<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;terrorism&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 08:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/17254423102/eric-holder-claims-terrorists-are-involved-ip-theft.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/17254423102/eric-holder-claims-terrorists-are-involved-ip-theft.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may have heard about a fair bit about Attorney General Eric Holder <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/eric-holder-hearing-house-judiciary-committee/65263/" target="_blank">testifying</a> before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.  He was -- quite reasonably -- raked over the coals by members of both parties for the incredible decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/15401423065/doj-unconcerned-about-constitution-obtained-ap-reporters-phone-records.shtml">obtain phone records</a> from AP reporters, under <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/17194923087/what-national-security-risk-evidence-suggests-embarassment-drove-doj-spying-ap-phone-records.shtml">very questionable</a> circumstances.
<br /><br />
There was one other odd tidbit that might be worth discussing around here as well.  Suddenly, in the middle of all the questions about the Associated Press, Rep. Mel Watt -- who, during the SOPA markup famously declared that he <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111216/12082717110/dear-congress-its-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-internet-works.shtml">didn't understand</a> the technology, or why tech people were concerned, but also that he didn't care and wanted to pass SOPA without bothering to understand -- started asking questions about copyright and "enforcement."  Yes, Mel Watt is the ranking member on the IP subcommittee (scary enough in its own right), but it seemed completely off topic.
<br /><br />
Most of the coverage on Watt's questioning has focused on the fact that he did most of his questioning <a href="http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_23249237/rep-mel-watts-grandson-nico-2-steals-focus" target="_blank">with his two-year-old grandson on his lap</a>, who interrupts the questioning at one point.  But the questions were ridiculous, as were the answers, and deserve some scrutiny.  First, despite it being <i>soundly rejected</i> when SOPA went down in flames, Watt <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-watt-holds-his-grandchild-during-holder-hearing/2013/05/15/dc6dde4e-bd8c-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_video.html" target="_blank">asks Holder if Congress should make online streaming of infringing material a felony</a>, rather than the misdemeanor that it currently is.  There are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111207/04193216996/harvard-law-professor-explains-why-felony-streaming-provisions-do-put-justin-bieber-risk-jail.shtml">all sorts of problems</a> with this idea, as we've discussed in the past, but Holder embraced the idea wholeheartedly, saying that the Justice Department would love to have "another tool," ignoring just how widely the DOJ has abused existing tools to shut down legitimate companies and websites.
<br /><br />
And then Watt directly asks about a connection to terrorism:
<blockquote><i>
<b>Watt:</b> Are there increasing indications of links between this problem and terrorism?  Have you found any of those links and would you describe them for the committee?
<br /><br />
<b>Holder</b>: Yes, that's a very good question.  It's something that's very worrisome.  As we saw organized crime get into a variety of other businesses in order to support their efforts, we're now seeing terrorist groups getting into the theft of intellectual property.  Again, to generate money to support what they're trying to do for their terrorist means.  So we have to broaden our enforcement efforts, broaden the investigative efforts that we take, to examine what are the precise reasons why people are engaging in this kind of intellectual property thievery.  And to consider whether or not there's a terrorist connection to it.  This is a relatively new phenomenon, but one we have to be aware of.
</i></blockquote>
Watt then asks about things that Congress can do to help, and Holder says he's "particularly concerned" about this problem, and he asks for "enhanced penalties" for "intellectual property theft."
<center>
<iframe width="508" height="342" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/video/videoEmbed.html?uuid=dc6dde4e-bd8c-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9&noheadline=0"></iframe>
</center>
That all sounds very interesting.  And it might be, if there were <i>any</i> truth to it at all.  Unfortunately, there's not.  We've yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting the idea that terrorists are involved in infringement.  The claim has been around for years, and we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/0630057974.shtml">asked for evidence</a> for years, and <b>none</b> has ever been provided.  Because it doesn't exist.  Researcher Joe Karaganis <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/00493313981/whos-funding-more-terrorism-downloaders-hollywood.shtmlf">looked into the issue</a> a few years ago and found that there were some very vague reports of <i>organized crime</i> being involved in <i>counterfeit CDs/DVDs</i> in the 80s and 90s.  But that was small and short-lived -- in large part because online infringement basically made that business obsolete:
<blockquote><i>
Arguing that piracy is integral to such networks [organized crime and terrorism] means ignoring the dramatic changes in the technology and organizational structure of the pirate market over the past decade. By necessity, evidentiary standards become very loose. <b>Decades-old stories are recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes stand in as evidence of wider systemic linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low</b>. The RAND study, which reprises and builds on earlier IFPI and Interpol reporting, is constructed almost entirely around such practices. Prominent stories about IRA involvement in movie piracy and Hezbollah involvement in DVD and software piracy date, respectively, to the 1980s and 1990s. Street vendor networks in Mexico City--a subject we treat at length in the Mexico chapter--are mischaracterized as criminal gangs connected with the drug trade. Piracy in Russia is attributed to criminal mafias rather than to the chronically porous boundary between licit and illicit enterprise. The Pakistani criminal gang D-Company, far from "forging a clear pirate monopoly" in Bollywood, in RAND's words, plays a small and diminishing part in Indian DVD piracy--its smuggling networks dwarfed by local production.
<br /><br />
The US record isn't more convincing in this regard. Jeffrey McIllwain examined the Department of Justice&#8217;s IP-related prosecutions between 2000 and 2004 and found that only 49 out of the 105 cases alleged that the defendant operated within larger, organized networks. Nearly all of these were "warez" distribution groups for pirated software--hacker communities that are explicitly and often fiercely non-commercial in orientation. <b>McIllwain found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" in any of the DOJ's criminal charges (McIllwain 2005:27). If organized crime is a serious problem in these contexts, it should not be difficult to produce a stronger evidentiary record.</b>
</i></blockquote>
In other words, Rep. Mel Watt, a well known supporter of Hollywood's position on copyright, tossed a bogus softball FUD talking point to Eric Holder in the middle of an important hearing about a very different subject, and Holder proceeded to make claims to Congress that have been made for decades without a single bit of evidence to support it.
<br /><br />
Holder has plenty of other serious issues to deal with these days, but it makes me incredibly uncomfortable to see our Attorney General appear to be spreading known scare stories that have been proven bogus from decades ago as if they're new, despite a single bit of evidence concerning any modern connection to terrorism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/17254423102/eric-holder-claims-terrorists-are-involved-ip-theft.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/17254423102/eric-holder-claims-terrorists-are-involved-ip-theft.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130515/17254423102/eric-holder-claims-terrorists-are-involved-ip-theft.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130515/17254423102</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 May 2013 03:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TIME/CNN Poll Shows Increasing Number Of Americans Won't Give Up Civil Liberties To Fight Terrorism</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130504/19001322948/timecnn-poll-shows-increasing-number-americans-wont-give-up-civil-liberties-to-fight-terrorism.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130504/19001322948/timecnn-poll-shows-increasing-number-americans-wont-give-up-civil-liberties-to-fight-terrorism.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
When discussing NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly's assertion that "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130428/18232822866/ny-police-chief-ray-kelly-says-boston-bombing-takes-privacy-off-table.shtml" target="_blank">privacy is off the table</a>" as a result of the Boston bombing, I mentioned I hadn't heard any public outcry demanding the government and law enforcement step in and do <i>something</i> (i.e., curtail civil liberties) in response to the tragedy. The responses we <i>were</i> seeing seemed to be nothing more than legislators and law enforcement officials pushing their own agendas.
<br /><br />
This isn't just me not hearing what I don't want to hear. There's actual data available that explains the lack of concerned noises from Americans. A CNN/TIME poll shows that <a href="http://reason.com/24-7/2013/05/02/americans-increasingly-resistant-to-surr" target="_blank">nearly two-thirds of Americans aren't interested in sacrificing rights to combat terrorism</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>When given a choice, 61 percent of Americans say they are more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared to 31 percent who say they are more concerned about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.</i>
</blockquote>
This is a vast improvement over 1996, when a post-Atlanta Olympics bombing poll showed only 23% opposed giving up freedom in exchange for fighting terrorism.
<br /><br />
Breaking it down further, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/03/cnntimeorc-majority-of-democrats-are-wil" target="_blank">the poll also shows a bit of split along party lines</a>. Self-identified Democrats are most likely to put their faith in government/law enforcement to make the U.S. "safer" by curtailing freedoms (51%). Republicans are less likely to favor this exchange (41%). For independents, less than a third (32%) are willing to give up some freedom to combat terrorism.
<br /><br />
There is a <a href="http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/poll-americans-more-concerned-about-civil-liberties-in-wake-of-boston-bombing/" target="_blank">bit of bad news contained within this generally positive indicator</a> that Americans are less willing to give up something of theirs in exchange for the vagaries of "safety." The percentage of respondents who support additional surveillance in public areas has increased to 81% from 63% the week after the 9/11 attacks. On the other hand, there's a growing reluctance among Americans to allow the government to expand its surveillance efforts to cover more private venues, like email or cell phones. Only 38% approve of these efforts, down from 54% after 9/11.
<br /><br />
Now, when legislators and law enforcement reps make strides towards reducing civil liberties, they <i>do</i> have <i>some</i> support. Those over the age of 50 (across all political parties) are most likely to support a loss of freedom (50%, as compared to only 34% for those under 50). Tellingly, this is pretty much the same demographic that feels video games are a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml" target="_blank">bigger "safety threat" than guns</a> (72% of respondents over the age of 45).
<br /><br />
Unfortunately for the under-50 crowd, the over-50 demographic is historially the most active at the polls. If this perception of widespread support for invasive policies and legislation is going to change, the under-50 demographic is going to need to do a whole lot more voting. If not, these politicians are going to be able to <i>truthfully</i> say they have support for these policies -- at least, the only support that matters: die-hard voters.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130504/19001322948/timecnn-poll-shows-increasing-number-americans-wont-give-up-civil-liberties-to-fight-terrorism.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130504/19001322948/timecnn-poll-shows-increasing-number-americans-wont-give-up-civil-liberties-to-fight-terrorism.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130504/19001322948/timecnn-poll-shows-increasing-number-americans-wont-give-up-civil-liberties-to-fight-terrorism.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-government-can't-give-you-safety,-but-it-can-take-your-rights</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130504/19001322948</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 May 2013 11:49:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MA Teen Arrested And Held Without Bail For Posting Supposed 'Terrorist Threat' On Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
I'm going to take a guess and say the national Terrorism Mood Ring is still set to 'OVERREACT' if this story is any indication. Cameron D'Ambrosio, a Methuen, MA high school student, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/02/teen-faces-20-years-for-alleged-online-t" target="_blank">was arrested May 1st and charged with "communicating terroristic threats" based on a Facebook posting</a>. He is being held without bail pending a hearing on May 9th and could face up to 20 years in jail for making a "bomb threat."
<br /><br />
The threat (at least the one that appeared on Facebook), <a href="http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/05/teen_methuen_rapper_held_without_bail_for_facebook_bomb_threat" target="_blank">as reported by the Boston Herald, reads as follows</a>. (For best results, fill in the blanks Mad Libs-style and spell "bombing" correctly.)
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;I&rsquo;m not in reality, So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don&rsquo;t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive).</i>
<br /><br />
<i>(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I&rsquo;ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!"</i></blockquote>
This was posted to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/camerond4" target="_blank">D'Ambrosio's Facebook page</a>, which looks altogether similar to thousands of teens' Facebook pages. (Source: I am the parent of a teenager.) Also, like thousands of Facebook-using teens, D'Ambrosio <a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUHvNZOou9CK-SsTZ_B3BjMg" target="_blank">fancies himself a rapper</a> and his "threat" appears to be nothing more than some "lyrics" in search of a <a href="http://rapgenius.com/432014/Public-enemy-hard-rhymin/The-valley-of-the-jeep-beats" target="_blank">quality jeep beat</a>. (I'm dating myself with that last term.)
<br /><br />
So, how does some par-for-the-course teenage Facebook post become a "threat?" Well, it takes a very specific chain of events. <a href="http://methuenpoliceblotter.blogspot.com/2013/05/methuen-high-school-student-arrested.html" target="_blank">The official Methuen PD blog breaks it all down</a> (and throws a lot of exclamation points around in its headlines for some strange reason).
<blockquote>
<i>Today, Tuesday, May 1, 2013, at approximately 12:20, Methuen High School students reported to administration that they had received a Facebook phone message sent by a Methuen High School student with disturbing verbiage. The student made terrorist threats...</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The administration acted quickly, contacted school service officer Jim Mellor, who then contacted the police department. The student was not in school but has since been located and placed under arrest. Administration working hand in hand with the Methuen Police Department, diffused the situation maintaining the best possible professional attitude.</i></blockquote>
In other words, some teens at the high school saw a status update posted by D'Ambrosio and told someone... who told someone. The rest is now <del>hysteria</del> history.
<br /><br />
The PD arrested the student, charged him with "communicating terrorist threats" and locked him up pending a "dangerousness" hearing. But was it really a threat? Or was it just D'Ambrosio doing what teens do best -- attracting negative attention? That ellipsis in the quotation from the PD's blog takes the place of a sentence which seems to indicate this entire chain of events should never have happened.
<blockquote>
<i>These threats were in general and not directed towards another person or the school.</i></blockquote>
Non-specific threats are a bit problematic. There generally needs to be more going on than a Facebook post that indiscriminately "threatens" everyone who's able to read it. If it was targeted at specific people, perhaps it would be a more credible threat. (D'Ambrosio <i>can</i> target his threats. According to the Boston Herald, he was charged last year with threatening to stab his sister to death, but the case has been dismissed. Read into that what you will...)
<br /><br />
Then there's the wording itself that, when taken in context with D'Ambrosio's rap aspirations, tends to indicate this is simply poorly-worded braggadocio aimed at touting his "skills." The second "stanza" (?) even says "I&rsquo;ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!" This makes the preceding line read more like "I'm going to be bigger than the Boston Bombing," not altogether unlike John Lennon's proclamation that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Again, rap is full of this sort of self-aggrandizement and D'Ambrosio certainly listened to enough of the music to pick up the basics.
<br /><br />
The opening "stanza" starts with "I'm not in reality," another commonality of rap music.  Eminem used this as a defense against criticism, stating that Eminem was an alter ego and was far more outrageous than he, Marshall Mathers, was. "It's all an act," in other words. Stating "I'm not in reality" up front should temper any expectations of literality in what follows it. Of course, this rationalizing grants D'Ambrosio additional depth that he may not actually possess. Even so, anyone with a passing knowledge of the art form would know enough to steal a little "depth."
<br /><br />
Despite all this, the Methuen police chief seems rather proud of his catch. <a href="http://valleypatriot.com/methuen-police-arrest-high-school-student-on-terrorism-charges/" target="_blank">A rather breathless writeup at The Valley Patriot</a> captures some rather ridiculous quotes from the man of the hour.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;He posted a threat in the form of rap where he mentioned the White House, the Boston Marathon bombing, and said &lsquo;everybody you will see what I am going to do, kill people.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
If it was in the "form of a rap," there's a good chance this is protected speech, rather than a criminal act. Police chief Joe Solomon isn't helping his case by framing D'Ambrosio's words this way.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals but he did threaten to kill a bunch of people and specifically mentioned the Boston Marathon and the White House. The threat was disturbing enough for us to act and I think our officers did the right thing."</i></blockquote>
Strange. When I reread his words, I don't find him threatening to kill <i>anyone</i>. He says he'll "go insane" and make "the news, the paper, the (expletive) federal house of horror the White House." "Go insane" is <i>not</i> the same thing as threatening violence and its takes a lot of willingness to see something that's not actually there to believe it does. Sure, D'Ambrosio <i>mentions </i>both the White House and the Boston bombing, but simply throwing those words into a sentence (and filling the rest out with expletives) doesn't turn this into a credible threat, or at least not one that should result in a 20-year sentence.
<br /><br />
By all means, the police should be willing to investigate perceived threats, but putting this into context (your average profane, overdramatic, attention-seeking, rap fan teenager) should have resulted in little more than a discussion about the <i>possibility</i> that word dumps like this could have negative consequences or legal repercussions.
<br /><br />
The police also went to his home and <a href="http://gawker.com/kid-who-rapped-about-marathon-bombing-now-faces-terro-486959354" target="_blank">seized D'Ambrosio's Xbox and laptop</a>, but were apparently unable to find anything to indicate the teenager was anything more than a mouthy misanthrope. So, they've decided to "dig deeper into his Facebook account."
<br /><br />
Tom Duggan, president and publisher of The Valley Patriot, dug a little deeper himself, and reported back (breathlessly) about the "horrors" he found. (All quotes are verbatim, I shit you not.)
<blockquote>
<i>D&rsquo;Ambrosio also had disturbing photos and posts on his Facebook page including &ldquo;Fuck politics, Fuck Obama and Fuck the government!!&rdquo;</i>
<br /><br />
<i>He also had a &ldquo;disturbing satanic photo posted as well as a photo of himself on a &ldquo;Wanted Poster&rdquo; that reads &ldquo;Wanted Dead or Alive&rdquo; a quick perusal of his Facebook page shows D&rsquo;Ambrosio&rsquo;s unusual interest in gangs, violence and a criminal lifestyle.</i></blockquote>
Wow. It's like reading a report from Morality in Media. A teen who wants to stick it to the Man with f-bombs and exclamation points? Do tell! An "unusual" interest in gangs, violence and criminals? Does this make him more or less <i>disturbing</i> than a large majority of the teen population? Looking at his page, I notice D'Ambrosio <a href="https://www.facebook.com/camerond4/favorites" target="_blank">also has an "unusual" interest</a> in scantily-clad females, video games, Monsters University, puppies, "Fuck Drugs Enjoy Life," the National Guard, tattoos and Mario. And as for the whole "disturbing satanic photo" -- a.) Duggan is about 30 years too late to join the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#As_a_moral_panic" target="_blank">satanic panic</a>, b.) the "photo" isn't actually a photo and c.) it's at least as comical as it is disturbing.
</p>
<center>  <img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/u9KwqeC.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 500px;" /> </center>
<p>
So, unless the police are holding some information back, it looks as if they've managed to turn a harmless bout of stupidity into a terrorist threat. Chief Solomon even credits the "see something, say something" travesty for helping the MPD corral this dangerous rapper. But while we're used to displays of immaturity from the young, there's no excusing the dangerous stupidity of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml" target="_blank">zero tolerance policies</a>, "see something, say something" and the police department's willingness to conjure up a threat out of little more than the use of "Boston" in a badly formed sentence.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>being-a-lousy-rapper-still-not-a-crime</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130502/18364622931</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:44:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/09591822028/armed-uk-police-raid-house-over-facebook-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/09591822028/armed-uk-police-raid-house-over-facebook-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the reasons Techdirt rails against exaggerated responses to supposed terrorist threats is that it has caused police forces around the world to lose all sense of proportion -- literally, in the case of this UK story from the Daily Mail.
</p><p>
It began when Ian Driscoll decided to post a picture to his Facebook page.  It was of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278111/Operation-overkill-Armed-cops-swoop-Action-Man-looking-mortar-owner-posts-picture-TOY-weapon-Facebook.html">an Action Man doll, accompanied by a toy Alsatian dog</a>.  Why? you might ask.  Well, "as a laugh", he says, because the Action Man figure looked a lot like him, and he had a real Alsatian -- which sounds entirely reasonable.  What Driscoll did not note at the time, though, was that lurking in the background of the picture was another toy: a model mortar.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/aJlCdsS"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/aJlCdsS.jpg" width=400 /></a>
</center>
Unfortunately, a few weeks later, someone else spotted that toy mortar and, mindful of the incessant UK government propaganda about terrorists being everywhere, duly over-reacted and reported the image.  Even more unfortunately, the police also over-reacted -- to the extent of sending five officers, two armed with sub-machine guns (and you thought they didn't carry them in the UK), ready to smash down Driscoll's front door and go in with guns blazing against this supposed terrorist cell.
</p><p>
Luckily, Driscoll was there, and was able to defuse the situation by showing them the mortar in question. He was able to point out that it was in fact only slightly larger than the nearby Playstation that was clearly visible in the snap he had posted, and considerably smaller than the table that was also prominent in the Facebook picture.  He might even have pointed out that the figure and dog in his upload were quite obviously toys to anyone who spent more than three seconds examining the picture.  The police had presumably decided not to waste those precious three seconds before acting.  Instead, as a spokesperson later said:

<i><blockquote>'We are sure that the community would rather we acted quickly on information given to us of this nature, in case it had turned out to be a weapon.'</blockquote></i>

Well, no, actually: what the community would really like is for the police to use some intelligence before reaching for the sub-machine guns.  If they had just stopped and looked carefully at the picture, it would have been evident that there was no possible threat here.  And that's likely to be the case for many other incidents around the world where the police have assumed the worst.  
</p><p>
That not only represents a huge waste of their valuable time and resources, it also perpetuates the corrosive idea that we should be constantly afraid and ready to report anything and anyone odd or vaguely suspicious, no matter how absurd it would seem to anyone looking at things rationally.  This then creates a self-sustaining loop of public fear and police over-reaction.  It's time to scale the rhetoric back, and to make common-sense judgments common again.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/09591822028/armed-uk-police-raid-house-over-facebook-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/09591822028/armed-uk-police-raid-house-over-facebook-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/09591822028/armed-uk-police-raid-house-over-facebook-picture-showing-toy-weapon-background.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>let's-get-rational</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130219/09591822028</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:56:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>Thank Joe Lieberman For YouTube Accidentally Censoring Key Syrian Watchdog's YouTube Channel</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/17051021601/thank-joe-lieberman-youtube-accidentally-censoring-key-syrian-watchdogs-youtube-channel.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/17051021601/thank-joe-lieberman-youtube-accidentally-censoring-key-syrian-watchdogs-youtube-channel.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Senator Joe Lieberman may finally be out of the Senate, but his "legacy" lives on.  Over the years, we've noted that he's regularly sought to censor technology that terrorists use, on the ridiculous theory that censorship somehow makes the terrorists disappear.  One of his campaigns, way back in 2008, was to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080519/1810061172.shtml">force YouTube</a> to magically censor videos from terrorists.  After putting a lot of public pressure on YouTube, the company caved.  And... as a result of that, it recently <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jedOi6lEjW6PMT5S_hKyVSy5Ys4A?docId=CNG.fab7c94f946bebfae761563b14b6aa98.2e1" target="_blank">shut down the video channel of an important Syrian watchdog organization</a> which had been posting video evidence of atrocities occurring in that country.  YouTube has apologized and reinstated the channel, but this is what happens when you encourage censorship.  It is impossible not to have it lead to censoring important speech.
<blockquote><i>
YouTube sent the Observatory an email on Sunday that said its channels "syrianhro" and "almrsd" had "violated the policy of the site by publishing shocking and offensive videos," the Britain-based watchdog said.
<br /><br />
The Observatory, which disseminates graphic videos on YouTube of atrocities from the bloody civil war the UN says has killed more than 60,000 people, condemned the closure.
<br /><br />
"This is the second time in two months that the site administration has closed the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights channel," it said in a statement, in reference specifically to almrsd.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, if we're to take Lieberman's theory to its logical conclusion, so long as no one can see the atrocities in Syria, we can all pretend they haven't happened, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/17051021601/thank-joe-lieberman-youtube-accidentally-censoring-key-syrian-watchdogs-youtube-channel.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/17051021601/thank-joe-lieberman-youtube-accidentally-censoring-key-syrian-watchdogs-youtube-channel.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/17051021601/thank-joe-lieberman-youtube-accidentally-censoring-key-syrian-watchdogs-youtube-channel.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bet-that'll-stop-terror</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130107/17051021601</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:53:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Graphic Novel Declared A Terrorist Operation By US Government, Advance Money Seized</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/03290221463/graphic-novel-declared-terrorist-operation-us-government-advance-money-seized.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/03290221463/graphic-novel-declared-terrorist-operation-us-government-advance-money-seized.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This story is almost too bizarre to believe.  Journalist David Axe wrote a graphic novel about "the Lord's Resistance Army" rebel group in the Democratic Republic of Congo (which many people may be aware of due to the controversial viral "Kony 2012" story from earlier this year).  No matter what you think of the situation with Kony, it seems bizarre that the book itself (which is just about Kony) should be declared a product of a terrorist organization and the money associated with it frozen.  But... <a href="http://www.warisboring.com/2012/12/21/my-new-graphic-novel-is-a-terrorist-organization/" target="_blank">that's apparently what happened</a>.
<blockquote><i>
<p>In 2010 I went to the Democratic Republic of Congo to report on the Lord&#8217;s Resistance Army rebel group. In 2011 I wrote a graphic novel script based on my reporting and artist Tim Hamilton agreed to draw it. Cartoonist Matt Bors edited the story and early this year the <a href="http://www.cartoonmovement.com/comic/30" onclick="javascript:_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','http://www.cartoonmovement.com']);">Dutch Website Cartoon Movement</a> serialized the art online, following which book publisher Public Affairs acquired the paperback rights. And last month, the federal <a href="http://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Pages/Office-of-Foreign-Assets-Control.aspx" target="_blank">Office of Foreign Assets Control</a> confiscated the majority of the advance payment, claiming that we were laundering the money for onward transfer to a terrorist organization.</p>
<p>Yes, you read that right: <em>the feds believe Tim and I are terror financiers</em>.</p>
</i></blockquote>
This seems like a massive overreaction by the US government (and, perhaps, a First Amendment violation).  The graphic novel appears to be a journalistic account of Joseph Kony's actions in central Africa:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/HgeEX"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/HgeEX.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
In the press release that Axe and Hamilton sent out about this, they were told that book's title, <i>Army of God</i>, "threw up a red flag."  You would think that once that red flag went up, some bureaucrat somewhere would then have <i>looked at the damn book</i> and realized that it's not some terrorist conspiracy.  I guess that's too much to ask.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/03290221463/graphic-novel-declared-terrorist-operation-us-government-advance-money-seized.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/03290221463/graphic-novel-declared-terrorist-operation-us-government-advance-money-seized.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/03290221463/graphic-novel-declared-terrorist-operation-us-government-advance-money-seized.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>insanity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121221/03290221463</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:01:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The DHS: Selling Fear And Uncertainty; Buying Sno-Cone Machines And Latrines-On-Wheels</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121210/18055321342/dhs-selling-fear-uncertainty-buying-sno-cone-machines-latrines-on-wheels.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121210/18055321342/dhs-selling-fear-uncertainty-buying-sno-cone-machines-latrines-on-wheels.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=dhs&#038;search=Search" target="_blank">Department of Homeland Security&#39;s</a> stated aim of protecting the US from terrorism has been used as an ends to justify a variety of "means," many of which do little more than wreak havoc on civil liberties while spending a ton of taxpayer money. All sorts of questionable "solutions" to the terrorist problem have sprung from deep within the DHS, including&nbsp;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121114/11412221047/homeland-security-spent-430-million-to-tune-its-radios-to-new-frequency-failed.shtml" target="_blank">$430 million spent</a> on tuning its radios to a new frequency (which didn&#39;t "take"), alerting various law enforcement agencies on the dangers posed by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml" target="_blank">food trucks</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml" target="_blank">hotel guests</a>, and so-called "Anti-Terror Centers" that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml" target="_blank">failed to generate</a> any useful anti-terrorist intelligence.<br />
<br />
The above list is but a mere sampling of the wasteful and useless "programs" created under the DHS&#39; purview. Now, a <a href="http://info.publicintelligence.net/SenatorCoburn-UASI.pdf" target="_blank">new report [PDF]</a> by Sen. Coburn is exposing <a href="http://publicintelligence.net/coburn-uasi-waste-report" target="_blank">even more wasted tax dollars and questionable actions by the DHS</a>. "Safety At Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities" was published earlier this month by Coburn&#39;s office and is addressed to the taxpayers.<br />
<br />
In the opening statement, Coburn points out that throwing money at the "problem" isn&#39;t working.
<blockquote>
<i>We cannot secure liberty and guarantee security simply by spending more and more money in the name of security. Every dollar misspent in the name of security weakens our already precarious economic condition, indebts us to foreign nations, and shackles the future of our children and grandchildren... We can only defend our freedoms by ensuring the dollars we spend on security are done so in a fiscally responsible manner, meet real needs, and respect the very rights we are aiming to preserve and protect.</i></blockquote>
Making a point about the rights that have been steadily sacrificed in the name of "security" over the past decade-plus is a step in the right direction. Sacrificing liberty for security isn&#39;t popular with US citizens, but we have been given little choice but to keep funding the very machinery that endeavours to remove our rights. Attempting to dig deeper into the damage being done usually results in the invocation of "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/00522317232/retroactive-immunity-govt-warrantless-wiretapping-deemed-constitutional-suit-against-govt-lives.shtml" target="_blank">state secrets</a>" and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/09220417564/things-you-learn-when-you-send-freedom-information-act-request-about-what-govt-knows-about-you.shtml" target="_blank">FOIA requests</a> are delayed, dodged or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121119/11130221094/nsa-releases-heavily-redacted-talking-points-say-its-hard-to-watch-public-debate-its-efforts.shtml" target="_blank">redacted to the point of abstraction</a>.<br />
<br />
Coburn&#39;s report deals with both issues, the rights erosion and the reckless spending. He points out that recent cuts to the program, trimming its coverage of major cities roughly in half, have resulted in some aggressive lobbying to restore funding to its previous levels. But, after reading what the money was being spent on, it&#39;s a wonder the funding wasn&#39;t pulled sooner.
<blockquote>
<i>The results of the investigation find that taxpayer money spent on homeland security grant programs has not always been spent in ways obviously linked to terrorism or preparedness. <b>Importantly, this does not mean money was spent outside the bounds of what was allowed</b>. The decision by officials in Michigan to purchase 13 sno-cone machines and the $45 million that was spent by officials in Cook County, Illinois on a failed video surveillance network have already garnered national attention as examples of dubious spending. Both were defended or promoted by DHS.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Other examples have not received as much attention. Columbus, Ohio recently used a $98,000 UASI grant to purchase an &ldquo;underwater robot.&rdquo; Local officials explained that it would be used to assist in underwater rescues.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Keene, New Hampshire, with a population just over 23,000 and a police force of 40, set aside UASI funds to buy a BearCat armored vehicle. Despite reporting only a single homicide in the&nbsp;prior two years, the City of Keene told DHS <b>the vehicle was needed to patrol events like its&nbsp;annual pumpkin festival</b>.</i></blockquote>
Thirteen sno-cone machines and an armed vehicle capable of protecting a town from the terrors of the local pumpkin festival. Any study of government waste will turn up examples of "blank check" spending, where money is thrown at any number of ridiculous purchases simply because the money was available to spend. Just as common is the fact that no one of any import ever seems to question the money being spent <i>before</i> it&#39;s actually spent. Any sort of reflection on the waste is almost always limited to hindsight.<br />
<br />
More disturbing than sno-cones and festivals patrolled by BearCat is the propaganda created with taxpayer funding that actively exhorts citizens to report their neighbors for a variety of nebulous reasons.
<blockquote>
<i>Some urban areas used their awards for local outreach, holding conferences, creating websites and posting videos on how citizens can spot signs of terror in their own neighborhoods. A video sponsored by the Jacksonville UASI <b>alerted its residents to red flags such as people with &ldquo;average or above average intelligence&rdquo; or who displayed &ldquo;increased frequency of prayer or religious behavior</b>.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Broadly defined "suspicious behavior" is a great way to make every citizen a suspect... and justify every violation of personal privacy. If you need <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120831/03163820227/if-you-cant-sue-feds-spying-sue-them-lying-about-spying.shtml" target="_blank">warrantless wiretaps</a> or a reason to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/07501916943/government-representatives-using-cybersecurity-terrorism-as-excuses-to-further-trample-bill-rights.shtml" target="_blank">indefinitely detain</a> US citizens, all you have to do is start listing everyday activity as "suspicious."
The report also points out how ill prepared the nation would actually be in the event of catastrophic terrorist attack, thanks to the fact that FEMA itself receives funding through the UASI program, money that has been spent in an equally careless fashion.
<blockquote>
<i>In part, FEMA has done very little oversight of the program, <b>allowing cities to spend the money on almost anything they want, as long as it has broad ties to terror prevention</b>. In fact, according to a June 2012 report by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, &ldquo;FEMA did not have a system in place to determine the extent that Homeland Security Grant Program funds enhanced the states&rsquo; capabilities to prevent, deter, response to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies before awarding more funds to the states.&rdquo; Moreover, <b>the agency failed to issue preparedness goals, intended to shape the use of UASI funds, until last year&mdash;nine years after the program was created</b>.</i></blockquote>
At this point, despite several billion dollars worth of expenditures, the DHS and its affiliated agencies are still pretty much unable to <i>prevent</i> or <i>respond to</i> a terrorist attack. A lack of accountability may do wonders for politicians "bringing the money back home," but it does absolutely nothing to achieve the stated aims of an agency created <i>directly</i> in response to a terrorist attack. The report states very bluntly that the initial intent of the program has become little more than a new source of pork.
<blockquote>
<i>Dealing with the risk of attack requires understanding our limitations and focusing on the best things we do to prevent one&mdash;a concept referred to often as &ldquo;buying down risk.&rdquo; For programs like UASI that means establishing a framework for conducting a risk analysis and allocating resources where they are most likely to make the biggest difference.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Unfortunately, DHS and Congress have often let politics interfere, diluting any results. <b>Instead of sending funds where they can have the biggest impact, money is spread around to parochial political interests. This ensures fewer complaints and broad political support, but does not necessarily mean we are safer.</b></i></blockquote>
As long term, well-funded programs tend to do, the UASI program has become little more than a charade played out to the tune of billions. Instead of focusing the funding and intelligence in areas most at-risk for a terrorist attack, expanding from seven urban areas to 66 over the course of the decade. Now that the list has been trimmed down to 31, the complaints -- and the dubious assertions -- are flowing back into Washington DC, in hopes of turning the money spigot back on.
<blockquote>
<i>Describing it as &ldquo;a mistake,&rdquo; on May 19, 2011, Rhode Island&rsquo;s congressional delegation sent a letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano objecting to the Department&rsquo;s decision to end UASI funding for the Providence metro area saying that Rhode Island is home to 1 million residents and is at greater risk of a terrorist attack because of its proximity to Boston and New York...</i><br />
<br />
<i>Often, those lobbying for large awards cited unlikely worst-case scenarios to inflate the threats they face. Legislators and some in the responder community from smaller cities argued that funds should be disbursed not only to obvious targets like New York City, but also to smaller locations. Some argued that since &ldquo;terrorist attacks tend to start in smaller locales&rdquo; and sometimes remote U.S. towns, these areas also need homeland security grants to help protect their communities...</i><br />
<br />
<i>This argument was made by officials from the Oxnard/Thousand Oaks area in California. Arguing against legislation offered by several lawmakers to limit the number of UASI-funded urban areas to 25, officials from the Oxnard/Thousand Oaks UASI asserted that &ldquo;since most terrorists do not live or plan their attacks in the same city that is being targeted, [eliminating funding] may actually decrease the protection of other [&hellip;&hellip;.] Urban Areas.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Oxnard/Thousand Oaks has been incredibly active in the "give us more money" arena, stating that it is "a safe community, but the threat is present all the time." This despite the fact that after receiving its initial funding, the governor went out of his way to assure the community that "no new information" about an "actual terrorist threat" had been received. It also asked for nearly $100,000 in additional funds to upgrade alarms and CCTV, stating that "minor security incidents have periodically occurred." During this same period of "periodic security incidents," the violent crime rate in Thousand Oaks dropped to an all-time low.<br />
<br />
Here&#39;s a few more examples of what money can buy when no one&#39;s paying attention:
<ul>
<li>
Texas took in $1.1 billion in homeland security spending in 2011, which covered such purchases as a $24,000 latrine-on-wheels, a hog catcher for Liberty County, body bags, garbage bags, Ziploc bags and two 2011 Camaros at $31,000 a piece.<br />
&nbsp;</li>
<li>
A HALO Counter-Terrorism Summit held at a resort and spa, with an entrance fee of $1,000 per person paid with UASI funds. Counter-terrorism training was back-burnered in favor of tech demonstrations by visiting contractors. The only training that took place was a mock exercise utilizing "Hollywood magic" and a set with special effects, pyrotechnics and "state-of-the-art structures." The "terrorists" being "countered?" <b>Zombies</b>.<br />
&nbsp;</li>
<li>
In Louisiana, Jefferson Parish spent $45,000 on license plate readers -- which have been used solely to catch car thieves. Ascension Parish received $2,700 for a teleprompter, which was characterized as a "national priority to expand regional collaboration."<br />
&nbsp;</li>
<li>
The FDNY claimed $143,000 in "backfill" overtime expenses based on estimates rather than actual hours worked.<br />
&nbsp;</li>
<li>
The 13 sno-cone machines mentioned earlier? $6,200. Allowable because FEMA stated that could serve a dual purpose -- filling ice packs in an emergency.<br />
&nbsp;</li>
<li>
$45.6 million to Chicago for Project Shield, a network of surveillance cameras covering 128 municipalities. The program was ultimately shuttered.</li>
</ul>
<p>
There&#39;s much, much more in this thorough report, which details exactly how much money is being spent on a program with no end in sight that uses fear as leverage for additional funding. What started as a hurried response to a once-in-a-lifetime event has now become a vehicle for pork barrel spending, rights erosion and hundreds of "security" fiefdoms with their hands out.
<center>
<div class="DV-container" id="DV-viewer-537213-senatorcoburn-uasi">
&nbsp;</div>
<script src="//s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script>
DV.load("//www.documentcloud.org/documents/537213-senatorcoburn-uasi.js", {
width: 550,
height: 560,
sidebar: false,
container: "#DV-viewer-537213-senatorcoburn-uasi"
});
</script><noscript>
<a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/537213/senatorcoburn-uasi.pdf">SenatorCoburn UASI (PDF)</a>
<br />
<a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/537213/senatorcoburn-uasi.txt">SenatorCoburn UASI (Text)</a>
</noscript></center>
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121210/18055321342/dhs-selling-fear-uncertainty-buying-sno-cone-machines-latrines-on-wheels.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121210/18055321342/dhs-selling-fear-uncertainty-buying-sno-cone-machines-latrines-on-wheels.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121210/18055321342/dhs-selling-fear-uncertainty-buying-sno-cone-machines-latrines-on-wheels.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>blowing-money-fast</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121210/18055321342</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:07:13 PST</pubDate>
<title>Facebook 'Likes' Considered Key Evidence In 'Terrorist' Plot</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/18205421172/facebook-likes-considered-key-evidence-terrorist-plot.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/18205421172/facebook-likes-considered-key-evidence-terrorist-plot.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written a few times about how the FBI has been doing a bang up job foiling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml">its own terrorist plots</a>, so we're a bit skeptical every time we see headlines of some giant "terrorist bust."  Almost every time, once you dig into the details, it involves some gullible, confused suckers who had no actual connection to terrorists, but were led along by FBI agents and informers until they were "convinced" to take part in a "plot" that was entirely concocted by the FBI.  The latest headline-grabbing case of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/four-california-men-arrested-terror_n_2162612.html" target="_blank">"arrested terrorists"</a> actually appears like it may have slightly more substance, however, in that they may have actually had some sort of connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
<br /><br />
That doesn't mean that there still aren't some oddities in the case, however.  As a number of folks have sent over, reading through <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/526016-kabir-et-al-complaintsigned-2.html" target="_blank">the indictment</a> (also embedded below) shows that a significant chunk of the "evidence" seems to <a href="http://www.fightbacknews.org/2012/11/27/facebook-likes-used-evidence-material-support-terrorism" target="_blank">consist of Facebook "likes" and shared content</a> among the accused.  From the indictment:
<blockquote><i>
I have reviewed several of the social media web sites
for KABIR, SANTANA, DELEON, each of whom has posted radical prom
jihad content on their respective pages. Additionally, portions
of the social media show that DELEON and SANTANA "liked"
postings on KABIR's Facebook page as early as May 2011.
<br /><br />
Public items posted by KABIR to his social media
accounts include photographs of himself, non-extremist content,
radical Islamist content, and items reflecting a mistrust of
mainstream media, abuses by the government, conspiracy theories,
abuses by law enforcement, and the war in Afghanistan. KABIR's
radical postings include videos and links to videos of Al-Qa'ida
leader Anwar Al-Awlagi and his lectures, jihad--based videos
regarding Afghanistan and elsewhere, videos depicting mujahideen
fighters in Afghanistan and elsewhere, videos depicting
terrorist training camps and related activities, videos
depicting improvised explosive device attacks, and
articles regarding the death of American soldiers in
Afghanistan. For example, on July 6, 2012, KABIR shared a video
to his public Facebook page entitled "Knights of Khorasan
Islamic Emirate Operation Against an Army Base in
Margha." This video, which I have reviewed, depicts a suicide
bombing operation against a large base wherein the suicide-
bomber drives an explosives-laden truck into a base and
detonates it. The video bears the symbol of As-Sahab, Al--
Qa'ida's media wing, in the lower right corner.
<br /><br />
KABIR has "shared" several postings with SANTANA
and/or DELEON, both of whom have "liked" or commented on several
other postings by KABIR, including the following:
<blockquote>
a. On December 7, 2011, KABIR posted a video
entitled "Black Flags of Khorasan: Part 2" that he later
"shared" with DELEON.- (Based on my training and experience,
conversations with other agents, and research of publicly
available information, the black flag or banner refers to a
traditional flag flown by Muhammad and later by Islamic military
leaders. More recently, several jihadi groups and terrorists
have adopted the black flag as a symbol for jihad and mujahideen
fighters.)
<br /><br />
b. On or about January 5, 2012, KABIR shared a link
regarding negotiating with the Taliban. SANTANA "liked" the
post and SANTANA and KABIR engaged in a public exchange of
comments. SANTANA said, "they messed up know?" KABIR followed
SANTANA's comment with a comment that appeared to
include excerpts of a "Statement of Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan," which discussed the Taliban's desire to expel the
United States from, and establish their own government in,
Afghanistan. SANTANA replied to KABIR's comment by writing "Oh yea!!!!"
<br /><br />
c. On January 5, 2012, KABIR posted a photo on his
Facebook page depicting a veiled and covered woman leaning on an
assault rifle. DELEON and KABIR exchanged comments on the photo
wherein DELEON said "...hey bro are coming back? whats goin
on? how long gona stay there?" KABIR replied "Naa.. not comin back... movin 4wd.... =D.... 1/2 
way 2 my destination.. =D."
<br /><br />
(Based on the context of this statement, including the fact that
KABIR was then in Germany, I believe that KABIR intended to
inform DELEON that he had commenced his journey to Afghanistan.)
<br /><br />
d. On January 19, 2012, DELEON "liked" a shared link
posted on KABIR's page of a video entitled "Dua of Sheikh
Muhammad al Mohaisany masjid al haram makkah." The video, which
I have reviewed as posted on KABIR's page, appears to be a
prayer for the success of the mujahideen and features various
photos including Al--Qa'ida leaders Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al
Zawahiri, 9/11 attacks, bloodied adults and children, and
Islamic fighters. The video also calls for the liberation of
Al-Aqsa, the mosque referenced in the 1998 Al-Qa'ida fatwa
described above.
<br /><br />
e. On February 13, 2012, SANTANA "liked" two shared
video links on KABIR's page, including one for a video entitled
"Imam Anwar al Awlaki -- A Story of Courage."
<br /><br />
f. On May 28, 2012, KABIR posted two stories
regarding the death of Al-Qa'ida leader Usama Bin Laden. DELEON
"liked" both stories; SANTANA "liked" one.
<br /><br />
g. On June 16, 2012, SANTANA "liked" a video,
produced by Al--Qa'ida's media wing, As-Sahab, shared by KABIR to
his Facebook page entitled "Ghuraba." This video, which I have
reviewed, appears to depict life as a mujahideen fighter and
includes several interviews. The video also features mujahideen
fighters firing artillery.
<br /><br />
h. On July 5, 2012, KABIR posted a photo featuring
Al-Qa'ida leader Anwar Al-Awlaqi which contained a quote from
Al-Awlaqi.  DELEON "liked" and "shared" the photo.
<br /><br />
i. On September 16, 2012, DELEON "liked" KABIR's shared link to a video entitled "The Truth Has Come and Falsehood has perished Part 1 Urdu."  This video, which I have reviewed, is a production by As-Sahab and begins with footage of Al-Awlaqi and discusses the war in Afghanistan.  The video also features current Al-Qa'ida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
</blockquote>
On September 17, 2012 SANTANA "liked" KABIR's post of an article entitled "A Public Talk by Ustadz Abu M Jibriel AR: The Truth of The 9/11 Jihad Operation, The Plots Of The Enemies and The Zionist Conspiracy."
</i></blockquote>
There is, of course, other evidence including statements made by all the defendants.  For all we know they may have actually been planning attacks on US targets and the indictment is entirely appropriate.  But it certainly gives pause to suggest that "likes" and "shares" on Facebook are somehow evidence of terrorist intent.  It could certainly be seen as having a chilling effect for anyone who might "like" or "share" content on Facebook that is critical of the US government.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/18205421172/facebook-likes-considered-key-evidence-terrorist-plot.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/18205421172/facebook-likes-considered-key-evidence-terrorist-plot.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121128/18205421172/facebook-likes-considered-key-evidence-terrorist-plot.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>signal-of-intent?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121128/18205421172</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:14:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Opportunistic Politicians Lean On The FBI And Twitter To Shut Down Terrorist Accounts</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121124/19452121134/opportunistic-politicians-lean-fbi-twitter-to-shut-down-terrorist-accounts.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121124/19452121134/opportunistic-politicians-lean-fbi-twitter-to-shut-down-terrorist-accounts.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I have no idea what it is with certain politicians that makes them believe they can somehow "curb" violence by cordoning off a section of the internet. They don&#39;t seem to realize that determined individuals will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/03054815523/as-governments-get-censorship-happy-new-technologies-popping-up-to-route-around-that.shtml" target="_blank">simply route around</a> their half-assed roadblock without breaking a sweat. Even worse, they don&#39;t seem to realize that useful information on violent groups and individuals can often be gleaned from the very same lines of communication they&#39;re trying to cut.<br />
<br />
In this case, it's very much like grandstanding politicians trying to shut down "human traffickers" like Backpages and Craigslist, failing to understand that law enforcement can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/07354820569/oh-look-police-can-use-backpagecom-to-track-down-arrest-convict-pimps-prostitutes.shtml" target="_blank">use the same services</a> to track down offenders. Rather than look for the upside of having a live feed from the enemy front (or realize the ultimate futility of their efforts), <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/269141-gaza-violence-leads-lawmakers-to-call-for-twitter-shuttering" target="_blank">these lawmakers have chosen to throw a bunch of effort (or at least, words) behind a bad idea</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Seven House Republicans asked the FBI in September to demand that Twitter take down the accounts of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Somalia&#39;s al Shabaab. The letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller was spearheaded by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), who said Wednesday that the recent events vindicated the request.</i><br />
<br />
<i>&ldquo;Allowing foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas to operate on Twitter is enabling the enemy,&rdquo; Poe said in an e-mailed statement to The Hill. &ldquo;Failure to block access arms them with the ability to freely spread their violent propaganda and mobilize in their War on Israel.</i></blockquote>
Now, I&#39;m not going to claim to be smarter than these politicians (although you&#39;re certainly welcome to make that claim for me in the comment threads), but I&#39;m curious as to how they arrived at the conclusion that blocking Twitter accounts would somehow result in less violence committed by terrorists. One <i>could</i> argue that breaking down a line of communication might result in some temporary disruption, but I&#39;ve got to believe that Twitter isn&#39;t the <i>only</i> line of communication Hamas has.<br />
<br />
Shutting down these accounts would do little more than a) make these politicians feel better about having done something, b) annoy (and possibly provoke) already irritable and violent groups, and c) move communication anti-terrorist entities rely on to a new channel possibly unavailable to them. The downside <i>easily</i> outweighs the upside, because the "upside" only benefits these seven lawmakers, giving them a feeling of power and self-righteousness, which will be cold comfort to those who might actually be using these feeds to glean intelligence and help defend themselves.<br />
<br />
Then there&#39;s this amazing sentence, which must have been composed by Poe at a cost of one IQ point per letter:
<blockquote>
<i>The FBI and Twitter must recognize sooner rather than later that social media is a tool for the terrorists.</i></blockquote>
<i>Any</i> form of information dissemination can be considered a "tool" for terrorists. Imbuing Twitter with some sort of terrorist-defeating powers is ridiculous. Berating the FBI and Twitter for aiding and abetting terrorism through inaction is even more so. This is merely a continuation of Poe&#39;s anti-Twitter obsession, which <a href="http://poe.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&#038;view=article&#038;id=8832:german-nazis-blocked-by-twitter-whos-next&#038;catid=119:in-the-news" target="_blank">began back in September when he first penned a letter to the FBI requesting the takedown of these "terrorist" accounts</a>, citing (of all things), Twitter&#39;s decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/00183120742/twitter-cuts-off-illegal-neo-nazi-group-account-germany.shtml" target="_blank">block a neo-Nazi account</a> in Germany. (The account could still be read anywhere else in the world, or even in Germany with minimal effort.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://freebeacon.com/terror-twitter/" target="_blank">Poe is once again attempting to use Twitter&#39;s own statement against it</a>, but the FBI just isn&#39;t giving this group of lawmakers the one thing they need to get their way:
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Twitter maintains that it will take down any account requested by the FBI,&rdquo; seven Republican members of Congress wrote to the FBI last month. &ldquo;As of this writing, the FBI has not made a single request to Twitter to take an account down.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
And (once again), Poe and his co-signers are using recent events to further their own agenda.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Not one account has been shut down, unlike on YouTube and Facebook,&rdquo; Poe told the Free Beacon.</i><br />
<br />
<i>&ldquo;Twitter is not going to take it upon themselves to shut them down,&rdquo; which is why the FBI needs to take action, Poe said.</i></blockquote>
The FBI isn&#39;t buying it, however.
<blockquote>
<i>FBI Special Agent Jason Pack told the Free Beacon, &ldquo;The FBI received the Congressman&rsquo;s letter and will respond to it appropriately.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
One assumes Pack "responded" by tossing the angry letter into the nearest trash can, possibly running it through the shredder first. The latest missive means someone at the FBI will need to empty the trash can, but given the results of Poe&#39;s previous demands, I highly doubt Twitter will be shuttering any accounts.<br />
<br />
Poe has also expressed his disappointment in the Obama administration for not pushing for more Twitter shutdowns.
<blockquote>
<i>Poe speculated that one reason the Obama administration has not pursued the issue is because terrorists&rsquo; Twitter pages are a rich vein for the intelligence community to mine.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Poe, however, said that this is not a good enough reason to give these radical actors free rein on the Internet.</i><br />
<br />
<i>&ldquo;If that&rsquo;s [the administration&rsquo;s] only way of knowing&rdquo; what terrorists are up to, &ldquo;we&rsquo;ve got some serious problems with our intelligence service,&rdquo; Poe said.</i></blockquote>
There&#39;s Poe&#39;s problem. He views Twitter as the <i>only</i> thing. In his mind, it&#39;s the <i>only&nbsp;</i>source of communication for terrorists and it&#39;s the <i>only</i> source of intel for the intelligence community. Poe has seized on Twitter as the <i>only</i> problem and won&#39;t be dissuaded easily, no matter how often the FBI refuses to indulge his "social media = terror" hobby horse.
<blockquote>
<i>The Free Beacon&#39;s Republican slant inadvertently suggests that Poe may just be kicking around Twitter because its "best friends" with Obama.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Twitter&rsquo;s Washington D.C. lobbying team is comprised of several Obama administration confidants and former Democratic Hill staffers.&nbsp;Adam Sharp, the site&rsquo;s top government liaison, formerly served as deputy chief of staff for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.).&nbsp;Its global public policy official, Colin Crowell, was a senior aide to Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), while Twitter&rsquo;s head of international strategy, Katie Jacobs Stanton, once worked with the Obama administration on new media strategies.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Since 2011, several individuals who list their employer as Twitter have donated primarily to Democrats, including the Obama campaign and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.</i></blockquote>
So... maybe it&#39;s not really about terrorism. Maybe it&#39;s just good, old fashioned partisanship sporting War on Terror clothing. No matter how you slice it, though, there&#39;s only one thing it <i>truly&nbsp;</i>is: stupid.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121124/19452121134/opportunistic-politicians-lean-fbi-twitter-to-shut-down-terrorist-accounts.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121124/19452121134/opportunistic-politicians-lean-fbi-twitter-to-shut-down-terrorist-accounts.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121124/19452121134/opportunistic-politicians-lean-fbi-twitter-to-shut-down-terrorist-accounts.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-then-what?-linkedin?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121124/19452121134</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:45:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>The DHS And FBI Present: You Might Be A Terrorist If... (Hotel Guest Edition)</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we seem to be told repeatedly, seeing something and saying something is perhaps the greatest duty an American citizen can perform in service to this country. It&#39;s simply not enough anymore to install an American flag in the front yard and purchase domestic vehicles. Now, every citizen should be keeping his eye out for (and on) his fellow citizens. The price of freedom may be eternal vigilance, but the price of security is endless paranoia.<br />
<br />
To that end, <a href="http://publicintelligence.net/dhs-fbi-suspicious-hotel-guests/" target="_blank">the DHS and the FBI have joined forces to compile a list of oddities</a> that might well indicate you are sleeping one paper-thin wall away from death personified&nbsp;(via <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/11/how_to_tell_if.html" target="_blank">Bruce Schneier&#39;s fine blog</a>).&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<i>Possible indicators of terrorist behaviors at hotels: The observation of multiple indicators may represent&mdash;based on the specific facts or circumstances&mdash;possible terrorist behaviors at hotels:</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Not providing professional or personal details on hotel registrations&mdash;such as place of employment, contact information, or place of residence.</i></blockquote>
[Place of employment? Seriously? "Alan Smithee, 123 Main Street, Anytown USA 5578H. Occupation: <strike>Death</strike> Hug Merchant."]&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<i>- Using payphones for outgoing calls or making front desk requests in person to avoid using the room telephone.</i></blockquote>
[Payphones? Are terrorists unaware of "burners?"]
<blockquote>
<i>- Interest in using Internet cafes, despite hotel Internet availability.</i></blockquote>
[This seems to suggest that the Feds have already let themselves in the back door on the (sometimes prohibitively expensive) hotel wi-fi.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Non-VIPs who request that their presence at a hotel not be divulged.</i></blockquote>
[Let me get this straight: normal, "non-VIP" people will just have their information divulged to whoever asks, simply because they&#39;re not "important" enough to deserve privacy? Perhaps that should be posted on a sign somewhere up by the check-in desk: "All guests are created equal, but some are more equal than others."]
<blockquote>
<i>- Extending departure dates one day at a time for prolonged periods.</i></blockquote>
[Something only a terrorist would do. Let me give you a real life, happened-to-me example: in town to visit the famous Mayo Clinic seeking medical help for my wife. What started out as three days turned into seven days, with the stay at the hotel being extended one day at a time. Open-ended hotel stays: not just for terrorists anymore.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Refusal of housekeeping services for extended periods.</i></blockquote>
[This I believe. No one wants to make their own bed.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Extended stays with little baggage or unpacked luggage.</i></blockquote>
[Unless the staff have been instructed to do a little snooping in every room, how would anyone know how much baggage someone brought and never unpacked? No doubt this will soon make its way onto propaganda posters: "<i>HAVE YOU PACKED ENOUGH? Traveling light is traveling with terror</i>."]
<blockquote>
<i>- Access or attempted access to areas of the hotel normally restricted to staff.</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Use of cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else&rsquo;s name.</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Requests for specific rooms, floors, or other locations in the hotel.</i></blockquote>
[Close to the parking lot, ground floor. Convenience or criminal intent?]
<blockquote>
<i>- Use of a third party to register.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>- Multiple visitors or deliveries to one individual or room.</i></blockquote>
[Ruthless cabal or post-prom drinking party?]
<blockquote>
<i>- Unusual interest in hotel access, including main and alternate entrances, emergency exits, and surrounding routes.</i></blockquote>
[IN CASE OF FIRE, PLEASE REMAIN IGNORANT.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Use of entrances and exits that avoid the lobby or other areas with cameras and hotel personnel.</i></blockquote>
[Like the one nearest your vehicle?]
<blockquote>
<i>- Attempting to access restricted parking areas with a vehicle or leaving unattended vehicles near the hotel building.</i></blockquote>
[During your stay at the hotel, please remain in your vehicle at all times.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Unusual interest in hotel staff operating procedures, shift changes, closed-circuit TV systems, fire alarms, and security systems.</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Leaving the property for several days and then returning.</i><br />
<br />
<i>- Abandoning a room and leaving behind clothing, toiletries, or other items.</i></blockquote>
[You&#39;d think the Feds would be happy to have CLUES and EVIDENCE just laying around.]
<blockquote>
<i>- Noncompliance with other hotel policies.</i></blockquote>
[Ah. The handy catch-all. If the other points don&#39;t directly implicate you, then maybe something from this list will!]<br />
<br />
So, to be a standup, non-terrorist citizen, here&#39;s what you need to do:<br />
<br />
Pack for two weeks if you&#39;re staying for two days. Park your vehicle a safe distance away from the hotel, perhaps across the street or at another hotel. Leaving your vehicle dangerously unattended, walk directly through the main entrance with hands open and displayed in a non-threatening manner.<br />
<br />
When registering, present as many forms of ID as possible. Be sure to mention where you work EVEN if no one asks. Brag if you have to. Hand out business cards to the staff. Let the desk clerk know that your stay here is no secret and that your room number should be given to anyone who asks, including those who don&#39;t ask. When asked if you have a room preference, answer with a bright, but unfrightening, "I&#39;ve never had a &#39;preference&#39; in my life! I&#39;m easy to please and an American citizen!"<br />
<br />
Head directly to your room, carefully avoiding eye contact with doors marked "Employees Only." Immediately unpack all of your luggage. Make several phones calls using ONLY the in-room phone. Call the front desk several times so as to avoid appearing suspicious. Return to your unattended vehicle and clone yourself using existing, but non-potentially-dangerous technology. Make no sudden movements and keep your ID and passport displayed prominently. Return one of yourselves to your hotel room, again using the front entrance in a non-threatening, flag-waving manner.<br />
<br />
Stay in your room. Use the provided wi-fi. Avoid sites that use any form of encryption. Be careful not to stay in your room too long. When venturing out for something to eat or a non-suspicious conversation with the suspicious staff, avoid stairwells, hallways, exits/entrances, and connecting roads. On second thought, just stay in your room. This will make it easier to avoid being caught up in the middle of a personnel shift change.<br />
<br />
If you must leave your room, smile and wave at each and every security camera. Lift your shirt to display lack of weapons, explosives or identifiable scars and tattoos. If purchasing anything from the hotel, use only credit cards, checks or DNA. Return to your room using the most surveilled route. Use the in-room phone to order room service. Turn down the delivery when it comes, stating that you&#39;re trying to keep visitors and deliveries to a minimum. Apologize for not having any cash to tip with, but explain that this lack of cash directly contributes (not monetarily, of course) to the safety of everyone in the hotel. Repeat this apology to housekeeping when they arrive, being sure to answer the door before they get to the second knock. Try to ignore their just-out-of-earshot griping about having to clean around the scattered contents of four large suitcases. Smile in a non-threatening fashion and shrug as if to say, "LOOK AT HOW MUCH I DON&#39;T HAVE TO HIDE."<br />
<br />
If you find that, despite your careful planning, your stay is going to be extended indefinitey, switch hotels. Pack all of your belongings carefully. Police the room for any stray socks, unused condoms or stealable toiletries. Turn the coffee maker OFF (if applicable). Leave in an unhurried fashion, but don&#39;t dawdle. Return to your attended vehicle and (most likely) dead clone. Drive to another hotel, preferably one a non-suspicious distance away and repeat the process. Once you return to your hometown, turn yourself into the nearest authorities for a thorough post-travel debriefing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121110/17435521005/dhs-fbi-present-you-might-be-terrorist-if-hotel-guest-edition.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>glass-container-in-the-pool-area?-threat-level-upgraded-to-'orange'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121110/17435521005</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:36:03 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You Eat Something, Say Something: DHS Sounds The Alarm On The 'Terrorist Implications' Of Food Trucks</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It&#39;s interesting (or maybe just kind of sad) that various government agencies see <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml" target="_blank">possible terrorists</a> everywhere but rarely, if ever, catch one. Despite the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml" target="_blank">large number</a> of personnel being thrown at the problem (along with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/23582414094/homeland-security-doesnt-do-costbenefit-analysis-they-just-do-fear-bluster.shtml" target="_blank">lots of money</a>), actual terrorists seem to be in limited supply.<br />
<br />
But these agencies haven&#39;t let their lack of success temper their vision of a nation under constant imminent attack. Public Intelligence <a href="http://publicintelligence.net/fdny-food-trucks/" target="_blank">recently posted a Powerpoint presentation from the NYC fire department (FDNY)</a> discussing the unique safety issues mobile food trucks present. Along with some actual concerns (many food trucks use propane and/or gasoline-powered generators to cook; some *gasp* aren&#39;t properly licensed food vendors), the presenter decided to toss in some DHS speculation on yet another way terrorists might be killing us in the near future.<br />
<br />
That&#39;s right. Instead of serving up a quick hot meal, these food trucks will be serving up death, and lots of it!&nbsp;Under the heading "Terrorist Implications," the FDNY lists the exact reasons we should be concerned, most of which begin with the word "high."
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/HvUWr.png" style="width: 500px; height: 375px;" /></center>
While any terrorist organization worth its twisted ideology would do well to nail down as much of this list as possible, so would any vendor who wished to stay in business. The question is: how do you differentiate between the two? One answer might be to sort through the data collected by all the food truck terrorism incidents up to this point. (American&#39;s <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml">fusion centers</a> would like to remind you that zero incidents only means we&#39;re <i>due</i>, rather than indicating a terrorist-free trend.)<br />
<br />
But there&#39;s more! The next slide continues to lay out the "Terrorism Implications," this time reminding first responders that food trucks have large quantities of deadly liquids (propane, gasoline) and are "easily concealed" (which I assume refers to the potential explosives, rather than the truck itself... but you can never be TOO sure). Also, food bombers will usually be in the proximity of "crowds" (gasp!) and "sidewalks" (wha...?).
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/GqGby.png" style="width: 500px; height: 375px;" /></center>
Dammit, now the terrorists have gone too far! It&#39;s one thing to blow up our crowds. It&#39;s quite another to ruthlessly attack our infrastructure, the very thing that keeps our precious crowds from milling about on the lawn and/or street!<br />
<br />
But (dear lord) there&#39;s even more! According to the DHS, food carts make "excellent surveillance platforms" because of all the "high" stuff they can park next to for long periods of time. (Has anyone considered knocking on the door and having a quick look around, especially during business hours?) And I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;re <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/04/151967202/food-trucks-seek-that-mystical-spot" target="_blank">not allowed</a> to just park wherever they want for indefinite periods of time, at least not in New York City. There are 8 million laws in the Naked City, none of which are accommodating to the small businessman/woman "stealing" customers away from established restaurants paying exorbitant amounts per square foot every month.<br />
<br />
But beyond that, why go through the expense of constructing a food truck when you can just rent a U-Haul, fill it full of explosives and ram it into the nearest high-rise/government building? Unless the DHS figures these terrorists are in it for the long haul, suckering people in with weeks or months of delicious ethnic food before parking across the nearest heavily-trafficked sidewalk and blowing everything up in an explosion of propane and proprietary blends of herbs and spices.  Also, does it not occur to them that if you want to keep your terrorist activities hidden, it's probably not the smartest thing to set yourself up as a vehicle that people line up to <i>look inside?</i><br />
<br />
The DHS&#39; unfocused "terrorvision" continues to see a threat in every situation and the department seems to be busying itself crafting a response to every conceivable "threat." The problem with this "method" is that it turns any slight variation of "everyday activity" into something suspicious. The number of "terrorist implications" grows exponentially while the number of solutions remains the same. This Powerpoint is another example of good, old-fashioned fear mongering, utilizing public servants to spread the message.<br />
<br />
At no point does this presentation offer anything resembling preemptive action or deterrents. All it does is paint a picture of food trucks as potential threats before concluding with, of all things, common sense safety tips aimed at dealing with food truck fires. The final slide paints the picture in the clearest terms, letting the viewer know <i>exactly</i> whose agenda is being pushed:
<blockquote>
<i>Prepared by Lt. Timothy Carroll<br />
FDNY Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness</i></blockquote>
The priorities are all screwed up. Terrorism is the first concern. Everything else is secondary. Considering this is an FDNY presentation, you&#39;d think that "Disaster Preparedness" would be the priority. After all, they are the first response. But instead that honor goes to the vague menace of terrorism, a constant battle with no winners and, for the most part, no combatants. Every day without a terrorist act is a "win" that perpetuates the "need" for more counter-terrorist "efforts."<br />
<br />
All that being said, the easiest way to tell that this "Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness" is all bluster and FUD is to <a href="http://www.jpl112.be/scannen0009.jpg-for-web-normal-1308902039.jpg" target="_blank">take a look at its logo</a>. Yep: <a href="http://rtb.techdirt.com/products/seized-tee/#foxyshop_gallery[fs_gall]/0/" target="_blank">MF EAGLE</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>basically-any-form-of-transportation-is-a-threat----start-walking,-citizen</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121111/18355921009</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:24:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another NYPD Terrorist 'Investigation' Turns Up Nothing But Privacy Invasions And Rights Erosion</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/16102620845/another-nypd-terrorist-investigation-turns-up-nothing-privacy-invasions-rights-erosion.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/16102620845/another-nypd-terrorist-investigation-turns-up-nothing-privacy-invasions-rights-erosion.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It&#39;s no secret that the "War on Terror" has resulted in little more than steady paychecks for those in the loop and plenty of rights erosion everywhere else. As was detailed earlier this year, the New York Police Department has decided to follow in the clumsy footsteps of the FBI&#39;s anti-terrorism efforts, crafting its own "elite" agency (with the help of the CIA) to infiltrate the Muslim community and smoke out terrorists. The end result? <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml" target="_blank">Not a single lead generated</a>.<br />
<br />
Via <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/23/how-cops-create-and-capture-terror-talk" target="_blank">Reason</a> comes this <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/informant-nypd-paid-me-bait-muslims" target="_blank">Associated Press story about another NYPD anti-terrorism failure</a>. Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bengali descent, was put to work by the NYPD&#39;s intelligence unit as an informant, earning $1000 a month in exchange for "baiting" Muslims into making inflammatory statements.
<blockquote>
<i>Shamiur Rahman... who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests</i>.</blockquote>
There&#39;s nothing like a little leverage in the form of dangling prison sentence to "motivate" your informants into giving you as much "information" as possible, even if most is unverifiable, exaggerated or simply made up. Rahman was no exception:
<blockquote>
<i>Police recruited Rahman in late January, after his third arrest on misdemeanor drug charges, which Rahman believed would lead to serious legal consequences. An NYPD plainclothes officer approached him in a Queens jail and asked whether he wanted to turn his life around...</i><br />
<br />
<i>In an Oct. 15 interview with the AP, however, Rahman said he received little training and spied on "everything and anyone." He took pictures inside the many mosques he visited and eavesdropped on imams. By his own measure, he said he was very good at his job and his handler never once told him he was collecting too much, no matter whom he was spying on.</i><br />
<br />
<i>He said he sometimes intentionally misinterpreted what people had said. For example, Rahman said he would ask people what they thought about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, knowing the subject was inflammatory. It was easy to take statements out of context, he said. He said wanted to please his NYPD handler, whom he trusted and liked.</i><br />
<br />
<i>"I was trying to get money," Rahman said. "I was playing the game."</i></blockquote>
That wasn&#39;t all Rahman did. In order to avoid the sentence constantly hanging over his head, he went above and beyond. According to the AP article, Rahman took pictures inside mosques and at events, eavesdropped on imams, spied on the Muslim Student Association at John Jay College, wrote down license plate information and collected cell phone numbers. All of this activity resulted in Rahman drawing this conclusion:
<blockquote>
<i>Rahman, who was born in Queens, said he never witnessed any criminal activity or saw anybody do anything wrong.</i></blockquote>
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne refused to comment but has denied widespread spying in the past, insisting that "police only follow leads." It&#39;s the sort of statement you expect from a spokesman, even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. Even the "targeted" Demographics Unit cast a very wide net, assembling databases on where Muslims lived, shopped and worked and cataloguing every Muslim who adopted an Americanized surname.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, former NYPD officials confirmed that the tactics used by Rahman were common. Rahman received little training or instruction, something that may have helped focus his efforts. Of course, if his handlers wanted a wide net cast, the last thing they would have done is give him some guidelines.<br />
<br />
The assault on constitutional rights continues, and privacy continues to be violated, all under the dubious heading of "anti-terrorism."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/16102620845/another-nypd-terrorist-investigation-turns-up-nothing-privacy-invasions-rights-erosion.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/16102620845/another-nypd-terrorist-investigation-turns-up-nothing-privacy-invasions-rights-erosion.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121025/16102620845/another-nypd-terrorist-investigation-turns-up-nothing-privacy-invasions-rights-erosion.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>when-all-you-have-an-'elite'-anti-terrorism-squad,-everything-looks-like</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121025/16102620845</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:28:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>UN: The Problem With The Internet Today Is It's Just Too Open &#038; Terrorists Might Use It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too-open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too-open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, the UN.  As <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57537559-38/u.n-calls-for-anti-terror-internet-surveillance/?part=rss&#038;tag=feed&#038;subj=News-PoliticsandLaw" target="_blank">highlighted by Declan McCullagh</a>, a new report from the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, clocking in at an unwieldy <a href="http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf" target="_blank">158 pages</a> (pdf) warns that this old internet of ours is just too damn open, and that means terrorists can use it.  Thus, it has to stop the openness.  The report really is just about that bad: if terrorists might misuse it, it's bad and must be stopped. The costs of locking up all this openness are brushed aside, if they're even considered at all.  Among the problems?  How about open WiFi?
<blockquote><i>
ISPs may require users to provide identifying information prior to
accessing Internet content and services. The collection and preservation of identifying
information associated with Internet data, and the disclosure of such information, subject
to the appropriate safeguards, could significantly assist investigative and prosecutorial
proceedings. In particular, requiring registration for the use of Wi-Fi networks or
cybercafes could provide an important data source for criminal investigations. While
some countries, such as Egypt, have implemented legislation requiring ISPs to identify
users before allowing them Internet access, similar measures may be undertaken by
ISPs on a voluntary basis.
</i></blockquote>
It seems like it should be a general rule that, if you're supporting something that includes better surveillance tools by saying, "Hey, Egypt -- the same country that recently had the people rise up to force out a dictator, who tried to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/16452112861/egypt-trying-to-shut-off-all-internet-access-sms.shtml">shut down the internet</a> -- does it!" perhaps you don't have a very good argument.
<br /><br />
The report is basically one big "OMG! But... but... terrorists! Kill it!"  It talks about things like "standardizing" data retention rules for ISPs, while we here in the US don't currently have data retention rules -- nor is everyone in agreement that such things are good.  Nevermind all that... terrorists!
<blockquote><i>
The development of a <b>universally agreed regulatory framework imposing consistent
obligations on all ISPs</b> regarding the type and duration of customer usage data to
be retained would be of considerable benefit to law enforcement and intelligence agencies
investigating terrorism cases. 
</i></blockquote>
Also... all that social media stuff going on out there?  Scary, scary stuff because terrorists might use it as well.  They might publish propaganda on it, and we can't have that:
<blockquote><i>
The promotion of extremist rhetoric encouraging violent acts is also a common
trend across the growing range of Internet-based platforms that host user-generated
content. Content that might formerly have been distributed to a relatively limited audience,
in person or via physical media such as compact discs (CDs) and digital video
discs (DVDs), has increasingly migrated to the Internet. Such content may be distributed
using a broad range of tools, such as dedicated websites, targeted virtual chat
rooms and forums, online magazines, social networking platforms such as Twitter and
Facebook, and popular video and file-sharing websites, such as YouTube and Rapidshare,
respectively. The use of indexing services such as Internet search engines also makes it
easier to identify and retrieve terrorism-related content.
</i></blockquote>
You hear that?  All those internet companies, enabling terrorists.  Oh, and they're not just handy for terrorists to promote their propaganda... but to sneak up on the dumb users who reveal important info for terrorists as well:
<blockquote><i>
Particularly in the age of popular social networking media, such as Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and blogging platforms, individuals also publish, voluntarily
or inadvertently, an unprecedented amount of sensitive information on the Internet.
While the intent of those distributing the information may be to provide news or other
updates to their audience for informational or social purposes, some of this information
may be misappropriated and used for the benefit of criminal activity.
</i></blockquote>
Loose fingers on Twitter sink ships, as the saying goes.
<br /><br />
Now, of course, some of this is just describing what's going on out there for those who haven't realized that <i>any</i> communications technology can be used by both people with good intentions and bad intentions (and no intentions at all).  And we shouldn't freak out about that kind of thing.  But, the report does also make some "legislative and policy recommendations," where it gets worrisome:
<blockquote><i>
In order to provide effective criminal justice responses to threats presented by
terrorists using the Internet, States require clear national policies and legislative frameworks.
Broadly speaking, such policies and laws will focus on:
<blockquote>
(a) Criminalization of unlawful acts carried out by terrorists over the Internet or
related services;<br />
(b) Provision of investigative powers for law enforcement agencies engaged in
terrorism-related investigations;<br />
(c) Regulation of Internet-related services (e.g. ISPs) and content control;<br />
(d) Facilitation of international cooperation;<br />
(e) Development of specialized judicial or evidential procedures;<br />
(f) Maintenance of international human rights standards.
</blockquote>
</i></blockquote>
Nice of them to throw in that last one about human rights... because all of those other ones are really about ways to chip away (often with a pretty big digital bulldozer) at human rights and civil liberties.  In providing examples of countries that have put in place good anti-cyber-terrorism laws... they list a who's who of countries with dubious human rights records, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.  Oh, and China:
<blockquote><i>
In the terrorism context, in China there are provisions criminalizing different forms
of terrorist activities, including article 120 of the Criminal Law, which criminalizes
activities related to organizing, leading and participating in terrorist organizations. This
broad criminalization provision covers a wide range of terrorism-related activities,
including those carried out over the Internet.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, if you also get to define what counts as "terrorism," I imagine such laws can be quite handy in making opposition parties and activists disappear (or at least get them to shut up).
<br /><br />
There's a lot more in the report like that.  While the report pays lip service to "human rights" throughout, it really seems to focus on a whole bunch of ways to chip away at those human rights all because terrorists might be out there, using your internets.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too-open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too-open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too-open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>terrorists!-run!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121022/17162220792</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:21:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Congressional Investigation Slams DHS Anti-Terror Centers: Wasted Taxpayer Funds, Created No Useful Intelligence &amp; Violated Civil Liberties</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Since September 11th, the government has often had something of a blank check (and the equivalent lack of oversight) for anything labeled as being part of an anti-terror effort.  As such, it should hardly come as a surprise that programs are wasteful, possibly fraudulent, bad for civil liberties and (oh yeah) completely useless (to actively harmful) in fighting terrorism.  A Congressional investigation into the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) "fusion centers," which were supposed to be a key force in anti-terrorism efforts, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/inquiry-cites-flaws-in-regional-counterterrorism-offices.html?_r=0" target="_blank">presents an absolutely scathing condemnation of the effort</a>.
<blockquote><i>
The Subcommittee investigation found that DHS-assigned detailees to the fusion centers forwarded "intelligence" of uneven quality - oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism. The Subcommittee investigation also found that DHS officials' public claims about fusion centers were not always accurate. For instance, DHS officials asserted that some fusion centers existed when they did not. At times, DHS officials overstated fusion centers' "success stories." At other times, DHS officials failed to disclose or acknowledge non-public evaluations highlighting a host of problems at fusion centers and in DHS' own operations. 
</i></blockquote>
Oh, and did we mention how wasteful they were?  Apparently, taxpayer money simply "disappeared" into the program often being spent on totally unrelated things like flat screen TVs:
<blockquote><i>
The Subcommittee investigation also reviewed how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of DHS, distributed hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to support state and local fusion centers. DHS revealed that it was unable to provide an accurate tally of how much it had granted to states and cities to support fusion centers efforts, instead producing broad estimates of the total amount of federal dollars spent on fusion center activities from 2003 to 2011, estimates which ranged from $289 million to $1.4 billion. The Subcommittee investigation also found that DHS failed to adequately police how states and municipalities used the money intended for fusion centers. The investigation found that DHS did not know with any accuracy how much grant money it has spent on specific fusion centers, nor could it say how most of those grant funds were spent, nor has it examined the effectiveness of those grant dollars. The Subcommittee conducted a more detailed case study review of expenditures of DHS grant funds at five fusion centers, all of which lacked basic, "must-have" intelligence capabilities, according to assessments conducted by and for DHS. The Subcommittee investigation found that the state and local agencies used some of the federal grant money to purchase: dozens of flat-screen TVs; Sport Utility Vehicles they then gave away to other local agencies; and hidden "shirt button" cameras, cell phone tracking devices, and other surveillance equipment unrelated to the analytical mission of a fusion center.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this kind of thing isn't all that uncommon.  I remember a story from nearly a decade ago about all the money designated for things like E911 services, instead being used to pay for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040510/0250210.shtml">boots and pens</a>.   We recently wrote about the <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml">failure</a> of a NY City program to spy on Muslims to turn up a single lead, but this takes that kind of failure to a whole new level.
<br /><br />
Of course, the scary part in all this isn't just the misuse of funds or the failure to produce anything relevant.  It's that what <i>was</i> done almost certainly violated the public's rights.  And apparently, such violations of civil liberties were a very common problem.
<blockquote><i>
<b>The inappropriate reporting appears to have been a regular problem.</b> An April 2009
email from an alarmed senior I&A official stated: &#8220;[State and Local Fusion Center officials] are
collecting open-source intelligence (OSINT) on U.S. persons (USPER), without proper vetting,
and improperly reporting this information through homeland information reporting (HIR)
channels,&#8221; wrote Barbara Alexander, then director of the Collection and Requirements Division,
which oversaw HIR reporting. &#8220;The improper reporting of this information through HIR
channels is likely a result of a lack of training on proper collection and reporting procedures . . .
they are inadvertently causing problems.&#8221; In an interview with the Subcommittee, Ms.
Alexander said <b>she recalled being told the Reporting Branch was &#8220;flooded&#8221; with inappropriate
reporting. &#8220;A lot of information was coming in inappropriately,&#8221;</b> she remembered. &#8220;The
information was not reportable.&#8221;
<br /><br />
[....] Ms. Schlanger&#8217;s presentation, a copy of which DHS provided to the Subcommittee,
indicated that areas in which DHS intelligence reporters had overstepped legal boundaries
included: <b>Reporting on First Amendment-protected activities lacking a nexus to violence or
criminality; reporting on or improperly characterizing political, religious or ideological speech
that is not explicitly violent or criminal; and attributing to an entire group the violent or criminal
acts of one or a limited number of the group&#8217;s members.</b>
</i></blockquote>
The investigation goes on to quote numerous examples of "reports" prepared on information that DHS is not allowed to report on as it violates civil liberties.
<br /><br />
In the end, as with so many "anti-terror" programs, what we have is a program that took in a ton of taxpayer funds, with almost no oversight as to what happened to those funds (leading to $1.4 billion disappearing), no intelligence of any use but undertook plenty of efforts that were clearly beyond the mandate of Homeland Security.  And all of this is supposed to make us feel safer?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>have-we-done-anything-useful?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121002/22020120576</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FBI Continues To Foil Its Own Devised Terrorist Plots</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems there&#39;s a new pattern showing itself every time I read a news report in which the FBI <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml">proudly announces</a> it foiled a terrorist plot. That pattern goes something like this: hear that a huge explosion was averted and lives were saved, find out the plotter was an American citizen, find out he was under investigation by the FBI for several years, and then finally find out that it was the FBI that egged on the suspect and built his "bomb" for him. In other words, the only way these things could become less impressive is if the FBI actually decided to quit finding these loner folks to urge into violence and just built their own physical straw man to parade in front of the cameras.
<br /><br />
This whole game of pretend law enforcement showed up at my doorstep this weekend, when the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-teen-accused-in-bomb-plot-in-court-today-20120917,0,615862.story">FBI announced yet another arrest of a potential terrorist</a>, this time an 18 year old suburbanite whom the FBI (you guessed it) encouraged to try to bomb a downtown bar in Chicago.
<blockquote>
<i>Adel Daoud, 18, was arrested following a months-long FBI undercover investigation. He was taken into custody after he parked a Jeep Cherokee in front of the bar Friday night and walked into a nearby alley where he tried to detonate the device, court documents allege.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The bomb, which was inert and had been constructed by FBI technicians, didn&#39;t explode, according to federal authorities.</i>
</blockquote>
Oddly, the article notes that Daoud allegedly gave the FBI more than two dozen high profile Chicago targets to &#39;splode, but decided eventually on this unnamed bar instead, perhaps because they had, like, totally taken his fake ID that one time. Actually, I just made that up because I can&#39;t think of a single reason why a supposed terrorist would settle on a drinkery as their target.
<br /><br />
Now, it is true that Daoud professed his wish to participate in jihad. It is true that he attempted to set off this pseudo bomb. He does indeed sound like a disturbed kid that needs to be dealt with in some fashion. But would he have participated in any of this without the urging of the FBI?
<br /><br />
Perhaps more importantly, is foiling their own plots the best use of law enforcement in Chicago, a city that appears to be engaged in a concerted effort to have the most <a href="http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/">murders ever</a> in a calendar year?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/05193620404/fbi-continues-to-foil-its-own-devised-terrorist-plots.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sarcastic-golf-clap</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120917/05193620404</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:33:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NYPD Spent Years Spying On Muslims, Generated Exactly Zero Leads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We just wrote about yet another (in a long line) of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-arrest-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml">manufactured</a> terrorist plots, in which the FBI creates its own terrorist plot to arrest anyone who can be coaxed into going along for the ride, even if they had no interest or ability to push the plot forward on their own.  In that case, it was even more ridiculous, because they couldn't even find anyone willing to go along with the plot -- and the main "suspect" actually <i>alerted the FBI</i> to the informant who was trying to coax him into taking part in a plot (which didn't stop him from being arrested, even if the case was eventually dropped).
<br /><br />
Of course, the FBI is not alone in its incredibly ham-fisted anti-terrorism efforts in which the focus seems to be much more about someone's religious leanings, rather than any actual interest in creating terror.  The NY Police Department got plenty of attention for deciding to <a href="http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_8286/" target="_blank">build their own local versions</a> of the FBI and CIA to try to catch terrorists.  That link describes the NYPD as a sort of new "elite" intelligence agency, hiring people out of other intelligence agencies and then placing agents around the globe to try to beat the FBI and CIA at their own game.
<br /><br />
Back at home, apparently this included following on the FBI's tactic of assuming that "brown skin = terrorist."  As such, they've spent the past few years <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21360607/nypd-muslim-spying-led-no-leads-terror-cases" target="_blank">spying on "Muslim neighbrhoods" throughout New York</a> (with help from the CIA), sending undercover agents and informants into Muslim groups and organizations:
<blockquote><i>
The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.
<br /><br />
Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports. 
</i></blockquote>
How useful has it been?  Apparently not at all.  <a href="http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/08/21/nypds-spying-program-not-a-single-lead/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nypds-spying-program-not-a-single-lead" target="_blank">Not a single lead has come out of the program</a>.  Not one. 
<br /><br />
I know this is a crazy thought, but perhaps violating the privacy of tons of people just because of the color of their skin or their religion, isn't the best (or even "a") way to stop terrorists.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-theater</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120821/09094820113</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:23:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FBI-Created 'Terrorist Plot' Fails To Produce A Single Terrorist -- But Does Plenty Of Damage To Individual Liberties</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the FBI continues its perfect streak of successfully thwarting <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml" target="_blank">every terrorist plan</a> it has conceived and put in motion itself (a few of which have been covered here), details of an unintentionally hilarious (and particularly horrendous) "terrorist plot" conjured up back in 2006 have emerged, <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471/transcript" target="_blank">thanks to an NPR expose and a lawsuit filed against the FBI by some of the unwilling participants</a>.<br />
<br />
Dubbed "Operation Flex" in deference to its main participant, this 2006 FBI project attempted to uncover a terrorist cell in a group of Orange County Muslims, even if it had to invent that cell itself. The FBI&#39;s man on the inside was Craig Montielh, who likely cut an incongruous figure at the mosque at 6&#39;2", 260 lbs... and white. A bodybuilder with a sketchy past, Montielh was instructed to make contact with the supposed jihadists during his frequent visits to an Irvine gym where many of the Muslim men worked out.<br />
<br />
To Montielh&#39;s credit, he sunk himself into the role. His FBI contacts suspected his new friends might be a terrorist cell because, well, they were four, unmarried Egyptian men living under one roof. But his enthusiasm for the job was constantly thwarted by his "targets," who preferred playing FIFA Soccer on the Xbox to discussing terrorist plots.<br />
<br />
At first, they treated Montielh (who was going by the name "Farouk") as one of them, a new acolyte in need of guidance. But as time went on and Montielh became desperate to show results, his desire to turn idle revolutionary chat into action began to worry his companions. Montielh&#39;s first move was to amp up his personal relationship with Allah.
<blockquote>
<i>Months passed. People noticed that Craig was acting more devout. He began reciting prayers aloud, dressing in traditional robes, and showing up so early for 5:00 AM prayers that he&#39;d get there before the person who unlocked the mosque every morning. They also noticed something else.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Yassir Abdel Rahim</b> -&nbsp;Slowly and surely enough, during some times when we were having coffee, came the question of jihad.</i></blockquote>
Craig talked to his Arabic teacher, Mohammad Elsisy, about his new obsession too.
<blockquote>
<i><b>Mohammad Elsisy</b> -&nbsp;He invited me once to lunch, yes. And he focused the topic in the lunch about jihad. And I keep turning his attention into the essence of Islam. And he keeps, again, bringing it back to jihad. And he kept asking about jihad over and over and over. And I told him, Farouk, get over it, get over it, get over it.</i></blockquote>
With Montielh trying and failing repeatedly to get these California Muslims to warm up to his own personal jihad, the FBI decided it was time for phase two. Montielh was told to start talking up an actual terrorist plot to blow up buildings in Southern California. After Montielh aggressively broached the subject to his friends during a car ride, they decided to do what anyone would have done in that situation:
<blockquote>
<i>After they parted ways with Craig, Mohammad and Niazi talked about what had just happened. They decided they had to do something, so they did what all Americans are supposed to do in this situation, what law enforcement officials tell us we should do when someone says he has access to weapons and wants to use them. They reported Craig to the FBI as a potential terrorist.</i></blockquote>
Mohammed and Niazi had Hussam Ayloush, the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, make the call for them. He spoke to Steve Tidwell, the head of the FBI&#39;s California branch. Tidwell didn&#39;t even ask for a name or last known address of this white Muslim terrorist and assured Hussam that the FBI would take it from here. And the FBI did, launching what, for all intents and purposes, looked like an actual terrorist investigation.<br />
<br />
But instead of wholeheartedly pursuing its own man, the FBI agents were more interested in repeatedly questioning everyone Montielh had talked to. They honed in on Niazi, whose sister was married to Amin al-Haq, designated as a terrorist by the US government. The FBI agents used this as leverage in an attempt to get Niazi to become a paid informant and go to work for them in Afghanistan. When he refused, the FBI had him arrested for "immigration fraud and making false statements."
<blockquote>
<i>But what&#39;s interesting about Niazi&#39;s arrest is what he <b>wasn&#39;t</b> charged with. He wasn&#39;t charged with associating with terrorists himself. He wasn&#39;t charged with plotting an attack. And he wasn&#39;t charged for anything he&#39;d ever said to Craig over the course of months of recorded conversations.</i></blockquote>
At Niazi&#39;s trial, Agent Thomas Ropel repeatedly told the prosecutor that Niazi had instigated the conversations related to the so-called "terrorist plot." This isn&#39;t the way Montielh (or his tapes) remembers it:
<blockquote>
<i><b>Sam Black</b> - Did Niazi ever instigate this kind of conversation with you?</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Craig Montielh</b> -&nbsp;No. No, I did. Every time.</i></blockquote>
Despite not being charged with anything more serious than immigration fraud and "making false statements," Niazi was placed under house arrest for more than a year. He represents all of the arrests or indictments made as a result of Operation Flex. And even this didn&#39;t stick. The US government filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Niazi.<br />
<br />
Another home-built terrorist operation and not even a single conviction to show for it. In fact, the FBI is arguably worse off now than if it had never begun the investigation. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has brought a lawsuit against FBI over Operation Flex, claiming the investigation violated their First Amendment rights by targeting them for their religious beliefs, as well as subjecting them to searches and monitoring without a warrant. The botched operation has also done damage to the Muslim community in California:
<blockquote>
<i>Operation Flex didn&#39;t just make people suspicious of law enforcement. It made them suspicious of each other. So many people I talked to say they stay away from new converts now. They have a hard time believing people are who they say they are. Here&#39;s Ayman, the Egyptian guy who first befriended Craig.</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Ayman</b> -&nbsp;Really, what they did is they made everybody in the mosque not trust everybody. Nobody would talk about it, but nobody-- you would see some weird looks, you know what I mean? People are looking at each other weird. I don&#39;t know. Maybe I was sensitive, but I can tell that the way they looked at me was just different.</i></blockquote>
In addition to making themselves look like a bunch of government agents creating their own busywork to stay employed, the FBI has taken yet another serious hit to its credibility. Early on in the transcript, it&#39;s noted that Stephen Tidwell (head of the FBI in Los Angeles) made an earlier approach via a town meeting at the Islamic Center of Irvine. He assured everyone attending that the FBI was <i>not</i> monitoring the mosque and that they would be informed if anyone from the FBI was planning to visit. That was June 5, 2006. Operation Flex began roughly two months later.<br />
<br />
Then there&#39;s this troubling statistic, courtesy of investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson, who&#39;s studied hundreds of terrorism convictions:
<blockquote>
<i>Of about <b>500 terrorism cases</b> since 9/11, <b>about 50 defendants</b> have been involved in cases where the informant came up with the idea and provided all of the means.</i></blockquote>
Finally, the worst, but least surprising, news of all: in an update to the story, NPR points out that US District Judge Cormac Carney <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/08/the-convert-update" target="_blank">has dismissed the lawsuit brought by CAIR</a>, stating that allowing the the suit to proceed would "significantly compromise national security."<br />
<br />
Carney's self-serving statement casts him (and a large part of the government&#39;s various secretive services) as an ancient Greek hero:
<blockquote>
<i>In struggling with this conflict, the Court is reminded of the classic dilemma of Odysseus, who faced the challenge of navigating his ship through a dangerous passage, flanked by a voracious six-headed monster, on the one side, and a deadly whirlpool, on the other. Odysseus opted to pass by the monster and risk a few of his individual sailors, rather than hazard the loss of his entire ship to the sucking whirlpool. Similarly,<b> the proper application of the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security</b>.</i></blockquote> 
<p>I know the Greeks laid the foundation for modern democracy, but perhaps we shouldn't base our decisions on their epic tragedies.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sacrificing-your-1st-and-4th-amendment-rights-on-the-altar-of-security</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120818/18363620090</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:16:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>One Year After The Breivik Massacre, Norway Continues To Fight Terrorism With Democracy, Openness And Love</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-year-after-breivik-massacre-norway-continues-to-fight-terrorism-with-democracy-openness-love.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-year-after-breivik-massacre-norway-continues-to-fight-terrorism-with-democracy-openness-love.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ &nbsp;It&#39;s been a little over a year since Anders Breivik committed the greatest act of terrorism in Norway&#39;s history. The response to the horrific violence was completely unexpected. In a world where most countries would consider drafting major legislation and beefing up security, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-massacre.shtml" target="_blank">Norway&#39;s response</a> seemed almost out-of-touch with the "real world."
<blockquote>
<i>Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pledged to do everything to ensure the country&#39;s core values were not undermined.&nbsp;"The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation," he said.</i></blockquote>
It&#39;s a pretty much unprecedented statement. One needs to look no further than the US government&#39;s reaction to the 9/11 tragedy to see an example of the standard M.O. Starting with the PATRIOT Act, the US government quickly turned the country into <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/top_secret_amer.html" target="_blank">an echo chamber that subscribes to a culture of fear</a>. This has allowed various government entities to insinuate themselves into nearly every aspect of Americans&#39; lives at the expense of civil liberties and privacy.<br />
<br />
One year down the road in Norway is a completely different story. As was pledged by Stoltenberg, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18791448" target="_blank">the Norwegians have pushed forward with more openness and democracy</a>.&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/how_the_norwegi.html" target="_blank">via</a>)
<blockquote>
<i>There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists.&nbsp;On the streets of Oslo, CCTV cameras are still a comparatively rare sight and the police can only carry weapons after getting special permission.&nbsp;Even the gate leading to the parliament building in the heart of Oslo remains open and unguarded.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"It is still easy to get access to parliament and we hope it will stay that way, " said Lise Christoffersen, a Labour party MP.</i></blockquote>
No one&#39;s rights were eroded, including the man at the center of the tragedy, Anders Breivik. He was treated no differently than any other prisoner and was given five days in court to tell his side of the story and lay out his ideas and motivations. Many critics believe this sort of unchallenged testimony would allow Breivik to glorify his actions and push his agenda, which they feared would inspire copycat acts of violence. Instead of falling prey to this mindset, officials felt that Breivik would do more harm to his own ideology by speaking openly than by being forced to sit quietly as an appointed mouthpiece spoke for him.
<blockquote>
<i>Cato Shiotz, a senior criminal lawyer, says having an open trial has enabled the Norwegian people to make their own informed judgement about Breivik.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"I think Breivik has done more harm to the radical right than he has benefited them," said Mr Shiotz.&nbsp;"His ideas now have less support than ever before."</i></blockquote>
Norway wants to combat terrorism in a new way. Rather than reacting to a terrorist act with draconian laws and increased security and surveillance, the country has opted to take the high ground and simply be "better" than their enemies. Many countries make statements to this effect, but most make the mistake of confusing a hardline "we don&#39;t negotiate with terrorists" stance with "taking the high road." Norway makes no such error.
<blockquote>
<i>"The only way to really combat terror is to show that we are better than them," says Jan Egeland, a former official in the Norwegian foreign ministry and now deputy head of Human Rights Watch.</i><br />
<br />
<i>"Their (the terrorists&#39;) whole point is to create shock and fear and get us to leave our liberal values&hellip;and lure us over to their shadowy part of the playing field&hellip; we should not let them win."</i></blockquote>
Unsurprisingly, Norway is not impressed with the US government&#39;s response to terrorism.
<blockquote>
<i>Mr Egeland is highly critical of how other countries, particularly the United States, have dealt with the terrorist threats they face, arguing that methods such as extraordinary rendition, the creation of the special prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and the sanctioning of what is generally viewed as torture, have all been counter-productive.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"The whole (US) struggle against terror lost the moral high ground, You could see how public opinion was lost in Turkey, in Jordan, in moderate countries all over the Middle East," he said.</i></blockquote>
As the article points out, Breivik acted alone, not as part of a larger network. While a large network does change the dynamic of the threat, it hardly seems to justify the assumption that an isolated incident is an "act of war." Even worse, this assumption has led the US into a state of perpetual war against unseen, unnamed enemies with only the barest of threads holding the factions together. While Egeland insists that Norway wouldn&#39;t fall into the same pattern the US did post-9/11, he admits that he can&#39;t be certain the country would have "stood the test" as well as it has the Breivik massacre, if it was instead faced with a murky enemy located outside the country.<br />
<br />
But all in all, the Norwegian response is more likely to unite its citizens against abhorrent acts of terrorism than it is to drive a wedge between the government and the governed. Openness is something the US sorely lacks, and despite 11 years and a change of presidents, there seems to be very little improvement on the horizon. No government can guarantee the safety of its citizens against unforeseen attacks, but certainly a culture of openness, democracy and love is preferable to a culture of fear and reprisal, carried out in the name of protection.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-year-after-breivik-massacre-norway-continues-to-fight-terrorism-with-democracy-openness-love.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-year-after-breivik-massacre-norway-continues-to-fight-terrorism-with-democracy-openness-love.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/20363519819/one-year-after-breivik-massacre-norway-continues-to-fight-terrorism-with-democracy-openness-love.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>everyone-else-in-the-world-take-notes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120724/20363519819</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>State Department Wants To Troll Terrorists Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/04203919742/state-department-wants-to-troll-terrorists-online.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/04203919742/state-department-wants-to-troll-terrorists-online.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that various extremists and terrorists groups use the internet just like everyone else.  And, of course, there are places where they communicate.  Some politicians, like Joe Lieberman, think that the way you should respond to this is by having companies <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/14482217207/senator-joe-lieberman-follows-up-his-report-blog-as-terrorist-letter-asking-twitter-to-block-pro-taliban-feeds.shtml">censor any account</a> that appears to be connected to terrorist organizations that he doesn't like.  That this might cause such marginalized groups to feel even more persecuted and angry never seems to cross his mind.
<br /><br />
Of course, that's not the only approach.  Spencer Ackerman, over at Wired's Danger Room blog, has a fascinating story about a guy at the State Department (with almost no budget) who is trying to ramp up a plan, called Viral Peace, which is basically all about <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/counterterrorism-trolls/all/" target="_blank">using social media to troll terrorists and extremists online</a> in the hope of convincing some to give up.
<blockquote><i>
The program, called Viral Peace, seeks to occupy the virtual space that extremists fill, one thread or Twitter exchange at a time. Shahed Amanullah, a senior technology adviser to the State Department and Viral Peace&#8217;s creator, tells Danger Room he wants to use &#8220;logic, humor, satire, [and] religious arguments, not just to confront [extremists], but to undermine and demoralize them.&#8221; Think of it as strategic trolling, in pursuit of geopolitical pwnage.
</i></blockquote>
While I certainly appreciate this idea more than the outright censorship plan that Lieberman seems to like, I do wonder if the program might backfire by doing the exact opposite of what they're trying to do.  Trolling has its place and can rile people up, but I'm not sure it's ever effective in getting anyone to change their position.  In fact, it can often make people dig their heels in even deeper...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/04203919742/state-department-wants-to-troll-terrorists-online.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/04203919742/state-department-wants-to-troll-terrorists-online.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/04203919742/state-department-wants-to-troll-terrorists-online.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>because-that'll-make-them-change-their-minds</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120718/04203919742</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EU Parlamentarian Gallo: ACTA Dissent 'A Soft Form Of Terrorism'</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/09565719492/eu-parlamentarian-gallo-acta-dissent-soft-form-terrorism.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/09565719492/eu-parlamentarian-gallo-acta-dissent-soft-form-terrorism.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Marielle Gallo is probably best known for the Gallo Report, which Techdirt <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100922/04264411110/european-parliament-approves-gallo-report-opens-the-door-to-more-bad-ip-laws-enforcement.shtml">described</a> back in 2010 as a "similarly draconian intellectual property enforcement" to ACTA, with which it has much in common.  So it's no surprise that Gallo has been one of the few vocal supporters of ACTA, and it was widely expected that the EU's Legal Affairs (JURI) committee she chairs would support her draft opinion calling for ACTA to be ratified.  As we now know, that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/04300219134/three-key-eu-parliament-committees-vote-just-say-no-to-acta.shtml">didn't happen</a>, and JURI formed one of five committees that all recommended that ACTA should be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120621/03442219413/fifth-eu-committee-recommends-rejection-acta-european-parliament.shtml">rejected</a>.
</p><p>
Gallo must be a little taken aback by this turnaround: from easily pushing through her Report with its harsh proposals against copyright infringement, she now finds herself increasingly marginalized within the European Parliament on the subject of ACTA precisely because of its disproportionate measures designed to deal with copyright infringement online.  A fascinating interview in PC INpact (<a href="http://www.pcinpact.com/news/71906-marielle-gallo-acta-parlement-europeen.htm">original in French</a>) <a href="https://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Translation_Interview_Marielle_Gallo_ACTA_pcinpact">gives us an insight into her state of mind at the moment.</a>.
</p><p>
As you might expect, she speaks of the "the disinformation campaign we have been enduring for the past months", the standard line taken by the European Commission and its allies.  She also makes the interesting claim that "We're supposed to represent citizens, but since they are busy with other things, we are supposed to think for them!"  But she reserves her choicest words for the people who have dared to disagree with the pro-ACTA camp:

<i><blockquote>It's not only a disinformation campaign. It's a soft form of terrorism that frightens people. People are being scared. It's a fantasy. ACTA has become a fantasy. And that, that's propagated by the whole Internet network.</blockquote></i>

So there we have it.  Anyone who dares to disagree with those politicians doing all that thinking are "soft" terrorists, making subversive use of "the whole Internet network" to spread their "fantasy."  It was probably inevitable that someone would play the politicians' trump card -- terrorism &#8211; against ACTA opponents; and it's no surprise that it was Marielle Gallo that finally did so. 
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/09565719492/eu-parlamentarian-gallo-acta-dissent-soft-form-terrorism.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/09565719492/eu-parlamentarian-gallo-acta-dissent-soft-form-terrorism.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/09565719492/eu-parlamentarian-gallo-acta-dissent-soft-form-terrorism.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>she-finally-said-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120626/09565719492</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 05:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should We Want A 'Cyberwar'? It's A Lot Less Bloody Than A Real War</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/16011719352/should-we-want-cyberwar-its-lot-less-bloody-than-real-war.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/16011719352/should-we-want-cyberwar-its-lot-less-bloody-than-real-war.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've certainly written an awful lot about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111023/02413916479/non-existent-cyber-war-is-nothing-more-than-push-more-government-control.shtml">ridiculousness</a> of the concept of "cyber war."  Even with things like Stuxnet and Flame, it seems silly to compare what amounts to either electronic espionage or a little hacking as "war."  But perhaps we were looking at it the wrong way.  In a Foreign Policy article by John Arquilla, he argues that <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/15/cool_war?page=full" target="_blank">perhaps we should be embracing this kind of "cool war"</a> as it can be effective at stopping threats (even distributed ones like terrorist operations, rather than just centralized ones like governments), while causing minimal bloodshed:
<blockquote><i>
On balance, it seems that cyberwar capabilities have real potential to deal with some of the world's more pernicious problems, from crime and terrorism to nuclear proliferation. In stark contrast to pitched battles that would regularly claim thousands of young soldiers' lives during Robert E. Lee's time, the very nature of conflict may come to be reshaped along more humane lines of operations. War, in this sense, might be "made better" -- think disruption rather than destruction. More decisive, but at the same time less lethal. 
</i></blockquote>
And, indeed, if we believe that reports of "cyber attacks" being used to make planes fall from the sky are greatly exaggerated, perhaps we should welcome a "war" that mainly involves hackers vs. hackers trying to disrupt each others "real" warfare capabilities.  But, of course, there are plenty of other issues that come up here as well -- such as how secret hacking programs can be abused.  If it gets governments to stop physical battles that lead to real lives lost, that does seem like an improvement, though I'm not sure anyone should think that continuing to attack each other through computers is ever a "good" situation overall.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/16011719352/should-we-want-cyberwar-its-lot-less-bloody-than-real-war.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/16011719352/should-we-want-cyberwar-its-lot-less-bloody-than-real-war.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120615/16011719352/should-we-want-cyberwar-its-lot-less-bloody-than-real-war.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-way-to-think-about-things</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120615/16011719352</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Of The FBI's Own Terrorist Plots... Involves A Group Of Senior Citizens</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The latest Radiolab "shorts" episode, entitled <a href="http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2012/jun/04/grumpy-old-terrorists/" target="_blank"><i>Grumpy Old Terrorists</i></a>, seems like a bit of a departure in subject matter for that program -- but fits right in with something we've been talking a lot about lately.  Over the past few years, we've noticed the rather disturbing trend in how the FBI keeps publicly celebrating stories about stopping terrorist plots -- but in almost every case the details show that it was  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/05014712057/fbi-celebrates-that-it-prevented-fbis-own-bomb-plot.shtml">actually</a> just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23080016837/more-people-realizing-that-fbis-big-wins-are-stopping-its-own-made-up-terror-plots.shtml">stopping</a> its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/16075316140/fbi-successful-breaking-up-yet-another-its-own-plots-to-bomb-us.shtml">own</a> terrorist <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/16075316140/fbi-successful-breaking-up-yet-another-its-own-plots-to-bomb-us.shtml">plots</a> that it feeds to hapless individuals, often nudging them and pushing them down the road to "become" terrorists, despite commonly displaying little to no aptitude for actual terrorism.
<br /><br />
In the last few weeks, the mainstream press has started to notice this as well, with stories about it appearing in both <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/02112518698/nytimes-realizes-that-fbi-keeps-celebrating-breaking-up-its-own-terrorist-plots.shtml">the NY Times</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml">Rolling Stone</a>.  However, the Radiolab episode highlights a similar, but slightly different story, that was actually covered in great detail in an article in Esquire a few months back, entitled <a href="http://www.esquire.com/features/waffle-house-terrorists-0212" target="_blank">Waffle House Terrorists</a> -- which includes the mugshots of the four "terrorists."
<p><center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/UzwEj"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/UzwEj.jpg" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>
</center></p>
The youngest one of that bunch is 65-years old.  The oldest is 73.  As the Radiolab episode and the Esquire piece detail, while these guys do seem <i>hateful</i>, they also seemed absolutely unable to <i>do</i> anything... until an "FBI informant" joined their pack and pushed and prodded them along, introducing them to the "contacts" to get weapons and even providing "the money" to buy said weapons.  The Esquire article goes into great detail about the "informant" and his rather questionable legal history (he first contacted the FBI while in jail for molesting his wife's daughter from a previous marriage).
<br /><br />
On Radiolab, they play the audiotapes the guy made of the plotting -- and there's obviously some crazy stuff being said.  But, as they look deeper into the role of the informant, the Radiolab hosts conclude the episode by noting that the whole situation doesn't really make them feel any safer.  Yes, these old guys were hateful and helped join in this plan to cause lots of death and destruction.  But, so much much of the plot and the participation of these guys really does seem driven by the "informant," who does not seem like the most credible of guys.  And it's this exact scenario that we keep seeing over and over again.  It may not reach the level of entrapment, and it may put some people really ignorant and crazy people in jail -- but is this <i>really</i> the best use of the FBI's time and efforts?  Creating bogus "terrorist" plots involving people who had no real means to actually do anything?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120606/03075619216/yet-another-fbis-own-terrorist-plots-involves-group-senior-citizens.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>grump-old-terrorists</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120606/03075619216</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 15:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots... While Ignoring Real Threats</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been covering for a while now how the FBI keep <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/05014712057/fbi-celebrates-that-it-prevented-fbis-own-bomb-plot.shtml">setting up</a> and  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23080016837/more-people-realizing-that-fbis-big-wins-are-stopping-its-own-made-up-terror-plots.shtml">stopping</a> its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/16075316140/fbi-successful-breaking-up-yet-another-its-own-plots-to-bomb-us.shtml">own</a> terrorist <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/16075316140/fbi-successful-breaking-up-yet-another-its-own-plots-to-bomb-us.shtml">plots</a> in order to make headlines.  A few weeks ago, the NY Times <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/02112518698/nytimes-realizes-that-fbi-keeps-celebrating-breaking-up-its-own-terrorist-plots.shtml">wrote about this</a> and now Rolling Stone has its own entry on the subject, which goes one step further, noting that while the FBI keeps turning hapless nobodies into terrorists to arrest and splash all over the front pages, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515" target="_blank">it seems to be ignoring groups that actually represent real threats</a>, because they just don't make nearly as interesting a story.  Rather, as the article notes, the FBI seems focused on "ideological enemies" to take down, rather than those who are most likely to actually cause harm:
<blockquote><i>
The contrasts are extraordinarily instructive. When federal law enforcement agencies take an affirmative role in staging the crimes, the U.S. Justice Department then prosecutes, leaving more clear-and-present dangers relatively unbothered, the State is singling out ideological enemies. Violent white supremacists are not one of these enemies, apparently &#8211; because, as David Neiwert, probably the nation&#8217;s top journalist on the subject, told me, the federal government has much less often sought to entrap them, even though they are actually the biggest home-grown terrorism threat.  That is unconstitutional, because law enforcement&#8217;s criterion for attention has been revealed as the ideas the alleged plotters hold &#8211; not their observed violent potential.
</i></blockquote>
At some point, you have to wonder how much longer the FBI will be allowed to keep staging bogus threats just so they can arrest people, while mostly ignoring people who are actually trying to pull off violent attacks within the country.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02241719094/rolling-stone-highlights-fbis-fascination-with-staging-its-own-terrorist-plots-while-ignoring-real-threats.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>feeling-safer?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120529/02241719094</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 08:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fearmongering About Cyberwar And Cybersecurity Is Working: American Public Very, Very Afraid</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/15460318888/fearmongering-about-cyberwar-cybersecurity-is-working-american-public-very-very-afraid.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/15460318888/fearmongering-about-cyberwar-cybersecurity-is-working-american-public-very-very-afraid.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, it looks like all the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/23433317835/nsa-anonymous-might-one-day-hack-power-grids-anonymous-huh.shtml">fearmongering</a> about hackers shutting down electrical grids and making planes fall from the sky is working.  No matter that there's no evidence of any actual risk, or that the only real issue is if anyone is stupid enough to actually connect such critical infrastructure to the internet (the proper response to which is: take it off the internet), fear is spreading.  Of course, this is mostly due to the work of a neat combination of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1024048361.shtml">ex-politicians/now lobbyists</a> working for defense contractors who stand to make <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1141179445.shtml">a ton of money</a> from the panic -- enabled by politicians who seem to have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17430217786/senators-ramp-up-fear-mongering-to-try-to-rush-through-cybersecurity-bill.shtml">no shame</a> in telling scary bedtime stories that have no basis in reality.
<br /><br />
But it's all working.  And, by working, I mean scaring the public unnecessarily.  As reported by Wired, a new survey from Unisys finds that <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/cyberarmegeddon-terrorism/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">Americans are more worried about cybersecurity threats than terrorism</a>, and they seem pretty worried about those threats.  When asked about which security issues were the highest priority, survey respondents noted:
<ol><i>
    <li>Protecting government computer systems against hackers and criminals (74 percent)
    </li><li>Protecting our electric power grid, water utilities and transportation systems against computer or terrorist attacks (73 percent)
    </li><li>Homeland security issues such as terrorism (68 percent)

</li></i></ol>
Of course, it's likely that the vast majority of the American public has absolutely no idea what the actual risk is of any of these things happening.  But they are familiar with computers, and there's been a lot of talk about cybersecurity lately, so "ooooooh, scary!"  Now, here's where the mainstream press could come in and point out the lack of evidence for any real or significant cybersecurity threat and help people realize that they might be best off focusing their attention elsewhere.  But talking about planes falling from the sky is much more fun.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/15460318888/fearmongering-about-cyberwar-cybersecurity-is-working-american-public-very-very-afraid.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/15460318888/fearmongering-about-cyberwar-cybersecurity-is-working-american-public-very-very-afraid.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120511/15460318888/fearmongering-about-cyberwar-cybersecurity-is-working-american-public-very-very-afraid.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>for-no-clear-reason</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120511/15460318888</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 May 2012 07:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FBI Stops Yet Another (Yes Another) Of Its Own Terrorist Plots; This Time: Anarchists!</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/15580518732/fbi-stops-yet-another-yes-another-its-own-terrorist-plots-this-time-anarchists.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/15580518732/fbi-stops-yet-another-yes-another-its-own-terrorist-plots-this-time-anarchists.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following our post about the NY Times highlighting how the FBI seems to spend an awful lot of time foiling <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/02112518698/nytimes-realizes-that-fbi-keeps-celebrating-breaking-up-its-own-terrorist-plots.shtml">its own</a> terrorist plots, some of our commenters pointed us to the news that the FBI has done it again (just in time to coincide with our story), <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/justice/ohio-bridge-arrests/" target="_blank">arresting five individuals in a plot that appears to have been coordinated by the FBI</a> itself.  Even though some of the "anarchists" arrested expressed concerns about how resorting to violence would help, the FBI helped supply fake explosives and that appears to have convinced the group to move forward with its "plot."  Prior to that, they seem to have had little actual ability to do much of anything, other than thumbing through <i>The Anarchists' Cookbook</i> and talking about what they'd like to do.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/15580518732/fbi-stops-yet-another-yes-another-its-own-terrorist-plots-this-time-anarchists.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/15580518732/fbi-stops-yet-another-yes-another-its-own-terrorist-plots-this-time-anarchists.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/15580518732/fbi-stops-yet-another-yes-another-its-own-terrorist-plots-this-time-anarchists.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>anarchists-running-amok</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120501/15580518732</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>