The Things You Learn When You Send A Freedom Of Information Act Request About What The Gov't Knows About You

from the evil-criminal-edition dept

Tue, Feb 28th 2012 7:00am — Mike Masnick

I've been meaning to post this story for a little while, but am finally getting around to it. On a whim, a woman decided to send off some Freedom of Information Act requests to various government agencies to see if they had any information about her. She said she had basically forgotten about the whole thing... until, months later, the FBI sent her a giant package... containing a 436-page report on her that she had no idea existed. What she discovered was that, about a decade ago, the FBI had spent five days following her and some of her friends around, all because they were involved in planning and organizing a small local protest (she doesn't explain what the protest was about, other than to say it really wasn't that big of a deal). Either way, the FBI spent five days (a few days before, the day of and the day after the protest) following her and her friends and recording all of their activities. The actual report is incredibly mundane:

At times, the file details seem particularly ridiculous:

As she says, "As you can see, I pose a clear and present danger to society. I pick up other people's trash and put it in the proper bins." The entire file is apparently similarly pointless information about her activities. She sounds mildly embarrassed that she didn't spot the fact that she was being followed, but if you're not expecting that you're being followed -- and being followed by pros -- it's unlikely that you'd notice. The thing that's really amazing is that it makes you wonder just how much time and resources are being wasted here. I recognize that it's important for law enforcement to be on top of various activities, but it's hard not to wonder if this isn't overkill. She also notes that, for all of the time and effort put into following her around, they got a lot of the rather basic facts wrong:

I am repeatedly identified as a member of a different, more mainstream liberal activist group which I was not only not a part of, but actually fought with on countless occasions. To somehow not know that I detested this group of people was a colossal failure of intelligence-gathering. Hopefully the FBI has not gotten any better at figuring out who is a part of what, and that this has worked to the detriment of their surveillance of other activists. I am also repeatedly identified as being a part of campaigns that I was never involved with, or didn't even know about, including protests in other cities. Maybe the FBI assumes every protester-type attends all other activist meetings and protests, like we're just one big faceless monolith. "Oh, hey, you're into this topic? Well, then, you're probably into this topic, right? You're all pinkos to us."

In taking a general survey of all area activists, the files keep trying to draw non-existant connections between the most mainstream groups/people and the most radical, as though one was a front for the other. There are a few flyers from local events that have nothing to do with our campaign, including one posted to advertise a lefty discussion group at the university library. The FBI mentions that activists may be planning "direct action" at their meetings, which the document's author clarifies means "illegal acts." "Direct action" was then, and I'd say now, a term used to talk about civil disobedience and intentional arrests. While such things are illegal actions, the tone and context in these FBI files makes it sound like protesters got together and planned how to fly airplanes into buildings or something.

When you read stuff like this, and then think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots, it really makes you wonder if the money we're spending on law enforcement for these kinds of things is money well spent... or if the FBI really just has way too much time (and money) on their hands.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fbi, freedom of information

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 6:52am

she doesn't explain what the protest was about, other than to say it really wasn't that big of a deal

A glance at her website suggests it was probably something to do with sex workers' rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  That sounds like a big deal for me... a big deal in my pants!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:04am

I think you should do this too Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  I really wouldn't advise that. They might actually tell him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    hmmm I would be interested to know what the FBI think of Mike, it should be interesting!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  He would probably find out that he runs a porn site. Whose active membership include people from Anonymous, radical anti-IP types, Entertainment industry lobbyists, and Darryl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike C. (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 12:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...and Darryl
    
    Soda. Nose. Monitor.
    
    Thanks a lot.... :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:04am

Are the FBI federally funded stalkers now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:12am
  
  Re:
  When has that changed?
  
  Hoover is widely known for abusing civil liberties through being the FBI director.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeachBumCowboy (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:08am

Paranoia
Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean the government isn't even more paranoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeachBumCowboy (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:10am
  
  Re: Paranoia
  And better funded too!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: Paranoia
  It's isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: Paranoia
    uhm ...
    
    Paranoia means that you think everyone is out to get you.
    
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I'm paranoid but my paranoia is well reasoned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tophe (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 11:22am
  
  Re: Paranoia
  The issue's not whether you're paranoid - the issue is whether you're paranoid enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:29am

"think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots, it really makes you wonder if the money we're spending on law enforcement for these kinds of things is money well spent"

Think about it. If the government doesn't spend money setting up fake terrorist acts and then stopping those fake terrorist acts, who will?

Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Doug D (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am
  
  Re:
  The FBI doesn't currently have the ability to manufacture their own terrorist plots officials say. But if the Agency develops the ability, then they will be much more likely to create security theater according to industry experts.
  
  Oh wait, never mind. Too late.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
I-Blz, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:33am

Er, what? My school's filter marks that link as blocked under the "porn" category. what IS behind that link, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  She has some links to her activism sites and also some tshirts about respecting sex workers rights.
  
  Her flickr page contains lots of beautiful photos of Panama but nothing that's NSFW.
  
  If you were expecting something like her in a bikini (she is attractive) you'd be disappointed, at least at a first glance I don't see that.
  
  Just a blog, nothing "exciting" from a first quick glance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    Full of links to her porn sites. Basically, it's her "public" front to up sell you to her porn experience. Not cool at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Full of links to her porn sites. Basically, it's her "public" front to up sell you to her porn experience. Not cool at all.
      
      I see a LOT of very serious posts on this blog - and one short menu halfway down the sidebar with links to her porn sites (underneath links to her activism sites, with nothing drawing any special attention to it)
      
      Seems like you are desperate to discredit this woman for some reason...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The AC is just the FBI trying to set up a honeypot to catch other people defending her so that they can stretch credulity and add such persons to her file, since anyone who defends her is clearly associated with her communist sex worker activism and is likely also planning direct action of the illegal variety.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joshua Bardwell (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      FurryGirl is both a blogger and a pornographer. She cross-links her sites. That's all that's going on here. Her sex-work activism is in no way a "front" for her porn.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 12:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
      I guess after introducing herself as a sex worker and a pornographer that sent you looking for the links rather than following her blogging.
      
      So, in that sense, what did you expect. Even activists have to earn a living so why not do what you do best, in her case, (a) porn and (b) blog intelligently about what is, after all a fairly serious issue.
      
      Take, for example, the investigation into the disappearing women off the Downtown East Side stroll of Vancouver and ignored the fact that a serial killer was at work.
      
      Feel free to follow the link below to get more information about why, in many ways, he was so successful.
      
      http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/27/pickton-inquiry-hears-of-police-indifference-to- sex-worker
      
      The woman whose blog we're directed to and who is so passionate about protecting the rights of sex trade workers has a point, you know.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
        "I guess after introducing herself as a sex worker and a pornographer that sent you looking for the links rather than following her blogging.
        "
        
        No, I just looked at the linked sites on her page, about half way down the article Mike pointed to. I didn't have to go far to find porn.
        
        For her comments, I would say that the Picton case has been picked on (pun intended) over and over already, and she didn't really add anything that hasn't already been out there hundreds of times over.
        
        I don't agree or disagree with her, I find only that it's a bit weird to see Mike linking directly to porn people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
        Porn's not illegal dude. You should know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
        Depends, what kind of porn are we talking about?
        
        Raping a pig and filming it may land some in jail in some places.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
        all porn is illegal in my country, so who gives a shit about laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        B Pickel (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willy Picton
        ...and raping a pig and filming it may not land some(people) in jail in other places
        
        maybe i missed your point
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:41am
  
  Re:
  ITs imgur, think of fotobucket for reddit. So while most of the pictures are fine there are a few that are NSFW and are usually tagged as such.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am
  
  Re:
  Are you in high/middle school? What are you doing on Techdirt during the day?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Probably planning some "direct action"... damn pinko.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt T. (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    The first time I ever visited techdirt was in January of 2008 in a high school computer class.
    
    Those were the days, when angry dude and Weird Harold were the reigning trolls...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - senshikaze (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I miss angry dude, is he still around?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:35am

what if everyone does the same?
Imagine if even 10% of the population (assuming that many are awake) filed FOIA's for info on themselves. I wonder if that would send a message or at least hinder some of their surveillance?

Or would it just be considered abuse of the FOIA and it will be amended, silently, so no one can file it without special permission (meaning you can't file it on yourself only on companies or if you're a journalist)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: what if everyone does the same?
  I kinda wanna send a FOIA for myself as well, it should be fun... maybe :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeC (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:37am

Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents
Do you think after the first 10 minutes that the FBI agents wanted to keep doing this for 5 days ??? They are like any other workers.. They filled out a report because they were told too. Hopefully we hire some smart folks to be FBI agents, they knew right away this was a waste of time I bet. How much other surveillance and such do you think is just write something down so you can tell your boss agent that you did it, so he can tell his boss it was done. $$$ down the drain .. I mean here in my hometown, if you don't buy a dog license and don't call in to tell them the dog is dead, they send 2 (not 1 but 2) animal control agents to your house to check if you have a dog that is not licensed. But we still have drug dealers and drive by shootings, just no unlicensed dogs. What a colossal waste of dollars by our bureaucratic entities in most cases.

Now if there was a real threat they hopefully would have recognized it and put the proper effort into it. But this way they got 5 days of per-diem and mostly free time out of the office, didn't have a choice so they filled out paperwork to make it look like they were doing something besides drinking coffee and bitching about what a stupid assignment this was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:47am
  
  Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents
  That also explains why she would get linked to all these other random groups. I mean you got couple board guys writing up a report and figure, "Hey we had better spice this up a little bit so doesn't look like we were totally useless."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Endtimer (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 11:01am
    
    Re: Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents
    Also things like "She knows a guy whose best friend former room mate once attended a meeting for this group." They literally have to put that kinda stuff in their report, or else if it's discovered later they look like they didn't do their diligence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Gotta look at this from the point of the FBI Agents
      Or complete idiots if they're wrong about the BFF of the former roommate blah blah blah is wrong.
      
      Often it's complete idiots.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:46am

In taking a general survey of all area activists, the files keep trying to draw non-existant connections between the most mainstream groups/people and the most radical, as though one was a front for the other.

Generally, law enforcement doesn't look for evidence to arrive at the truth. First they come up with the conclusion they like best, then they spend the majority of their time trying to prove that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  Confirmation bias.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:46am

I am aware of this person on a personal level (friend of a friend sort of thing) and she is very special case. It doesn't shock me to find the FBI looking at her. I won't post a personal opinion of her, because she is likely to take you to court over it (or worse, hound you in public forever).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  Nothing like a bit of hearsay and innuendo to really add to the discussion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  You make her sound like a creeper o.0
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  I am aware of you and who you are (I have my contacts in the FBI writing down what boring things you're doing right now). And everyone should believe what I say about you because I said I know you. So I'll make subtle, implied accusations of bad character against you, but I'll refuse to mention any proof of this out of my own stated goodwill for wanting Mike not to get sued for libel - for all the good that would do. That should go over well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  Wow, these lawyers seem to know everyone whenever convenient. This isn't the first time I've seen such an unlikely claim made by dedicated (techdirt and other) trolls.
  
  I'm not defending this woman, I don't really think we have enough information at this point to say one way or another beyond her single side of the story, and her side of the story makes me wonder, but based on this post and another you made it sounds like you are a frequent techdirt troll, the kind who generally makes things up as you go.
  
  It's unlikely that you know this person personally, the chances of some random frequent techdirt troll just so happening to know this specific person (not to mention every person) when convenient are very small.
  
  In fact, I bet if Mike checked your hostmask and compares it to this woman's home location it probably originates from a totally different location (though you could be using a proxy).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    It should also be noted that anything she says as a source of information (ie: regarding otherwise un - sourced facts and personal experience) carries more weight than anything you say, because she is non-anonymous and you are anonymous. She is putting her reputation on the line and we can actually verify her history and get information about her and scrutinize her consistency and criticize her to a greater degree, whereas you are just an anonymous person. Who should we believe, her with known identity, or an anonymous person with no known identity.
    
    Not that there is anything wrong with being anonymous, there is nothing wrong with being anonymous and there is nothing wrong with being an anonymous source of information, just that statements of otherwise un - sourced fact and personal experience don't hold as much weight.
    
    and secondarily known sources also carry more weight than a purely anonymous source.
    
    For instance Mike Masnick is a known source and if someone he knows and trusts tells him something and Mike puts it on techdirt with his identity as Mike Masnick and he conceals the identity of the original sources and vouches for the source's authenticity and the information's validity himself, that would carry more weight than if some anonymous commenter did something similar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:47am

Hey, this was time and resources well spent, if they hadn�t spied on her for 5 days they would have never known she was interfering with the city�s �trash the town� initiative by putting other people�s trash in trash cans. How�s the city supposed to win an award for being the messiest city in America with people like her around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:48am

Trash or not
After they've put agents on surveillance, it'd only be proper to assume the agents will do full job, no? An agent should assume if they've been given an assignment, there's some rationale for it.

In light of that, all the mundane things could surely be useful if that person had turned out to be talking to Truly Evil Terrorists, right?

Imagine the response the other way: "So, there were agents following her for 5 days, and didn't notice she put a bomb in a trash can? How incompetent is the FBI?"

If you want to mock them, mock the fact that they choose unimportant targets, not that they did a complete investigation after deciding on the target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: Trash or not
  I agree. It is tough to determine you are wasting your time before you actually waste your time.
  
  The thing is, it is always harder (impossible?) to prove a negative than a positive. If they caught her doing something illegal, the surveillance would be over. But to definitively rule out she isn't doing illegal things ... that would take forever. The best you can do is watch long enough to reasonably conclude she isn't likely to do illegal things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 29 Feb 2012 @ 5:58am
  
  Re: Trash or not
  i think the mockery comes from a combination of 'picking stupid target' and 'getting stuff badly wrong'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:56am

Oh, as a side note: Mike, you do understand that you basically linked yourself to porn, right? She makes her living as a porn girl, specializing in hairy and natural menstruation porn. Classy. Now you know why you are blocked in Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  Your intimate knowledge of this woman's career path and specialization is kinda disturbing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who knows where these AC's spend their time when not trolling Techdirt!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joshua Bardwell (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not like it's hard to click through the the original article and see what else is on her site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kaden (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 6:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not difficult at all. Nor is it even remotely relevant to the matter at hand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re:
  >Now you know why you are blocked in Germany.
  
  Yeah, what great foresight they must have had, blocking Techdirt for this post linking to porn - before this post was made.
  
  Wow, you're full of shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
izzitme101, 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:59am

Since they'r that good at their jobs, it's no wonder ordinary citizens are being watched.
Clearly they don't have the competence to find the real 'terrorists', which would also explain why there are so many of them to, after all, theres a lot more average citizen than T people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 7:59am

...and then think back to the various cases we've seen of the FBI manufacturing their own terrorist plots,...

Didn't you hear? The FBI changed their name and mission scope quietly and secretly sometime after 9/11.

They are now know as the Federal Bureau of Instigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:07am

They are tracking porn? I had a local newspaper article about some animal rights activists that 'disapeared' in the middle of the night. Turns out it was the FBI and the agent admitted just clicking on some sites automatically started tracking; anarchist.com was one. So if you wanted to know more out of curiousity - you raised a flag to the FBI.

It's pretty clear that the Patriot Act has resulted in a far greater % of resources spent on domestic survailance than any foriegn threat.

I would be surprised if even 10% of the population felt represented in Washington DC. Maybe they have a reason to be parnoid. It's just not a foriegn threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 29 Feb 2012 @ 6:04am
  
  Re:
  and yet the FBI still has time to somehow be screwing up here in NZ too...
  
  (they're partly responsible for the taps in the exchanges, of course there's the whole megaupload thing. can't remember if the older stuff was them or the CIA. either way Someone freaked out and, in a classic case of shooting the messenger, stripped both the USA and NZ of some cheap and advanced military hardware...
  
  seriously, the only reason that (to the best of my knowledge) US intelligence agencies aren't hated more here is that, unlike the French, they've not killed anyone (that the public know of) here yet...
  
  but no one with a clue has any faith in their ability to not screw us over for no good reason.
  
  (then there's NZ's equivalents... which you basically never hear of, but we do have them... it's a heck of a lot more serious if they show up than if the FBI does, that's for sure. or, at least, it's About something more serious.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 29 Feb 2012 @ 6:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    err... actually, the FBI showing up at your house here would be massively more serious for all sorts of reasons. meant compared to the FBI showing up in the USA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:08am

When was this?
Was this during 1999-2001 when the FBI should have been following up on suspicious air school reports they ignored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:09am

let me add this: The girl is an attention whore, plain and simple. Mike, really you appear to have fallen for her desire for more public exposure.

Do you get paid for this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  Actually, reading your three posts, it sounds like you have an axe to grind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    It has already been ground. What shocks me really is that Mike linked up her story without checking her out at least a little bit. He would understand that it's all about attention, and not about anything else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Watchit (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      maybe he wrote about it because it's an interesting story? whether or not she's an attention whore is independent of that fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  Rebuffed your advances, did she?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually I think it's that her porn blog is more popular than his
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am

The second most obvious conclusion...
There's another possibility. This could've been a training mission. Obviously, new agents aren't sent to tail suspected terrorists right away. The very fact that they got details wrong yet suspected that this is a part of a much bigger national movement suggests younger overeager agents. Sort of like new doctors who tend to find unusual, exotic diseases in patients with a simple cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:11am

I think it would be interesting for people to make similar requests and publishing the results. Does anyone know of a website explaining the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  The woman's blog post said she used this site:
  
  http://www.getmyfbifile.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
William, 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:12am

Screwey
The fact that she fails to state what she was dealing with gives me more then enough to state that it sounds like the FBI was doing their bloody job. The mere fact that she didn't want to say what she was up too probably means the majority of society would disagree with her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:58am
  
  Re: Screwey
  Check the blog. It was most likely sex workers rights (as mentioned above), and she doesn't seem to hide that fact on her blog.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:39am

too much time/$$
"or if the FBI really just has way too much time (and money) on their hands" - duh, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 28 Feb 2012 @ 8:49am

Virtually every story I've read about
law enforcement activity left me stunned at the incredible waste of time and resources. The fishing expeditions, the low probability actions. At all levels. It's amazing there's any time or money left over to do real work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 29 Feb 2012 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: Virtually every story I've read about
  there isn't. note the USA's national debt etc.
  
  it's just covered by shortages elsewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOG, 28 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am

Don't rag on the FBI agents; they're just doing their jobs
Seriously, the agents were told to watch this person and gather evidence to see if any further suveillance was necessary. They spent 5 days and that was it. Really not a lot of resources spent. Policing society is important to the maintenance of that society. How does the FBI know, without looking into this person, whether or not she might turn into the next Timothy McVeigh? They don't. Someone brought this individual to the attention of law enforcement and the FBI did its job: investigate, and when they see nothing wrong, stop investigating.

Now, go get a life and worry about more important things than what's in a government file about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2012 @ 10:31am

Freedom of Speech
Nothing says guilty quite like exercising one's right to speak freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]