Slashdot Log In
Cyber Crime A Distant #3 Priority for FBI
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:23 PM
from the bigger-fish-to-fry dept.
from the bigger-fish-to-fry dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A reading of the Justice Department's 2008 budget justification to Congress for the FBI indicates the agency is dedicating about 5.5 percent of its field agents to combating cyber crime, the FBI's stated Number Three priority, The Washington Post reports. Take away the agents dedicated to catching child predators online — a program that accounts for the vast majority of the department's prosecutorial victories — and about 3.6 percent of the FBI's agents are dedicated to cyber crime, the report notes. From the story: 'If the FBI's third most-important priority claims just over 3.5 percent of its active agents, how many agents and FBI resources are dedicated to the remaining Top Ten priorities?'"
Related Stories
Submission: Cyber Crime A Distant #3 Priority for FBI by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's not important yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
After China pwns all of the DoD's sensitive data, you can bet they'll pump all kinds of money at it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And that this doesn't take into consideration the cybercrime divisions of several other government agencies?
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not important yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we're looking at this from the wrong angle? Perhaps they view cybercrime as a division that you don't necessarily just throw agents at. They may only have a specific number of agents with the specific training necessary to prosecute cybercrime cases.
I'm just saying that perhaps looking at simple agent ratios wouldn't necessarily be an accurate reflection of the amount of attention that cybercrime receives. The other jobs may be more man-power intensive, even though they may be lower down on the priority list.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its not the agents that are expensive, its the mathematicians [wikipedia.org]
Lobbyists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Same with big corporations. Gates' clever (and misleading) lobbying for more H-1B's is a prime example.
Re:Lobbyists (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Whaaaa? (Score:5, Funny)
I am not sure what you want. This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a user:
User: Why didn't you add feature X in this revision?
Me: If you remember, we sent out a feature ballot, and X was not voted high.
User: That's because you put it toward the end of the ballot list, where people didn't see it.
Me: We can't put everything at the top of the list.
User: Why not?
Me: (I fake a beeper call and leave)
Duh! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whaaaa? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Espionage? (Score:2, Insightful)
X Files (Score:4, Funny)
Re:X Files (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
the logical answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, obviously, less than 3.5%. So, if you use the optimistic estimate that each of the other 7 in the top 10 priorities are slightly less than 3.5% (i.e. 3.4%), that totals 23.8%, which means the top two priorities are consuming at least 72.7% of the resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First off, as others have pointed out, you are assuming that there are only ten priorities.
Second, and more importantly, you need to read the article summary again and try to see which weasel words apply to which statements.
Only on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
Cracking/theft of secure data
DDoS attacks
Spam and the associated botnets
Viruses
All of which come far higher on the evil list than copying music and movies. IMHO.
And the RIAA/MPAA hate is well documented on many sites and not unreasonable. So far the pirate bay has proven to be within the law in the place it is based and so is not related to crime at all.
Parent
No prizes for guessing what the top priority is (Score:5, Insightful)
Priority 1 - Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Priority 2 - Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and
espionage
Priority 3 - Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and hightechnology
crimes
Priority 4 - Combat public corruption at all levels
Priority 5 - Protect civil rights;
Priority 6 - Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises
Priority 7 - Combat major white-collar crime
Priority 8 - Combat significant violent crime
Priority 9 - Support federal, state, local and international partners
Priority 10 - Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I suspect that it's distorted by misclassifications, which seems to be the norm of all government statistics these days. Most obviously, a lot of the computer-related crime probably gets refiled under higher priority categories. If a stock pump-and-dump scam is being run by Pakistani-based scammers, and there is any reason to suspect that th
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "cute" nor does it evoke images of white supremacists as, I assume, was your intention. At least, it's the intention of almost everyone else in the past decade who uses that prefix in a political context.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, it
Re:No prizes for guessing what the top priority is (Score:4, Informative)
It certainly shouldn't be applied to people who have always been conservative. Ann Coulter is not a neocon. Both of the Clintons are. Newt Gingrich is not a neocon, but neither is Nancy Pelosi. Dick Cheney is not, but both the Bush presidents (41,43) could be considered to be. Rudy Guiliani is shaping up to be one. Barack Obama has cleverly been on the campaign trail (or otherwise occupied) during a number of policy-defining votes during his freshman term, so it remains to be seen just exactly what he is, and what he's pretending to be.
Neocons don't tend to control anything, principally because they, like moderates, like to stick their finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing before not really doing anything of substance.
There is no logical reason why the word would be repeated so often about people it does not describe except to create a new definition. One which is intended to associate conservatives with a certain kind of nazis by way of a common prefix. It is very tiring to watch this in action. Especially as it appears to be succeeding amongst the ill-informed, non-critically thinking masses.
Parent
Re:No prizes for guessing what the top priority is (Score:5, Funny)
Priority 12 - Protect the Innocent
Priority 13 - Uphold the Law
No, wait!
Parent
Basic Math (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, was that supposed to be rhetorical?
Sorry. This slashdot, we are all pedants, with the occasional pedantess, here.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did that 24.5% come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not pedantic enough. (Score:2)
This is good news! (Score:2, Interesting)
Like the saying goes: "Be glad you're not getting all the government you're paying for."
I thought this was a news site???? (Score:2)
My experience with the FBI's cybercrime division (Score:5, Informative)
The keynote speech was given by an FBI special agent, and was about cybercrime (I hate that word). He talked about where major risks came from, talked up InfraGard [infragard.net] a bit, and generally gave common sense advice to the CEO types there. I remember thinking, "This guy can't really be a computer security expert, can he?"
At one point, I zoned out, and when I tuned back in I thought he was using a Latino name repeatedly in a context I didn't understand. So I glanced up at his powerpoint slide, then back at him, and then back at the slide, until I made the connection.
He was talking about "warez," but he was pronouncing it "Juarez."
I found it very hard to take him seriously after that.
Re:My experience with the FBI's cybercrime divisio (Score:2)
In other words, a bunch of people who perhaps were technical once, a long time ago, but most likely weren't and definitely aren't now.
Sounds like the FBI guy was pitching his presentation a
Re:My experience with the FBI's cybercrime divisio (Score:5, Funny)
I found it very hard to take him seriously after that.
Parent
Why does the FBI have to do everything? (Score:2)
Yup (Score:2, Insightful)
is it just me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming for the moment that the top 10 are fairly evenly staffed, that's about 55%, give or take. That leaves about 45% for everything else.
Seems roughly right to me. There are far more than 10 "big problems" in our good ol' US of A.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I know. (Score:3, Interesting)
I know three of them. They're good, and they have a good conviction rate, but still, only five? I don't know how they do it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe Kansas is just a good home town kind of state and not rampant with crime but white picket fences and apple pie?
And how is this a problem??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Busy, But... (Score:3, Funny)
From a person who has done this before.... (Score:2, Informative)
The primary aim of ALL government-operated organisations, in any part of the world is:
SECURE YOUR BUDGET
If you do not do this, you can whistle for any other work. If there is no independent audit or pressure to keep you primarily focussed on your work, more and more time will be spent fighting for your budget.
So I suggest that between a quarter and a third of FBI staff are primarily engaged in this process. It will involve writing reports, attendin
Yeah, because crimes are not commited "online" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. The FBI is too open for torture. You use a sub-contractor's cousin's business associate for that.
No, their most likely top priorities are turf wars with other agencies and maximizing their budget.