
      Except when the leakers is thier boss in the White House, then they work to discredit and intimidate the whistle blowers.

  • The amount of porn everybody watches online. In thirty or so years when today's youth starts running for government office, mudslinging campaigns based on this knowledge (which by then will be hilariously declassified!) will be hugely entertaining and embarrassing for everyone involved.

    I think I've discovered the terrible future of reality TV.
    • This is why it's critically important to lower the signal-to-noise ratio, by sending filthy pornography to everyone you know.

      Do it for America.
    • by superdude72 (322167) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:06AM (#19834753)
      I know you're kidding, but prior to 9/11 the Justice Dept. did seem to be transforming itself into a federal vice squad, wiretapping a brothel in New Orleans and cracking down on medical marijuana clubs in California--clubs that state voters and local law enforcement approved. Their emphasis on "moral" crimes was unprecedented. I have no doubt medical marijuana clubs were a higher priority for the senior leadership than counterterrorism. In their minds, those dirty marijuana-toking, pornography-loving hippies *are* "the terrorists."

      There is very little that you could say about this administration that I would find too insane to be plausible.

      More on Ashcroft's Justice Dept. here. [findarticles.com]

      And from recent testimony re: the NSA wiretapping it appears that Ashcroft was actually *less* disrespectful of the Constitution and rule of law than Gonzalez.
      • by superdude72 (322167) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @12:14AM (#19834787)
        PS,
        If this were fark.com I'd be posting an image macro: "Ceiling Ashcroft... is watching you masturbate"
      • by wwwillem (253720) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:12AM (#19835225) Homepage
        There is very little that you could say about this administration that I would find too insane to be plausible.

        I think I can: if I recall correctly it was elected by Americans not only once but twice.....


      • Tip of the iceburg (Score:5, Insightful)

        by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @06:00AM (#19836019) Homepage

        More on Ashcroft's Justice Dept

        And this is the Ashcroft who ended up quiting because he wouldn't go along with wholesale spying on the American public. If someone like Ashcroft turns out to be a hero, what kind of atrocities are going on behind the scenes? It's all legal as far as Alberto is concerned.

        What a horrible chapter in our nations history.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *
        I've got a feeling that the worst about Abu Gonzales has not yet seen the light of day. It's bad enough that he ran the Justice Dept. as an in-house campaign office for the Republican Party, but thanks to the innate fairness of the American voter, we're finally getting a little insight into what else is going on in his capacious closet.

        I feel bad for folks of Hispanic descent, who, after seeing one of their own achieve such high office in the US, have to learn that the guy's a total schnook. With all that
    • by buswolley (591500)
      I don't think he is kidding, and it is probably gonna happen big time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jollyreaper (513215)

      The amount of porn everybody watches online. In thirty or so years when today's youth starts running for government office, mudslinging campaigns based on this knowledge (which by then will be hilariously declassified!) will be hugely entertaining and embarrassing for everyone involved.

      I think I've discovered the terrible future of reality TV.

      Mod parent insightful. I don't doubt this one for a minute. It's just so obvious. And with the face recognition technology being developed, just imagine doing a name and age cross-reference to find out if any of the performers were under 18. 17 years, 8 months? Oh my God! He's a porn-hoggin' pedo!

  • by Doc Ruby (173196)
    Is there anyone who doubts that Karl Rove has the wiretaps indexed for the most effective political control of both his Republican "friends" and Democratic enemies? I'm sure Rove knows who you are.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by megaditto (982598)
      Just because Rove was smart enough to get the republican base out during the last few elections does not mean he holds the key to America. Your suggestion of such makes about as much sense as those that claimed Clinton was flying in cocaine as a governor, that Bush masterminded 9/11, or that Al Gore egged on the Oklahoma city bombers to hide the alien autopsy.

      Tinfoil goes on your head, not up your ass.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:33PM (#19834195)
    There's never been a power given to a federal agency that its members haven't immediately sought to abuse. But the same goes for state, local, federal government of all stripes, insurance agencies, organized religions, etc. It's human nature. Power will be abused so it's just common sense to restrict it as much as possible.

    When the FBI honchos go wringing their hands and lamenting over all the crimes they could have prevented if only they had more powers, the first question should be "why aren't you able to do your job with the resources you have?" Throw more money and more powers at the problem and you'll just get the same song and dance during the next budget hearing.
    • by Evilest Doer (969227) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:07PM (#19834397)

      It's human nature.
      Actually, I don't think it is human nature. It's just the nature of the sort of people who seek offices of power. Those who seek power are almost always people who desire to control others. There are many (such as myself) who don't wish to control others, but simply want to be able to reasonably run their own lives and let others run theirs.
      • Actually, I don t think it is human nature. It's just the nature of the sort of people who seek offices of power. Those who seek power are almost always people who desire to control others. There are many such as myself who don t wish to control others, but simply want to be able to reasonably run their own lives and let others run theirs.

        While I agree, the distinction is somewhat academic. It's a behavior to be completely anticipated from those who occupy those positions, and so is reasonable to restr

    • by leereyno (32197) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:39PM (#19834571) Homepage Journal
      An even more important question is "Can you prove that the crimes you're seeking to prevent are actually WORSE than the crimes that will be committed BY YOU with these new powers?"

      The most dangerous of all criminals are those who carry badges and whose chief weapons are the power and authority of the state.

    • by Tancred (3904) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:43PM (#19834599)
      One reaction to abuse of governmental power is to restrict it as much as possible. The other is to have transparency in government and checks and balances. The secrecy of the current administration is a dangerous precedent, even if you agree with their policies. They should be working for us and shouldn't be able to hide so much of their work. Thankfully we have things like the FOIA and the Sunlight Foundation. Checks and balances are part of the foundation of our system of government. Again, the current administration's "unitary executive" theory is a dangerous precedent.
      • by evilviper (135110) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:01AM (#19835191) Journal

        One reaction to abuse of governmental power is to restrict it as much as possible. The other is to have transparency in government and checks and balances.

        No, that's a completely false dichotomy. No matter how many restrictions you create on the government's power, if there is no oversight, they will disregard them entirely, without any repercussions.

        Transparency is just one tool, and frankly, it's ridiculous to believe that transparency accomplishes anything on it's own.

        Again, the current administration's "unitary executive" theory is a dangerous precedent.

        Indeed. You need only look at the existing situation, where the public overwhelmingly disagrees with the administration, yet congress continues to go along with the administration, and completely fails to hold anyone accountable for even the most blatant legal violations, to see that our system of checks and balances doesn't work.

        The culture of Washington, the two party system, etc., they all conspire to allow law breaking and corruption to continue unchallenged.
  • Well, duh! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:34PM (#19834203) Homepage
    Did anybody really think they wouldn't find a "use" for all the data they've been collecting?

    Every single head-of-department has had his eye on it since day one.

  • Echelon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrshowtime (562809) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:34PM (#19834205)
    Pardon my conspiracy theory, but hasn't the government been spying on us, well, forever? Sure, legally it's a faux pas, but an "Echelon" type system must exist by now if it has not been with us since the dawn of the computer age. I say privacy is pretty much a thing of the past. Everyone wants everything NOW and WIRELESS. Pretty much in the next 10 years just about everything will be wireless. This means that a conversations/data will be able to be plucked out of the air by just about anyone (as is being done now.)
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Pardon my conspiracy theory, but hasn't the government been spying on us, well, forever? Sure, legally it's a faux pas, but an "Echelon" type system must exist by now if it has not been with us since the dawn of the computer age. I say privacy is pretty much a thing of the past. Everyone wants everything NOW and WIRELESS. Pretty much in the next 10 years just about everything will be wireless. This means that a conversations/data will be able to be plucked out of the air by just about anyone (as is bei
    • by non (130182)
      everyone does not _want_ everything now and wireless, but you have been made to think that you want them that way.

      you've been made to think that way by a system that has successfully reduced your free time.

      this system, like all organisms, doesn't want to perish, and is in the process consolidating its control.
  • But, but ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bi_boy (630968) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @10:40PM (#19834241)
    But if you have nothing to hide .... oh yeah [slashdot.org].
    • by QuantumG (50515)
      So if they got a warrant before they could look at this giant database of personal information, would that be ok?

      Cause that's what Professor Daniel Solove concluded in the article you are linking to said. You did read the article right? :)

  • I have a pretty good idea that any data gathering the FBI may or may not be doing about us civilians is a fraction of what is being gathered by "marketers" every day.
    Now that's a scary thought, huh?
    • by BoberFett (127537)
      When an online Viagra seller has the power to throw you in prison let me know. As for me, I'll worry more about the entity with nearly unlimited resources and the threat of violence knowing everything about me.
  • The company I work for makes fraud detection tools for private industry. Some of the clients we're talking to now are NOT private industry, if you know what I mean. I daren't say anymore though, I like my job.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    "...did you know that they're also supposed to be looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists."

    They *should* be looking into fraudsters, identity theft and other such items. These things cross state boundaries which the federal government is suppose to investigate. Frankly, I don't care if they'r
  • by Shag (3737) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:30PM (#19834515) Homepage
    Yeah, insurance fraud, identity theft and questionable online pharmacies aren't matters for federal law enforcement, because they don't cross state li... oh, wait.

    *plonk*
    • by jnf (846084)
      That was my thoughts exactly, pretty much all of them are potentially federal offenses.
  • by jjh37997 (456473) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:30PM (#19834517) Homepage
    There's never been a power given to a federal agency that its members haven't immediately sought to abuse. But the same goes for state, local, federal government of all stripes, insurance agencies, organized religions, etc. It's human nature. Power will be abused so it's just common sense to restrict it as much as possible.

    To restrict something requires the use of force (i.e. power). Who are you going to trust to wield that power, the government? A better idea is to give the power to everybody so as to eliminate the power imbalances that lead to the abuse you speak of.

    • by msimm (580077)
      Well...we were supposed to give the power to the people. You know, a democracy. But as it turns out all political systems have a life-cycle and it seems the ideals have grown old and the people have begun to forget. Viva la....oh that's quite a while off. But it *is* part of the life-cycle!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Unfortunately, people seem to accept infringement after infringement always telling themselves that it won't apply to THEM.... And, eventually, we have 1984. War is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. Survalience Is Safety.

    And, In the end, /.'s last comment before being completely shutdown will be a resounding "we told you so." But, it won't matter, because no one will ever read it.
  • by suresk (816773) * <spencer AT uresk DOT net> on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:34PM (#19834549) Homepage
    Is that our lives are becoming more and more transparent to the government, but the government is becoming more and more opaque to us. This is the exact opposite of how it should be and should be a huge flashing warning light to everyone.
  • by unitron (5733) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:46PM (#19834619) Homepage Journal
    Is this the same FBI that has been in the news in the past few years for not being able to get a decent modern computer system in spite of throwing millions of our tax dollars at the problem?
  • Seems to me, this list of miscreants accounts for about 80% of the spam my filters catch. Tell me again why I should give a shit that some viagra insurance spammer trying to steal my identity with some phishing scheme shouldn't be gone after?

    Oh, and for the people who are going to say I'm promoting "I have nothing to hide therefore I don't care", NO, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, if someone in authority is going after the people who leech from tha intarwebs rather than contribute to same, I'm all for
  • sanity check... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AmishElvis (1101979) on Wednesday July 11, 2007 @11:59PM (#19834703)
    Karma whores, all of you.

    ...looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government...

    Since when is it not the province of the FBI to look for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity? It's their fucking job. That's why it's called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If all you people can do is trot out the same old "government bad...GOVERNMENT BAD!" knee-jerk conspiracy theories when shit like this pops up in the news, nobody is going to take you seriously. At least RTFA and comment on the actual issues.

    For example...

    But it [the database] could be based, in part at least, on commercial or public information that might not be accurate -- potentially ranking an innocent person as a terror threat. Watch lists, for example, have mistakenly identified people as suspects based on their similar names or birthdates to terrorists.

    I can see this being a major problem. I'd hate to have a name like, oh I dunno, Osama Bin Laden, and try to get through an airport security checkpoint. More importantly, what if I do something mildly suspicious that comes to the attention of the authorities? I can imagine the conversation...

    FBI Agent: We'd like a warrant to wiretap this man's phone.

    Judge: What did he do?

    FBI Agent: He wrote a strongly worded letter to his local police department contesting a parking ticket he received.

    Judge: I dunno, that seems pretty weak. What's his name?

    FBI Agent: Osama Bin Laden.

    Judge: Granted.

    Maybe in addition to a terrorist watch list we should have a not-a-terrorist-don't-watch list. Just a thought.

    • Re:sanity check... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:13AM (#19835017)

      Since when is it not the province of the FBI to look for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity?

      Since forever. The FBI's job is to discover who committed crimes. A subtle distinction to be sure, but dig deeply enough in someone's life and you are likely to find some crime. Rather, when a crime has been committed and brought to the FBI's attention (subject to juristiction), the FBI is supposed to determine who committed it.

      . I'd hate to have a name like, oh I dunno, Osama Bin Laden, and try to get through an airport security checkpoint. More importantly, what if I do something mildly suspicious that comes to the attention of the authorities?

      Yes. Or any celebrity name. My friend, who prosecutes traffic offenders, recently had OJ Simpson (not that OJ Simpson) show up in his court. Naturally, the most experienced attorney was the one passing out the assignments. Naturally, he assigns himself OJ Simpson. So because of this guy's name, he unjustly has more zealous prosecution. I bet he gets off a lot fewer tickets than most people for the same reason.

      But your solution ignores the context. TFA's context was not that agents would mistake your mythical person for a terrorist leader, but that the automated system would. How is the agent supposed to know why you were red-flagged (I imagine two terrorists with the same name are possible)? Having to prove that you don't deserve to be on those lists, that it is a case of mistaken identity, seems like having to prove your innocence. Which, IIRC, is the presumption in America anyway.

  • by iminplaya (723125)
    avoteforrepublicansisavoteforvictory, republicansarefuckingfascists

    That's so lame. It just makes the opposition look like a bunch of twerps.
  • You should get annoyed when the CIA does that. As long as it is the FBI, it is OK. That is what they are supposed to do. It is called 'Police Work'.
  • An out of control Federal government is the result of many decades of the judiciary backing down as congress passed laws which allowed the executive to invade the provinces of the States, rendering the Ninth and Tenth Amendments all but meaningless.

    It wasn't until Lopez v. United States [wikipedia.org] (and, subsequently, United States v. Morrison [wikipedia.org]) that the Supreme Court had the balls (well, with O'Connor, the ovaries) to draw the line for the first time in seventy years and keep the Feds out of the State's business.

    Yes, that would be Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor and Rehnquist. We can only hope that Alito and Roberts will be "conservative" that way too.

    If it was up to those nutbags Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter, there would be no distinction between the States' province and the Fed's province. Those of you hoping for a democrat president better be aware that democratic appointees will almost surely give the Feds back all the power they lost under Rehnquist. (Yes, I know Souter was appointed by Bush I.)

  • by posterlogo (943853) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @01:15AM (#19835023)
    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.


    For those who think they're safe from all this, or that all this privacy "nonsense" doesn't affect them because they've got nothing to hide...

    One of the reasons I admire the ACLU is that they stick up for the privacy even of insane druggie assholes like Rush Limbaugh. For all those Republicans who think this is some sort of liberal propaganda, keep this up -- in the totalitarian state where the neocon policies are taking us, it won't matter too much what your political affiliations are.
    • by evilviper (135110)

      One of the reasons I admire the ACLU is that they stick up for the privacy even of insane druggie assholes like Rush Limbaugh.

      Me too... but then they started suing everyone who dare to put a crucifix or nativity scene in any spot that was visible to the public, because someone just might be offended in some abstract way. That, plus their rabid opposition to any laws that in any small way limit abortions (such as the recent late-term abortion ban) convinced me to stop donating to them entirely.

  • I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Potor (658520) <farker1@gmail . c om> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @02:33AM (#19835275) Journal

    I accept that the summary is against data mining - which clearly bothers me as well.

    But I do not understand:

    ...that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists.
    I thought that this was precisely the "province" of the FBI: nationally-coordinated police work, including into all sorts of fraud (here: insurance, identity, and wire).
  • Easy to datamine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @06:27AM (#19836137) Homepage
    just set up an email account and publish the email address, pick all incoming spam and you get enough...

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...