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.
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!
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)
And a suspect until proven innocent.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
i believe the chic term is 'person of interest' -- that releases them from liability while investigating him
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are lives too (lots of which were innocent).
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)
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.
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.)
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.
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:5, Informative)
First of all, there is no such distinction between "normal laws" and "Patriot Act laws". The Patriot Act IS the law, modifies existing laws, or expands existing jurisdiction.
Second of all, the Patriot Act demonstrably does not give the FBI the power to detain people without charge, without admitting they are holding them, and without warrant. That is pure, ignorant FUD. What the Patriot Act does do, is expand the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow the FBI to detain a suspected terrorist ALIEN PERSON until they can be deported, or criminal charges brought against them. The term of that detention is LIMITED, and must be DISCLOSED to Congress.
The relevant text is below, from the Patriot Act [epic.org].
SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-
`(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs
(5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph
(3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
`(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
`(2) APPLICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, inc
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: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?
Comment removed (Score:5, 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: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...
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&ro
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/a
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/
Don't blame the FBI for not investigating, blame the justice department and the higher ups.
What if denied the "right" to fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
But then: why did they both refuse FOI's on what they have already gathered about Mr. Miller? Shouldn't he be entitled to that?
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, because they can deny access to case records on open cases, and this case remains open because the Feds still don't know to their satisfaction what's going on here.
They don't have enough information to charge anybody. They don't have enough information to get search warrants... hell, they don't even have enough infromation to be sure did happen or even that a crime's even g
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
None of these people really felt harmed by us, even in their own heads. The motivation is more along the lines of a script kiddie. The US is the target because it's the greatest challenge. 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. 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.
That's pretty much Ramzi Yousef's fault. He's tough to understand, but he's the guy behind pretty much everything big Al Quaeda's ever done and/or tried. The first WTC bombing, the dozen simultaneous exploding airliners crashing into the CIA building at midnight on New Years, and then sticking those two together, 9/11. This is why Osama looked so much like just a fundraiser up until recently. You have trained engineers coming up with crazy shit like that, and then you also have tens of thousands of 6th-grade-educated gun-nuts from the Arab equivailent of Michigan running around doing obstacle courses and then training random bunches of people in what are essentially US military tactics. They end up meshing pretty damn well, but it's not intuitive.
This is why Al Quaeda gets so much attention. They're just very, very good at blowing shit up and killing people, and they have no ideology. It's "the base", the vision is that they teach anybody who wants to know how to cause as much damage as is humanly possible. The Anarchist's Cookbook transformed into a university with grant money and facilities and everything.
Because that's there (and it just moved in with the Pashtuns now, invading Afghanistan did about shit) it's doubly important not to piss anybody off. It's ok to kill Luke's dad as long as you're the Empire, but once fucking Obi-Wan is hanging around in the caves in western Pakistan handing out free lightsabres and midichlorians to every dumbass that wanders in, you better make damn sure not to give anybody a reason to head down there.
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.!
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.
So what you are saying is (Score:5, Insightful)
That's gonna work real well!
Re:So what you are saying is (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Unique instance gets the most press. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fertilizer bomb was a unique instance. Every day, millions of people go about their lives in the US without building a fertilizer bomb.
Yet that single instance is used by people who feel threatened to justify any amount of governmental "protection".
If you live in the US and are NOT in a combat zone, you are STATISTICALLY more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
What you're seeing is a fear reaction. Fear does NOT understand statistics. Fear does NOT take reasonable precautions.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Twilight1
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:3, Funny)
Now that you mention it, why do you, Mr. Anderson?
--
Agent Smith
The problem with 9-11 was communication (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Why isn't this modded up? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a classical logical fallacy - I say 'A implies B' and you then respond "by your logic B implies A" and then you built an argument on this flawed premise.
My statement simply means that if you dont defend yourself with force that you will have serious problems no matter how nice and understanding and peace-loving you are. The rest of your argument appears to be an attemt to show how foolish my reasoning is by following it to it's logical conclusion. However, you used faulty logic, so you didn't succede.
Your try and ?extend? my reasoning to imply that simple reactionary defense is the only possible justifiable action (ie we shouldn't have been warring with Iraq because they didn't directly threaten us). If you believe that you should NEVER use force to stand up for what you believe, then I understand your point of view. I do not agree with that point of view however because I believe that sometimes you have to war for other reasons and simple reactionary defense.
And, by reactionary defense I mean 'wating around till someone attacks you to fight back.'
As for rethinking what I said, you read a lot of things into my argument that are not there.
Wake up and smell the *sig-laden-with-coffee*
Yes, war and death suck. Yes people on both sides of the conflict are dying, daily. Yes, according to the information we had at the time it was NECESSARY to enter Iraq - in retrospect, we probably could have waited and things MIGHT be different, but hindsight is always 20-20. No war has ever been won without tragedy. Is this one going to turn out to be worth it? We wont know for 10 or 20 years.
Yes, I know that you have issues with the war. Those issues appear to be based mostly on the questionable media assertion that our president can not actually [GASP!] tell the truth about his motivations.
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: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.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
America, land of the secure (formerly the land of the free).
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to America, Land of the Free*
*Some restrictions apply, void where prohibited.
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:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone please explain to me how in the hell that make sense.
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:He's giving OBL ideas! (Score:3, Informative)
Part 2: roughly a post hoc. Simply because the FBI was corrupt during that time it does not mean it is still corrupt; investigations are not bad solely because they have been used for bad purposes.
Logical fallacies refuted. Poink. Your overly dramatic post vanishes.
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:US Gov. not serious about War on Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Sounds fair to me (Score:4, Insightful)
A thought... (Score:5, Funny)
So WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its kinda usless to have a right if you are harassed every time you use 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: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: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:So WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
[answer: ~85 rpm]
What's UT Watch? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What's UT Watch? (Score:4, Informative)
UT Watch is a student-based watchdog group for the University of Texas at Austin.
We promote campus democracy, affordable education, and genuine access to higher education for all Texans.
We resist corporate control of education, authoritarian decision-making, and misuse of public money.
Terrorists attack... (Score:3, Interesting)
xx ben.
I know this guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
[04/13 00:16] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Ah.
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> District Attorney Office. Forgot to go by that.
[04/13 00:17] <@dyfrgi> Why do you want/need to?
[04/13 00:17] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To file a writ of mandumus against UT Austin.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They are ignoring one of my open records request.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To find out how much they pay for their Internet service.
[04/13 00:18] <@mspencer> "one of"?
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Okay, several of.
[04/13 00:18] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They initiall complied.
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Now they're ignoring me hoping I'll go away.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> I'm surprised you've filed even one open records request, let alone several.
[04/13 00:19] <@mspencer> What are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Er?
[04/13 00:19] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Why are you suprised?
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> I mean, as long as you're being adult about it, and making sure your need for the data is worth the time they need to put into filling those requests.
[04/13 00:20] <@dyfrgi> Writ of Mandumus?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> mspencer,
[04/13 00:20] <@mspencer> So what are you using the data for?
[04/13 00:20] <@Mirell[Mobile]> To satiate my curiousity.
[04/13 00:21] <@Mirell[Mobile]> I'm not sure if that's how you spell it, dyfrgi.
[04/13 00:21] <@mspencer> Do you think those requests are having any kind of negative effect on the University or its staff?
[04/13 00:21] <@dyfrgi> I'm just wondering what it is.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Let's see...I requested initially any contracts or invoices detailing the cost the University entails in gaining Internet connectivity.
[04/13 00:22] <@dyfrgi> Mm. I assume you want to file a petition for a writ of madamus.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then I filed another one for something they withheld on an invoice.
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then another one for another thing they left out..
[04/13 00:22] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Classroom Web Cams they deny knowledge of
[04/13 00:23] <@Mirell[Mobile]> Then one about the UT Information Security Council briefs, since we had the Social Security Number scare.
[04/13 00:24] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say by "Negative Affect" when they have a position who's sole purpose is to manage Open Records Requests.
[04/13 00:25] <@dyfrgi> I think he is implying that you should not ask, because it costs money for them to tell you.
[04/13 00:25] <@mspencer> I was deliberately vague: any effect, emotional or financial or otherwise, that is more significant than the benefit you get from satisfying your curiosity.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> No.
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> hopefully there isn't one, but if there is, I'd like to think you considered that.
[04/13 00:26] <@bl0d> i dunno, i'd really be curious about the Webcam one...that's just fucked up...
[04/13 00:26] <@mspencer> Ah, OK then.
[04/13 00:26] <@Mirell[Mobile]> http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=620962
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> They pull crap like this as well.
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[Mobile]> And this: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=d etail&storyid=657367
[04/13 00:27] <@Mirell[
Re:I know this guy... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Never give true reasons but plausible ones instead (Score:5, Funny)
In the chat log, he gives a reason for an investigation thus: "To satiate my curiousity." This is the wrong thing to say. If you are up to anything that is remotely dubious, never give the exact *real* reason you are doing anything. Instead, make up another reason that is plausible and legitimate and always give that reason instead. Never divulge the real reason to anyone you don't trust. If you cannot think up a plausible reason then you may need to rethink your actions.
In the example given, he should have said that he was gathering information in the public interest. (This reason is even true and therefore irrefutable: he's a member of the public and he's interested, therefore it must be in the public interest.) Another thing one could say is anything using corporate doublespeak. The eyes of thine listener shall glazeth over: and thou shalt be as slippery as an eel in thy escape from unwelcome scrutiny.
Concealing real reasons is commonplace. The leaders of the MPAA and RIAA do this. Politicians do this. Corporate CEO's do this. And we know what fine, upstanding citizens these people are. *cough*. So if it's okay for them to do it, why can't the masses?
Re:Are you in a two party consent state? (Score:4, Interesting)
Washington State prohibits recording conversations between two parties unless everyone agrees. That applies to party lines as well (potential public forums).
That is the foundation that some states are using to attack IRC logging. The conversation is carried over regulated carriers within the states.
Tinfoil hat time (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it.
You know I'm right.
Legitimate reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
Most campuses have underground tunnel networks (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Why not. Tunnels were one of / the main motivators behind the now imfamous MIT Guide to Lockpicking, and it's not that far of a stretch to see why someone would be interested in getting a map. Maybe the kid just wanted to read them, but come on, if you REALLY wanted to kn
Re:Legitimate reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Purdue has similar rules. Most tunnels (except the ones marked Accessible Tunnels)are banned because of safety reasons - apparently several have live bus bars running down the ceiling which is apparently quite low. And some really old (~80 years) steam tunnels have asbestos insulation with signs next to them saying "Danger! Asbestos!" or something similar.
But the bigger mystery at Purdue is how to get to the campus particle [purdue.edu] accelerator [purdue.edu] beneath the Engineering Mall. Everybody knows it's accessible from the MSEE building, but nobody knows exactly which entrance to take, unless they go with someone who already knows where it is situated (like a faculty member).
There is also a nuclear reactor [purdue.edu] in the basement of the EE building's annexe, of which there used to be occasional tours. I don't know if they still have those tours.
Re:Legitimate reasons (Score:4, Informative)
Where's Robert Stack? This is an Unsolved Mystery! (Score:3, Informative)
The agents were called in to investigate if this kid was a threat based on one suspicious, yet not illegal, thing that he actually did. The key question was of course why he made a request for such sensitive info about tunnels he would never be allowed to access anyway. Well, the only way to answer that question is to ask the kid...
So they requested a meeting. They got the meeting. They asked him about every reason they could brainstorm about why he made the request, and didn't walk out knowing much more than they knew walking in. The question's now more-or-less impossible to answer.
And that's the end of the story. Unless he does something else to reactivate his file, this will always be an unsolved case. They'll likely never bother to do anything more, but should he ever come up again in their sights the Feds will at least have the records from this case to remind them of what he did in the past.
I believe it is for a computer network (Score:3, Interesting)
shower cams? (Score:3, Funny)
Long Term Effects (Score:5, Interesting)
Interviewer "So have you ever been convicted of a felony"
Mark "No"
Interviewer "Have you ever been investigated for terrorist activites?"
Mark "well.. there was this one time in college..."
Interviewer "OK thanks we'll call you" (calls security)
I've seen comments saying "he could have denied the meeting or walked away". I'm sure that wouldn't inflame the agents curiosity even more. The question about the ACLU was really out of line. Personally I think he should join the ACLU before making any other requests and then pull the card out if any other agents stop by.
the sentiment that I have to agree with is American citizens making FOIA requests should NOT trigger investigations.
Re:Long Term Effects (Score:4, Interesting)
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].
Planning a plot? (Score:5, Funny)
"The Joint Terrorism Task Force probably would look into something like that. [Miller] could be a terrorist. He could be planning a plot."
Planning a plot? That's only the tip of the iceberg! What if he is plotting a scheme or scheming a plan?
I see no problem with such a request being investigated. It does sound like they asked the guy some pretty stupid questions though (do they really think that long hair is significant when it comes to identifying terrorists? or membership of the ACLU?) OTOH, those questions may well have been filler to pad out the real questions they wanted to ask.
If they find no evidence during their investigation, they really should grant his further information requests though. Once they are satisfied that he's not a terrorist, they'll have no reason not to let him see all the files relating to his case, surely?
Dan.
Good reason to ask for tunnel maps (Score:5, Funny)
The underground tunnels @ UT are well mapped (Score:4, Informative)
http://homepage.mac.com/happywaffle/tunnels.html [mac.com]
So what I'm seeing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure. I understand why he might be curious. It does seem like a way to draw attention to oneself. And I don't see why the university wouldn't just deny the request with a perfectly reasonable comment about security.
Okay: Someone is asking for information on infrastructure that could be exploited in a terrorist attack. I do wonder why they didn't just call the police/sheriff, but perhaps they naturally pass potential terrorist threats to the FBI.
I don't much like this. Are they saying that UT Watch might be planning terrorist attacks? If they are, then does it make sense to let the organization know that they know? (If this guy had been with UT Watch, pow, they know they're being tracked; if not, why wouldn't he mention the questioning to others?) Or are they just idly trying to find out if there might be a connections? Or are they completely clueless because they are a national law enforcement unit trying to follow up on a local group?
This is odd, too: The obvious answer is "We hand suspicious requests for infrastructure information to the police for further investigation, and they're free to share that with other law enforcement agencies." I'd HOPE that's what they'd do, in fact, and would feel more comfortable if that was their answer. But "I dunno"?
Overall, I'd call it disconcerting, but not really that big a deal. Am I in the minority here?
TSG
Kudos to Mark - Scary though (Score:5, Interesting)
But
If I were king... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, my government's power would not be the product of my people, but rather would be the product of myself. Freedom would be a priveledge extended by the state, not by the Almighty Creator. In fact, if any religious propaganda, such as a plaque of the Ten Commandments, be found anywhere, said propaganda would immediately be removed.
Second, everybody would be my slave. Nobody would be allowed to do anything without government approval in the form of licenses (from driver licenses to business permits to rental unit occupation permits), because otherwise they would be considered terrorists and would have all of their property seized for my use.
Third, a tax system would be put into effect to steal half of everybody's income, from a numeric standpoint. I would pass legislation to make it extremely difficult to purchase and own property, and renters would be affected by high prices because their landlords would similarly have to make ends meet. Thus, with this tax system and property ownership legislation, both parents would have to work very hard to feed their children, and would be so concerned with making ends meet that they would ignore the above, because there are more pressing matters (food) to worry about. (The same tax system would further benefit me by providing detailed information, down to the finest detail, of everybody's business, because they would need to detail the source of every penny of income, and back it up with evidence. Failure to do this would constitute a felony, and would be selectively enforced to strike fear into peoples' hearts.) To steal the other half of everybody's money, the money itself would not be backed by anything of value. Thus it would be easy to continuously print money, thereby constantly increasing the total amount in circulation. This way, my government would steal the peoples' money, without reducing the amount they have from a numeric standpoint, by stealing the value of their money.
Fourth, the educational system would basically turn out people who can barely read, so they won't be smart enough to figure out what I'm doing to them.
Fifth, there would be propaganda all over the place telling people how free they are, etc.
That's how I'd run a government, if I were the king of my own country.
Here's what he should have known. (Score:5, Informative)
If an Agent Knocks - Federal Investigators and Your Rights
People opposing U.S. policies in Central America, giving sanctuary to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador, struggling for Black liberation, and against nuclear weapons, are today more than ever likely to receive visits from FBI agents or other federal investigators. Increasingly, agents are also visiting the families, friends, and employers of these activists.
This pamphlet is designed to answer the most frequent questions asked by people and groups experiencing government scrutiny, and to help them develop practical responses.
What is political intelligence?
Political intelligence is information collected by the government about individuals and groups. Files secured under the Freedom of Information Act disclose that government officials have long been interested in all forms of data. Information gathered by government agents ranges from the most personal data about sexual liaisons and preferences to estimates of the strength of groups opposing U.S. policies. Over the years, groups and individuals have developed various ways of limiting the collection of information and preventing such intelligence gathering from harming their work.
Do I have to talk to the FBI?
No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address see errata), to permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do anything -- unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don't have to answer their questions.
Under what laws do the agents operate?
In 1976, FBI guidelines regulating the investigation of political activities were issued by Attorney General Edward H. Levi. Criticized by liberals and conservatives alike, the guidelines were issued in the wake of a Congressional committee's report of highly questionable activities by the FBI, monitoring the activities of domestic political groups seeking to effect change. The report exposed the FBI's counter-intelligence program (COINTELPRO) under which the agency infiltrated groups, compiled dossiers on, and directly interfered with individuals engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
The FBI COINTELPRO program was initiated in 1956. Its purpose, as described later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities" of those individuals and organizations whose ideas or goals he opposed. Tactics included: falsely labelling individuals as informants; infiltrating groups with persons instructed to disrupt the group; sending anonymous or forged letters designed to promote strife between groups; initiating politically motivated IRS investigations; carrying out burglaries of offices and unlawful wiretaps; and disseminating to other government agencies and to the media unlawfully obtained derogatory information on individuals and groups.
In 1983, Attorney General William French Smith issued superseding guidelines that authorized "domestic security/ terrorism" investigations against political organizations whenever the FBI had a reasonable belief that these groups might violate a law. The new guidelines permitted the same intrusive techniques the FBI used against organized crime.
The Smith guidelines were justified by the Attorney General's observation that "our citizens are no less threatened by groups which engage in criminal violence for political... purposes that by those which operate lawlessly for financial gain." He concluded: "we must ensure that criminal intelligence resources that have been brought to bear
Reminds me of a fellow I knew in the Vietnam Era. (Score:5, Interesting)
His use of a university's computer while a high school student (something he got started on as a guinea pig in a University program doing research on learning and teaching) had attracted the attention of the FBI.
A couple years later he decided to use the shiny-new FOIA to see what records the FBI and the state and local cops had on him. And while he was at it, he sent FOIA requests to several other agencies.
The first one he sent to the CIA was a classic self-referential hack: He requested their internal document describing their procedure for responding to FOIA requests. B-) (Obviously useful for generating the next round of requests, too.)
Needless to say the agencies involved didn't respond as required by the law. So with the aid of a Libertarian lawyer he started suing them. He won, and they eventually were ordered to give him what he asked for. Then they flaked on that, too, and he got a contempt citation and more court orders. Eventually he got much of his info (with big chunks blacked out). Then he sued them for his lawyer's fees and won that, too.
After a few iterations of this he was sitting on quite a number of interesting documents. So he started a newspaper to give them wider circulation and created a business of generating FOIA requests and publishing the results. This became quite popular with the CIA watcher, privacy advocate, private detective, and tinfoil-hat sets. Advertising revenue flowed in from such folk as buging and debugging equipment manufacturers.
At one point he got the petty cash records from a New York area CIA office. Items he found in it charged to one project (air compressor, flit guns, briefcase, auto exhaust system, washing a car) led to blowing the lid off a project to obtain information on how a biowarfare plague might spread in an urban environment by exposing the citizens of New York City to a "mostly harmless" bug that caused severe enough respiratory system symptoms that it could be tracked by hospital admissions. (Spread techniques included spraying subways with the bug from the gimmicked briefcase and spraying commuter traffic via the car's exhaust system.)
He also got hold of and published one year's version of the IRS procedures manual. And put out a pamphlet on how to use the FOIA. (Eventually he was enjoined from distributing either of these.)
Eventually the FOIA was modified to give the security agencies some loopholes against such requests.
Bob Dylan had something to say about this: "You have to pay to keep from going through these things twice." Also Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of Liberty must be watered, from time to time
He's still out there doing stuff like this, by the way. Last time he looked he had a web site dedicated to exposing personal information trading in the information age.
The above-mentioned kid was part of the Boomer's round. I guess now it's Generation X's (or maybe Y's) turn to pay some dues. (Sigh.)
Intent (Score:4, Interesting)
My brother is an ex-pat - works all over the world - and a few years before 9/11, on a visit home he said *people in this country have no idea how loose our security is viewed worldwide. Something big will happen and the attitudes in the country will change forever*. That was about the time of the Oklahoma City bombings, when - if you were watching the first reports and speculations - everyone believed it *had* to an international organization. Palestine got the first blame - then nobody really woke up to the idea that people in our country could be every bit as extremist as is *others* are portayed in a xenophobic cultural lens.
I am generally very suspicious of all these government investigations - they make me uneasy in too many ways because the Patriot Act has been too loosely applied in ways that have already been well reported - and in fact have become good sport - as they should be in an open and free society.
Had the request had some intent - like the student was an architecture major - technically - not that he had to be to make the request, I think this would have just faded away very quickly.
I wonder though if a large group of individuals - say if a group as large as that as subscribe to
not the first time (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Secret Service ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Secret Service ? (Score:3, Informative)
They protect all government officials in need of protection, which at present even includes John Kerry because he has been certified as a viable candidate to become the President.
Also, they're also responsible for investigating all cases of counterfeit money.
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.
Re:What'd you expect... (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly, you've never been a college student.
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.
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 informati
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:slightly off-topic but indirectly related (Score:5, Insightful)