13 ms·

Americans’ Personal Data Shared with CIA, IRS, Others in Security Probe

125 points by wikiburner 13y ago

001sky 13y ago
Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies So, what does this mean? They got a list of 5000 people that bought a book [edit: or in touch with the author]. And put them all on a "blacklist"? ... For "future reference"?
- Bahamut 13y ago
  If you bought the book and decided to apply for a job in or related to the federal government that required a security clearance, this would be a huge red flag. IMO this is a non-story, since the purpose seems exclusively to potentially screen out people who cannot be trusted with the sensitive information that gets handled by people with security clearances (which includes social security numbers), which the federal government has every reason to be wary of. If anyone questions the data gathering of the government, sure, but this particular story is a non-story IMO.
  - gngeal 13y ago
    So the dumb people who get caught looking for that information get screened out, but the smart dangerous people who happen to learn how to avoid having problems with a "lie so-called-detector" test will pass with flying colors? How does that help?
    - Bahamut 13y ago
      It addresses the low hanging fruit - say they didn't do this in general, and someone doing their research on bypassing any security red flags applies & gets a job in say the State Department. That person now is in a powerful position to sabotage the government. Now what if such a person was turned by a foreign government or terrorist group beforehand? This person now has the ability to wreck havoc due to insufficient screening, and the government gets criticized for not doing enough to protect national security. You can't stop every problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
      - swalkergibson 13y ago
        This is why you need layers of security. If passing a "lie detector" test gives you unfettered access to information that could potentially sabotage the government (to the point where foreign terrorists or governments would be interested in such information), then the system that secures said information needs to be changed. When you build a web application the cardinal rule is never trust the client, which should be the default assumption here, irrespective of the results of some pop-science "examination."
        Bahamut 13y ago
        It's not as simple as in software development - trust has to be given that people are acting in the best interests of the country, and people have to have access to sensitive information in the government. The only way you can secure against this is to control who you hire, and control as much as possible what they can do. To that end, sharing of this data is perfectly reasonable, as long as safeguards are in place for who uses the data, which is almost always there from my experience.
        swalkergibson 13y ago
        The fact that the list exists got out, so there are clearly not enough safeguards. Honest question coming. Do you subscribe to the "I have nothing to hide" notion?
        Bahamut 13y ago
        I happen to have nothing to hide, and am not someone too concerned about others using data about me, but I also possess a security clearance & am a Marine reservist, so as someone involved with national security to a minor degree (I'm just a junior infantry rifleman in the Corps) & living in DC, I have some familiarity with the policies set on sensitive information & some insight into why things are done a particular way in the federal government. Civilian career-wise, I don't work for the government in any capacity & wouldn't want to (I'm a mid/senior web developer).
  - forgotAgain 13y ago
    Buying a book is now a big red flag? So to be truly safe I guess the government should know all the books we each buy and those we borrow from a library. They should also track what everyone reads online.
    - greenyoda 13y ago
      I seem to remember that the Patriot Act allows the government to ask libraries for patrons' records and forbids the library from disclosing that it happened. Librarians and civil rights activists made a big stink about it at the time, but I guess people have forgotten about it by now and it has become the "new normal". Shortly after 9/11, the NY Public Library implemented their own photo ID cards that you were required to show before they'd bring you any reference material (this is for material that can only be used in the library, not checked out, so there's no real reason why they'd need to track who is looking at it). And it would be very easy for the government to find out all the books I ever bought from Amazon and everything I read online. I wonder sometimes whether Amazon has some kind of PRISM-like arrangement with the NSA.
    - Bahamut 13y ago
      The contents of said book is a red flag if you want a security clearance - it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        > willing to cheat Defeating a voodoo ritual is cheating? Isn't it more like protecting yourself from false accusations?
        Bahamut 13y ago
        Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.
  - kghose 13y ago
    See how you got down voted? Groups are afraid of dissent.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Alternatively: people upvote and downvote based on how valuable, accurate, or well thought out a comment is.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    You jumped to the conclusion that simply due to the fact that somebody read this book that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information. I would be curious to read the book, just because I am interested in the subject, not because I am inherently untrustworthy. Intellectual curiosity should never be stifled like this. Not to mention the fact that "lie detector" test results are not even admissible in court due to their dubious conclusions, so their effectiveness as a scientific instrument is fundamentally flawed. This is essentially thought-crime, which I thought did not exist in the US, but it sure seems like it does now.
mbateman 13y ago
"Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests." What? How is that illegal?
- FBT 13y ago
  "Obstruction of justice". Yeah...
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    When you use voodoo in attempting to get justice, calling it voodoo is an obstruction of justice. QED.
    - ihsw 13y ago
      It's not voodoo, please stop spreading FUD. The name -- lie detector -- is complete horseshit because it doesn't detect lies, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness as a low-level torture device. The physiological measurements may be inadmissible to the courts, but if you happen to confess to a crime during the (thoroughly unpleasant) interrogation then that is perfectly admissible. This key point here is why LEOs are so adamant about subjecting their prisoners to polygraph examinations. Over 95% of Federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain, despite the plea bargain being offered under threat of lifetime imprisonment and death.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        Isn't calling voodoo voodoo the opposite of "spreading FUD?"
        aethertap 13y ago
        I think you can use voodoo in two ways: "Impossibly arcane but near-magical technology" or "total crap."
frank_boyd 13y ago
Kill it with FIRE.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  http://thefire.org/ http://thefire.org/ ? Aren't they a little more "education" oriented?
  - BrandonMarc 13y ago
    It's a start.
    - frank_boyd 13y ago
      EVERYTHING starts with education. Education is the most important thing the human race needs.
mtgx 13y ago
"There have been no abuses, as a result of mass surveillance", said Obama.
- forgotAgain 13y ago
  "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    I think you're on the wrong site. That lie was for the greater good, so it's ok.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Depends on the definition of the person's idea of greater good.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        By HN standards, obamacare is definitely the greater good.
        maaku 13y ago
        Really? Did I miss that memo? Because my family got fcked over by Obamacare and will be paying 2x premiums next year for a lower quality plan. That's the good, right?
  - kenrikm 13y ago
    "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." And.. I got a letter from my insurance company saying they are no longer able to offer my plan. The same plan I was on from the same company on the exchange is $200/mo more expensive. Lies are Lies. But I guess I can keep my plan after being kicked off it and then forced to pay extra? Oh you Silly politicians, I see what you did there!
headgasket 13y ago
I've heard they were under scrutiny because they were looking into a book of which the exact title is: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein. That's not goodthink.
forgotAgain 13y ago
"You have access to all of this data – all of their financial records, all of their telephone records, all of their transactions . . . ," Customs official John Schwartz said in a June speech to police polygraphers that McClatchy attended. "Then we can look at that list and determine for ourselves if we are good or not good at detecting these countermeasures." The countermeasures in question concerned beating a lie detector test. It's a very short step to the countermeasures being any civil protests.
nullymcnull 13y ago
What's really sad about this is that all of these federal agencies, the journalists reporting on them, and the public at large, continue to take it as a given that the polygraph is a useful and reliable tool that does what it says on the tin. Yet there remains precious little credible science to support that. It's downright absurd that people are having their info passed around these agencies, and being treated as inherently suspect, simply for investigating methods of 'fooling' what is ultimately a glorified stage prop.
- ihsw 13y ago
  There doesn't need to be science to support it -- its effectiveness at eliciting confessions is evidence enough. The name 'lie detector' is horseshit but it's still useful.
- rsync 13y ago
  "What's really sad about this..." What's really sad is that a lot of people, either through job/economic pressures or lack of self respect take lie detector tests at all - regardless of effectiveness. The poor effectiveness and/or technical problems with the test are not the issue. We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test".
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. If there were no consequences of lying in court then we'd have much bigger problems with the justice system than we do now.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. That's totally different than a polygraph test.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
swalkergibson 13y ago
Wow. Obstruction? Because book? I would be really curious to see the warrant application for the customer records of the book's authors. Was there really legitimate need for that, or did the prosecutor just say "terrorist" and that was that? I am really struggling to come up with reasons to remain in this country. EDIT: Removing some of the emotion.
alephnil 13y ago
What you mean about polygraphs is not the important thing here. It is the idea that if you have read or written something the government does not like, you end up on a blacklist that bans you from many jobs. This is totalitarian ideology regardless of how democratic the US is otherwise. I find it quite scary, especially given that the authorities also have the means to more or less keep a complete list of what you read, at least if you read it or ordered it through the internet if they so desire.
csandreasen 13y ago
They didn't bother linking to it, but the same news outlet gave more information back in August [1] naming Doug Williams as the other person instructing how to pass polygraphs. Another article released by a local news outlet two days later [2] stated that he was sought for questioning but not charged with any crime. As for the other guy, he wasn't convicted of writing a book on fooling the polygraph. According to the prosecuting attorney [3], he was travelling around the US giving one-on-one advice to clients who wanted to pass the polygraph for $1-2k plus travel expenses each, receiving specific details about each case, instructed them to lie and provided instruction on exactly how to conceal those details. I think in this case the feds definitely have reasonable suspicion to believe that his clients are guilty of perjury or falsifying testimony in order to gain employment with the federal government, and they had enough evidence to show that he knowingly aided them. I'm not surprised at all that they took his business records for further scrutiny. [1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-feds-target-instructors.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-... [2] http://www.news9.com/story/23178002/authorities-investigate-ok-instructor-teaching-polygraph-beating-methods http://www.news9.com/story/23178002/authorities-investigate-... [3] http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2013/oigpr_090613.pdf http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2013/oigpr_090613.pdf

125 points by wikiburner 13y ago

Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests. The officials then distributed a list of 4,904 people – along with many of their Social Security numbers, addresses and professions – to nearly 30 federal agencies So, what does this mean? They got a list of 5000 people that bought a book [edit: or in touch with the author]. And put them all on a "blacklist"? ... For "future reference"?

Bahamut 13y ago
If you bought the book and decided to apply for a job in or related to the federal government that required a security clearance, this would be a huge red flag. IMO this is a non-story, since the purpose seems exclusively to potentially screen out people who cannot be trusted with the sensitive information that gets handled by people with security clearances (which includes social security numbers), which the federal government has every reason to be wary of. If anyone questions the data gathering of the government, sure, but this particular story is a non-story IMO.
- gngeal 13y ago
  So the dumb people who get caught looking for that information get screened out, but the smart dangerous people who happen to learn how to avoid having problems with a "lie so-called-detector" test will pass with flying colors? How does that help?
  - Bahamut 13y ago
    It addresses the low hanging fruit - say they didn't do this in general, and someone doing their research on bypassing any security red flags applies & gets a job in say the State Department. That person now is in a powerful position to sabotage the government. Now what if such a person was turned by a foreign government or terrorist group beforehand? This person now has the ability to wreck havoc due to insufficient screening, and the government gets criticized for not doing enough to protect national security. You can't stop every problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      This is why you need layers of security. If passing a "lie detector" test gives you unfettered access to information that could potentially sabotage the government (to the point where foreign terrorists or governments would be interested in such information), then the system that secures said information needs to be changed. When you build a web application the cardinal rule is never trust the client, which should be the default assumption here, irrespective of the results of some pop-science "examination."
      - Bahamut 13y ago
        It's not as simple as in software development - trust has to be given that people are acting in the best interests of the country, and people have to have access to sensitive information in the government. The only way you can secure against this is to control who you hire, and control as much as possible what they can do. To that end, sharing of this data is perfectly reasonable, as long as safeguards are in place for who uses the data, which is almost always there from my experience.
        swalkergibson 13y ago
        The fact that the list exists got out, so there are clearly not enough safeguards. Honest question coming. Do you subscribe to the "I have nothing to hide" notion?
        Bahamut 13y ago
        I happen to have nothing to hide, and am not someone too concerned about others using data about me, but I also possess a security clearance & am a Marine reservist, so as someone involved with national security to a minor degree (I'm just a junior infantry rifleman in the Corps) & living in DC, I have some familiarity with the policies set on sensitive information & some insight into why things are done a particular way in the federal government. Civilian career-wise, I don't work for the government in any capacity & wouldn't want to (I'm a mid/senior web developer).
- forgotAgain 13y ago
  Buying a book is now a big red flag? So to be truly safe I guess the government should know all the books we each buy and those we borrow from a library. They should also track what everyone reads online.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    I seem to remember that the Patriot Act allows the government to ask libraries for patrons' records and forbids the library from disclosing that it happened. Librarians and civil rights activists made a big stink about it at the time, but I guess people have forgotten about it by now and it has become the "new normal". Shortly after 9/11, the NY Public Library implemented their own photo ID cards that you were required to show before they'd bring you any reference material (this is for material that can only be used in the library, not checked out, so there's no real reason why they'd need to track who is looking at it). And it would be very easy for the government to find out all the books I ever bought from Amazon and everything I read online. I wonder sometimes whether Amazon has some kind of PRISM-like arrangement with the NSA.
  - Bahamut 13y ago
    The contents of said book is a red flag if you want a security clearance - it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      > willing to cheat Defeating a voodoo ritual is cheating? Isn't it more like protecting yourself from false accusations?
      - Bahamut 13y ago
        Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.
- kghose 13y ago
  See how you got down voted? Groups are afraid of dissent.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Alternatively: people upvote and downvote based on how valuable, accurate, or well thought out a comment is.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  You jumped to the conclusion that simply due to the fact that somebody read this book that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information. I would be curious to read the book, just because I am interested in the subject, not because I am inherently untrustworthy. Intellectual curiosity should never be stifled like this. Not to mention the fact that "lie detector" test results are not even admissible in court due to their dubious conclusions, so their effectiveness as a scientific instrument is fundamentally flawed. This is essentially thought-crime, which I thought did not exist in the US, but it sure seems like it does now.

mbateman 13y ago

"Federal officials gathered the information from the customer records of two men who were under criminal investigation for purportedly teaching people how to pass lie detector tests." What? How is that illegal?

FBT 13y ago
"Obstruction of justice". Yeah...
- Zigurd 13y ago
  When you use voodoo in attempting to get justice, calling it voodoo is an obstruction of justice. QED.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    It's not voodoo, please stop spreading FUD. The name -- lie detector -- is complete horseshit because it doesn't detect lies, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness as a low-level torture device. The physiological measurements may be inadmissible to the courts, but if you happen to confess to a crime during the (thoroughly unpleasant) interrogation then that is perfectly admissible. This key point here is why LEOs are so adamant about subjecting their prisoners to polygraph examinations. Over 95% of Federal court cases end as a result of a plea bargain, despite the plea bargain being offered under threat of lifetime imprisonment and death.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Isn't calling voodoo voodoo the opposite of "spreading FUD?"
      - aethertap 13y ago
        I think you can use voodoo in two ways: "Impossibly arcane but near-magical technology" or "total crap."

frank_boyd 13y ago

Kill it with FIRE.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
http://thefire.org/ http://thefire.org/ ? Aren't they a little more "education" oriented?
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  It's a start.
  - frank_boyd 13y ago
    EVERYTHING starts with education. Education is the most important thing the human race needs.

mtgx 13y ago

"There have been no abuses, as a result of mass surveillance", said Obama.

forgotAgain 13y ago
"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."
- tedunangst 13y ago
  I think you're on the wrong site. That lie was for the greater good, so it's ok.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Depends on the definition of the person's idea of greater good.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      By HN standards, obamacare is definitely the greater good.
      - maaku 13y ago
        Really? Did I miss that memo? Because my family got fcked over by Obamacare and will be paying 2x premiums next year for a lower quality plan. That's the good, right?
- kenrikm 13y ago
  "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." And.. I got a letter from my insurance company saying they are no longer able to offer my plan. The same plan I was on from the same company on the exchange is $200/mo more expensive. Lies are Lies. But I guess I can keep my plan after being kicked off it and then forced to pay extra? Oh you Silly politicians, I see what you did there!

headgasket 13y ago

I've heard they were under scrutiny because they were looking into a book of which the exact title is: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein. That's not goodthink.

forgotAgain 13y ago

"You have access to all of this data – all of their financial records, all of their telephone records, all of their transactions . . . ," Customs official John Schwartz said in a June speech to police polygraphers that McClatchy attended. "Then we can look at that list and determine for ourselves if we are good or not good at detecting these countermeasures." The countermeasures in question concerned beating a lie detector test. It's a very short step to the countermeasures being any civil protests.

nullymcnull 13y ago

What's really sad about this is that all of these federal agencies, the journalists reporting on them, and the public at large, continue to take it as a given that the polygraph is a useful and reliable tool that does what it says on the tin. Yet there remains precious little credible science to support that. It's downright absurd that people are having their info passed around these agencies, and being treated as inherently suspect, simply for investigating methods of 'fooling' what is ultimately a glorified stage prop.

ihsw 13y ago
There doesn't need to be science to support it -- its effectiveness at eliciting confessions is evidence enough. The name 'lie detector' is horseshit but it's still useful.
rsync 13y ago
"What's really sad about this..." What's really sad is that a lot of people, either through job/economic pressures or lack of self respect take lie detector tests at all - regardless of effectiveness. The poor effectiveness and/or technical problems with the test are not the issue. We as humans - as peers - should demand to not suffer the indignity of a "truth test".
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. If there were no consequences of lying in court then we'd have much bigger problems with the justice system than we do now.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Isn't this a fundamental piece of the US court system? You take the stand and swear to tell the truth. That's totally different than a polygraph test.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago

swalkergibson 13y ago

Wow. Obstruction? Because book? I would be really curious to see the warrant application for the customer records of the book's authors. Was there really legitimate need for that, or did the prosecutor just say "terrorist" and that was that? I am really struggling to come up with reasons to remain in this country. EDIT: Removing some of the emotion.

alephnil 13y ago

What you mean about polygraphs is not the important thing here. It is the idea that if you have read or written something the government does not like, you end up on a blacklist that bans you from many jobs. This is totalitarian ideology regardless of how democratic the US is otherwise. I find it quite scary, especially given that the authorities also have the means to more or less keep a complete list of what you read, at least if you read it or ordered it through the internet if they so desire.

csandreasen 13y ago

They didn't bother linking to it, but the same news outlet gave more information back in August [1] naming Doug Williams as the other person instructing how to pass polygraphs. Another article released by a local news outlet two days later [2] stated that he was sought for questioning but not charged with any crime. As for the other guy, he wasn't convicted of writing a book on fooling the polygraph. According to the prosecuting attorney [3], he was travelling around the US giving one-on-one advice to clients who wanted to pass the polygraph for $1-2k plus travel expenses each, receiving specific details about each case, instructed them to lie and provided instruction on exactly how to conceal those details. I think in this case the feds definitely have reasonable suspicion to believe that his clients are guilty of perjury or falsifying testimony in order to gain employment with the federal government, and they had enough evidence to show that he knowingly aided them. I'm not surprised at all that they took his business records for further scrutiny. [1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-feds-target-instructors.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-... [2] http://www.news9.com/story/23178002/authorities-investigate-ok-instructor-teaching-polygraph-beating-methods http://www.news9.com/story/23178002/authorities-investigate-... [3] http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2013/oigpr_090613.pdf http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2013/oigpr_090613.pdf