9 ms·
Questions the FBI Uses to Determine If Someone Is a Likely Terrorist
- nathancahill 10y agoMaterial for the new Buzzfeed quiz "Are You Likely a Terrorist? Answer These 48 Questions to Find Out!"
- atc 10y agoWhat's the advantage of this being leaked? Seems it's likely to hurt "detection" or efforts to find potential terrorists. What do we gain from this exactly?
- BoringCode 10y agoHonest question: is this the type of material that should be leaked? Is there an overriding good to revealing this document to the public? I lean towards no, but I'd be interested in discussion on this.
- losteric 10y agoI think it's fair to leak because most of this content is common-sense. My highschool civics class had a project to create a terrorist checklist... we hit at least 95% of this list. So I see absolutely no danger here.
- BoringCode 10y agoI suspected I'd see a variation of this answer in this thread. While on some level it makes sense for some cases (the information is so benign that it doesn't matter if it is leaked), in this case I don't think it quite adds up. First, while much of the information might be common-sense, it might not be to potential adversaries and I see no reason to provide further aide. Second, revealing documents like this helps prove what FBI isn't doing. When trying to plan an effective counter to surveillance, it can be just as important to know what isn't be tracked as well as what is. Again, I don't see a public good here. I simply don't think there is an overriding good that outweighs potential downsides (even if small). Revealing this document does not show moral or legal problems. All it does is fulfill curiosity. Which isn't a good reason for leaking information related to national security.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago> revealing documents like this helps prove what FBI isn't doing. Does it?
- BoringCode 10y agoNot conclusively, no.
- Godel_unicode 10y agoOne might go so far as to conjecture that the FBI hopes people will see this and think exactly that.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago> My highschool civics class had a project to create a terrorist checklist What the hell?
- err4nt 10y agoA very common mantra you'll find repeated everywhere if you visit the US is 'If you see something, say something' They have it on posters in transit hubs, stadiums, airports, all over the place. Americans live in this constant state of paranoia about things like this.
- losteric 10y agoI took civics about 4 years after 9/11... It was an exercise in understanding governing ethics/effectiveness. You'd be surprised, or perhaps disturbed, by how many kids put "is a Muslim" on their list...
- astrodust 10y agoI think it's more important people are informed about what their activities might appear like to law enforcement than what actual terrorists are going to have to do to cover up their tracks. Many would-be terrorists seem to only take casual precautions to avoid getting caught. Maybe, like so many criminals, they think they're better than others who have been caught. It's come out again and again that a lot of these attacks have been planned with nothing more than email, Facebook and unencrypted text messages. There's just too much information out there to sift through and find all the true positives. If they actually cared about operational security they'd read up on how spies do it. That stuff is pretty much public knowledge if you spend time researching.
- mtgx 10y agoLet's phrase in a different but similar way. "48 ways the CIA uses to determine when to drone strike someone". Wouldn't you like to know if the CIA actually uses common sense methods to determine when to assassinate someone? By the same token, we should know when the government decides to put people on no-fly lists, and all sorts of other lists. And before you say that the CIA is an intelligence agency and therefore everything it does must be kept secret, the thing is drone strikes should not be done by the CIA. If you wage war, then it should be done in the open, lest you want a repeat of the Vietnam war (which arguably is already the case with the mostly failed, yet continuing operations in the Middle East]). Obama actually wanted to give drone strikes to the Pentagon, but of course, Obama as a weakly-minded politician that he was that always compromised to the other side's benefit, eventually backed down and allowed the CIA to handle drone strikes. If you don't see doing drone strikes (of which thousands were kept completely secret) against 8 different nations by a secretive intelligence agency, then I don't know what else to tell you.
- BoringCode 10y agoIf your analogy was true, there would be a stronger moral argument for revealing such information. But it isn't. I'm talking about this very specific case.
- tboyd47 10y agoI am a convert to Islam and I say yes, I'm ready for the gap between reality and "common sense" to close on this topic. I don't consider it offensive to talk about these issues openly because I am secure in my knowledge that Islam does not encourage terrorism. I'm more offended when people sweep it under the rug. When it's about safety, people have to leave their fears and biases at the door and accept the truth. A typical person in some parts of America today will look at a practicing Muslim and automatically see a terrorist, but that's neither helpful nor accurate. The facts don't support that stereotype, and I think the FBI understands that. Of course ideology plays a role in detecting threats, but there are other factors that may play a bigger role, like mental health, social stability, criminal history, training in weapons, etc. If everyone understood this, it would lead to more accurate tips by the public to law enforcement, and the concept of a "Muslim ban" wouldn't be seen as productive. But the centuries-old narrative of Muslim hordes attacking the West has been revived, and that is how people see the issue, and that's unfortunate.
- _red 10y ago>but there are other factors that may play a bigger role, like mental health, social stability, criminal history, training in weapons, etc Sounds like we need some sort of way to vet people coming into the country?
- tboyd47 10y agoIf the extreme vetting uses the criteria in the leaked document, then I don't have a problem with that at all. Of course, it would be silly to (for example) bar someone from immigrating solely because they played laser tag, but I'd assume they would aggregate multiple factors into a total score and measure it against some threshold.
- chillingeffect 10y agoAt least on my fb feed, it's a far-right trope that refugees are admitted with no vetting process whatsoever. Enough that I managed to research it and found this very informative infoposter from the Obama administration: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infogra... note: multiple stages of bio checking, numerous three-letter agencies, additional steps for Syrians. I used to post this every other day on fb, but lately I just realize there are simply groups who repeatedly gaslight each other and aren't interested in reality. One of them referred to my post as "liberal facts," implying, apparently, that the government doesn't perform the above screening process which it claims it does. shrug.jpg
- loteck 10y agoLeaked document appears to be from 2013. Have you considered the possibility that the FBI was itself the source of the leak and the questions/methods have since evolved?
- BoringCode 10y agoI'm not sure speculation changes the central premise of the question. Assume that the document was up to date with the latest techniques. Would you still that consider it to be a document worth leaking for the public good? edit: I will acknowledge that the age of the document does change its impact. But 2013 is pretty recent.
- kashkhan 10y agoAre we into precrime now? A criminal is one who is proven in court to be a criminal. Civilized societies use courts to decide the truth, not questionnaires filled out by shady people.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grzm 10y agolikely being the operative word. I'm not defending the effectiveness of these questions, but it's not replacing the legal system.
- mamon 10y agoBut they are not deciding about someone's guilt or innocence here, just whether or not investigate them further.
- jononor 10y ago...before a crime has happened.
- Ensorceled 10y agoYes. That's HOW you thwart terrorist attacks as opposed to arresting them after the fact.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoWhile on vacation maybe 15 years ago, I went to a library to get internet access. When I went to Google, the search dropdown box showed me that the previous several searches were all about burglary tools. Should the police be interested in that? (They were. And I don't blame them.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- crusso 10y ago
- tromp 10y agoQuestion 48: “Does the Subject take an unusual interest in Terrorist identification quizzes?"
- rwmj 10y agoAssuming the list was derived scientifically, then this seems like a pretty sensible and useful law enforcement tool. It can be easily filled in by front line officers and gives them a good idea which lines of investigation to pursue.
- ucaetano 10y agoThe questionnaire seems pretty fair, to be honest. If someone has access to weapons, tried to travel to a terrorist training camp, has mental instability issues, supports use of violence as well as using religion as a justification for violence and follows all the ISIS social media accounts, I'd be pretty worried. I didn't see any questions about "does the individual holds a significant distrust of government and institutions?" or "does the individual own multiple anarchism books?". All the questions are very specific and practical.
- zeroer 10y agoUsing encryption? Seems pretty dubious. Also, camping and survivalism? These seem fairly orthogonal as well.
- ucaetano 10y agoThere's nothing indicating that any of those factors by itself would make you a person of interest. And I'd guess the FBI would be a really bad service if "uses encryption" or "camping" by itself would be considered as a strong signal. The noise would be too big. Now talk about someone who has a history of violence, takes long camping trips with a large arsenal, suddenly dropped all non-encrypted means of communication and is obsessed about books on chemical warfare and terrorist attacks. If it were your call, would you dedicate attention to that person?
- arebop 10y agoThe penalty for misclassifications is higher for false negatives than false positives. In fact, what happens if the FBI exhausts its budget investigating the positives from this classifier? Do they try to improve the classifier accuracy or do they seek a larger budget along with the prestige of playing a bigger role in the War on Terrorism?
- Sophistifunk 10y agoMore importantly, it's probably used to screen out people who don't belong. You can be damn sure anybody who is an actual terrorist uses encryption. Most harmless religious camping enthusiasts do not.
- Alex3917 10y agoSo is HN considered a terrorist site since it requires a password to submit stories and post comments?
- ghurtado 10y agoNeither of those things are mentioned in the document.
- zeroer 10y agoWell, the document did mention using encryption, and HN is served over https ...
- ghurtado 10y agoI don't think that's the kind of encryption they're referring to, since you cannot infer anything about an individual simply for using HTTPS websites (which will soon be the majority of the web).
- Alex3917 10y agoQuestion 21) "Has the subject engaged in [...] tradecraft to hide their online activities contextually different from previous activity? [...] password-protected websites." I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether password-protected websites are only an issue if they are being used to hide online activities. Or is this a strict liability thing, where any use of a password protected website is taken to mean that a user is attempting to hide their online activities.
- Godel_unicode 10y agoThat's impressive gerrymandering of the text to reach that conclusion. Try and zoom out a little bit (I know, terribly mixed metaphors).
- crusso 10y agoI'm pretty sure they mean sites that only allow approved members to see their content. Additionally, one positive answer on a list of 48 questions doesn't equal "terrorism".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- swamp40 10y agoI'm curious how it's ok for a US company (The Intercept) to publish a Secret document? The documentcloud.org file clearly shows: Contributed by: SooHee Cho, The Intercept. And the documentcloud.org server itself appears to be located in the US as well. Seems like something you could go to jail over.
- Godel_unicode 10y agoUnlike in e.g. the UK, where the Official Secrets Act applies to the population at large, the prohibition against leaking or unauthorized possession of classified information is exclusively applicable to people with clearances. Think of a Security Clearance as a scoped waiver of free speech in return for access to sensitive information. In the US, you have to opt-in to restrictions on your freedom of speech. Anyone without a clearance is protected by the 1st amendment, which has no National Security exception.
- swamp40 10y agoI see - thank you!
- lowbloodsugar 10y ago1. Did the suspect download the document "Imv-Score-Final"?
- moomin 10y ago> "Does the Subject hold a belief or ideology that supports the use of violence?” To the best of my knowledge, the answer to this is yes for every US president and Founding Father. Or to put it another way, what a dumb question.
- contingencies 10y agoAccess to weapons: most of America, or all of America depending upon whether shopping is considered access and how 'weapons' are defined. Has 'trained' overseas: anyone with a passport. Has 'tried to acquire' bomb-making materials: Reading a book is not illegal. Clicked on the wrong torrent? Using encryption: everyone. Masking internet browsing: everyone. Showing an interest in terrorist events: everyone. "participating in activities that simulate military or operational environments": anyone who has ever been camping/hiking/played an FPS. Changed appearance or habits? everyone. Has "experienced a recent personal loss or humiliation"? Many people. Has a history of mental health problems? A large proportion of the population. Substance abuse. Almost everyone. Hold a belief or ideology that supports the use of violence? Oh what, like "are they a current or former member of the military, politics, or big business?" This is all really disconcerting in its vagary and scope for misapplication.
- SamUK96 10y agoI really think you overshoot here on almost every point. The ones that stick out for me: * Not everyone has trained overseas. In the west/east bubble maybe that's common, but nowhere else. * You seriously try defending reading bomb-making books? To imply that reading a book on how to make bombs, without any background need for it like a job related to pyro, etc., is not suspicios is IMHO rediculous. * Not "everyone" uses encryption. Actually, the majority of web users do not, and less so knowingly. * Not "everyone" will suddenly and completly change the overall theme of themselves. * Not "everyone" has recent loss or has been humiliated. In general, your other points are getting onto something and i somewhat agree. However, to be honest I don't think a break down approach is the best to gain incite into the FBI's process. The questions are supposed to be treated as a whole, not singulars. Each question is not designed to give a yes/no answer; but rather the end result, suspicion of terrorism, is a complex, non-analytic function of all the answers
- contingencies 10y agoYou seriously try defending reading bomb-making books? Yes, because freedom to seek and impart information is a human right. More practically, if you start down this path of forbidden knowledge then you wind up at a point where learning or teaching at all is a banned, inherently political act. What about reading about physics or chemistry on Wikipedia? An interest in metalwork, sculpture, jewellery or pottery? Being observed working on "unknown" metal projects at a makerspace, keeping to yourself, and paying in cash? People deserve to be judged for their actions alone and not obtuse, politicized potential interpretations of their interests or past behavior generated by the secret machinations of the state, perversely nominally on their behalf and in the name of 'freedom'. the majority of web users do not [use encryption]. False.
- dgrealy 10y agoDo you not understand the lesson being taught by such an exercise? It sounds like instead your biases made you think the school civics class would be teaching students how to profile people as terrorists. You really are an idiot.
- dang 10y agoWe ban accounts that post uncivilly, so please don't do this on HN again. Instead, please (re-)read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639873 and marked it off-topic.
- dgrealy 10y agofuck you dang ban me