Read Einstein's FBI File 379
testcase writes: "... along with Mickey Mantel's, Elvis Presley's, William Faulkner's, Bertoldt Brecht's, the American Friends Service Committee's, etc. here. Of course the 'new FBI' doesn't collect this kind of info on citizens any more. Right? " I wonder what my file looks like.
Re:403 Forbidden! (Score:1)
Re:NO! NO! NO! (Slapping hand) (Score:1)
I was wondering why anyone would still be interested in this 80 year old trial? After seeing all the media bull that surrounded the trial I understand. Apparantly the media put Anarchy and the struggle of European immigrants to make a new home in America on trial along with Saco and Vanzetti. Even Einstein got sucked into it.
Re:How old must these files be before they're open (Score:1)
Gee what about the Catholics...??? (Score:1)
Unless I'm mistaken the vast majority of the Christians on this blue planet are Catholic and Catholics believe that Faith AND Good Works are necessary for salvation...
But you probably believe like my friend GW Bush and the entire faculty at Bob Jones University that Catholics are a "cult"....
YHBT HAND!
Well... (Score:1)
Re:You don't really seem to "get it". (Score:1)
The beauty here is in this country, you could. There are countless PIs going around following spouses accused of cheating and such every day. You can go as far as to say this method of governing sucks, and you won't (necessarily) be executed for it. Attempt to leave a Communist country, and you're dead. Where's the perfect system in keeping your people ignorant of any other form of governing?
Just as those sixth-graders proved this week, make a wild accusation and you can pretty well destroy a man's career. Back in the 50's actors that weren't liked wound up being accused of Communism so others could take their parts and what-not. Of course, to protect those sources, they were kept anonymous.
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1)
Re:Yup (Score:1)
---
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:1)
He did. Look at this post [slashdot.org].
In case you haven't realized by now, you fell for a very good troll.
---
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:1)
Who, contrary to modern myth, was not the only socialist around at the time. So you hardly establish anything.
There were many socialists at the time trying to achieve socialist societies (i.e. societies where the workers control the means of production) by diverse means.
---
Re:In the interest of starting a worthwhile thread (Score:1)
Do you really want someone investigating your life, and keeping files on who you know, your relation to them, your opinions, and so on, just so they can be sure that you are not a criminal?
If the investigator believes that some (suspicious) person *might* pose a threat to Society At Large(tm), [...]
The question is what right does the investigator have to decide what is good or wrong for society at large. In any case, government agencies like the FBI are not disinterested observers.
[...] AND the investigation is to be carried out discreetly, such that if nothing is found to be wrong, nobody will ever know, should s/he investigate or not?
Your assumption that "no one will ever know" is quite naive, I think. The discussion was about the FBI keeping files on citizens.
And anyway, in advocating this you are going against the face of documented cases of the government investigating citizens which are not suspected to be criminals. It has nearly always (if not always) been the case that a government keeps such files in order to disrupt legitimate citizen activities.
For example, where I'm from, Puerto Rico, the government kept for many years files on people just because they supported independence from the US. People who were in those files were routinely denied jobs, financial aid for education, and were harassed by the authorities. All of this culminated in the late 70s and early 80s with the ambush and summary execution of two people by the local police and subsequent cover up.
The FBI had for many years a COINTELPRO program on Puerto Rico independence, and frequently consulted the files I mention above.
---
Re:In the interest of starting a worthwhile thread (Score:1)
The COINTELPRO operation in Puerto Rico was started long before FALN existed.
And anyway, the vast majority of the people who were investigated had no connection to FALN, were not revealed to have done anything illegal, and it _is_ documented that they were subject to discrimination in many accounts from part of the government and many private entities. (You can see in files that the police would, for example, secretly tell potential employers not to hire these people.)
---
Hmmm, looks familiar (Score:1)
---
Re:Yup (Score:1)
Well, how could I forget this brilliant bit of rhetoric:
(Taken from this post [slashdot.org] of yours)
---
Re:Fatpipe->PDF->OCR->TXT->HTML? (Score:1)
Re:You don't really seem to "get it". (Score:1)
Blaming FDR for the depression is quite a long shot. Especially since it was the government that got us OUT of the depression (through massive spending around the start of WW2 that spurred up aggregate demand...).
He closed the banks because he had to, since a bank panic was imminent. He had to make a national address to explain to Joe Average that no, most banks don't carry enough money to allow everyone to withdraw it at once. This isn't revisionist history, it's economic truth - the monetary system is a very fragile thing when the masses panic.
This is not to say that the bank panic wasn't a contributor to the depression - it was definitely a psychological factor. Many other things, however, also went wrong: a typical business-cycle recession was already imminent by 1929, the 1929 crash, the Fed tightening the money supply, the poor crop yields, the general FEAR generated by these events, and the Smoot-Holly legislation that raised tarriffs to psychotic levels.
Re:Smart people lean towards the left (Score:1)
John Maynard Keynes
Peter Drucker
Fredrich Hayek
Milton Friedman
Yes they're all business or economic thinkers, but they all have had major influence on our world.
In contrast, the Left hasn't given rise to many great political/socio-economic thinkers since Marx.
After reading Marx, one should pick up some of Drucker's early work on socio-economic theory [The Future of Industrial Man] or Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:1)
Need I remind you that Canada is the 2nd most prosperous economic superpower in the G7 over the last 40 years [behind Japan]?
Re:Smart people lean towards the left (Score:1)
But as for Drucker.. half of what he says is obvious most likely because he's the one who first made it obvious
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:1)
I think the two are different, but easily confused because there's a subjective line between them.
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:1)
and yes, I agree about money not being a good motivatior. It is, however, a good investment allocation mechanism, which is what I was referring to. Focusing capital on talent can provide an environment where that the skills can spread and multiply among people in an organization...
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:1)
Do you get enjoyment out of watching Bugs Bunny re-runs?
Or news stories from 3 years ago?
Or old versions of Linux (pre 0.99) ?
Or do you get enjoyment out of NEW works?
Think about it.
A lot of people are repeating the "Information is abundant" mantra without realizing that replicated information is subject to demand-side diminishing returns. As soon as everyone's "seen it", the value of information degrades in a big way.
Somebody took down the files. (Score:2)
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:2)
The question is not that "I want more than you", it's that "I want something, but there's not enough to go around". Hence we use a market to allocate resources, and we use profit to cover risks and investment for the future. It's flawed (i.e. focuses on efficiency, not justice), but it works.
This does not deny the existence of greed, I just don't believe it's the pre-requisite to a functioning market society.
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
The major risk is discovering how uninteresting you are.
Re:Commander Taco's file..... (Score:2)
Commander Taco's file..... (Score:2)
Taco, Commander
Section 1, Paragraph 1
Due to posting article on rebellious website Slashdot.org [slashdot.org], FBI web servers experienced a Denial of Service attack. This individual is to be treated with extreme suspicion and caution. See also "Yahoo", "E-Bay".
You have not read Marx lately then (Score:2)
So no, the final state is not a violent one.
But the path to that state is violent.
Communism is frequently confused with Stalinism which presents itself as being communism while really being a philosophy of violent revolt winding up with a form of totalitarian government that will claim to be communist...
Regards,
Ben
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
They wanted to forge a signature to get someone ELSE'S FBI file.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
-- Except the papers have to be notarized....and Notaries require ID. So unless You're good buddies with a Notary (and they won't mind losing the power of notary, and getting thrown in Jail along with you), it's a bad thought.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Why not ./ the FBI? (Score:2)
But, With so many people asking how to rquest their files. And so many people worried about the UL that requesting your file creates one if you don't already have one....
Why don't we test their ability to deal with a paper based DOS attack? Ok, that's pretty harsh language, but imagine what they'd do if even 50% of the people reading this site sent in requests. They'd be overwhelmed. Sure the net effect would be to just slow down the response to our requests, but it could be interesting to watch them try to open that many new files.
I'm not trying to suggest anyone actually do this, and I know I woulden't try to organize it. But as a gedankenexperiment (that's a lot tougher to spell that I though, and I though it was two words...any arguments see www.m-w.com). it's deffinatly something interesting.
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:2)
--
Re:A little beef with your whine. (Score:2)
Actually, no. If you look at countries which have survived communism, they've typically done far worse than they would have been. No where is this more evident than in East Germany. Both East and West Germany had very similar demographics prior the entrance of Communism, but immediately after the fall of Communism, East Germany was a good 50 years behind, both economically, socially, and technologically. Or ummm, not quite as evenly, Hong Kong to its neighbooring China. Or Romania...I could go on. Russia produced very little in the way of technological innovation. In fact, they were so incapable and inefficient, that they even had to steal most of their military technology from the US. Their space program was the result of _huge_ expenditures, it was far from efficient, and can be regarded as an aberration, and it was quickly outdone by the US.
To compare the USSR to Brazil though is a major oversight. South America is too new and underdeveloped, and it is also poorly situated. Contrast this with Russia, which has tons of resources, neighboors Europe (the developed world), a pre-existing educated class, etc.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect instant results in Russia just because the laws allow for capitalism. There is more to a modern capitalist society than just the legal mechanisms. You need a society in which you can depend on certain things, such as your suppliers not cheating you, your shop not getting robbed, etc. The fact of the matter is that Russia was always a highly corrupt place, and communism only increased it. You combine the lack of the ability to trust even the police, and workforce that is too accustomed to Communism (read: highly inefficient and unproductive), and you're going to have real problems. Despite all the failings though of modern day Russia, it will likely improve, whereas Communist russia was living on borrowed time and borrowed money--it was bound to fail.
As for the rest of your arguments, I don't have time. Perhaps later tonight....
Re:real world case (Score:2)
IMO, most people get way too worked up when they hear about how many citizens the FBI maintains files on. Just because they've got a file on somebody doesn't mean that they're being watched and that their privacy is being invaded...it just means that they've done something that got their attention, and that they've made a note of it in case any problems arise later. No big deal!
Re:Because it isn't surprising (Score:2)
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Hmmm, let say you wanted to stand on a street corner and shout about how the US gov needs to be overthrown and that Washington DC should be bombed. At that point, the FBI is probably going to look into your background to see if you have any ties to terrorist organizations, or if you're simply a wacko blowing off steam. How does this trample your first amendment rights? Now, if they physically dragged you downtown and grilled you for 18 hours I'd say it's pretty obvious that your rights have been trampled, but as long as they didn't interfere with your right to say it, the constitution hasn't been violated.
And now the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There's one key word in that amendment that makes everything the FBI does legal: Unreasonable . What is unreasonable? More importantly to this discussion, what is reasonable? Unreasonable is fairly obvious. If the FBI walks in your front door and starts looking for documents in your filing cabinets that connect you to Osama Bin Laden, then that's DEFINITELY unreasonable and they'd damned well better have a warrant. But what if they simply looked into the persons past? What if the FBI had suspicions that some Pakistani immigrant had terrorist ties? Would it be unreasonable for them to contact the Pakistani government and request a copy of his criminal record? IMO, the answer is no. That falls under the realm of reasonable. They have a suspicion (but not much else) that someone might be up to no good, so they try to collect some more information to either substantiate or repudiate those suspicions. I not only accept these types of actions by our government, but I'd consider them lax in their duties if they weren't doing it!
I guess it depends on the kind of world you really want to live in. If we were to prevent law enforcement from tracking suspicious people in this country, then we remove the only real tool law enforcement has to prevent terrorist and criminal activites before they happen. Do you REALLY want some guy to be able to fly here from Sudan, buy 1500 pounds of fertilizer, and blow up a building before the FBI can look into him? If you're saying that it's a violation of our rights to have the FBI look into potentially suspicious activities and people, then that's exactly what you're advocating. How important would that terrorists rights be to you if it was YOUR wife or daughter killed in that blast? I would MUCH rather live in a world where the FBI kept tabs on the guy and nailed him before he detonated the bomb. Unfortunately, this is only possible so long as law enforcement has the right to track people who may not have technically broken any laws.
I believe the spot were currently in is euphamistically called "between a rock and a hard place". There's no really happy way out, but our current situation is a heck of a lot better than the alternative.
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
(Oh, and FYI, if you have a bank account, you usually have a good means of getting papers notarized either for free or inexpensively...banks maintain their own notaries for the use of their customers and such.)
Re:real world case (Score:2)
The obvious reply is - so what? I can follow you home if I want to. If I see you on the street, I can watch where you go and note the address. As far as looking at the electric bills, well, that's a little harder to rationalize. But still, your electric bill is hardly highly personal - or is it?
If the assumption is made that growing pot is Very Bad, and Harmful To Society (think of the children!), then we need to be protected from those who would grow it. It's not like the feds are just bashing down random doors here, they're conducting surviellance in a public place, and "fishing" for suspects. Assuming they've found a quantity of "fresh stuff" somewhere, they almost seem to have cause. Obviously, somebody nearby grew the stuff.
Racial profiling (driving while black) is another side of this issue, however. I think the distinction can be made that just because you're black doesn't mean you're worth investigating for auto theft. But if you frequent (or even visit?) a place that sells equiptment useful for growing marijuana, and we *know* somebody's growing dope, it might be worth checking your electrical bill.
Don't forget that driving while black is also different because we'd assume whether or not you've stolen the car, you're going to get harrased (pulled over and forced to deal with an arrogant cop). If you're in fact innocent of growing pot, you may never know you were being watched.
As for the bolt cutters, I don't know. They're no more legitimate than hydroponics systems (or should I say hydro systems are no less legitimate than bolt cutters), but the procedure to find out if you're using them illegally is much more difficult - following you everywhere, all the time. With the hydro stuff, they just look at the bill and try to find out whether or not your sucking up juice for a huge array of High-Pressure Sodium bulbs or not.
Anybody care to sort this out, I'm gonna go smoke a joint and find me some bolt cutters.
Violent revolution IS a basic principle in communi (Score:2)
Um, no. Contrary to what opposing propaganda may claim, communism is about economic equality. It isn't about violence.
But in The Communist Manifesto:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
And that is just the most blatant one I could find in a second. Check out the manifesto [colorado.edu] yourself. A simple search for "violent" should do the trick.
Re:Could he have been? (Score:2)
But, and here's the schtick, many people would. People, in general, seem to like the idea of having someone take care of them, be that someone the State, the Nazi Party or God. People, in general, seem to fall for the doctrine of equality very easily, while tending against individualism. This is why the "people's dictatorship" always ends up meaning something along the lines of "mob rule". Human nature, y'know... it sucks. But that's not Marx's fault. Scientific socialism is the perfect economic system for a perfect world... just as the public domain is the perfect license for a perfect world. Practice is a bitch, isn't it?
Re:Violent revolution IS a basic principle in comm (Score:2)
Technology and economy: an overtly optimistic rant (Score:2)
someday, maybe not so far ahead in the future, it will be possible for all neccessities of life to be produced by machines with little or no human work required.
Farms will be able to farm themselves. Factories will churn out processed foods by themselves, and the supermarkets will stock themselves or a person's grocery
order will simply be delivered directly without need for human drivers or deliverymen. The same will hold true for clothing and other manufactured goods. It's
surely possible to develop factories that not only operate by themselves but also quality check and maintain themselves. Same thing for power generation and
construction. Some human supervision might be required, but we would be talking about a small percentage of the population. The trouble is that this model is
fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. Aside from the teachers and doctors and policemen and lawyers, etc. what would the vast bulk of the population do
for work. Would we all be working in service jobs of one kind or another just to keep a farce of an economic system running? How would things work? What could
Capitalism possibly do for us in that situation?
Not that Communism would really apply either. Communism was designed with the working class in mind, but the future I envision doesn't really have a working
class. There would have to be an entirely new system. Whatever the new system will be, it will be an extremely bumpy road to get there from Capitalism. Maybe
we won't get there, maybe we'll just end up total slaves to a fraction of the population who own the machines (built by other machines with material harvested by
machines) and the land. Maybe not, who knows. But Capitalism is not the only answer, it's just one system of many, that more or less works at the present time,
but it may be outdated some day.
Yes. Specifically, all current economic systems assume that the economy is a zero-sum game, and that work is a fact of life. With sufficiently advanced technology, that's not the case.
So, when self-replicating, intelligent machines come to being, the concept of an economy will become obsolete in and of itself; no one people will need to work at all in order to support a luxurious lifestyle. Sounds great, eh? Not quite.
As the authors of Beyond Humanity, Earl and Cox, point out, this kind of thing will put humanity into a large-scale "Seinfeld", where everyone has everything they want, but no one has anything to do. Eventually, Earth will bore us, and space isn't much interesting either for a bunch of hairless apes in slow ships. In essence, barring miraculous invention of faster-than-light travel, we have really nothing to do but sit around and stare for a few million years more (and maybe pray to a few gods while we're at it). Or maybe we'll just find another excuse to fight amongst ourselves.
The alternative? Mass uploading of the human race into nano-engineered immortal superbodies, making cybergods of us all. With all the time in the world in our hands, we can all go do whatever we feel like doing, with nothing to hold us back. Think big - think exploration of all the galaxies, Dyson spheres, pyrotechnics with supernovae, computing with neutron stars.
Now that sounds fun.
Re:Addendum (Score:2)
Well, depends on what you consider to be "for naught". Canada is still part of the British Commonwealth, isn't it? Anyway, most successful revolutionary movements start to crumble the moment a replacement government rises to power... this was the case with all revolutionary movements I can think of. Human nature, I suppose. But that still doesn't mean the revolutions were "for naught".
Assuming you're American, I doubt you'd understand that.
Well, you don't need to go around assuming, when you can just look at my email address. Does it look like an US email address? No, didn't think so...
So your argument that violence is necessary to achieve some ideological goals still doesn't hold water. [Snip Lennon].
Well, generally I tend to agree, but there let's see how warm n' fuzzy and pacifist you feel when the French monarchy or the British empire or the Russian Tzar are fucking you over... nobody likes to be fucked over. Anyway, "violence" of some kind, whether physical or not, is always inevitable... the key lies in knowing how much violence is too much, I think.
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:2)
As other posters have pointed out, none of this was actually Marxism. We're talking about totalitarian oligarchies, dictatorships of the State thinly disguised under socialist-ish political and economical practice. An example system which bears much more resemblance to Marx's actual proposals is the kibbutz system in Israel, a semi-open socialistic regime which, I must admit, still works very well (despite some drawbacks in the recent past, having to do with the transition to industrial production and the progressive integration of the Palestines into the economy). (By the way, yes, I've been to Israel. Most of my family lives there.)
In North America (where I assume you are from)
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm from Brazil. By the way, the Brazilian communists have a lot of first-hand experience in fighting fascist dictatorships... it's a dark, sad story.
Again, I must disagree with your claim that communism is in itself violent. At the risk of offending you, I say it's rather like claiming that all of the above mentioned "communist" states also forbid all religious practice, and therefore atheism is violent - it's a confusion of correlation and cause.
(By the way, I have traveled most of Brazil myself, as well as many other countries. I must say I find your "advice" rather insulting.)
Re:Could he have been? (Score:2)
I Am Not A Humanities Major (IANAHM), but Marx came up with the dictatorship of the proletariat. There's a big difference there. Theoretically (theoretically), what the collective decides is best for all will be done. Theoretically.
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:2)
Marx claimed that, in order for the current regime to be overthrown, violence would be necessary. The Bolsheviks agreed. That doesn't make it a part of the communist or socialist doctrines themselves.
I take your comment about my "goodness" as sarcasm... All I am saying is that we should lock up people who are bent on "violent overthrow". I'm sure laws exist on
the books prohibiting "plotting armed insurrection".
Of course there is. There were also British and French laws prohibiting plotting armed insurrection in the 18th century, but that didn't stop the French or American revolutions. My point is, some laws are meant to be broken, and some times, drastic measures must be taken.
As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence as the primary means to an end, I believe such people should
have the "freedom to" do whatever they wish.
However, if they are violent, as I have been taught communists and early socialists generally are, I believe our "freedom from" them is more important. Even in a
democratic society, it is not unreasonable to outlaw such organisations.
I'm sorry, but I've yet to meet a violent communist. (Now, violent fascists - those are a dime a dozen.) Most communists and socialists I know are level-headed, well-cultured people interested in the best for society. Just because there are violent communists doesn't mean communism should be banned, now does it?
A value judgement. I hope you share it.
I don't... I hope you understand why.
(By the way: I'm sticking with the "communist" term as a synonym for "Marxist".)
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
Forbidden! (Score:2)
When I visit http://foia.fbi.gov/alpha.htm, [fbi.gov] I get:
Freedom of what? Maybe I need to file a formal FOIA request in order to view the page.
Page 23 of Einstein's file (Score:2)
"[...] the files of this Division, therefore, contain no information relative to the activities of Dr. Einstein in the United States in connection with the Communist Party. [...]"
:)
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
They won't let me see 'em... (Score:2)
If they won't let you download the files without checking who you are first, what do you think they're doing with the web log data?
(sending this quick before the fbi DOS'es my machine...)
Re:Wow, this isn't old news, its already decompose (Score:2)
I bow before his enlightenedness.*grovel, grovel*
Dude, its still pretty cool and I'm betting that at least a couple slashdot readers haven't seen it. Maybe you should post somewhere else and leave us lOsers to our non-news.
Thank you.
CmdrTaco's File (Score:2)
It's probably white, black, and dark-green, Rob.
*rimshot!*
Re:Could he have been? (Score:2)
Re:real world case (Score:2)
One might think that lawmakers would observe that those states with fewer restrictions on citizens ability to defend themselves tend to suffer less violent crime, and remove such restrictions in their own states; but this would be assuming that politicians are capable of rational thought based on factual observation. Ha.
(I direct readers interested in the subject to my recent piece "Disarm the police. Arm the citizens." [unreasonable.org] Stop by, have a read, leave a comment, help bang on the weblog system I'm hacking together.)
And I seem to recall that violent crime in the UK has increased since these restrictions went into effect.Re:real world case (Score:2)
Gun control laws keep guns away from bad guys about as well as drug control laws keep heroin away from junkies, while keeping law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.
Our problem isn't guns in the hand of good citizens. Our problems are the complete breakdown of the socioeconomic structures in our inner cities, the huge gap between the urban underclass and the rest of the nation, lingering rascism, and our insane drug policy. A lot of young men in the high crime innce cities don't expect to live to see thirty - they don't have much incentive to not perpitrate violent crime.
Excuse me? Do you mean that in the UK, it has always been the case that if an innocent citizen was being charged by a knife-wielding attacker and there was a gun nearby, the innocent would be not only legally compelled to be stabbed rather than shoot, he would actually do so? I find both parts of that assertation incredible. Um, the law doesn't allow that here either. (Well, maybe in Texas.)Interesting stuff from einstein4.pdf (Score:2)
"Science has brought forth this danger, but the real problem is in the minds and hearts of men. We will not change the hearts of men by mechanisms, but by changing our hearts and speaking bravely. When we are clear in out heart and mind -- only then shall we find courage to surmount the fear which haunts the world."
The Army Weekly Intelligence Summary #81 said of the American Crusade to End Lynching (which Einstein co-chaired with Paul Robeson) "in the view of some of the endorsers, this crusade had all the earmarks of another Communist attempt to instill racial friction"
check this out too (Score:2)
Re:In the interest of starting a worthwhile thread (Score:2)
The LAPD was caught wiretapping phones in LAX looking for drugs. They got a warrant, and tapped
150,000 phone calls. Of course they made hundreds of drug arrests, but the vast majority of the calls were made by law-abiding citizens. I believe that monitoring citizens for unamerican activity is unfair at any level. Think of it, it's not really a "karma" rating. Look at it more as the "Slashdot Subversiveness Scale."
Yeah, actually it was a lovely lie... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
The guys who were convicted were anarchists, and the whole thing is sketchy to this day. Every once in a while someone will complain about it.
I don't remember the guys (alleged kidnappers) names exactly ... saco and panzetti? paco and sanzetti? Something like that. I think they were executed or something.
Re:Wow, this isn't old news, its already decompose (Score:2)
Re:Wow, this isn't old news, its already decompose (Score:2)
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? Priceline?
Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:2)
First of all, I am Quaker and a member of AFSC (American Friends Service Committee), so I probably know better than you do about what Quakers and AFSC do. :-) Guess that means I must be a 'devious radical left-winger', eh?
First of all I don't refute that many Quakers and AFSC have a lot of left-wing ideas. SO WHAT???? Your ridiculous post lies on the basic assumption that all left-wingers should be watched by the FBI because they are a danger to the nation. What the hell!? It is not the FBI's right to bother people with different political ideas. As far as I can tell, it is the FBI's job to prevent illegal acts, violence, etc. Quakerism is based completely on non-violence in all respects. Quakers do not support ANY type of violence. AFSC, in fact, teaches courses on non-violence not only for holding protests, but also to inner city children to use in their own lives, for example. Quakers and AFSC do not allow for violence at all in their methods. They also do not promote illegal activities. A few Quakers do choose to take non-violent protest to the extent of participating in "non-violent civil disobedience". This is not something that is harming the country. It is a way of making a political point. Much like having the deCSS code available on one's website. Just because a person or organization has different political ideas from your own, does not mean that they are trying to harm the country, provoke violence, etc. Your comments about AFSC (and others, for the matter) posing a "clear threat to the welfare of the nation" are entirely lacking support.
Just a couple other minor things to clear up so you can better understand Quakerism:
Quakers don't try to become confused with the Amish. What a ridiculous accusation!? Why would any Quaker do that! The confusion comes from the fact that Quakers believe in "living simply", which does not mean without things like electricity. It just means trying to avoid excess so that the excess can be given to those who need it. Perhaps some of the confusion also comes from a certain company that likes to put pictures of Amish or Quakers from many many years ago on their oatmeal boxes. ;-)
I'm not going to bother arguing about whether or not Quakerism is a branch of Christianity. Does it really matter??? It is a religion. Who cares if it is a branch of some other religion? I can tell you though that no one is trying to confuse you about whether or not Quakers are Christians. Its just that many Quakers do believe in the divinity of Christ and do consider the bible an important source, so they consider themselves Christians.
Hmm, (Score:2)
--
Speaking of Steal This Book . . . (Score:2)
S(h)elf Help Guide - The Smart Lifter's Handbook by Gabor Caime and Gabor Ghone
(It says, "If you paid for this book, you might learn something! If not, take it back -- you don't need it." Probably commercially smarter advice than "steal this.")
Check it out here: [trixnet.com]
Re:Who's Listed? (Score:2)
Re:Could he have been? (Score:2)
While there is nothing theoretical that says Communism must be non-violent -- practically it has to be. In the end, there will have to be people with guns to enforce any sort of procedure of eliminating private property. Or, put another way: They have to come at me with guns before they take away my house, those lousy pinko bastards! =) Whereas socialism works more subtly, achieving some degree of equality without resorting to violence.
(Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, not a communist. Do not flame.)
Me too, but being a libertarian doesn't mean you get exempted from flames! =)
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
Francis Hwang
Re:die commie pinko scum! (Score:2)
> share the dead carcases of animals with others?
Do you think that early humans didn't share with
their fellow man, at least within their communal
groups?
> Little babies are greedy too. Try having your
> average 2 year old share.
A two year old has already learned ALOT from his
fammily. Remember...at age 0 a baby starts with
almost nothing...very little in the way of
instincs. It takes many 2 years before they even
learn to speak in simple sentances. Even motor
control of most muscles is still being learned.
2 years is plenty of time for them to start
picking up on behaviours and pattenrs of things.
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:2)
> any other political movement in the history of
> the 20th century.
Like what exactly? Or are we attributing the
atrocities of every iron fisted dictator who
ever decided to call himself communist to
communism itself?
I supose then we should say that christianity is
evil because some people who call themselves
christian have committed atrocities?
> The horrors of Nazi Germany that still terrify
> most of the western world were derrived from the
> "Big Brother" - and who is that but the Friend
> and the Teacher, Josef Jugashvili-Stalin.
A) NAZIs are National Socialists. They were not
communists, and one of the tenents of communism
is not "persecute and murder anyone who oposes
you"
B) Stalin was a totalitarian dictator not a
communist.
He called himself a communist, thats just because
it is popular. Many fascist politicans in this
country call themselves liberal or conservative.
Not because they know what the word means or
would agree with a real liberal or conservative
if they met one...just cuz its "in style".
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:2)
> centralized in one group of hands.
Communism is not Communism!
What I mean is not all communism is the same.
Einstein was said to have affiliation with an
anarcho-communist group.
anarcho-communism is VERY differnt from
state-communism.
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
if you have ever seen the move "the Rock" its
the stuff that was being used.
Nasty shit...has a maximum safe level of
something like
very deadly. The patent for it was declassified
in 1975...yea.
Only 1 known death from VX...a Japanese cult
member who had left the cult. The cult mixed
up some VX and killed him with it.
(I am told by friends who were in the military
to not believe that he is the ONLY known death...
just the only publicly known one)
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:2)
> it's that "I want something, but there's not
> enough to go around". Hence we use a market to
> allocate resources
Which sounds great as you explain it...but...
what about when there is plenty to go around?
We apply the "market" idea to everything,
regardless of scarcity.
Personally...I don't think money is all that
great of a motivating factor. Those who are
highly motivated by money. People are much more
motivated by a desire to be productive and
fullfill their basic needs of food, shelter etc.
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:2)
> proletariat, as well as the necessity of a
> violent overthrow of the capitalist system.
> The ideology of communism and socialism has
> been violent from the start
Marx is not the be all and end all of communism.
He wasn't even the start of communism. Marx was
more of a Communist philosopher/realist than
the previous philosophers.
In fact his advocacy of violent overthow was
partially a reaction to other philosophers who
he saw as silly, as they advocated just starting
nice little utopian communist communities (ie
communes) and showing the world by example how
it would work.
> As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence
> as the primary means to an end, I believe
> such people should have the "freedom to" do
> whatever they wish.
However...your capitalist/republic system has
violence inherent in it. Where does law get its
force? What makes the old men, senators and
congressmen any diffent from a bunch of
grandfathers sitting in a lodge talking about how
the world should be?
The difference: men with guns.
What is a law? A law is nothing more than a threat
the threat that "If you do (or don't do) X then
men with guns will visit violence upon you"
(I call locking a person up in a cell a pretty
damned violent act)
The threat of violence, and the use of
violence are the foundations of the system. What
makes the current system's violence "justified"
and that of anothers ideals not? Was the
constitution handed down to George Washington
by God himself? Is it now a devine document
specifing thegreater law of the universe?
In essence the government, any government, is no
differnt then a bunch of armed thugs. Sure...we
can "Vote" to change who the thugs are...we can
even somewhat influcnce what they do by
threatening to replace them...in the end they
are still abunch of corrupt armed thugs.
Re:You have not read Marx lately then (Score:2)
> series of inevitable revolutions of the working
> class, each time resulting in a fairer society
> until you finally get to a completely fair
> communist state.
A) Actually Marxist Communism does...not communism
in general
B) Very good point. Marx was not advocating that
violent overthrow happen...he was stating his
belief that this was the inevitable result of
class strugle. Not that it SHOULD happen but that
it WOULD happen.
Anyone who has read the communist manifesto should
be able to see that clearly, he believed that all
of history so far has been the history of class
strugle (the thesis of the document actually) and
that the inevitable result is a classless system.
Re:Einstein a communist! (Score:2)
> abundant, since there's a scarcity of skill &
> talent in the world.
I tend to disagree. Information is a resource
which, once created, can be multiplied enough for
everyone at almost zero cost. Perhaps there is
scarcity of new information, as talented people
are needed to create it...but...once created,
any scarcity of that information is completely
artifical.
Denial of information act (Score:2)
I just downloaded and read the Lennon files and the Roswell file. Roswell is exactly one page long reporting that a suspicious weather baloon with an attached hexagonal radar device was found and being transported to a military base, it also notes that major networks are picking up on the story...thats it.......
Lennon's files is many pages (~80?) and has lots of pages left blank claiming it was covered in some other document, many others have a lot of black ink applied. Whats left? Lots of analysis about groups planning to organize peace concerts, lyrics from Lennons songs at these concerts, discussion as to whether or not he was illegally bugged, his afiliation and philanthropy to a new leftist organization planning a rally at the republican convention, newspaper articles, reports on what John said on the Michael Douglass show, that he does "narcs", etc etc.
One page had large handwriting proclaiming that "All extremists are dangerous". Many reports are written by SA (secret agent) XXXblacked outXXX. I can't believe these secret agents actually spent their time reporting on Lennon's peace efforts.
If anyone finds some really interesting stuff in here please note the page number of the PDF of interest so we don't all waste an hour trying to find the juice.
Beware of ballet dancers... (Score:2)
Only cryptic to people who can't read Russion.
- tokengeekgrrl
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions
Re:You're considered guilty until proven inncoent (Score:2)
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:2)
How old must these files be before they're opened? (Score:2)
There's some good reading in here... (Score:2)
I hope whoever wrote this wasn't taken seriously. I wonder if all the files have language like this. Wonder what they have to say about Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Tim O'Reilly, etc. (listed in no particular order, of course)
Re:How old must these files be before they're open (Score:2)
I'm quite sure the FBI has their own files on these gentlemen. Perhaps even you & I fall under their scrutiny. To their credit, they knew better than to participate in such a raid. At the risk of being redundant, let me quote from The Top Ten Media Errors About the SJ Games Raid [sjgames.com]
My point was merely that these files (such as can actually be opened) don't seem to be opened until the principals are deceased. They don't contain any useful information, no revelations, nothing really that can't already be found in history books. Fun things to read there, but nothing enlightening, certainly nothing about the people we know they consider to be truly threatening.
Re:An issue of violence, not ideology. (Score:2)
Obviously you're not from Eastern Europe. Or Vietnam. Or North Korea. Cuba... I could go on.
In North America (where I assume you are from), communism is more of a fashion statement than a way of life. I strongly recommend you travel to any post-communist country, and walk the back roads there to see the scars.
I have been there. I have seen the graves. I saw the look of fear in peoples eyes at the smallest hint that communism would return. I have personally lost family members to communists. There has been so much harm done by communism that it awes the imagination.
Communism and socialism's failings were not in it's economic reforms, which have yet to be truly tested. It's the acceptance of violence as a good means to an ideological end. This embracing of violence by communism has caused more human suffering than anything else in the twentieth century.
Kaufmann, I sense you are an intelligent and fair minded person. I urge you to expand your horizons and travel the world, to see the works of communists who are more than just posers. Travel the back roads. Don't believe what communists or their opponents tell you. Go see for yourself what embracing violence does.
It will change you forever.
Had to say it (Score:3)
Of course not. That's the NSA's job now.
HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? (Score:3)
Look down the list: William Faulkner, Bertoldt Brecht, the American Friends' Service Committee. They're all leftists. Are you people seriously trying to claim that it is not the role of the FBI to keep tabs on people who are fundamentally at war with the United States? Hello?! These files are relics of a nearly-forgotten time when the FBI defended this nation. The FBI you see through these files is not the degenerate radical group now laboring to abolish the sacred liberties for the sake of which our nation was founded.
Can any rational person doubt that the American Friends Service Committee [afsc.org] is a radical leftist organization? The so-called "Society of Friends" (better known as the Quakers) have managed to disinform the American public to the point where most of us get them mixed up with the Amish (to whom they bear no resemblance, believe me), but that's just clever propaganda. Look at their web site. Follow the link above and see for yourself. They describe themselves as "committed to social justice". I think we all know enough about left-wing cant to recognize that as a committment to paternalistic big-government interventionism, a managed economy, affirmative action, gun-control, and all the other crap the left wants to chain us with. Not only that, but it looks like they're in pretty good with Iraq, huh? They're in pretty good with the UN, too.
The AFSC has been involved in more left-wing causes in the last century than any other known group, including the infamous Students for a Democratic Society -- another deviously misnamed radical left-wing cabal.
The Quakers pose as Christians, but they're not. They're a cult. They reject the Biblically-based doctrine of salvation by faith alone. I'm sorry, but if you reject a basic tenet of the Christian religion, you're not a Christian. I don't care if you accept the divinity of Christ and all that: It's all or nothing. Now, I'm not a Christian myself and I really don't care if they worship John Belushi, it's all the same to me -- but they are lying when they claim to be Christian, and lying is a problem for me. What are they trying to hide? It's clear enough from their web site.
As for the others, Brecht was a well-known, life-long German Socialist and a professional propagandist through the medium of his plays. He's a favorite of left-wing academics to this day, for that reason alone. His work is utterly worthless except as left-wing propaganda. None of his plays were produced in his lifetime, and none have been produced since except in left-wing drama departments of Eastern colleges. When he was alive, he languished in utter (and well-deserved) obscurity.
William Faulkner was a leftist as well. Throughout his whole life he was involved in liberal and "progressive" causes such as integrationism and Federal intervention in the domestic affairs of the States.
All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation. Had the FBI neglected to maintain files on them, that agency would have been sorely remiss.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on the rogue agency which the FBI has since become. Nowadays they have entirely given up their legal and moral obligation to monitor (and occasionally neutralize) threats to this nation. Instead, they spend their time harrassing and killing innocent, law-abiding citizens at Ruby Ridge and elsewhere. The FBI of today is not the FBI which kept a close eye on Bertolt Brecht. The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation.
Times have changed.
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:3)
This is unless, of course, everyone on slashdot requests their FBI file, in which case you throw their data way off. But just to warn you.
David E. Weekly [weekly.org]
Bigger Question: How do we know what is available? (Score:3)
As a US citizen, how do we find out what all information is legaly available to us from our government? Is there any kind of faq, detailing the ways you can get types of info like this from the government (electronic, or not)? Like where to research declassified documents, and anything else that can be gotten under the foia? It is kind of sad--I'm a legal, voting, US citizen, but I have no idea what I am entitled to in terms of information.
Can some informed individual help me out here?
A little beef with your whine. (Score:3)
Yes, it failed. The reasons for its failure, however, extend far beyond just corruption and greed. Despite popular opinion, your entire communist country could be composed of people who're every bit as benevolent as mother theresa, and you'd still fail. The reason is quite simple: Central Planning doesn't work. No matter how nice the people in power (nor, for the matter, the workers) are, it doesn't mean they're going to (or capable of, even) allocating resources half efficiently.
You might very well find some who romanticise Communism. However, they're generally outsiders who don't know diddly about economics, and less yet about history (read: the actual realities of communism). I've known a few people who've survived communism, and damn few have happy tales to tell, from both inside and outside the US (including IN some of those ex-communist countries). Thousands lost their lives trying to flee countries like this, how many truely capitalist/republic-democratic nations have this hanging on them? Furthermore, have you ever travelled to any one of these communist countries? Virtually everyone I know, including myself, has been struck by one thing, the utter lack of vitality. Yes, they're poor, everyone knows this, but that can't be it. You don't see the same thing in Mexico, India, or other even poorer societies. Nor can the argument be made that it's just the cultures, that it'd be the same without communism. But witness East/West Berlin, there was (and still is to some extent) a night and day difference. In other words, there is something about communism that sucks the life right out of a society, and it ain't just economic failure!
The "witchhunt", although "bad", was not just a figment of McCarthy's imagination. There is TONS of evidence (read more FOIA documents if you dont believe me, or KGB interviews, etc) the KGB setting up shop in the US, with the intent to disrupt the US economy, and many other things. They did, in fact, have a massive number of important people in their pockets, spies, informers, etc. McCarthy represented a very real fear, and not totally unconfirmed fear either. Congress, the FBI, etc, had evidence then, which the general public is just beginning to some of it lately (from sources such as FOIA, ex-kgb, etc). McCarthy, despite his abuses, was, atleast in part, allowed as much slack as he was, because of the danger.
That being said, McCarthy was wrong, he went too far, by trampling on far too many innocent lives, and violating certain constitutional rights. But in the desire to smear McCarthy, you're doing no one, other than perhaps card carrying communists, any favors by forgetting (or ignoring) these simple facts. The bottom line: McCarthy was more than just a product of some minor (or even major) distrust of Communist/Socialist philosophy, it was fear of the USSR--don't confuse the two.
Also, remember: The mere fact, that, there is SOME irrational fear of Communism, doesn't make it benign. There is very strong empirical evidence, and intellectual, economic, philosophical, etc. arguments against it.
Funny server message (Score:3)
http://foia.fbi.gov/earhart/earhart1.pdf
--
grappler
Re:Could he have been? (Score:3)
Um, no. Contrary to what opposing propaganda may claim, communism is about economic equality. It isn't about violence. Bolchevism (not sure of the English spelling), the doctrine of the original Soviets, did advocate the violent and immediate overthrow of the old Russian regime, but that has nothing to do with scientific socialism as originated by Marx.
Maybe it's fairer to say that he was a socialist, or had socialist tendencies, without any of the violence inherent in either.
There is no violence inherent in socialism. From where did you pull this out?
Those of you who claim you are communists... Either you don't know what you are claiming, or you are very frightening individuals who should be locked up.
Well, it's nice to see that there are still good people like you advocating that those "frightening" deviants be shut up and locked up. God knows what might happen if people were allowed to hold the ideologies of their choice!
(Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, not a communist. Do not flame.)
Re:Could he have been? (Score:3)
In the beginning, in the US at least, it was violence that did away with a form of communism. The native americans didn't have any concept of land ownership, until homesteaders put fences around their farms and solidiers with guns kept the natives away.
Also, couldn't democracy be considered violent in this respect, as in, "you'll have to come at me with guns before I start obeying your democratically derived laws against doing what I want to do?"
Or capitalism: "You'll have to come at me with guns before I'll stop using warez and pay full price on this crappy shrink licensed software."
Any society, whether founded on capitalism, communsim, socialism, etc, eventually has to enforce it's agreed upon rules. I imagine the level of violence involved in accomplishing this varies, but it would exist at some level in any system.
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:3)
This may have happened, or it may just be just an urban legend. All I can do is cite my own experience: When I asked for my own FBI file a couple of years ago, they told me they had no files matching my name. Maybe they did, and were lying, or maybe they started a file based on my letter, and lied about it. Or maybe FOIA requests out of curiosity are common enough these days that making one is no longer considered suspicious behavior.
I have to admit being a little disappointed about not having a file (though I'm currently appealing the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of any files on my grandfather). The implicit meaning of this, of course, is that the FBI thinks I'm powerless enough as to not bother monitoring -- I'd almost rather be considered a threat.
Francis Hwang
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:5)
First, type up a letter to both your Local FBI office, as well as FBI Headquarters.
Say in the letter you want to request any information being held on you on behalf of the Freedom of Information Privacy Acts. Word it professionally, so it's easily understood.
Within 4 weeks you should get a confirmation paper that they've received your request:
[X] This acknowledged your Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request submitted to the FBI.
After 6 to 8 weeks (maybe sooner) you'll get a packet (if applicable) with your info.
Unfortunately, the FOIPA doesn't apply to certain information, so anything they don't want you to see gets blacked out.
Some facts (From the FBI FILE FACT SHEET) BEFORE you send off for your file:
- The primary function of the FBI is law enforcement.
The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.
- An FBI identification record or "rap sheet" is NOT the same as an FBI "file" - It is simply a listing of information taken from fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal employment, naturalization, or military service.
Oh, and another thing to remember: If FBI HQ doesn't have a file on you, check with the field offices near you, or where you've lived.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
In the interest of starting a worthwhile thread.. (Score:5)
Is it ethical to investigate people apart from their connection in some crime? I "suspiciousness" enough cause to warrent a full-scale investigation, or does a government agency need more focus to perform such operations and remain in the ethical right?
The immediate reaction is often "no! just because somebody looks sort of suspicious is no reason to invade their privacy (and perhaps trample their rights)!"
OTOH, what is the harm in a little investigation, assuming no overt action is taken? Isn't it better to "know" that so-and-so is either a criminal or not? If the investigator believes that some (suspicious) person *might* pose a threat to Society At Large(tm), AND the investigation is to be carried out discreetly, such that if nothing is found to be wrong, nobody will ever know, should s/he investigate or not?
More importantly - why?
I'm really not sure. That's why I ask.
And yes, I know where rec.philosophy.ethics is.
How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:5)
You're considered guilty until proven inncoent ... (Score:5)
The famous nightclub entertainer was thought to be involved in communist activities, however, no evidence was ever found that proved otherwise.
I've read it again, and again, and I still see something that baffles the constitution.
Murphy(c)
Or maybe it's just me....
Pages 22 and 23 are choice! (Score:5)
You've got to read pages 22 and 23 of the first Einstein document. To get to page 22 you read 21 pages of wild, filed accusations, more or less to the effect that Einstein is sort of a super-Lenin who could conceivably destroy this Fair Republic should he ever step foot across the border, so no, NO, NO he must NEVER be permitted admission to these blessed United States. There's a letter from a mad professor at Princeton which claims that Relativity has a (left-wing) "metaphysical factor and if that is the case it can have no physical validity whatsoever." 21 pages thus far of 92 in document number one of twelve. Them's a lot of pages, folks.
OK! On Page 22 the Sheriff of Ventura County California send a letter to J. Edgar Hoover, asking for reassurance:
Several of (Einstein's) admirers in this County have approached me and asked me to establish if possible definitely whether or not there is any basis for these statements (that Einstein is a Communist). These particular people are very good Americans and do not care to allow their children to idolize him if he is of this character."
To which the Director replied:
Dear Sheriff:
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 24, 1934, with reference to Communistic activities to this country on the part of Dr. Einstein.
There is no Federal legislation in effect at the present time under which so-called radical or Communistic activities are subject to investigation on the part of this Division, and the files of this Division, therefore, contain no information relative to the activities of Dr. Einstein in the United States in connection with the Communist Party.
I regret that I am unable to furnish you with the information desired. Inasmuch as Communist activities are handled by local law enforcement agencies, it is possible that the New York City Police Department may have some information concerning the subject matter about which you inquire.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover
Director
Now wasn't that a lovely lie? God Bless America.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:How _DO_ I get mine????? (Score:5)
ORDER PROCESS: This System of records has been exempted from the access procedures of subsections (d) and (e)(4)(H) of the Privacy Act, to the extent permitted by subsections (j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of the Privacy Act. A first-party request for access to a non-exempt record from the System should be made in writing with the envelope and the letter clearly marked "Privacy Act Request." Include in the request your full name, complete address, date of birth, place of birth, notarized signature, other identifying data you may wish to furnish to assist in making a proper search of the records, and a return address for transmitting the information. All other requests for information from the System should be made in writing pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. All requests for access to information maintained at FBI Headquarters must be addressed to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535- 0001. All requests for information maintained in FBI field divisions or Legal Attaches must be made separately and addressed to the specific field division or Legal Attache.
Let me know how it goes....
I wonder what my file looks like... (Score:5)
UNITED STATES CONFIDENTIAL FILE:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PERSONAL FILE OF: ROBERT MALDA (A.K.A. CMDR TACO)
BORN: GRAND RAPIDS GENERAL HOSPITAL, APRIL 1, 1976
IMPLICATED IN: CONSPIRING TO OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT BY SUBVERTING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
CONCLUSION: Probably conspires with Osama bin Laden and uncaptured Unabomber (not scapegoat Kaczinsky) to undermine and overthrow U.S. Government. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Proceed with caution as to not throw target into hacking fit. Possible revelation to public of location of ECHELON HQ.