
The FBI has a new plan to spy on high school kids across the country - alexandrerond
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/06/the_fbi_has_a_new_plan_to_spy_on_high_school_kids_across_the_country_partner/
======
PebblesHD
Wait so 'criticising government policies' is now grounds to classify a high
school student as an extremist? Is this seriously the America that exists
today? This sounds more like something a paranoid regime somewhere overseas
might come up with but not the U.S.

I can say for a fact that I had my fair share of opinions on some pretty
ridiculous government policies during high school, at this rate I would have
been singled out as a person of interest. What stupidity is this coming from a
'world leading' country.

~~~
geomark
As someone who lives in one of those places somewhere overseas, I am kind of
amazed at how rapidly the US is approaching the same sort of regime I live
under. Over here, if you criticize the government (currently a military junta)
they send soldiers to your house who take you to an "education center" for a
week or so of attitude adjustment. Many hundreds have been through it already,
including prominent academics, students, and even a few former politicians.
Maybe the US will use something a little more subtle than they use here, but
seems to me it is not long in coming.

~~~
mbreedlove
I know exactly what country based on that description.

Apparently before the "education center", you're brought in before military
officials "just to talk" about your statements. They publicly phrase it as
just wanting to understand your criticisms of the government, but they really
just grill you to see who else you've been talking to, what websites you
frequent, etc.

~~~
radiorental
> but they really just grill you to see who else you've been talking to, what
> websites you frequent, etc.

This is where the US is ahead of the game.

------
nanocyber
For quite a while, I've been trying to remind Americans that the NSA show is a
distraction - NSA really is legally prohibited from performing surveillance of
US Persons (hey, that mean corporations, too!)... the FBI, however... well
that's what they're all about! With the FBI's recent strong anti-encryption
views, this should come as no surprise, but what I AM honestly surprised
about, probably due to that one shred of naivete and "hope" I have left, is
that the Obama administration seems to be okay with all of this. As someone
who was almost expelled for participating in a very vulgar and sophomoric
underground high school newspaper (and in the end, assigned to the
"punishment" of building robots at the local junior college after school), I
can't help but wonder if today that same activity would have had all of my
"selectors" (SSN, name, e-mails, phone numbers) assigned to a lifetime
watchlist of potential terrorists, malcontents, and generally "un-American"
types. I guarantee you, those lists already exist, they are growing, and they
will last longer than the lives of those on them. When a teenager with a
passion for the environment "grows up" and decides to protest less, and
instead apply for a federal forest service job, that list will be the reason
they are turned away. These lists PROMOTE separation, PROMOTE extreme
thinking, and SUSTAIN anti-establishment views.

~~~
nanocyber
p.s. [http://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-
on...](http://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-computer-
surv-1760871747)

Looks like Mr. Sanders is the only one willing to stand up for the individual
right to privacy.

------
hackuser
It's hard to tell what's going on here. The article appears to conflate
information from many different FBI publications.

I downloaded the first linked document;[1] skimming through it and searching
it, it seems to lack the most inflamatory claims in the article. Mostly it
seems an exaggerated threat (students at every school are at much greater risk
of many other threats) and it has other flaws, but it's not so bad. I think
the most common theme is to look for students advocating violence to acheive
their goals and use their support network to help them.

EDIT: To give you a feel for at least part of the document:

* "The response should leverage the strengths of governments, community organizations, social service agencies, and other professionals to provide what is commonly referred to as an “Off-Ramp”. ... The school formulates an intervention plan in conjunction with the community and non-law enforcement entities on the federal or state level. Ideally, an intervention cadre should contain professionals from the local community representing multiple disciplines such as mental health, social workers, law enforcement, school resource officers, faith-based organizations, and/or crisis intervention teams."

* "If a student continues on a trajectory to violence, the one remaining option is a law enforcement disruption"

\----

[1] Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools:
[https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-
PreventingExtremismS...](https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-
PreventingExtremismSchools.pdf)

~~~
x5n1
How about governments advocating violence to achieve their objectives? When
can we send the FBI in after them? How about preventing militancy and
extremism in government? When can we do something about that?

~~~
hackuser
> How about governments advocating violence to achieve their objectives?

That's what governments are for. It is one of the fundemental definitions of a
sovereign government, the monopoly on violence.[1] Violence is taboo but
sometimes necessary. Only the legitimate authority of the people, acting under
the law and through their democratically elected government can exercise it.
(As I understand the theory.)

As we know, even those legitimate authorities are corrupt to varying degrees;
we are cursed with no alternative to human institutions. However, I think it's
still much better than individuals making those decisions.

> When can we send the FBI in after them? How about preventing militancy and
> extremism in government? When can we do something about that?

That's the job of the voters. Don't forget to vote!

\----

[1] The other is the monopoly on justice. The definition works well: For
example, in regions of Syria, Daesh uses violence with impunity and runs its
own system of justice. You can't really say that the Syrian government has
sovereignty over those areas.

------
valine
People fear terrorists because the government and news media tell them they
should. There are lots of scary things in the world. Heart disease, cancer,
car crashes to name a few. 610,000 people died from heart disease in America
last year. How many people in America died in terrorist attacks? About 30.
Yes, 30 people. Perhaps the US should take their survalence budget and use
that money to fight heart disease and cancer.

~~~
chipperyman573
I agree with you, but let's play devil's advocate here. How many attempted
terrorist attacks were stopped? That 30 might've been 31 or 30,000,000. We'll
never know for sure for two reasons:

1\. Anything that could remotely reveal a method of surveillance wouldn't be
included in these numbers

2\. It's pretty hard to define an "attempted" attack - a lot of attempts might
be thwarted in the planning, etc... What about something that wasn't intended
to stop a group, but did? Or maybe an underground group that wasn't being
monitored, how do we know the gov't stopped them?

~~~
Animats
We know how many terrorist plots succeeded in the US. The FBI issues press
releases when they stop some plot at an earlier stage. So we should have a
good idea of how many terrorists plots have been stopped per actual incident.

Bombings in the US are way down. Most terrorist incidents in the last 10 years
are shootings. The last big bombing was the Boston Marathon, in 2013, and that
was two brothers working alone, so intel wouldn't have helped. The last
organized plot was in 2009, aimed at the NYC subway and some UK targets. That
was allegedly foiled by intel into Al Qaeda communications.

Since 9/11, terrorism in the US [1] has been much less of a problem than
routine mass shootings.[2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present)
[2] [http://www.shootingtracker.com](http://www.shootingtracker.com)

~~~
bcook
"We know how many terrorist plots succeeded in the US"

Do we? Are all terrorist plots obvious? Surely there are successful terrorist
plots that have succeeded that we are unaware of.

I am saying, I doubt it's so black & white.

~~~
Animats
If nobody notices an act of terrorism, it's not terrorism.

~~~
bcook
Terrorism is not so simple. Thinking that all terrorism must be some extreme,
singular act seems short-sighted. What is the terrorist's goal?

Terrorism _can_ be subtle and long-term.

Edit: What terrifies you? Did terrorists exclusively create this (threat of
terror)? My point is, does a terrorist exclusively create terror... or do
these terrorists have a broader goal beyond simple terrorism?

------
dmix
The FBI has failed so long to meaningfully preemptively stop a terrorist
attack that it seems like they're are just throwing everything at the wall in
desperate hopes something works. So their jobs can produce something more
tangible than just providing some abstract deterrent effect. Not just a
mysterious ever-watching machine scaring away would-be actors, but people who
can actually go into the field and gets results.

I mean they already have about ~100k paid informants, they can't really find
enough poorly educated targets to keep scaling up that program. Only so many
young impressionable kids can be talked into doing terrorist attacks they were
hardly capable of in the first place by undercover agents disguised as
authority figures.

So, hey, what if we build snitch networks in high schools like East German
youth programs?

~~~
Animats
The FBI isn't that big. They only have about 14,000 agents for the whole US.
The NYPD has about 35,000 cops just for NYC.

~~~
seibelj
paid informants != agents

------
bdrool
Obama used the "think of the children" canard when talking about privacy at
SXSW the other day. Now, with this, it sounds like the government _really_
wants to think of the children. All the time.

~~~
wrong_variable
Today's children's are tomorrow's voters. A state that cannot indoctrinate the
young - cannot have unity and dumb nationalist people needed to sacrifice for
the survival of the state.

    
    
               ---- From a very cynical person ----

------
benevol
_Under new guidelines, the FBI is instructing high schools across the country
to report students who criticize government policies and “western corruption”
as potential future terrorists_

This is as "classic" a move as the "think-of-the-children" strategy. It has
been predicted by so many people (which of course have been labeled as
"tinfoil hat" wearers and "conspiracy activists") that the fact that this has
been allowed to become reality makes one simply speechless. (Pun not even
intended.)

What does this remind you of?

Does this sound like a country you want to live in?

~~~
daemin
Reminds me of communist countries, especially East Germany, where neighbours
were meant to spy on each other and report any suspicious activity to the
(secret) police.

------
oofabz
It seems like this could backfire. Tell a bunch of angsty teenage boys that
there are these anarchists fighting the man and here's how they do it, and
some of them will think that sounds like an awesome idea.

~~~
spatulan
And feeling targeted and discriminated against increases anger, fear and
hatred of society, which leads to the outcomes that these policies are trying
to stop.

------
cat-dev-null
Not to be flippant, but "Anarchist extremists believe that society should have
no government, laws, or police, and they are loosely organized, with no
central leadership" is a core belief of both libertarian Republicans like the
publicly-visible two Koch brothers but also, to a lesser degree, some more
educated, but unworldly, people whom happen to also believe that government
"just gets in the way" until Flint, Michigan water crises and Hurricane
Katrinas happen. Perhaps also criticizing ineffective and wasteful government,
apart from deliver services or enforcing laws, may also be viewed as a
potential tool to silence critics, whom have the significant power of social
media. In Europe, a continual attempt to balance between anarchy and Big
Mother is called democratic socialism, although the coloring of the word
"socialism" implies Big Mother communism in many older Americans' minds...
this is unfortunate when there are many more "Jungles" dispersed around the US
than all of Europe and people living in their cars in the shadows (both
situations are "bad"). I hope the US and more countries get a basic income
soon.

Parents should also be upset at the thoughtpolice sort of world this kind of
policy reinforces. It's bad enough the FBI monitors social media of security
researchers and calls their employers should they be tagged or take photos
with "watchlisted" people... this already happens, today, and it's not just
some tinfoil wingnuttery. Considering how low the bar is for millions on
various watchlists, how must it feel to become "radioactive" without a trial
or even hard, unclassified evidence? Fear and gossip are powerful motivators,
especially threatening people's careers and reputations.

I think this sort of thing sets a dangerous precedent when the re are already
programs like [https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-
something](https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something)

------
drawkbox
We continue to move from a law enforcement system of warrants/detective work
into wholesale surveillance. We have lazily been doing that since 2001.

I think the authorities forgot how to solve crimes without full access to your
data. They forgot about what started this country and they despise the bill of
rights and especially Amendment #4. At some point having all this data is just
noise and makes actual detection harder. Even if they have the data, without
detective work by smart authorities, having all that data is useless.

Terror attacks are horrible and we should try to prevent them, but the
legislative and executive attack on our freedoms is much worse than any
terrorist could do.

------
NamTaf
I've often felt upset about knowing that the US _people_ have many good
traits, but the US Government is frankly scary and that I would love to visit
the US people but would hate to interact with the US Government by doing so.
To this end, I've always deferred the idea of visiting the US hoping that
future governments would improve the situation before I do.

More recently however, I'm beginning to think that the risk may be ultimately
worth it now despite the issues, because at this rate the US may become too
scary to visit at all in my young adult life.

------
xhdjdjchcnfjd
That's it, I'm out.

As soon as I save up enough money I'm moving to Iceland while I still can.

~~~
trill1
I feel you. I left about 3 years ago for a mixture of personal reasons and
increasing discomfort with the direction of the country.

Not only do most Americans seem oblivious to their loss of personal liberties,
but they also are also apparently unconcerned with the widespread havoc
wrought by US foreign policy. Now after 3 years of living in one such country
that got deeply fucked over by the apathy and ignorance of US citizens, that
last part is especially hard for me to tolerate.

I'm actually considering a visit back for the first time to see my ailing
grandparents, and honestly I'm worried about re-entering because I frequently
voice "radical" opinions online (though never violent). We'll see how it goes.

------
pcmaffey
Critical thinking free-zone.

~~~
nosuchthing
Well...
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone)

Apparently Free Speech is permitted, though only as per a set of white listed
regions in the U.S.

------
vezycash
“Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." \- Lavrentiy Beria, head of
Joseph Stalin's secret police

------
qznc
Not yet finished reading, but I was reminded of Little Brother by Cory
Doctorow.

[http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/](http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/)

------
noonespecial
Well, I've been to a few of those schools. There are terrorists in them to be
sure, but they're too busy terrorizing their peers to criticize the
government. You'd probably be put on the list for pointing that out.

------
facepalm
Wouldn't it be sufficient to monitor what people publish on social media? How
many extremists have not posted violent threats on YouTube before going on
their shooting spree?

------
DanielBMarkham
Damn, this article pushes my buttons. I really want to rant about it. Being a
libertarian, this kind of thing drives me nuts.

But I see from the comment thread that ranting is already covered, so instead
I will try to provide a little context by defending the FBI (a little bit)

Part of the job of any police force is not to act in a reactive manner. You
should develop leads, work confidential informants, and keep files on folks
you might expect to deal with in the future. This process fits into staffing,
handling large crowds, planning for needed jail and prosecution resources, and
so on.

Police forces just don't sit on the corner waiting to react. If they did,
they'd use a helluva lot more force than they do now. This is a good thing for
everyone -- up until a point.

Likewise, in extreme circumstances, citizens should expect to be roughly
handled and/or have their rights taken away from them. If you're on a public
conveyance that is in danger of exploding, you might be forceably removed.
Under certain unique threats, you could be strip-searched. All sorts of bad
things happen -- every now and then.

This is the way it should be. When things like this occur, somebody should be
taking _political_ risk. Ticking nuclear bomb? Sure, waterboard the terrorist
(please excuse arguments for torture not working for sake of argument). But
that torture was a _one-time, political_ decision made by an elected person
with executive authority. That person is taking a risk. Perhaps evidence shows
there was no threat. In that case, they could be removed from office.

What we're doing here that's so batshit crazy is _systemitizing things that
should be one-of occurrences_. There are provisions for one-time extraordinary
events in our system of government. But with modernization, what the
government wants to do is automate all of that. No free system of government
can last long under these conditions. You're killing the baby to put the fire
out in the house.

Each little department, however, only sees their little piece of the action. I
saw a video yesterday where a conservative congressman is now coming around to
believing Apple's case[1]. He was questioning the Attorney General. What about
all these side effects of what the FBI wants, he asked. Are you considering
what kind of impact this case can have on the entire system?

The answer was nope, not in my wheelhouse. FBI needs something, Apple has it.
They're going to need it again, so we want a system where it's easy and/or
automated.

This is the case all over, from traffic tickets to civil asset forfeiture to
financial reporting standards. Ideas in the past would have sounded good,
Congress would have passed a law -- and 12 guys would be stuck trying to
implement it. Eventually they would have given up. But now, that's no longer
the case. Whatever each little silo wants, it can pay to have automated. You
can bet it'll happen.

Our system is made for _people_ to operate, not machines. Apologies for the
over-the-top rhetoric, but the automation, systemization, and computerization
of what used to be manual government processes is an evil far beyond anything
mankind has ever seen. I don't even think most folks understand the problem,
much less know what to do about it.

1\. [http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/apple-fbi-lindsay-
graham/](http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/apple-fbi-lindsay-graham/)

------
chrshawkes
Salon is a known rag sheet. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.

