FBI Data Mining For More Than Just Terrorists 130
jcatcw writes "Computerworld reports that the FBI is using data mining programs to track more than just terrorists. The program's original focus was to identify potential terrorists, but additional patterns have been developed for identity theft rings, fraudulent housing transactions, Internet pharmacy fraud, automobile insurance fraud, and health-care-related fraud. From the article: 'In a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the report [on the data mining] was four months late and raised more questions than it answered. The report "demonstrates just how dramatically the Bush administration has expanded the use of [data mining] technology, often in secret, to collect and sift through Americans' most sensitive personal information," he said. At the same time, the report provides an "important and all-too-rare ray of sunshine on the department's data mining activities," Leahy said. It would give Congress a way to conduct "meaningful oversight" he said.'"
Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/11/2
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
(Good luck)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Dupe (Score:4, Funny)
So if a story is "valid" we should just keep repeating it every day? So if a story is "valid" we should just keep repeating it every day? So if a story is "valid" we should just keep repeating it every day?
Re: (Score:1)
But... that wasn't really my
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday's topic is still live, you can post in it for at least a week.
But this is not a deliberate revisiting of a story. It's just due to the slackness of the editors. You're just as likely to see a repeat of some stupid joke non-story as something inmportant.
Re: (Score:2)
Because "the point" is not defined by you?
In yet other words that might make this even clearer, in the case of important topics such as this, it might be beneficial to not gripe about the "slackness of the editors", as it works out in our favor to have more discussion about the issue.
No, as MY point was, the dupes aren't related to importance. They're random.
Re: (Score:1)
The point that I'm making is.
'No, as MY point was, the dupes aren't related to importance. They're random.'
And in this case, the randomness works out in favor of further discussion of an important topic. What's the fucking problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a fucking problem with
BBC Trust Will Hear iPlayer Openness Complaints [slashdot.org]
and BBC Trust to Meet With OSC Over iPlayer [slashdot.org]?
I just want to be sure that it's cool with you to duplicate this important story before I comment. And how lucky that I can make the same comments on the story twice, just in case they missed the first one!
Re: (Score:1)
Seems pretty unimportant to me.
Huh? I don't care if you fucking comment, or if you think it's important. I was just saying that talking about the topic that you did bother complaining about--the abuses of a murderous, nearly all-powerful government agency--is important and it's not a r
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
Re: (Score:1)
Or, in other words, why do you hate straw men so much that you need to tear them down?
Wiki Article [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a writer, sometimes my interactions take on a more creative tone. In this case, I was referring to the action of tearing down a straw man, which is the origin of the term in relation to logical fallacies (in a "battle", instead of attacking on
Re:Dupe -- Not Exactly...prelude police state? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) "Data on Americans mined for terror risk" - Yahoo (AT&T, SBC...etc)
or
2) "FBI data mining programs target more than just terrorists, DOJ says" - ComputerWorld
Which headline attracts your attention and makes you want to read it?
Would suppliers of government information (AT&T running to give our phone records to government), have any interest in "burying" minor details from the phone in
what? (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, if they don't think of the children, who will?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Definitely not the children's parents, heavens no.
Re:what? (Score:4, Funny)
Uhh
Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really a shock to anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Zonk, will you wake up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you even bother to look at the site, you know, just to check that the story hasn't been posted already?
I mean, c'mon... it's not like you're doing any real work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't that constitute data mining? I believe the Slashdot editors are ethically opposed to that sort of activity.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm (Score:1)
So?? (Score:1)
Let me get the chain of events straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The FBI only has a certain amount of money to spend pursuing leads. They can't afford to be chasing down people who casually put the word 'bong' in the text of their emails. The narrowing down process and the high cost of investigation thins out what might otherwise become a chilling 'dragnet' of any and all 'infractions.'
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if they come across someone who's making their lives difficult or doing something objectionable but legal (like criticizing the government or national security efforts), it becomes a lot easier to turn the dataminer on them and find every bit of information necessary to destroy them.
Yes, you can't simultaneously pay attention to all the surveillance. But the nature of all-encompassing datam
Re: (Score:1)
You just described concerted, directed data gathering. Not data mining. The idea of 'turning the dataminer on them' is ridiculous.
duh (Score:1)
Sure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
For nearly everybody else, either it's an ego boost or it's an arm
Re: (Score:1)
Please stop with your pathetic OMG GUN ARE THE DEVIL!!1!!1!!oneone! shit, it's pathetic and truly sad to see people who
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Holy Cow! If those clowns at the FBI (who don't seem capable of ever obeying the law themselves) could even learn to find their butts when they are sitting on both hands???? And of course you are content, dood, which is why the last human I had an intelligent conversation with regarding the present and future of America was a Frenchman, back in 2002. Certainly few Americans have the intellectual wherewithal for said cognitio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You said it, clown, and I replied to it. If reading comprehension is your weak point, admit it like a man. But then no one has ever claimed that the ostrich is a man. The day the FBI is adequately serving the public is the day millions of Americans stop the complaints....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Surprise! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox guarding the foxen (Score:3, Insightful)
Government conducting "meaningful oversight" over government? Oh boy, I feel safe now.
Re: (Score:2)
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
--James Madison, The Federalist, #51 [Emphasis mine]
To quote Gomer Pyle (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously, did anyone think otherwise? Let's see... You've got at your disposal a giant database of every person in the country, their financial activities, their social security numbers, their purchases, their personal tastes, their locations, their income, their interests, their criminal records, their political leanings, their emails, IMs, personal communications, and most importantly their RELATIONSHIPS-- who they call, who their family is, where they travel, etc.
Amazon and lastfm use this kind of thing to figure what kind of music you're likely to like and/or what items you're gonna be most interested in. Do you really think with all this tasty information the government isn't going to use it for ALL KINDS of purposes?
They'll be able to do searches using probability and relationships to identify all kinds of commonalities between "undesirables"... who knows what it might be that puts you on the wrong list... maybe you share the same taste in "music PLUS shoes size PLUS income PLUS you leave too close to a mosque" and BAM, you light up as a 97% potential political dissident. Oh, and look, you're having an affair too. How convenient.
This shit is scary. I'm not surprised they're using this information for domestic crimes (which of course they're not allowed to do, not that it could possibly be admissible. How could a court accept evidence from a nationally secretive/illegal spying program? That is, unless they're getting tips from anonymous gov't sources that never show up in a courtroom...).
I AM worried about what else they're using it for (breaking up political adversaries, busting government bids, economic manipulations, blackmail, etc.) that we won't find out about for 50 years, if at all.
W
So are they getting results? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We learned today that Al Qaeda has become more powerful over the last year, with rapidly growing numbers in Pakistan and throughout the Middle East and Europe. But I thought we were fighting them all in Iraq? Something's fishy here.
But really, javaman235, your world isn't really more dangerous unless you've taken up smoking tobacco or driving while intoxicated. America was secure before 9/11 and it continues to be secure after 9/11.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
"The purpose of power, is power." -- Geo. Orwell, "1984".
The fight (Score:2)
No, they're in Afghanistan. You're not fighting them there. Or anywhere, really. Your government's just bending you over a barrel.
An oil barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
Why go through the trouble when you've Voting Machines that don't keep a paper record of the votes castAnybody here work with computer or software? You don't think a software or hardware vendor would do anything crooked, do you?
No, it's been much more subtle than that (and "it" has already happened). The power in this country has been taken by those who rule through FUD.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the voting machines will help to keep your party in power, but not the specific players, as a result of the 2-term limitation.
Like I said, I consider it a possibility only. I don't think it's all that likely or anything, but this is the first time I've ever thought t
The FBI has been doing this since its inception (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't know, COINTELPRO (counter-intelligence program) was an FBI initiative targeting American citizens engaged in "objectionable" political activity. Instead of arresting and prosecuting criminals, this secret and illegal program sought to neutralize targets by:
- creating a culture of fear and paranoia (psychological warfare) through whispering campaigns, surveillance, illegal search, seizure and entry;
- infiltration, provocation and entrapment;
- legal harassment (such as repeatedly arresting leaders of targeted organizations for minor infractions, keeping them behind bars while they awaited a hearing or scrambled to make bail; also including falsified show trials such as the "tennis court murders", where Pratt was convicted of murders that were committed while he was, according the FBI's own surveillance records, 400 miles away);
- violence and murder (notably the murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark).
While the COINTELPRO moniker has been disbanded, its methods extend into FBI practices to this day.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's well known they are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Background reading (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Treatm
Good Luck with that . . . (Score:2, Informative)
These companies are big-time users of Data Mining and your name was no doubt picked as a 'likely to respond'.
I work for a bank that is a heavy user of 'Data Mining'. Often the best we can do is 2 or 3 percent better than 'no mail' (lift over control for those of you in the industry).
If you can build a model that results in five percent response above 'no mail' yo
Re: (Score:1)
Now, specifically, I think that being flagged by the model should not be admissible in court or even grounds for a warrant. If only to prevent any kind of 'th
Re: (Score:1)
>> I think the best approach to finding potential terrorists is ground-level intelligence myself
Has anyone checked the White House?
So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you're a female stupid enough to wear a skirt, guys should be able to look right up it, yes? Because it is easy? Even if the female in question has something tucked up there she'd rather guys not see? Wait, you think she has some kind of right to privacy? Why? What if she's got some shoplifted stuff in there? Doesn't that give us the right to look up everybody's skirt?
Invasion of privacy is the crossing of socially defined boundaries, not just hardened boundaries like those that incorporate walls, encryption, or locks. Those hardening implementations are just the same boundary, with less trust. In other words, if I don't encrypt my hard drive, I'm not inviting you onto it. The boundary is still there. If I do encrypt the hard drive, I'm still not inviting you onto it, but I've taken the step that if you are such an ass-choad that you go there anyway, I've made it more difficult. This is because some people have made it somewhat prudent to drop the trust thing that goes along with social boundaries.
In some small towns, people don't find it necessary to lock doors - cars, houses - because they know that their neighbors won't cross the social boundary. In LA, on the other hand, they know the neighbors will cross it, and so trust is sundered, and locks go in and are used. This is not a good thing and robbery of an unlocked home is not a consequence of stupidity on the part of the homeowner, it is a consequence of social retardation on the part of the thief.
When you say it is OK for the feds to jump onto people's information that they in no way intended to share with anyone, you are explicitly sanctioning the lack of a social boundary that protects those things you do not intend to share. You might as well lie down in the gutter right now and commence staring up the ladies skirts. After all, if they didn't want you to look, they'd have worn pants, right?
Privacy, liberty, honor, grace - look into all these things. They actually have good, solid reasons to exist, and it is a terrible thing when the government - or anyone else - erodes them. When it is done as a matter of course, it is not only terrible, it is despicable.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations. You have entirely missed the point. Of course it makes sense to harden, especially in the face of a known threat, and the more substantial the threat, the harder you want to go. But the point is that the OP's "not having a problem" with the government's crossing an unhardened boundary is shortsighted in the extreme; fine, lock your door, encrypt your drive and so forth, but in the meantime, there is no need to be saying "if your door is unlocked, it's OK for robbers to come in." Just because I send an email in the clear, I'm in no way saying that it is OK for people to read the content therein; just because my hard drive isn't encrypted, I'm not saying you can come in and examine the content of the drive. It isn't OK at all.
Frankly, the government has no legitimate tasking to be looking at any communication or data of a US citizen unless they have probable cause a crime has been committed by the specific person or person(s) they are looking at. The 4th amendment is very, very clear on this, and the government is flat out wrong to invade citizen's communications. They're supposed to be working for us. We're not their subjects; we're not their slaves; we're not suspects unless something very specific happens. Does the following seem familiar?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's no clause there that says "unless George Bush thinks its a good idea" or "unless J Edgar Hoover found you were of a political persuasion he didn't like" or "as long as you encipher you writings" or "except if if you don't lock your door" or "if we can scare the public sufficiently about A-rabs" and so on and so forth. No searching without probable cause and a warrant. That's clear as a bell. And what are they doing? What is data, email, hard drive mining, after all? It's searching your info that you did not give permission to search, that's what it is — and furthermore, it has been understood for literally hundreds of years in this very country that your personal papers and communications are private unless you say otherwise.
The government is out of hand here. They are criminal; they are breaking the law, literally the highest law in the land. These are high crimes indeed. These boundaries are well established and any serious attempt to argue them away — I'm not talking about debate here, but intent or action(s) to destroy the boundaries themselves — just establishes the person or persons making the argument as a sophist and an enemy of liberty. A toxic citizen, or worse. There is only one legitimate way to approach this, and that is by changing the constitution; and they've not done that, so they have absolutely nowhere legitimate to stand.
Re: (Score:2)
However, these people in places of government, have money and power over you and I , the working masses.
They take money from the 50% work force and give it to all the others who are sitting on thier collective asses all day.
In another time you might have heard Bush exclaim, "Let them eat cake."
9/11 merely facilitated putting in the framework whereby, statements like yours and mine, criticizing the gov, would land us in Guanta
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure privacy has no value to you. That's why you post anonymously, right?
Twit.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing will be done by Dems (Score:2, Insightful)
There will be a huge cry, brownie points scoring, a few low-levels at FBI who were unfortunate enough to track their ex-spouses will be fired...but seriously this concentration of power in Executive will continue.
The Democrats are not willing to seriously bring the constitution back to balance, because when their Dem (and dumb) president takes charge in 2008 they need that power.
Good or Bad, Bush and Cheney showed t
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Clinton wasn't unseated, he was impeached, but he remained president till the end of his second term.
Dem / Rep, they are both the same. They both want power and will do with it what they want. Personally, I'd rather have someone in office who couldn't keep his dick in his pants, than someone in office that could stop getting us into needless wars. Bush Jr. sucks dick!
Re: (Score:2)
The "Free Medicare and state-subsidized medical insurance" is blatantly unconstitutional and extremely damaging to both the health and wealth of Mass. residents. I note that you're honest enough to use the word "force".
Yes, the Democrats are serious about fellow citizens. They're serious about enslaving them.
Your bet is rev
Re: (Score:2)
It is after Nixon's ill-fated privitisation program that led HMOs and this current fiasco of choosing between a severed middle or ring finger and putting a price on each finger.
Are U suggesting that killing patients by denying them treatment since they are not rich enough to get treated is constitutional?
And even if taken at face value, this current administration does not seem to consider the constitution beyond a "piece of paper". So where does thi
The Gov'ment? (Score:1)
Eh? (Score:2)
What's all this talk of patterns? Everyone knows it's three psychic albinos in sensory deprivation tanks!
How you mine for fish? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Take it with a grain of salt.
I for one welcome our Democratic (Score:3, Interesting)
In all seriousness, is the Senator aware that none of that info collected could be used to convict anyone, or that you cannot even use it to get a warrant, and all it does is tell the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it isn't admissible in court, but it does give them a good idea of where to direct their limited resources for legal evidence collection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it's OK for them to look through your car's window. Or listen for rape screams on their route. This is what they are doing here in the digital world out there. There is no break-in done during spying on you, you don't notice it and don't even know it.
No, it isn't admissible in court, but it does give them a good idea of where to direct their limited resources for legal eviden
Re:I for one welcome our Democratic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Please... we are far from a dictatorship in the good ol' USA. Sure, our government errors on the side of taking freedom from citizens, as do most if not all governments in existence. It is one of the few things at which any government is reasonably good. That is not to say I accept this as OK. Far from it. I believe the less government is able to track citizens, the better.
Make no mistake about it, Leahy could c
Re: (Score:1)
There are rules (some call them laws) about types of data that can be gathered and how. This administration wants to reinterpret the rules in a way advantageous to them to the point that you can say that they don't think these rules (laws) apply to them. This is of course not the only area in which this pattern has been evident from this administration.
And you're right - a dictatorship is when only one ruler believes that laws don't apply to them. When a whole administration believes this it is called