The Things You Learn When You Send A Freedom Of Information Act Request About What The Gov't Knows About You

from the evil-criminal-edition dept

I've been meaning to post this story for a little while, but am finally getting around to it. On a whim, a woman decided to send off some Freedom of Information Act requests to various government agencies to see if they had any information about her. She said she had basically forgotten about the whole thing... until, months later, the FBI sent her a giant package... containing a 436-page report on her that she had no idea existed. What she discovered was that, about a decade ago, the FBI had spent five days following her and some of her friends around, all because they were involved in planning and organizing a small local protest (she doesn't explain what the protest was about, other than to say it really wasn't that big of a deal). Either way, the FBI spent five days (a few days before, the day of and the day after the protest) following her and her friends and recording all of their activities. The actual report is incredibly mundane:
At times, the file details seem particularly ridiculous:
As she says, "As you can see, I pose a clear and present danger to society. I pick up other people's trash and put it in the proper bins." The entire file is apparently similarly pointless information about her activities. She sounds mildly embarrassed that she didn't spot the fact that she was being followed, but if you're not expecting that you're being followed -- and being followed by pros -- it's unlikely that you'd notice. The thing that's really amazing is that it makes you wonder just how much time and resources are being wasted here. I recognize that it's important for law enforcement to be on top of various activities, but it's hard not to wonder if this isn't overkill. She also notes that, for all of the time and effort put into following her around, they got a lot of the rather basic facts wrong:
I am repeatedly identified as a member of a different, more mainstream liberal activist group which I was not only not a part of, but actually fought with on countless occasions. To somehow not know that I detested this group of people was a colossal failure of intelligence-gathering. Hopefully the FBI has not gotten any better at figuring out who is a part of what, and that this has worked to the detriment of their surveillance of other activists. I am also repeatedly identified as being a part of campaigns that I was never involved with, or didn't even know about, including protests in other cities. Maybe the FBI assumes every protester-type attends all other activist meetings and protests, like we're just one big faceless monolith. "Oh, hey, you're into this topic? Well, then, you're probably into this topic, right? You're all pinkos to us."

In taking a general survey of all area activists, the files keep trying to draw non-existant connections between the most mainstream groups/people and the most radical, as though one was a front for the other. There are a few flyers from local events that have nothing to do with our campaign, including one posted to advertise a lefty discussion group at the university library. The FBI mentions that activists may be planning "direct action" at their meetings, which the document's author clarifies means "illegal acts." "Direct action" was then, and I'd say now, a term used to talk about civil disobedience and intentional arrests. While such things are illegal actions, the tone and context in these FBI files makes it sound like protesters got together and planned how to fly airplanes into buildings or something.
When you read stuff like this, and then think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots, it really makes you wonder if the money we're spending on law enforcement for these kinds of things is money well spent... or if the FBI really just has way too much time (and money) on their hands.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 6:52am

    she doesn't explain what the protest was about, other than to say it really wasn't that big of a deal

    A glance at her website suggests it was probably something to do with sex workers' rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:04am

    I think you should do this too Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:04am

    Are the FBI federally funded stalkers now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BeachBumCowboy (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:08am

    Paranoia

    Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean the government isn't even more paranoid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:29am

    "think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots, it really makes you wonder if the money we're spending on law enforcement for these kinds of things is money well spent"

    Think about it. If the government doesn't spend money setting up fake terrorist acts and then stopping those fake terrorist acts, who will?

    Exactly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Doug D (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      The FBI doesn't currently have the ability to manufacture their own terrorist plots officials say. But if the Agency develops the ability, then they will be much more likely to create security theater according to industry experts.

      Oh wait, never mind. Too late.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    I-Blz, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:33am

    Er, what? My school's filter marks that link as blocked under the "porn" category. what IS behind that link, anyway?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:40am

      Re:

      She has some links to her activism sites and also some tshirts about respecting sex workers rights.

      Her flickr page contains lots of beautiful photos of Panama but nothing that's NSFW.

      If you were expecting something like her in a bikini (she is attractive) you'd be disappointed, at least at a first glance I don't see that.

      Just a blog, nothing "exciting" from a first quick glance.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:44am

        Re: Re:

        Full of links to her porn sites. Basically, it's her "public" front to up sell you to her porn experience. Not cool at all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Full of links to her porn sites. Basically, it's her "public" front to up sell you to her porn experience. Not cool at all.

          I see a LOT of very serious posts on this blog - and one short menu halfway down the sidebar with links to her porn sites (underneath links to her activism sites, with nothing drawing any special attention to it)

          Seems like you are desperate to discredit this woman for some reason...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The AC is just the FBI trying to set up a honeypot to catch other people defending her so that they can stretch credulity and add such persons to her file, since anyone who defends her is clearly associated with her communist sex worker activism and is likely also planning direct action of the illegal variety.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Joshua Bardwell (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          FurryGirl is both a blogger and a pornographer. She cross-links her sites. That's all that's going on here. Her sex-work activism is in no way a "front" for her porn.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton

          I guess after introducing herself as a sex worker and a pornographer that sent you looking for the links rather than following her blogging.

          So, in that sense, what did you expect. Even activists have to earn a living so why not do what you do best, in her case, (a) porn and (b) blog intelligently about what is, after all a fairly serious issue.

          Take, for example, the investigation into the disappearing women off the Downtown East Side stroll of Vancouver and ignored the fact that a serial killer was at work.

          Feel free to follow the link below to get more information about why, in many ways, he was so successful.

          http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/27/pickton-inquiry-hears-of-police-indifference-to- sex-worker

          The woman whose blog we're directed to and who is so passionate about protecting the rights of sex trade workers has a point, you know.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton

            "I guess after introducing herself as a sex worker and a pornographer that sent you looking for the links rather than following her blogging.
            "

            No, I just looked at the linked sites on her page, about half way down the article Mike pointed to. I didn't have to go far to find porn.

            For her comments, I would say that the Picton case has been picked on (pun intended) over and over already, and she didn't really add anything that hasn't already been out there hundreds of times over.

            I don't agree or disagree with her, I find only that it's a bit weird to see Mike linking directly to porn people.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:41am

      Re:

      ITs imgur, think of fotobucket for reddit. So while most of the pictures are fine there are a few that are NSFW and are usually tagged as such.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Bengie, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      Are you in high/middle school? What are you doing on Techdirt during the day?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:35am

    what if everyone does the same?

    Imagine if even 10% of the population (assuming that many are awake) filed FOIA's for info on themselves. I wonder if that would send a message or at least hinder some of their surveillance?

    Or would it just be considered abuse of the FOIA and it will be amended, silently, so no one can file it without special permission (meaning you can't file it on yourself only on companies or if you're a journalist)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MikeC (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:37am

    Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents

    Do you think after the first 10 minutes that the FBI agents wanted to keep doing this for 5 days ??? They are like any other workers.. They filled out a report because they were told too. Hopefully we hire some smart folks to be FBI agents, they knew right away this was a waste of time I bet. How much other surveillance and such do you think is just write something down so you can tell your boss agent that you did it, so he can tell his boss it was done. $$$ down the drain .. I mean here in my hometown, if you don't buy a dog license and don't call in to tell them the dog is dead, they send 2 (not 1 but 2) animal control agents to your house to check if you have a dog that is not licensed. But we still have drug dealers and drive by shootings, just no unlicensed dogs. What a colossal waste of dollars by our bureaucratic entities in most cases.

    Now if there was a real threat they hopefully would have recognized it and put the proper effort into it. But this way they got 5 days of per-diem and mostly free time out of the office, didn't have a choice so they filled out paperwork to make it look like they were doing something besides drinking coffee and bitching about what a stupid assignment this was.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Machin Shin (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:47am

      Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents

      That also explains why she would get linked to all these other random groups. I mean you got couple board guys writing up a report and figure, "Hey we had better spice this up a little bit so doesn't look like we were totally useless."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Endtimer (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 11:01am

        Re: Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents

        Also things like "She knows a guy whose best friend former room mate once attended a meeting for this group." They literally have to put that kinda stuff in their report, or else if it's discovered later they look like they didn't do their diligence.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 12:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents

          Or complete idiots if they're wrong about the BFF of the former roommate blah blah blah is wrong.

          Often it's complete idiots.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:46am

    In taking a general survey of all area activists, the files keep trying to draw non-existant connections between the most mainstream groups/people and the most radical, as though one was a front for the other.

    Generally, law enforcement doesn't look for evidence to arrive at the truth. First they come up with the conclusion they like best, then they spend the majority of their time trying to prove that conclusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:46am

    I am aware of this person on a personal level (friend of a friend sort of thing) and she is very special case. It doesn't shock me to find the FBI looking at her. I won't post a personal opinion of her, because she is likely to take you to court over it (or worse, hound you in public forever).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Kaden (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:14am

      Re:

      Nothing like a bit of hearsay and innuendo to really add to the discussion.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Watchit (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      You make her sound like a creeper o.0

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      I am aware of you and who you are (I have my contacts in the FBI writing down what boring things you're doing right now). And everyone should believe what I say about you because I said I know you. So I'll make subtle, implied accusations of bad character against you, but I'll refuse to mention any proof of this out of my own stated goodwill for wanting Mike not to get sued for libel - for all the good that would do. That should go over well.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:24am

      Re:

      Wow, these lawyers seem to know everyone whenever convenient. This isn't the first time I've seen such an unlikely claim made by dedicated (techdirt and other) trolls.

      I'm not defending this woman, I don't really think we have enough information at this point to say one way or another beyond her single side of the story, and her side of the story makes me wonder, but based on this post and another you made it sounds like you are a frequent techdirt troll, the kind who generally makes things up as you go.

      It's unlikely that you know this person personally, the chances of some random frequent techdirt troll just so happening to know this specific person (not to mention every person) when convenient are very small.

      In fact, I bet if Mike checked your hostmask and compares it to this woman's home location it probably originates from a totally different location (though you could be using a proxy).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:41am

        Re: Re:

        It should also be noted that anything she says as a source of information (ie: regarding otherwise un - sourced facts and personal experience) carries more weight than anything you say, because she is non-anonymous and you are anonymous. She is putting her reputation on the line and we can actually verify her history and get information about her and scrutinize her consistency and criticize her to a greater degree, whereas you are just an anonymous person. Who should we believe, her with known identity, or an anonymous person with no known identity.

        Not that there is anything wrong with being anonymous, there is nothing wrong with being anonymous and there is nothing wrong with being an anonymous source of information, just that statements of otherwise un - sourced fact and personal experience don't hold as much weight.

        and secondarily known sources also carry more weight than a purely anonymous source.

        For instance Mike Masnick is a known source and if someone he knows and trusts tells him something and Mike puts it on techdirt with his identity as Mike Masnick and he conceals the identity of the original sources and vouches for the source's authenticity and the information's validity himself, that would carry more weight than if some anonymous commenter did something similar.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:47am

    Hey, this was time and resources well spent, if they hadn’t spied on her for 5 days they would have never known she was interfering with the city’s ‘trash the town’ initiative by putting other people’s trash in trash cans. How’s the city supposed to win an award for being the messiest city in America with people like her around?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:48am

    Trash or not

    After they've put agents on surveillance, it'd only be proper to assume the agents will do full job, no? An agent should assume if they've been given an assignment, there's some rationale for it.

    In light of that, all the mundane things could surely be useful if that person had turned out to be talking to Truly Evil Terrorists, right?

    Imagine the response the other way: "So, there were agents following her for 5 days, and didn't notice she put a bomb in a trash can? How incompetent is the FBI?"

    If you want to mock them, mock the fact that they choose unimportant targets, not that they did a complete investigation after deciding on the target.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChrisB (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:02am

      Re: Trash or not

      I agree. It is tough to determine you are wasting your time before you actually waste your time.

      The thing is, it is always harder (impossible?) to prove a negative than a positive. If they caught her doing something illegal, the surveillance would be over. But to definitively rule out she isn't doing illegal things ... that would take forever. The best you can do is watch long enough to reasonably conclude she isn't likely to do illegal things.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Feb 29th, 2012 @ 5:58am

      Re: Trash or not

      i think the mockery comes from a combination of 'picking stupid target' and 'getting stuff badly wrong'

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:56am

    Oh, as a side note: Mike, you do understand that you basically linked yourself to porn, right? She makes her living as a porn girl, specializing in hairy and natural menstruation porn. Classy. Now you know why you are blocked in Germany.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    izzitme101, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:59am

    Since they'r that good at their jobs, it's no wonder ordinary citizens are being watched.
    Clearly they don't have the competence to find the real 'terrorists', which would also explain why there are so many of them to, after all, theres a lot more average citizen than T people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 7:59am

    ...and then think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots,...

    Didn't you hear? The FBI changed their name and mission scope quietly and secretly sometime after 9/11.

    They are now know as the Federal Bureau of Instigation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:07am

    They are tracking porn? I had a local newspaper article about some animal rights activists that 'disapeared' in the middle of the night. Turns out it was the FBI and the agent admitted just clicking on some sites automatically started tracking; anarchist.com was one. So if you wanted to know more out of curiousity - you raised a flag to the FBI.

    It's pretty clear that the Patriot Act has resulted in a far greater % of resources spent on domestic survailance than any foriegn threat.

    I would be surprised if even 10% of the population felt represented in Washington DC. Maybe they have a reason to be parnoid. It's just not a foriegn threat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Feb 29th, 2012 @ 6:04am

      Re:

      and yet the FBI still has time to somehow be screwing up here in NZ too...

      (they're partly responsible for the taps in the exchanges, of course there's the whole megaupload thing. can't remember if the older stuff was them or the CIA. either way Someone freaked out and, in a classic case of shooting the messenger, stripped both the USA and NZ of some cheap and advanced military hardware...

      seriously, the only reason that (to the best of my knowledge) US intelligence agencies aren't hated more here is that, unlike the French, they've not killed anyone (that the public know of) here yet...

      but no one with a clue has any faith in their ability to not screw us over for no good reason.

      (then there's NZ's equivalents... which you basically never hear of, but we do have them... it's a heck of a lot more serious if they show up than if the FBI does, that's for sure. or, at least, it's About something more serious.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chargone (profile), Feb 29th, 2012 @ 6:05am

        Re: Re:

        err... actually, the FBI showing up at your house here would be massively more serious for all sorts of reasons. meant compared to the FBI showing up in the USA.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:08am

    When was this?

    Was this during 1999-2001 when the FBI should have been following up on suspicious air school reports they ignored?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    let me add this: The girl is an attention whore, plain and simple. Mike, really you appear to have fallen for her desire for more public exposure.

    Do you get paid for this stuff?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:10am

    The second most obvious conclusion...

    There's another possibility. This could've been a training mission. Obviously, new agents aren't sent to tail suspected terrorists right away. The very fact that they got details wrong yet suspected that this is a part of a much bigger national movement suggests younger overeager agents. Sort of like new doctors who tend to find unusual, exotic diseases in patients with a simple cold.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:11am

    I think it would be interesting for people to make similar requests and publishing the results. Does anyone know of a website explaining the process?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    William, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:12am

    Screwey

    The fact that she fails to state what she was dealing with gives me more then enough to state that it sounds like the FBI was doing their bloody job. The mere fact that she didn't want to say what she was up too probably means the majority of society would disagree with her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      senshikaze (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 10:58am

      Re: Screwey

      Check the blog. It was most likely sex workers rights (as mentioned above), and she doesn't seem to hide that fact on her blog.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:39am

    too much time/$$

    "or if the FBI really just has way too much time (and money) on their hands" - duh, yes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    timmaguire42 (profile), Feb 28th, 2012 @ 8:49am

    Virtually every story I've read about

    law enforcement activity left me stunned at the incredible waste of time and resources. The fishing expeditions, the low probability actions. At all levels. It's amazing there's any time or money left over to do real work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TOG, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 9:11am

    Don't rag on the FBI agents; they're just doing their jobs

    Seriously, the agents were told to watch this person and gather evidence to see if any further suveillance was necessary. They spent 5 days and that was it. Really not a lot of resources spent. Policing society is important to the maintenance of that society. How does the FBI know, without looking into this person, whether or not she might turn into the next Timothy McVeigh? They don't. Someone brought this individual to the attention of law enforcement and the FBI did its job: investigate, and when they see nothing wrong, stop investigating.

    Now, go get a life and worry about more important things than what's in a government file about you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Freedom of Speech

    Nothing says guilty quite like exercising one's right to speak freely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This