Questions the FBI Uses to Determine If Someone Is a Likely Terrorist
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
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.
I am in Quebec City. A terrorist killed 6 people here a few weeks ago. A young, quiet, white catholic guy with clean looks. He killed 6 muslims during their prayers.
Would that questionnaire have identified that young, quiet, white catholic terrorist killer?
Possibly, but it's difficult to say based on your description, because age, skin color, general quietness, and religion are not on the questionnaire.
But to your broader point, could a questionnaire be written well enough to reliably identify all terrorists? If it only significantly improves detection, I'd think it would be worthwhile.
In fact it seems like the whole point of this is to help agents identify less obvious suspects, so they don't only focus on the guy who keeps traveling back and forth from Syria and retweeting ISIS.
Bad tests are worse than no tests.
So applying a single test to a huge general population makes little sense. But applying that to a population that already carries some traits is highly relevant.
It's not magic, it's applied statistics.
If your probabilities are on the order of 'nonexistent' and your test has a false positive rate on the order of a few 10'ths of a % then you are wasting your time no matter what the method you use to analyze your data.
With no tests, the quiet unassuming terrorist would still walk by.
At least with a test with some efficacy at catching legitimate terrorists even with false positives would be better no?
(Going only by the metric of catching terrorists.)
The test is useful, just not useful enough to transform a random population into a list of suspects. It's useful for what the FBI says it's getting used for - determining how to allocate resources among a limited population that's already under suspicion. Eg, be more likely to assign an active agent if the case involves people with access to weapons.
If you're concerned about a few million people to spot 10 (a high estimate) per year then you will need better tools than dragnet surveillance and questionnaires like these. Did you really expect to answer any of these questions about a would-be terrorist in such a way that it would help an investigation?
Check the questions, it's positively skewed towards one particular kind of terrorist (young Islamic males even though it does not state that outright it might as well be written there). And then you get your nice, upstanding Christian white-guy who murders 6 people in cold blood and would have murdered a whole lot more if he had the chance.
These questions are meaningless without accurate priors and accurate priors require incidence rates that are distinguishable from noise.
Has media called him a terrorist even after he has done all that ? I doubt that. He was probably identified as a person with mental health issues.
A Canadian journalist like Tarak Fatah might get flagged as terrorist though he is an kick-ass islamic reformer. Tarak Fatah has extensively travelled in hotbeds of Islamic extremism, he is associated with and has engaged all the Islamic mullahs and currently runs a TV series debate with mullas titled "Fatah Ka Fatwah".
It is hard to catch terrorists by filling up questionnaires. Some of those questions however are obvious indicators of a threat. If you already know a person has travelled to a different country to participate in violence, I am not sure why you need to fill anything else.
edit: I'd imagine the Canadian equivalent is the same since the US and Canada share a common background and approach in dealing with perceived threats to their "white supremacy".
My guess is that the Columbine shooters could be flagged by the questionnaire.
But it's just a wild guess.
Also, camping and survivalism? These seem fairly orthogonal as well.
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?
In reality, using encryption isn't going to help you all that much if a government entity thinks you're suspicious. It may make it marginally harder for them to be suspicious of you, but that's about it. If they want something, and 'encryption' is in the way, 99.9% of the time they have a way around it. A very relevant, and very hilarious article on this: [1]
[0] http://bgr.com/2016/03/22/paris-attacks-iphone-encryption/
[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
Technically speaking I really doubt interest in camping is any higher amongst terrorists than the population.
Has the subject participated in activities that simulate military or operational environments?
So motorhome and marshmallows with your family at Big Bear Happy Camp probably wouldn't count, unless you're planning to kill everyone by making them eat s'mores until their blood sugar spikes.
Like, I'm not even sure that terrorists are more likely to be known to own guns. The EV of terrorist plots involving gun ownership are higher, though, so more investigation ought to go there.
There's nothing wrong with using PGP, for example, but if I found out my totally non-technical neighbor was using PGP, I would probably still give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would raise a flag in my mind and watch for other flags.
So, if you're always encrypting everything, the answer here is no. Dude always encrypted everything, dude still encrypts everything.
They are flagging if you suddenly start using an encrypted communication service for specific things, as another indicator something's going on. That's fair enough imo.
Sure, that should be taken in context to the rest of the questions, but should that even be a flag? Should we regularly detain and question pentesters now if they have a middle-eastern background?
I'm going to argue that's at least a tens of thousands of people if not many more. A lot of apps are implementing encryption (tens of millions of users), millions of Americans have tactical training, plus most Americans are interested in attacks.
Seems like this list doesn't really narrow down the suspect pool to meaningful numbers. More like, it makes it seem like people made this list to seem like they were doing something.
That is, if someone encrypts, that means nothing. But if you are comparing two fundamentalists predisposed to violence, and one of them uses crypto and privacy software and the other doesn't - I would lean heavily towards investigating the crypto guy. He's likely planning something.
I guess what i'm saying is that I think the interaction of a feature like crypto should be nonlinear with certain other features.
Has the subject engaged in or discussed tradecraft to hide their online activities contextually different from previous activity?
The relevant part isn't the encryption, but the context. If you have two email accounts, one for general usage, unencrypted, and one encrypted that you rarely use, but suddenly see a spike in usage, that's a red flag.
It isn't if you use encryption, but how you use it.
[0] according to the leaked document. If they weights are assigned by some other rubric in another document not leaked or part of this article at least, then I guess I am wrong.
I lean towards no, but I'd be interested in discussion on this.
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.
There is not a universal flavor of Islam that is accepted by all Muslims. Islam is a decentralized religion with hundreds of factions that all have different interpretations of the Koran and its teachings.
The hadith science is the original "extreme vetting."
Sounds like we need some sort of way to vet people coming into the country?
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
It therefore seems reasonable to me you might want to restrict travel from countries that either have such weak governments that fake 'official' documents can be obtained (somalia, syria, yemen etc) or countries that have a stated policy of non-cooperation with the US government on such matters (Iran).
That would also explain why you would not exclude people from 46 other muslim majority countries - there would be no reason to if their official documents can be relied on, and they are responsive to queries from the US when some information needs to be verified.
Unless the government has every present and future terrorist's fingerprints in a database, how will scanning fingerprints be effective? It cannot be, it logically does not make sense. This logic is confirmed by FBI director Comey who told congress the same thing.
Perhaps that is where your disagreements with the "far-right" are stemming from?
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.
Vetting has long been a part of the US travel visa system.
the "get them back" mentality of the west's constituents is incompatible with "attack anybody occupying muslim lands" mentality
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.
Does it?
What the hell?
You'd be surprised, or perhaps disturbed, by how many kids put "is a Muslim" on their list...
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.
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.
"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.
edit: I will acknowledge that the age of the document does change its impact. But 2013 is pretty recent.
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.
* 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
the majority of web users do not [use encryption]. False.
I occasionally read bomb-making books. In part because I once had a job that involved explosives, so I'm interested in high energy engineering, and in part because I'm curious about how IEDs are constructed, so as to consider how one might detect and defeat them.
I don't have a current employment need for this information. I'm simply curious as a matter of physics, engineering, and keeping myself informed about technology that influences events to some degree.
Given my interests, it appears that you'd shop me to the authorities because you regard those interests as suspicious.
That's unhelpful to society, to say the least. And illustrative of your misapprehension of actual risk.
What they meant by the question is not what you believe it to be... interest != concern. I would say almost everyone has a concern but not an interest.
>> Substance abuse. Almost everyone.
Sure. I wouldn't say almost everyone.
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.
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.
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.
In an ideal world, it takes a crime to make a criminal. The consequences of commiting a crime are enough to keep most people from committing them. But if your crime involves suicide, what earthly consequence can we invent to reduce the numbers? I'm sure it would be helpful if whatever factors that are developing the perceived rewards of killing a bunch of people could be routed, but other than that, our thinking on the justice system doesn't really net a solution to politically motivated murder suicide. I.e. is this precrime? Under the western ideal of innocent until proven guilty, yes. Do the incentives of that system overcome terrorism? No.
Courts provide some restraint upon information gathering, such as the approval of search warrants - but mostly courts are only involved after an alleged crime has occurred.
You really are an idiot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13639873 and marked it off-topic.
Additionally, one positive answer on a list of 48 questions doesn't equal "terrorism".
I can guarantee, however, that no one using that document cares about your terrorism likelihood just because one answer matches.
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.