Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government The Courts United States News Politics

FBI Data Mining For More Than Just Terrorists 130

Posted by Zonk from the my-secret-health-and-auto-insurance-fraud-ring-is-doomed dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Data Mining For More Than Just Terrorists More

FBI Data Mining For More Than Just Terrorists

Comments Filter:

  • Dupe (Score:5, Informative)

    by nfras ( 313241 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @07:37PM (#19844193)
    Nothing to see here. This story was on the front page less than 24 hours ago
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/11/23 24211 [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Dupe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @07:44PM (#19844257) Homepage Journal
      Maybe Slashdot editors should take up data mining (aka, actually reading the site).
      • Whip out your Persuadertron and aim at 'em..

        (Good luck)
      • Maybe they were giving us another opportunity to bash Bush. Not even he can't be oppressive, imcompetent, and corrupt everday.

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          Well that's not a problem for the US President (US - un-suitable, un-satisfactory, un-sanitory), after all, he has a whole corrupt administration the pick up the bag for him when he takes some time off, so yeah, 24/7 the corruption continues ;).
    • SInce when does posting twice about a story invalidate the story? There's plenty to see here.

      • Re:Dupe (Score:4, Funny)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @10:51PM (#19845277)
        Since when does posting twice about a story invalidate the story? There's plenty to see here.

        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?

        • Depending on its importance, yes, it should continue to occupy a place in discussion. Given the rate at which Slashdot stories pass off the front page, repeating a story might be the most effective method of doing that. Case in point, I didn't have a chance to engage in discussion on the last entry on the subject since I was busy with other things at the time, but had I returned to the topic later the discussion would have been dead. Instead, I have the chance to contribute here.

          But... that wasn't really my

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
            Case in point, I didn't have a chance to engage in discussion on the last entry on the subject since I was busy with other things at the time, but had I returned to the topic later the discussion would have been dead.

            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.

    • But which title in the referenced postings makes it more clear as to what is going on?

      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)

    by hjf ( 703092 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @07:37PM (#19844195) Homepage
    Ha. Tomorrow the FBI will tell us that they're using that data to find pedophiles online, so it'll all be OK.

    I mean, if they don't think of the children, who will?

  • Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mikya ( 901578 ) <mikyathemadNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 12, 2007 @07:41PM (#19844223)
    Computerworld reports that the FBI is using data mining programs to track more than just terrorists.

    Is this really a shock to anyone?

  • Zonk, will you wake up? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12, 2007 @07:41PM (#19844227)
    This was just on SlashDot yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/11/23 24211 [slashdot.org]

    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)

      by clem ( 5683 )
      Do you even bother to look at the site, you know, just to check that the story hasn't been posted already?

      Wouldn't that constitute data mining? I believe the Slashdot editors are ethically opposed to that sort of activity.
    • That was the YRO version of the story. But they've found that people filter out preachy paranoid YRO stories, and not enough web traffic on the hysteria scale was generated. So here it is again on IT.
  • Something seems awfully odd about the last batch of F.B.I. press releases...
  • They datamine, and when something suspicious turns up they look for corroborative evidence and get a warrant. Nobody in the Pentagon is sitting there reading your email, just as nobody at Google is reading your GMail to figure out what ads to serve you.
    • So, do they:
      1. Datamine, then look for corroborative evidence (probably via illegal means), and then get a warrant, or
      2. Datamine, get a warrant based off the circumstantial evidence turned up by datamining, and then get a warrant to get corroborative evidence?
    • please define "something suspicious" for me.
      • It's settled somewhat by 'the market' phenomenon. (yes, I know...)

        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)

          by xappax ( 876447 )
          They can't afford to be chasing down people who casually put the word 'bong' in the text of their emails.

          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
          • it becomes a lot easier to turn the dataminer on them and find every bit of information necessary to destroy them.

            You just described concerted, directed data gathering. Not data mining. The idea of 'turning the dataminer on them' is ridiculous.

  • duh (Score:1)

    by SolusSD ( 680489 )
    i'd be surprised if they weren't doing this.

  • Sure (Score:2)

    by rm999 ( 775449 )
    It's the FBI's job to look for domestic criminals. As long as they are doing their jobs without being intrusive into my law-abiding life, I am content with them. The second they cross that line (and I don't consider data mining to be crossing that line), I will be pissed.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Personally, I don't like data mining, because then they could use some of it against me. Say that, for example, I have a habit that wouldn't exactly be popular with the rulers of this fine nation, like being gay or something. Should it ever come to pass that our government goes 1984 on us, how long do you think it would be before they'd come knocking on my door? Somehow, all we need right now is some 'national crisis' and we're a step closer to that situation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by larry bagina ( 561269 )
        We should also outlaw axes. Because if you ever turned into a homicidal axe murderer, how long do you think it would be before you kill someone?
        • No, only homophobes, and/or people with a militant 'gay' agenda, should be prohibited from owning an axe. All others will merely be required to 'register' all their axes.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ppanon ( 16583 )
            Heh. Outside of law enforcement, how many handgun owners in the united states actually need their guns as part of their job or regular activities? Ranchers and other farmers who need to defend their livestock from predators. People who live in more remote areas with predators. Hunters maintaining wildlife population levels. Those classes of people would be just as well or better served with higher precision single action rifles in most cases.

            For nearly everybody else, either it's an ego boost or it's an arm

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Hubbell ( 850646 )
              The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with self defense from one's fellow man and everything to do with protecting yourself AND your fellow man from a government which becomes tyrannical. Back when it was written most of the military force in the nation was under the control of private citizens. Hell, many wealthy americans had their own naval fleets which they used to fight the british.
              Please stop with your pathetic OMG GUN ARE THE DEVIL!!1!!1!!oneone! shit, it's pathetic and truly sad to see people who
    • Gee, I guess that's why they managed to capture that anthrax assassin. NOT!!!!

      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)

        by rm999 ( 775449 )
        The article has nothing to do with wiretaps, anthrax, or anything else you said in your raving post. It has to do with the FBI mining data they already have access to. If the FBI are truly incompetent, no one has anything to worry about (including the guy who is building a bomb in his basement). If they can do it right, no real harm towards the innocent should come from it. The whole point of data mining is finding useful structure in an otherwise sea of random data. Not *everything* the government does is
        • It's the FBI's job to look for domestic criminals.

          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....

    • it isn't intrusive until you're in an eastern european prison.
    • Every single person in this world can be turned into a criminal with the right squinting of the eyes by the law enforcers. What worries me is this : what happens if you say something that the Bush administration or whoever comes after them doesn't like? It then becomes just a matter of the FBI sifting through their data until they find the one skeleton in your closet that will put you in jail.... or Gauntanamo..... In all honesty, this is the beginning of the US's Stalinist Russia.
  • I wasn't surprised yesterday. What makes you think I'll be more surprised today?

  • Fox guarding the foxen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MSTCrow5429 ( 642744 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @08:16PM (#19844471)
    "It would give Congress a way to conduct "meaningful oversight" he said.'"

    Government conducting "meaningful oversight" over government? Oh boy, I feel safe now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lawpoop ( 604919 )
      Government can't oversee government? Or in other words, like can't oversee like? No matter what system we have, it will always be humans watching over other humans. As adults, we live in a world without parents or teachers. We watch over each other. We're a group of peers. Who guards the guards? We do.

      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)

    by VValdo ( 10446 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @08:17PM (#19844481)
    "Surprise, surprise surprise!"

    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

  • This to me is the core question. Are less of these schemes actually happening now that these huge powers have been given? Because the government has some pretty extraordinary powers now, and my world world somehow still seems more dangerous than it used to be!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *

      and my world world somehow still seems more dangerous than it used to be!

      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)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *
        People do like to keep power, after all.

        "The purpose of power, is power." -- Geo. Orwell, "1984".

      • But I thought we were fighting them all in Iraq?

        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.

  • The FBI has been doing this since its inception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omfgnosis ( 963606 ) on Thursday July 12, 2007 @08:44PM (#19844635)
    Who wants to bet that political dissident groups are being monitored through this program? I mean, it kind of goes without saying, since their primary domestic target is environmental activists. The FBI and the US government in general has a long history of using ostensibly crime-focused programs to infiltrate and neutralize political enemies (see the American Indian Movement [and Leonard Peltier], Martin Luther King Jr., United Slaves, the Black Panthers [and Mark Clark, Fred Hampton, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Alex Rackley, H Rap Brown, Geronimo Pratt], the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Black Liberation Army, groups struggling for Puerto Rican independence, Students for a Democratic Society, Earth First! [and Judi Bari], various militia groups, even church peace groups and smaller political parties like the various socialists. Not to mention nonaligned activists like individual environmentalists who've been set up or entrapped in recent years.

    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.
  • I hope that your FBI has better success with Data Mining than junk mailers. How may credit card offers have you had this week? Responded to any?

    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
    • If you can build model that finds 2-3 real criminals out of every one hundred people it flags I think you're already in the range of 'great success'. Data mining to find fraud comes to mind. Normally a crime must be reported before it gets attention. With data mining it would be possible to find cases where the victims don't know they've been screwed.

      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

    • >> I think the best approach to finding potential terrorists is ground-level intelligence myself

      Has anyone checked the White House?
  • This isn't a true "If I've got nothing to hide, why should I worry" idea, but TFA doesn't mention that they are doing any sort of cracking or decrypting. If you're a criminal stupid enough to make your activities known in a public, obvious way, then I say the FBI should have at 'em.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) * on Thursday July 12, 2007 @09:29PM (#19844897) Homepage Journal
      If you're a criminal stupid enough to make your activities known in a public, obvious way, then I say the FBI should have at 'em.

      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.

    • While I strongly disagree with the intent of your comment, the point is still important: people who are concerned about persecution by the powers that be should take precautions to make it, at the very least, difficult for them.
  • Expecting the Democrats to pull away powers from FBI aftersuch blatant abuse will NOT happen.
    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)

      by josepha48 ( 13953 )
      'Once elected, a president never needs to worry about popularity contest since he will never be unseated except when he gets a Monica..."

      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!

    • If the Dems were serious about fellow citizens they would have done the following by now:

      1. Passed a law forcing Free Medicare and state-subsidized medical insurance like MA has done.

      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

      • Surprising. Up until 1970s medicine was subsidized in US.
        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
  • Abuse something? Invade privacy? *Insert shocker into American citizens*

  • ... but additional patterns have been developed ...

    What's all this talk of patterns? Everyone knows it's three psychic albinos in sensory deprivation tanks!

  • I was really hoping to click on this link and read a summary akin to "FBI uses technology to try to mine for fish. l4mz0r n3b5."

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close