Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Crime Encryption The Internet Your Rights Online

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist 720

Posted by timothy
from the check-your-washroom-for-bolsheviks dept.
schwit1 passes on this snippet from Public Intelligence: "A flyer designed by the FBI and the Department of Justice to promote suspicious activity reporting in internet cafes lists basic tools used for online privacy as potential signs of terrorist activity. The document, part of a program called 'Communities Against Terrorism,' lists the use of 'anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address' as a sign that a person could be engaged in or supporting terrorist activity. The use of encryption is also listed as a suspicious activity along with steganography, the practice of using 'software to hide encrypted data in digital photos' or other media. In fact, the flyer recommends that anyone 'overly concerned about privacy' or attempting to 'shield the screen from view of others' should be considered suspicious and potentially engaged in terrorist activities. ... The use of PGP, VPNs, Tor or any of the many other technologies for anonymity and privacy online are directly targeted by the flyer, which is distributed to businesses in an effort to promote the reporting of these activities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist

Comments Filter:
  • by bonch (38532) * on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:03PM (#38904631)

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

    "[There's an] error in logic that leads to short-sighted conceptions of privacy like Schmidt's. ... Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power." - EFF

    Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information. They're willing to reveal all, to act as better products for advertisers and to avoid suspicion from overbearing governments.

    • by repapetilto (1219852) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:06PM (#38904661)

      Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you... do you trust them to keep your info safe from hackers? Do you want ME to know everything you do?

      • by sconeu (64226) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:21PM (#38904915) Homepage Journal

        Do you want ME to know everything you do?

        Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.

        • by hierophanta (1345511) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:20PM (#38905955)
          that is a categorically false statement. people on facebook and twitter want you to know certain things about them. (for example people dont post when they accidentally shit themselves, but taking shots with hotties = post!)

          some people (like myself) make a point to tailor the information that is posted / accessible so that i am seen in only a certain light. this has become increasingly important as companies use our social presence to make decisions about us. to the point that i created a twitter with my real name so that i can have what i post that definitely attributed to myself. (its all work related and makes me seem like a hero). if you havent done this yet, do it now. and post there every so often with a mind to create a stellar professional image.
        • by kiwimate (458274) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @04:46PM (#38907443) Journal

          Do you want ME to know everything you do?

          Apparently most people on Facebook and Twitter do want that.

          Sigh. I wish this stupid /. meme would disappear. Unbelievably, some people in the world are able to exercise self restraint. Some of them also like to use Facebook or Twitter. These are not mutually exclusive traits.

          I suppose you think that most people who are on Google+ also suffer from this lack of ability to self filter?

        • by Per Wigren (5315) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @05:13PM (#38907833) Homepage
          Not really. On Facebook and Twitter we tell you only the parts of ourselves that we want to be known. That's very different from having someone snooping around in the parts we want to keep private.
      • by Tsingi (870990) <graham.rick@g m a il.com> on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:22PM (#38904955)

        Even if you don't care if the government knows everything about you...

        I do care. The government has powers it should not have. The less they know about me the better. And everyone else for that matter.

        If you want to know something about me, ask, if I want to tell you, I will.

        • I agree with you. However, there are many people who say "well if they're watching me they must be pretty bored, hahaha". Usually putting a face on it (whether your own or someone you know) can drive the point home that this stuff is creepy.

        • by Mista2 (1093071) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @04:57PM (#38907591)

          Personal encryption is not easy on a PC, but remarkably hard on common mobile devices. I still dont know of any easy to use system for supporting PGP on my iPad/iPhone, or even on Android. I do have an app that can decode PGP blobs, but it is such a painn having to copy and paste between the apps.
          Why cant this be built in to the mail clients?
          The answer is the same reason governments are scared of RIMs encrypted BB mail system. They cant back door it, so they hope it doesnt gain wide acceptance.
          Want to run your browser in private mode and do not track - this actually stands out in the crowd making it easier to see you because noone else is making a stealth attempt, and forever-cookies just ignore the request to not track anyway.
          But dont worry, when you walk down the street in most cities now you are going to show up on someones CCTV, and blimp drones can over for months over a city, or anywhere of interest. You have no expenctation to privacy in your own back yard according to the cops now. ANd they dont need a warrant to place a GPS on your car if they do it while parked out in the open. The only place they cant do it is in your own garage. Your driveway is however fair game. And requesting your cell traffic logs - trivial. They can even st up a spoof cell tower without a warrant, catching their target AND every other innocent cell phone that is in range.
          Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.
          Broder security in the US can conficate any encrypted device if you refuse to decrypt it to show them whtats on it, and your mail can be pulled from GMail if stored form more than 6 months as this is considered Abandoned, even if you are contantly accessing it with iMap.
          It's harder than ever to protect you privacy, and this in no way will stop the next terrorist parking a truck full of fertiliser outside a federal building if they are insane enough. Welcome to America - land of the free.

          • by Samalie (1016193) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @05:31PM (#38908115)

            While I won't comment on everything...

            Get stopped for a random breath test, and the cops can rip the contents of your mobile for whatever reason, just like they can ask you to pop the trunk for whatever reason.

            Bullshit. Repeat after me: "I do not consent to a search"

            The cops can ASK you if they can search you, your car, etc all they want. Without a warrant or evidence that a crime is being committed, they CANNOT search your person or property without your consent.

            I do not consent to a search. Know your rights!

      • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 02, 2012 @04:52PM (#38907529) Journal

        Besides didn't anybody learn ANYTHING from Watergate? The whole point of that break in was to dig dirt that could then be thrown at the opposition. Now imagine they have a nice little list of every website you've been to for say the last 5 years and you start stirring up trouble. Lets say you start a local occupy chapter, or you start a grass roots campaign to get some crooked official impeached or block some odious bill the megacorps want passed. Do you REALLY want every single thing you have ever typed and every single website you've ever visited to be sitting there in a file waiting for them to distort it? I can just imagine the kind of stuff they could throw at me since I keep a list of "look at teh titties!" topsites and "Free viagra!" crapsites I use to test various free antivirus and antimalware solutions on these off lease boxes I have around. It makes it easy for me to idiot proof boxes for my customers but in the right hands i'm sure they could make me into some giant perv.

        All movements that get anywhere anymore start at the grass roots and gain popular support. Having access to all this info would have made someone like Nixon cream himself in delight, as it would be easy to warp and twist even the most innocent thing into something they could use against you. hell working PC sales and repair i can't tell you the number of times I've seen truly innocent mistakes get someone's PC turned into a spambot or infected with a porn bug. Like if you would have seen the traffic logs of a local minister two years ago you would have thought him to be a giant perv but the poor schmuck bought one of those USB external drives with a preloaded malware and when he saw the .exe sitting on the drive he thought it was some free software that came with the drive and ran it. it turned out to be a clickjacker bug that was throwing popups to every kind of topsite and crapsite known to man to crank up the clicks.

        Now what if that minister had been trying to build a grassroots support for an investigation into something like say Fast & Furious? Or for some dirty dealing at the Fed? Frankly with the history of the three letter agencies in this country I don't trust them any farther than i can throw them and the LAST thing we need to do is make it even easier for them to build up dossiers on everybody. Between their own dirty dealings and getting in bed with megacorps frankly i'd be less worried about a hacker like you getting it than some corp or 3 letter agency deciding they needed to smack down a few peons that were getting uppity.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:07PM (#38904687) Journal

      It's not an error in logic. Eric Schmidt knows exactly what he's arguing for.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:08PM (#38904689)

      This is just another example of just how far out of touch the US Government is in technology.

      I swear...armed uprising might soon be the only way to restore the country to some semblance of normalcy, where the government works FOR the people, not against us all.

      AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door.

      • by mrclisdue (1321513) * on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:30PM (#38905097)

        ...AC to prevent an anonymous black van from showing up at my door...

        I could do the old ftfy crap, but posting AC perhaps adds a weak layer of obscurity, but it won't necessarily prevent our rulers from showing up: your anonymity depends hugely on what other steps you may have taken to shield your id....

        But the old "only terrorists have something to hide" ideology has become so ingrained in our society that it's sickening. In these parts there was a campaign to swab all the men in town for dna (they were looking for a serial rapist, or something along those lines.) At the press conference, the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something." And pretty well everyone I mentioned this to over the next few weeks absolutely agreed. I didn't get swabbed. Two detectives showed up at my door. I *think* I convinced them that I was refusing, on principle, but I really can't be sure now, can I?

        cheers,

        • by slack_justyb (862874) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @04:38PM (#38907327)

          the spokesman for the police said exactly that, "If someone doesn't want to be swabbed, they're obviously hiding something."

          Yes that's exactly what a investigator would say. The quote doesn't break the law by forcing people to swab. That's the thing, you still have the option to refuse. Dragnet style investigations aren't anything new, it's just the newest label is terrorist. Police officers are out there to catch criminals and if they have no clue as to who to catch, they'll suspect everyone till they, "find their man."

          I won't get into the whole legal thing, but basically police officers can say pretty much whatever they want to say about the public at large or to anyone who refuses to cooperate. It's when they *do* something that impedes your freedom that they've crossed the line. However, the story that you gave above, is pretty normal rhetoric.

          1. 1. Make everyone feel like a criminal
          2. 2. Give a path to salvation (ie: mouth swab)
          3. 3. Make the path to salvation optional (to keep it legal) and damn those who do not comply
          4. 4. Annoy the hell out of anyone who doesn't comply
          5. 5. Stop short, of crossing boundaries, but hey the guy probably isn't a lawyer so let's test the waters.
          6. 6. Profit!

          I'm not saying that it's moral and at times it could be illegal, but there again, you'd need to be a lawyer to know the diff. [sarcasm]You a have problem with that? The you must be terrorist[/sarcasm] Seriously though, this tactic only works when people buy into the message, so you're looking at a problem of the people and not so much as the cops.

      • by PortHaven (242123)

        This comment has been reported to the authorities and we are tracing your IP address.

    • by tqk (413719)

      It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed, and the way people are now trained to reveal everything on Facebook and Twitter is creating a society that doesn't understand the value and the power of their personal information.

      Someone in the halls of power has finally got around to reading both 1984 and Brave New World. "Don't forget to take your Soma, citizen, and remember we'll be doing drug testing later to assure you did. It's for your safety, for the children, and to stop terrorists."

      Don't worry, DHS, people like me will soon be dead so you needn't worry further about people like me. "Land of the free, home of the brave", my ass.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:29PM (#38905091)

      There are some people who are simply intensly private. Nothing to hide, no borderline paranoia, no affairs, no extreme opinions political, religious or any other kind. You know. Average. Introverts.

      I remember once I found a website translating strings into binary code. Used to chat with my brother like that for weeks. We both have laptops, and travel, not frequently, but enough to encrypt the hard drives. I might buy another laptop if I lose it, and lose forever the data on it, but nobody else gets to access my mail or other websites accounts, and other things, like work or personal projects.

      There's this thing called identity theft in case you haven't heard of it. Dumbass cops. Suits or uniforms, they're the same damn stock.

    • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:32PM (#38905145) Journal

      The funny thing is that if everyone felt the way Eric Schmidt did, or for that matter, the TSA, we wouldn't have the iPhone. You want to talk about things developed in secret by people taking borderline insane measures to keep other people from reading their screens.... So is he saying that such products should not have been created in the first place?

      In fact, what's interesting is that the people most strongly in favor of privacy are the ones most likely to change things—for better or worse—because they're the ones who see things differently. They look at a piece of wood and see a table, or look at an old car bumper and see a sculpture. They see things not for what they are, but for what they could be. But they know that their ideas must be fully baked before they are unleashed into the wild, or else the public will not understand them—will not accept them—will not appreciate them.

      This scares those who have vested interests in the status quo. They call them names like terrorist, radical, or crazy to diminish their standing, further isolating them from society. Eventually this actually drives them inevitably to take some extreme action that changes things anyway, in spite of the establishment's desire to avoid that.

      What that action is depends on the person. It might be blowing up an airplane, or it might be releasing the most amazing new piece of technology the world has ever seen. It's the same fundamental way of operating, but with vastly different goals. The problem is that there is no good way to tell the difference as an outsider. The only real option is to accept that there will always be a few people who will try to change the world for the worse—blow stuff up, kill people, etc.—and accept that we can't feasibly stop them all without also stopping those who would change the world for the better.

      Food for thought.

    • by hobarrera (2008506) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:33PM (#38905165) Homepage

      In that case, Schmidt, can I have access to all your files, including google's algorithm?

    • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:37PM (#38905219)

      Yeah, but some people download movies on the internet, and some people's feelings get hurt occasionally.

      Privacy has to go. The internet can't be the wild west!

    • by rst123 (2440064) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:38PM (#38905233)

      "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, Google CEO

      So I assume that Google has posted their financials, algorithms, complete business plans, etc on the open web? or maybe they are planning on shutting down and disbanding?

    • by master_kaos (1027308) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:41PM (#38905269)
      Ok Eric Schmidt, I want to know your SSN, CC info, bank account numbers. Oh you don't want me to know that? Guess you shouldn't do online banking, purchasing from amazon, etc.
    • by w_dragon (1802458) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:15PM (#38905863)
      Do you have a source for that quote? I've seen something similar that could be taken out of context that way, it was along the line of "If you're doing something you don't want people to know about, why are you telling Google about it?", and the context was that Google isn't going to break the law to cover your tracks if someone knocks on the door with a warrant.
    • by Solandri (704621) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @05:16PM (#38907873)

      Can you believe that the Internet was once considered a place to escape identity? Where anonymity reigned? It's pretty amazing in retrospect how quickly that changed

      The Internet was once a place where your real identity was also your online identity [google.com]. The schools, companies, and organizations which comprised the Internet all voluntarily enforced a policy where each user's username was their real name, or anyone could easily figure it out from their username [iu.edu].

      Anonymity didn't really arrive on the Internet until 1993, when AOL joined. AOL users were allowed to pick up to 5 pseudonyms as their email address (because one AOL account might be shared by an entire family). In retrospect, that change was really quick - a span of a couple years and pretty much everyone was allowed to pick whatever they wanted as a username.

      Personally, I think anonymity is the proverbial genie that's been let out of the bottle - it's gonna be really, really hard to put it back in. But a non-anonymous Internet isn't something new; it was the norm a mere 2+ decades ago. The funny thing is that when AOL joined, a lot of people were saying that anonymity would be the death of the Internet due to spam (it was already polluting Usenet), flame wars, posers, etc. When e-commerce was first taking off, people were questioning how online stores would ever be able to validate a customer's real identity when everyone was effectively anonymous behind self-selected usernames. Now the tables have turned and people are saying having your real identity known online will be the death of the Internet.

      The Internet has survived both extremes, so it's reasonable to think that it will also survive anything in between.

  • They aren't wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:06PM (#38904667)

    These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.

    • by bonch (38532) * on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:10PM (#38904723)

      They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hope Thelps (322083)

      These might be signs of someone being a terrorist. It's just that 99.9% aren't and you're basically taking away privacy from everyone by treating the use of such tools as being suspicious. It's exactly what terrorists want to achieve.

      So in the same sense that being right handed is a sign of someone being a terrorist - not all terrorists are right handed but a lot of them are (and maybe some other people too).

      • by stanlyb (1839382)
        So it seems that all the terrorists are also, GOD NO, human beings. So if you are human being......
    • by SecurityGuy (217807) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @04:29PM (#38907169)

      Let me introduce everyone to those two important concepts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity [wikipedia.org]

      The problem is that while terrorists may indeed exhibit those behaviors, a massively larger number of people who are not terrorists also do. Like, oh, doctors, nurses, your insurance company, finance companies, any company that has trade secrets, any individual who has a sense of privacy, etc.

      In other words, the positive predictive value of that test is extremely low. Nearly every time you report someone, you're reporting someone who is not a terrorist. In fact, I seriously doubt the pool of suspects generated by this would be any higher in actual terrorists than random selection would get you.

  • Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:07PM (#38904677)

    "Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

    It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.

    • Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mayko (1630637) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:41PM (#38905279)

      "Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

      It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.

      I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.

      • by jamstar7 (694492)

        "Like privacy? You may be a terrorist!"

        It's thinking like that which risks turning me into a terrorist.

        I know what you're getting at, but you would really be an activist. Protesting and revolting directly against those infringing on your rights is a core American value. Some would say there is a fine line between activism and terrorism... lately however I think the line is finer between authoritative government and terrorism.

        Want your basic civil liberties? You may be a terrorist.
        Want freedom? You may be

      • Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PortHaven (242123) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:15PM (#38905877) Homepage

        Founding Fathers were largely considered to be terrorists by the British.

        My personal definition of terrorists is one who targets and attacks civilians.

        Hijacking the planes, an act of terrorism.
        Crashing planes into the Twin Towers, an act of terrorism.
        Crashing planes into the Pentagon, a legitimate act of war.

        Had 9-11 involved a UPS cargo plane being crashed into the Pentagon I would not have called them terrorists.

        Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of partisan warfare.

    • by Entrope (68843)

      When they equate seeking privacy with terrorism, only terrorists will have privacy.

      They told me that if I voted for John McCain, the Federal government and huge corporations would conspire to take away our privacy rights... and they were right!

    • Re:Chicken or egg? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:54PM (#38905457) Journal

      Mod parent up. Anonymous Coward speaks truth.

      Terrorists (at least the bottom-rank terrorists who commit the actual attacks) are almost always people marginalized by society who feel that they have nothing left to lose. The continued erosion of someone's basic rights quite literally can turn them into a terrorist, or at least a criminal (of which a terrorist is simply one type). This is why people getting out of prison in the U.S. have such a high recidivism rate. They've lost everything—job, family, community—and have basically nothing more to lose.

      And, of course, the government predictably tries to stop recidivism and terrorism by tightening their control over the relevant population. Unfortunately, trying to prevent people from taking control of their lives in an undesirable way by passing laws that further reduce their control over their lives is like trying to stop a fire by pouring gasoline on it. It is doomed to fail in the most spectacular way possible.

  • by mbone (558574) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:08PM (#38904697)

    I remember the loathsome brochures passed around in the Government during the Reagan / G.H.W. Bush drug wars years. They basically boiled down to

    - anyone acting strangely might be on drugs, and
    - anyone not acting strangely might be on drugs, and covering it up.

    Sounds like the DOJ is falling down the same rathole once again.

    • And they say Morton's Fork has no modern use...

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:09PM (#38904709)

    Welcome privacy advocates to the Accused of Being A Terrorist While Doing Nothing Wrong Club. Take a seat over there next to the Photographers (because terrorists will really cart around a DSLR and tripod in their terrifying terroristic travels).

    • by russotto (537200)

      Privacy advocates are charter members of that club. Photographers were relative latecomers.

      (Remember the Clipper chip?)

  • a home based ISP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jaymz666 (34050) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:11PM (#38904759)

    If you login to you comcast webmail you may be a terrorist?

  • Code? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bucky24 (1943328) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:11PM (#38904761)
    "Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc"

    To the average citizen, most programming languages would fit this.
  • by madhatter256 (443326) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:13PM (#38904785)

    My grand parents knew friends who were arrested as they were suspected communists during the witch hunt years McArthur was going after people who simply had an opinion about the government...

  • Working = Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wamoc (1263324) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:13PM (#38904809)
    So this means that anytime I am at a public place and fire up a VPN to access work materials I am engaged in terrorist activities? Hopefully tech companies will shed some light over how absurd the FBI and DoJ are being on this.
  • by Ragnarok89 (1066010) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:14PM (#38904823)
    "Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game" Seriously!? Communicating through a videogame? By that definition every single child who plays online computer games that allow them to talk to others is a potential threat. I wonder what that means for all those who play Modern Warfare and the like? Maybe they're TRAINING to be terrorists! The US lawmakers sicken me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by snobody (990539)

      "Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game" Seriously!? Communicating through a videogame? By that definition every single child who plays online computer games that allow them to talk to others is a potential threat. I wonder what that means for all those who play Modern Warfare and the like? Maybe they're TRAINING to be terrorists! The US lawmakers sicken me.

      Well, of course, they're terrorists. Listen in to the conversations of any Team Fortress 2 game and you'll hear people plotting to shoot people with snipers, spies backstabbing people, and pushing a bomb to a checkpoint. Lock those little jihadi bastards up! The FBI and DHS would wet their panties on hearing that stuff.

  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:16PM (#38904853)

    "Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist"

    Or simply wanking to porn. Who wants to be disturbed by CIA/FBI when touching one's genitals?

  • Make it universal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:19PM (#38904893)

    This is why everyone should use such tools and practices, all the time.

    • I taught my grandmother how to secure her computer using these technologies since she had heard only about how people can get your personal information off of a computer. So i guess she might now be a terrorists. God forbid we fear the 91 year old grandma.
  • by bartoku (922448) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:20PM (#38904909)
    I guess I am a terrorist, where do I turn myself in?
  • by realsilly (186931) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:21PM (#38904921)

    .... for I relish in my privacy rights. I always try to hide what I do from others. I refuse to have an account on Facebook, or other social media tools. I guess this makes me suspect.

    Forget that my Civil Liberties are being stripped away one chip at a time, and my right to privacy is a pursuit to my life, liberty and happiness, which is in the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....

    • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:35PM (#38905185)

      So I guess our founding fathers were Terrorists then....

      Actually, yeah, they kind of were. They attacked, tarred, and feathered agents of the government. Held ships captive and destroyed their cargo. They secretly met, recruited, trained, and distributed propoganda. They illegally stored heavy weapons (Lexington and Concorde came as a direct result of th British attempting to locate and destroy weapons cahes of powder and cannon). Remember, our rebellion started out as an insurgency more than an open war, and in its early stages there is not much of a difference between terrorism and insurgencies. Probably the only difference is thatour founding fathers did not go out and hurt innocent people or kill civilians. Their targets were always governmetn agents or those representing government interests. That, and they for the most part adhered to the standard rules of war (except for hit and run attacks and snipers/intentional targeting of officers). So, while they could certainly be labelled terrorists, they should not be confused with the terrorists of today.

  • by tverbeek (457094) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:24PM (#38904989) Homepage

    Apparently my employer could be a terrorist organization, because we use PGP and VPN technology routinely. Sure, the boss says it's for HIPAA compliance, but that's what you'd expect a terrorist to say, isn't it?

  • Fake (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Reservoir Penguin (611789) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:25PM (#38905009)
    This is obviously a fake flyer, where is your sense of humour people? Mention "Tripwire", seriously?
  • by crunchygranola (1954152) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:28PM (#38905051)

    Anyone accessing any kind of sensitive information (like reading email) at an internet cafe is exposing themselves to the possibility of every type of electronic snooping by criminals, up to and including laptop theft. It would be folly not to employ strong security measures when accessing the net under such circumstances.

    This is like claiming people who lock their front doors fit a criminal profile, because they are trying to keep people from seeing what they have or are doing in their houses.

  • by Morris Thorpe (762715) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:28PM (#38905055)

    There's a news story in Ann Arbor in which a pediatrician is accused of peeping involving a minor. Police confiscated his computer based on the investigation. That's great and I'm glad they caught the guy.

    But....after analyzing his computer, the cops presented the "evidence" they found.
    The detective was (can't find the news story right now, sorry) quoted as listing images, an electronic receipt to a child porn site and....the fact that the doctor deleted cookies and added other privacy measures to his browsing! The quote assumed that he must have been up to no good if he was careful about his privacy.

    More telling. Out of the 200-plus comments on the story, none referenced this.

  • Ask for it by name. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by utkonos (2104836) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:30PM (#38905105)
    I see that the FBI still has a rock hard boner because of the Anarchist Cookbook.
  • by sloth10k (1298709) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:30PM (#38905109)
    At the bottom of the flyer: "Each indictor listed above is by itself lawful conduct or behavior and may also constitute the exercise of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution." Don't let pesky details get in the way, JRIC...
  • Every publicly traded company has to keep some of their activities confidential. We make heavy use of encrypted hard drives, encrypted VPN and train them not to allow others to view their screens. I can't wait for the firestorm after the CEO gets turned into the FBI for his "terrorist" activities. He has a building full of lawyers at his disposal.

    I wonder if the candidates for US President are using these "terrorist" tools?

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @02:53PM (#38905445) Homepage

    A useful metric for law enforcement organizations is what fraction of their work is self-generated, and what fraction is complaint-driven. When a police department responds to a call to 911 or a crime report, they're performing a service function. When they run a drug sting, they're doing self-generated work. Some self-generated law enforcement work is useful and necessary, but too much of it corrupts an organization.

    The FBI was traditionally complaint-driven. Historically, their self-generated work didn't go well. The Red Squads and the investigation of the civil rights movement of the Hoover era are historical examples.

    The FBI's anti-terrorism operation is mostly self-generated work. So is their Internet operation. (40% of FBI Internet investigative resources are devoted to kiddie porn. Most of the rest is "national security". Fraud on the Internet, about 4%. The FBI is soft on Internet fraud - stopping that takes real work, and results are measurable.)

    Measurability is the big issue here. On their complaint-based work, law enforcement success rates are easily measured. There were N bank robberies last year, and the people who did M of them were caught. Success rate: M / N. Running a law enforcement operation on that basis keeps it productive and honest. Metrics for self-generated police work tend to be less meaningful. The US has had so little terrorism in the last decade that metrics for that are mostly have an N of zero.

    Measurability was William Bratton's approach. Bratton headed the Boston PD, the NYPD, and the LAPD, and is generally considered to have improved all of them. He was big on measuring results, and put in systems to track, on a daily basis, how his cops were doing against crooks. There was a lot of software and mapping involved, and twice-weekly crime strategy meetings. In a big department, it was quite possible to have a whole crime spree before someone at the command level noticed a pattern. He fixed that. Focusing his cops on solving identified problems tended to keep his departments pointed in the right direction.

  • I'm Guilty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afabbro (33948) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:02PM (#38905627) Homepage

    I'd like to point out that I was, indeed, using a computer (with privacy tools) in an Internet Cafe in California (an airport, no less!) only last month, after having traveled an illogical distance and despite having robust residential Internet access.

    While doing so, I did download content with extremely violent themes and military tactics. Indeed, the material enthusiastically described the ruthless, near-extermination of a freedom-loving people by a warlike, non-Christian foreign power bent on world conquest. The material was written by leader of these warlike people, and frankly I was rooting for him.

    If I have to go to prison for reading Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, so be it. Sic Semper...wait a minute...

  • by no-body (127863) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:13PM (#38905835)

    The Genie is out of the bottle and won't go back easily, if at all.

    Examples: National Security Letters

    "The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
    (from: http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters [aclu.org] )

    Catch 22:
    From: Susan Herman's book, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy:

    "A number of courts have declared that no one has standing - that is, the right to bring a lawsuit - to challenge eavesdropping programs unless they can prove that the government has been listening to their own telephone calls or intercepting their own-mails. That is a true Catch-22, when the whole point of secrecy is that the target is unaware of being the target."

    Bingo!
    Issue a NSL to an ISP for all web traffic of a particular person, erroneously accuse a person of {something}. Defense lawyer can't do his job, person disappears.

  • by Above (100351) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:21PM (#38905975)

    Most agents don't carry laptops...those who do?

    Full disk encryption.
    Smartcard access.
    VPN back in to do anything.
    Have those screen polarizers on them so you can't look at the screen for an angle.

    Wait a minute, the FBI is full of terrorists!

  • My other thought (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nyder (754090) on Thursday February 02, 2012 @03:35PM (#38906263) Journal

    Does anyone pay attention to history?

    Seriously?

    I had a public school education, yet i know how this ends.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...