backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by eye smite.. on Feb 26 at 12:23 AM

The Federal Bureau of Investigation announces its intention to create a stronger, better, faster database using biometric data

Biometrics is already something of a buzz word, with more and more of its applications in places like train stations, airports and even Walt Disney World.  Governmental agencies borrowed the word as of late for more interesting projects: identifying people based on intrinsic physical or behavioral traits.

The FBI in particular is no exception, the agency plans to award a 10-year contract with a one billion dollar tab to expand the quantity and quality of its biometric data.

Biometric information can include many things such as fingerprints, palm prints, iris and corneal scans, facial structure, noticeable markings, stride and even innocuous personal behavior like typing rhythm and mouse gestures. The project, dubbed Next Generation Identification (NGI), is set to gather all types of bio-data and store in one location for identification and forensics purposes.

The database would be accessible by many law enforcement and government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, which already uses iris scans at airports to allow people who have passed background checks to move through airport security more quickly; and the Defense Department, which has been collecting data on Iraqi and Afghan detainees for the past two years.

The database could be used to identify known or suspected criminals or terrorists by matching facial structure, iris scans or the gait of walk via cameras in places of interest like bus stations or airports. The eventual goal will be to identify threats in real-time without human intervention.

Detractors to the FBI's plans claim that such a database has many pitfalls. Gathered data, if incorrect or stolen, could prove a serious problem for ordinary citizens that become victims of the system's imperfections.

The new database differs from the TALON database forced out of operation last September.  Whereas TALON stored data on individuals as reported by field officers, NGI's data will largely stem from autonomous data acquisition sources -- like cameras and sensors.  However, data from NGI will be used in conjunction with entries in the Bureau's Guardian Threat Tracking System; a database that took over TALON's entries after its demise.

"It's going to be an essential component of tracking. It's enabling the Always On Surveillance Society," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union in a Washington Post article last week.

While the idea does ring of an Orwellian society, agencies like the Department of Homeland Security would benefit from such an overt system, should it work as planned. The FBI is working with the West Virginia University Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) to make live scanning a reality. CITeR is working on scanning processes that would be able to identify a person by iris scan at up to 15 feet and face-shape by 200 yards. The Center will begin to work with the FBI on biometric research in the near future.

Voicing in on access and privacy concerns, Thomas E. Bush III, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division stated "we have very stringent laws that control who can go in there and to secure the data." Presently over 900,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers have access to the FBI's fingerprint database. The number could increase as more agencies and officials gain access to the growing biometrics database.

More than just privacy advocates have shown disdain for the database.  A recent study in Germany using facial recognition technology garnered a 60 percent matches success rate during optimal lighting conditions. The accuracy plummeted as low as 10 percent in low-light situations. The German law-enforcement agency tolerated a false positive rate of 0.1 percent, or 23 people of the roughly 23,000 that passed through the train station where the study was done.

Homeland security and false identification of criminals aside, the system could have other merits if used by other federal and state institutions like hospitals and missing persons units. Various biometric data could be used to identify victims of crimes, along with possible evidence towards their culprits, or to find missing or runaway children who might happen to pass through an area with an active scanning system.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By FITCamaro on 12/26/2007 7:57:24 PM , Rating: -1
Then leave the country. I've got no problem with it. Anything to make us safer. Yes shit can happen. But I think the benefits far outweigh the risks. A database thats accessible nationwide by law enforcement can help speed in the identification of individuals caught by law enforcement.

And I'd love it if in an airport, sensors could capture your retinal pattern as you walked by and ID you. For one it can help prove you are where you say you are. Two it would be extremely difficult to fake without it being detectable. And three, then those criminals who we've managed to obtain their retinal pattern and are looking for will be ID'd instantly. No matter what their physical appearance.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Egger on 12/26/2007 8:06:23 PM , Rating: 5
It can also prove you aren't who you say you are, and that you aren't where you say you are, or even that you aren't where you are. Being at two places at once (due to database/scanning/fraudulent error) must suck from both a quantum physics standpoint, and for tax purposes.

Acknowledging cultural, social, individual etc. differences is a must for diversity and development, but overcoming them on an educational level (parental or formal) is mandatory for the continued existence of such diversity. Branding is where things go wrong, hence in this scenario once you have submitted your information, you are who THEY say you are, not who you think you are.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By JohnnyCNote on 12/26/2007 8:13:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then leave the country.


The last time I checked we still have freedom of speech in the US, meaning, among other things, that we can express our disagreement with the government whenever we wish. Or is that only valid as long as those who are exercising their rights happen to agree with you?

Did it ever occur to you (and others who like to tell people to leave) that we'd prefer to work with the remedies offered by our Constitution when we happen to disagree with a particular policy or law? That is, after all, what this document's authors had in mind.

quote:
A database thats accessible nationwide by law enforcement can help speed in the identification of individuals caught by law enforcement.


We have one. It's called the National Crime Information Center, or NCIC for short. Having worked in the federal government, I can assure you that the NCIC database is about as reliable as those used by the 3 major credit reporting agencies. They tend to be run by clerks at the lower end of the pay scale and who are known to make the occasional mistake.

Perhaps instead of pulling the old "love it or leave it" cliche, you might try educating yourself on the reality of these programs . . .


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By SiliconAddict on 12/26/2007 8:13:34 PM , Rating: 4
People like you are the single biggest threat to hit this country in its history and that isn't a dig its an outright fact. Countries come and go, so do dictators but the minute the citizens of a country are willing to sacrifice their ability to be anonymous in their country they invite not only abuse but shaping of one's country by their "overlords".
Again I would take a terrorist bombing in my face over people like you. You sir are just dangerous to the very concept of freedom. If anyone should get the hell out it should be you. Get out and move to Germany in the 1940's and get all patriotic. Sounds like a perfect fit for you.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By BansheeX on 12/26/2007 8:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
As far as it's usage in airports, I see no argument to go this far. We HAD the intelligence and capability to prevent 9/11. It was the incompetent, bloated government which failed to act on the intelligence, and their disrespect of the second amendment which prevented airliners from protecting their property.

quote:
Anything to make us safer.


I guess we should just all lock ourselves in a bomb cellar with a lifetime supply of food and water. Nothing safer than that.

quote:
And three, then those criminals who we've managed to obtain their retinal pattern and are looking for will be ID'd instantly.


Some day, the term "criminal" could apply to constitutionalist sympathizers and people who dissent against the government. Surprise, a corrupt government becomes safer with this.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By DigitalFreak on 12/26/2007 8:47:37 PM , Rating: 5
Dub'ya, is that you?


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By bigboxes on 12/26/2007 11:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
What, are you a fascist? Screw that crap. I'm tired of the right-wing willing to give up my freedoms in exchange for their safety. How about if YOU don't like it then YOU leave. Last time I checked this was everyone's country not just the jacksteppers.

Papers. Show me your papers.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By ThePooBurner on 12/27/2007 12:54:09 AM , Rating: 1
It's the left wing that wants to give way rights for safetly, not the right. Right wingers want less government, lefts want more.

In reply to FITComero: If the database is compromised, or there is a mole who works in the system, the bad guys could get their information to appear as normal, and yours to be the terorist profile. Then you would be caught in the airport and you would be going to jail all because "Our data shows you attacked and murdered 3 people and are tied to alqida" and you would not be able to ever prove otherwise "because our data goes back years."

I wouldn't go for this system at all and would probably try to figure out a way to screw with the initial sample if they forced it on me, so as to remain anonymous.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By MrBungle on 12/27/2007 1:07:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Right wingers want less government, lefts want more.


Not anymore! Now they both want more government.

Last time I checked, "right-wing" also implied fiscal conservatism, non-interventionism, equal opportunity, the principle of "culture dictates law," upholding constitutional rights, controlling immigration...

How many of those attributes can you find in so-called "right-wingers" today?


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 1:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I checked, "right-wing" also implied fiscal conservatism, non-interventionism, equal opportunity, the principle of "culture dictates law," upholding constitutional rights, controlling immigration...


Lol, you cast the net so wide you just snagged half the liberals in the country!

Fiscal conservatism -- check.

Non-intervention, aka isolation -- not since Hoover has it been predominately associated with isolationism. It's even a more recent phenomenon for the left. Remember, left-wing loverboy Kennedy campaigned on the idea Eisenhower hadn't been doing enough!

Equal opportunity -- hold your horses! Perhaps you didn't intend it, but "equal opportunity" sounds a lot like forced racial profiling with respects to jobs and college education. No, thanks.

"Culture dictates law" -- What? There's a reason Guliani keeps saying he would appoint "strict constructionist judges"; that's because the constitution dicates law, not culture. On a related note, while the church going right-wing would get its feathers ruffled, the rest of us also on the right would say the government has no business dealing with issues of culture at all, much less allowing culture to dictate law. The constitution was damn near perfect with the Bill of Rights and is not to be tinkered with -- in the small-gov conservative view anyway.

Upholding constitutional rights -- Check. Though just like Democrats (Roosevelt), Republicans (Lincoln) can look the other way temporarily when needed, though as I posted elsewhere this particular idea may be too much.

Controlling immigration -- Check. Note Republican outrage over Bush's immigration proposal because it was too lax, "amnesty", and the hordes of Republican voters that swamped their representatives offices. Note also the Democrat's anger that it was too tough on families (admission was partly based on skills rather than family ties); it was much too strong for them.

quote:
How many of those attributes can you find in so-called "right-wingers" today?


Perhaps a better question would be, since you half-described a Democrat, is this: Is Bush really a classical Republican deep down at all, or a Democrat with a penchant for invading small countries? :P


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By straycat74 on 12/27/2007 9:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
I've been saying that if the lefty's would just shut their mouths, and open their eyes and ears, they would realize that they have had the Presidency the past 20 years. Welfare in general is up (socialism) and people no longer believe they are responsible for their own choices in life, like being bailed out of a bad mortgage that was CHOSEN. No one wants to give when they make $100,000 on a property, but when they lose , they think they were taken advantage of. America's strength is the people, (if you want to know who, look at how many actually end up paying taxes) not government. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By BansheeX on 12/27/2007 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Non-intervention, aka isolation


I think there is a difference that you are missing here between these two, and once you figure it out, you'll be an ardent Ron Paul supporter.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Ringold on 12/27/2007 2:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference, but it doesn't matter. Events that occur over seas have a clear impact on the United States.

Clear example -- Russian Civil War. Ron Paul early 20th century isolationism had us pull out the few troops we had committed to help fighting the Bolsheviks. Your ideology and their thoughts then are identical; that's an internal issue, it doesn't have anything to do with us, so why get involved? Home came the troops.

However, what if we'd had the foresight that those Bolsheviks were some bad-ass individuals, which many people recognized, and sacrificed, say, 100,000 men to stopping them?

Do I have to hold your hand and remind you of the number of people killed under various communist regimes, assasinations and suppression that is ongoing, and the total cost of the Cold War not just in dollars but in lives through it's various proxy wars? Not to even mention the difference in the quality of life of virtually the entire planet if South America, Africa and Asia hadn't had an example in the Soviet Union to follow in an attempt at command-economies. Half of the last century was utterly wasted because communists and socialists trying to take economic pointers from those people, and now 800m or so still suffer chronic hunger.

Ron Paul and isolationists are just too weak to put in an upfront investment on something that may not visibly show rewards. If we'd intervened in the Russian Civil War, it'd probably go down in history as a huge waste of life since we'd be unaware of the alternate history. Isolation is, therefore, the cowards way out of conducting foreign policy.

Now, that doesn't mean I quite like the idea of hyper-active involvement everywhere, but there's a middle ground.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By BansheeX on 12/27/2007 8:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a difference, but it doesn't matter. Events that occur over seas have a clear impact on the United States.


The future is completely unknown and unpredictable no matter what action you take. You can look at the past and it's a lot easier to predict or play out different scenarios when you already have one that's played out for the worse. That's why it's wrong to blame non-interventionism for eventual threats or other country's inadequate defenses.

That said, intervention has probably led to more bad than good. For example, we can be fairly certain now that Hitler would have never existed if we hadn't intervened in WWI. Iran probably wouldn't be so extremist if the CIA hadn't forced our hand in their affairs. And in your defense, for all we know, Putin staying in power will lead to another Russian civil war. Only in the future will we know if we should have taken him out now. It's really an impossible strategy to follow because it relies on so much assumption and paranoia. If my neighbor seems angry with me, should I kill him to prevent the possibility of him going postal on my family the next day? Probably not, although if it happens everyone will have the hindsight to say I should have.

quote:
However, what if we'd had the foresight that those Bolsheviks were some bad-ass individuals, which many people recognized, and sacrificed, say, 100,000 men to stopping them?


According to wikipedia:

"During the Allied Intervention, the military presence of foreign troops was effectively used for patriotic propaganda by the Bolsheviks in their struggle to influence the population and win the Civil War."

So really, how do you know that non-intervention and all-out war wouldn't have both yielded a white army victory? We don't. All we know is the result of slight intervention, and you are thus selfishly assuming that all-out war would have yielded a certain, more desirable result. In reality nobody has a clue what that other conflicts that decision may or not have created.

quote:
Do I have to hold your hand and remind you of the number of people killed under various communist regimes, assasinations and suppression that is ongoing, and the total cost of the Cold War not just in dollars but in lives through it's various proxy wars?


You're resorting to fear and selective hindsight to justify your position. Yes, bad things have happened and will happen around the world regardless of what we do. You should realize though that no one knows the future in order to assume that intervention is more often than not going to result in a lesser overall deathtoll or a safer future for us and our families here at home. And no American should feel cowardly for not wanting to sacrifice themselves or their liberty for any other reason than an immediate and reducable threat to that life or liberty. Hitler and Osama were justifiable intervention (despite our own idiotic failure to prevent the latter), but Iraq, Korea, Chechnya, Kosovo, Vietnam, all make no sense, especially when there are so many methods of prevention we still fail to exercise or improve upon here (more secure borders, no bases in holy land, smarter defense spending etc). We have a tendency to let other countries' extremists use our occupation and manipulation of their resources as a recruiting device. Pretty soon we won't have a choice but to be non-interventionist because our economy is a debt-based mirage that is about to cascade in on itself, all in the name of this interventionist strategy.

quote:
Ron Paul and isolationists are just too weak to put in an upfront investment on something that may not visibly show rewards.


The only cowards are the ones who manipulate the media and send other Americans over to die under irrational pretenses. Ron Paul is a hero in my book. Non-interventionist, yes. Isolationist, no. He's right on the money with everything else you've said. Maybe you should give his foreign policy a the benefit of the doubt.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By senbassador on 12/28/2007 2:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
"Clear example -- Russian Civil War. Ron Paul early 20th century isolationism had us pull out the few troops we had committed to help fighting the Bolsheviks. Your ideology and their thoughts then are identical; that's an internal issue, it doesn't have anything to do with us, so why get involved? Home came the troops.

However, what if we'd had the foresight that those Bolsheviks were some bad-ass individuals, which many people recognized, and sacrificed, say, 100,000 men to stopping them?"

I hate to nitpick, but what makes you so confident we would have gone with fighting against the Bolsheviks and not pick their side. Remember, I kinda of doubted the Russian czars were liked all that much either. Had we intervened, I am thinking slightly better than 50/50 chance it would have been to stop the Bolsheviks rather than supporting them.

However, the remaining part of your post makes a little too much sense for me. OVERALL, US intervention did far more good than harm (though its still important to acknowledge the harm). Its a good thing people with Ron Paul's philosophy won't win the White House anytime soon.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By ThePooBurner on 12/27/2007 3:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many of those attributes can you find in so-called "right-wingers" today?

To use the form of the poster that replied to you first:

fiscal conservatism : Myself as well as all of my right wing friends. If i could be the one to overhaul, without interference - complete control, the finantial workings of the country, most probably wouldn't recognize what was left. I'm one of the most financially conservative people i know. It's all a matter of correct priorities.
non-interventionism : Myself as well as all of my right wing friends. Our bases of operation should be on our soil, not our enemies. We are to spread out as it is, even with our tech superiority. Anyone who has played StarCraft/any other generic RTS would see it.
equal opportunity : Depends on how it's defined. The opinion of my group is job should go to best qualified. If that means all the while people are most qualified for the job at a company, than i expect white people to be in it. If black people are the most qualified, than i expect to see black people, etc.. I wouldn't even have the question of race on any paper work. If required to have it it should only exist on post hire questionires just to gather stats on who is working for the company. If they are only applying for a job, i don't care what they are. Same for tests. I know someone who took a standardized test twice. Filled out both tests at the same time identically except for name and race. One was white, the other black. The black score came back 15% lower than the white. The boxes (and the effects they have) shouldn't exist.
culture dictates law : F-THAT. The last thing i want dictating law is a bunch of moronic jack-asses. The Public as a whole is one of the stupidest bodies on earth. This is evident by the fact that they still sell FullScreen movies, because people still buy them instead of widescreen. People who make such decisions are not qualified to dictate law because they obviously don't understand/comprehend things. Culture would give away all of our rights to "feel safe" because they don't understand that it is our rights that make us safe. The Founding Fathers knew this. Especially when it comes to the 2nd ammendment.
upholding constitutional rights : You're.. you're joking right? Someone please tell me this is a joke.
controlling immigration : Myself as well as all of my right wing friends. There is a legal process to gain citizenship, and it should be used. Those who don't need to take the steps. Right now this process is long and very inefficient. It needs to be fixed. However, no one gets a free ride. Everyone needs to go through the process no matter what. If they are hear illegally currently, but are working hard to be a good, responsible citizen, they don't need to be deported before applying. If they are bottom feeder mooching off the system (not possible should i be allowed to reform) then deport them. Some might say this is a free ride, but i say someone working to better our economy and willing to work to support themselves is someone we want to have as a citizen of our country. Note: they still need to go through the process, we just won't kick them out first.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By ethies on 12/27/2007 9:56:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We are to spread out as it is, even with our tech superiority. Anyone who has played StarCraft/any other generic RTS would see it.


Myself as well as all of my right wing friends. Anyone who knows anything about real world military operations knows it is exactly like StarCraft or any other generic RTS.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By camped69 on 1/1/2008 5:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is the true conservatives despise these things and would never agree to any of it! Yet baby bush has forsaken Republicans and this country. You will find more of the same from the left. There is no 2 party system there is only "the" party and true patriots or this republic. Which as far as politicians I would include Ron Paul(he's money) or possibly Kuccinich.(not sure yet) Noone else will stand up against the bankers with all the control. Don't forget to vote in your primaries.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By MrBungle on 12/27/2007 1:08:48 AM , Rating: 1
Grow up.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By tigz1218 on 12/27/2007 1:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Thats all I have to say.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Gibby82 on 12/27/2007 2:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm tired of people using this. This quote is like the stupid 9/11 stickers and magnets you see on cars.

I swear half the country forgot what the flag looked like before 9/11, but after they had to have a sticker on every car.

And now it's this quote. One person said it, and now EVERYONE has to say it.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By ThePooBurner on 12/27/2007 3:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
Good. That means more people are being made aware. Awareness of good things is a good thing.

Oh, and I had flags all over the place before 9/11. Your response makes it sounds as though you didn't, and don't currently. That is a shame.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Christopher1 on 12/27/2007 9:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree totally. The problem with the person who has a problem with this is that he doesn't realize that is what the majority of people are doing: giving up personal liberty for the APPEARANCE of safety.

Frankly, I am one of those people who say "You know, terrorist attacks are going to happen, regardless of whether we give up all our rights or not. Therefore, we should not give up ONE right since it is not going to keep terrorist attacks from happening, and just do what we KNOW keeps terrorists on their toes: making agreements with other countries to kick them out of their countries and bumping off/arresting their leaders when we find them!"


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 10:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
So one has to fly the flag all over the place to prove they are patriotic?

Now I don't own a home, but I don't have the flag anywhere on display. I don't need to to prove that I love this country. Yes if I owned a home, I would fly it outside. But thats it. I don't need a bumper sticker or some crap. To me those who fly it all over the place are just desperate for attention.

To me his point was valid. Before 9/11 people were like they are now. They take what they have in this country for granted. They think freedom doesn't cost anything. After 9/11 everyone and their mother went and bought a flag or other "I love America" things. Now many of those people are back to the way they were before. Hating the government for trying to keep them safe.

And don't quote Benjamin Franklin to justify your point. For one his quote doesn't apply to the modern world. There are many things in the modern world that the founding fathers couldn't have even begun to comprehend. In their day, the idea of someone blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocents wasn't even imaginable. But it's reality now.

You people can call me whatever you want. I don't care. You say that trying to track and ID terrorists or other criminals is a bad thing because what if its used against an innocent. I say the pros outweigh the cons. You say that everyone's opinion matters. Well so does mine then.

And some of you are right. Countries come and go. And I see another Civil War in America coming. On one side you'll have bleeding heart liberals who think America is this big evil empire bent of world domination and control of its citizens lives (which will be ironic since they favor more domestic programs that entrench more actively in the lives of America's citizens). And on the other side you'll have people who care about America first, then the rest of the world. People who recognize that the world isn't the way it was in the past. That threats have to be met with force because talking in a room only serves to waste time while someone sneaks up behind you to put a knife in your back.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By camped69 on 1/1/2008 5:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
FYI, our government knows exactly where 99% of terror cells are. It is not only the liberals who think the government has overstepped it's bounds. The founding fathers words are just as much if not more relevant today than they were in the past. So what do you suggest, completely disregard what this country was founded upon so that some terrorists don't bomb us? More people die from eating fast food per year than some terrorists could ever kill. I say to the supposed terrorists and anyone else who is hellbent on taking my rights as an American away, bring it. I've got plenty of ammo. Didn't baby bush say that they hate us for our freedom? So why in the hell are we having it taken away?



RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By tigz1218 on 12/27/2007 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
just so i know i have been patriotic my whole life. i have many family and friends in the armed forces so what you say to me insults me. However the more I see what this country is becoming the more I am frightened of our personal liberities our founding fathers fought for. I personally do not fear a terrorist, if he wants to come over here some how and blow himself and try to take me out then bring it, but Im not about to live my entire life in fear because i fear a terrorist attack or death.

Oh and that one person who said this quote, was one of our founding fathers, so you should be proud the more you hear it because that means at least they know SOMETHING of our country's history, unlike probably half the people now a days.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Griswold on 12/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By FITCamaro on 12/27/2007 9:51:19 AM , Rating: 1
When I meet someone living in a basement I'll be sure to tell them.


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By Noya on 12/27/2007 10:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
FITcamaro and mdoggs444 ALWAYS blindly support the US government as though it's their best friend. Though, with "camaro" and "doggs" in their names, isn't it what you'd kinda reckon? ROTFL


RE: Monitor yourselves FBI
By camped69 on 1/1/2008 4:58:42 AM , Rating: 1
Sacrificing freedoms for liberty? WHAAAAT???? You've lost your f'in mind man. WAKE UP! It's called TYRANNY! They government told the planes to stand down. The Pentagon is THE most protected building on the eastern seaboard and some people in caves happened to just sneak right in. Please! Maybe you should read the what Baby Bush calls just a goddamn piece of paper.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki