Data Mining, Cocaine and Secrecy 471
hightimes writes: "Business 2.0 uncovers one of the world's most sophisticated IT network in where else, Colombia. According to the story, Colombian drug cartels have spent billions of dollars to build a huge infrastructure that's helping them smuggle more dope than ever before." Even though this is about a raid that took place most of a decade ago, it's an interesting example of the power (and potential abuse) of large-scale data mining.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, are they hiring?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Drug Lord: "You tested positive for coke."
Applicant: "Yeah, but I bought it from you."
Drug Lord: "Oh, well then, welcome aboard."
On another note, what does this remind you of?
"So one day I help some gentlemen make a few free phone calls...."
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Imagine the perks.....
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Sounds like a nice life, eh?
Computers (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Computers (Score:5, Funny)
Heh, Packet sniffing takes on whole new dimensions.
-GiH
A goose is loose in the sluce for juice.
And of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Snif snif
Not to mention (Score:3, Funny)
Read the article. It's chilling. (Score:2)
"...the cartel had assembled a database that contained both the office and residential telephone numbers of U.S. diplomats and agents based in Colombia, along with the entire call log for the phone company in Cali, which was leaked by employees of the utility. The mainframe was loaded with custom-written data-mining software. It cross-referenced the Cali phone exchange's traffic with the phone numbers of American personnel and Colombian intelligence and law enforcement officials....
That was in 1994. They've become more sophisticated since then.
Re:Read the article. It's chilling. (Score:2)
Dopewars (Score:5, Funny)
(Dopewars: Unix [sourceforge.net], Palm [pdaguy.com], Macintosh [likelysoft.com], and Windows [dopewars.org] versions.)
Re:Dopewars (Score:3, Informative)
I found a TI-86 version here [tripod.com].
~Will
Dopewars Rules!! (Score:2)
BTW - my current high score is 164,737,425 :)
Re:Dopewars (Score:2)
Would you (sniff) like to play a (sniff sniff snort) game?
Just wait till they get the bill from Oracle... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just wait till they get the bill from Oracle... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Just wait till they get the bill from Oracle... (Score:5, Funny)
Lessee here...
Step 1) Columbian drug lords vs. BSA lawyers.
Step 2) Make the St. Valentine's Day Massacre look like water pistol fight.
Step 3) ???^H^H^HPay-per-view live video on Slashdot!
Step 4) PROFIT!
Re:Just wait till they get the bill from Oracle... (Score:2, Informative)
What a Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a Joke (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so sick of the drug war. Mostly sick of spending money on it.
Re:What a Joke (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm mostly sick of how it keeps sending peaceful, totally non-violent people to criminal school, er... prison, where they either waste their lives away, or end up being "reformed" into real criminals.
lame, lame, lame...
ben
Re:What a Joke (Score:2)
Of course, by my standards if we bust the cartels we should probably bust Shell Oil and Unocal as well. *sigh*...
Article Revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
It must not have been too highly classified. It it was and some internet magazine can figure it out then you have to wonder if this data mining system was overkill. They say it was used to find moles and then the undercover agents would be assasinated. Personally I wouldn't want to be an agent for some agency that can't keep this kind of stuff under wraps.
There are times when keeping things secret is a good thing. Our government seems incapable of doing so most of the time. (on a side note this is why I don't buy into most conspiracy theories-- the govt. is way too inefficient at keeping things quiet)
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2, Funny)
(on a side note this is why I don't buy into most conspiracy theories-- the govt. is way too inefficient at keeping things quiet)
That's just what they want you to think... ;)
Re:Article Revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
When you read an article like this, the first thing you should be considering is what the agenda is. The DEA probably leaked the info on purpose, perhaps to try to promote its agenda of getting more money for the Colombian drug wars.
Whenever you see a story in the press quoting anonymous sources or leaks, remember that the sources and leakers have an axe to grind.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:5, Interesting)
Point by point:
1. So you don't think that a
2. You see people who's lives are devestated by "drugs". And yet I see people who's lives are devestated by drug laws. How is putting someone in prison for hurting themselves supposed to be good for them? Or for their families? Oh but of course drugs are bad for you aren't they? And yet is the morphine they use at the hospital "bad" for you? No? Why not? Could it be that hospital grade drugs are just a little bit cleaner than the crap sold on the street in a totally unregulated market? What happened to alcohol when it was illegal - people sold crappy moonshine that made people blind. Yet today I can buy a bottle with confidence that it won't send me blind and I can see from the label exactly how strong it is. Why? Because it's legal and manufacturers have public liabilty. Get it straight in your head, drugs aren't exactly nutritionally rich but most of the damage you see is caused by impurities in the drugs caused because drugs are a black market item.
3. Would I like a meth lab in the house next door? Not really. Would you like the Johnny Walker brewery in the house next door to you? Not really? Funny that. In a legalised regulated environment their wouldn't be back yard labs where explosions are common. Backyard labs are a product of the war on drugs, not the cause. Bigots like you keep using the unfortunate results of the war on drugs to wage even more war. Talk about simplistic, talk about cyclical. Talk about plain stupid.
4. What an insight, cigaretts are expensive and people still buy them. Their expensive (at least here is Australia) because they have the crap taxed out of them. Without tax they'd be about $1.50 a packet (in
5. Addicts can't hold jobs? I held a fucking job every fucking day for the 5 years I used heroin and so did most of my friends. Why don't you try talking about something you have a clue about.
6. So now drug users are "damaged"? What kind of bigot are you. Have you forgotten that alcohol and tabacco are also drugs, just ones that are legal.
7. You're riled up? Have you any idea the kind of suffering narrow minded bigots like you cause?
Why try to stop people using drugs? You might as well try to hold back the tide. Yet still we try and still agencies like the DEA would like you to think it's feasible, if only they had more money because the bad guys have lots of money and that must be why we can't seem to beat them.
Ah shit, you know what? Just let it all burn. I give up.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
Or, we could spend millions doing a half-assed job of fighting suppliers who are doing their best to fill a market demand, and who have every financial motive to keep pushing the stuff, irregardless of how much our government spends to stop it.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
3. We decriminalize soft drugs one-by-one and watch the results. We'd save billions, earn billions through taxes (a la cigs and alcohol and regular sales tax), save lives, increase GNP, create jobs, reduce crime, reduce prison population (200,000 in US in 1970; 2 MILLION today), reunite families, and promote liberty and self determination. We'd also be taking money out of the criminals' hands and building new industries.
There are already several successful case studies. In the U.S., we have tobacco and alcohol. And then there's Amsterdam, with far smaller incidence rates of drug use, despite what critics say about decriminalization causing higher use.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
Also, I keep running into people who insist that decriminalizing the drug trade will result in clean industries, and elimination of the criminal element. Where the hell do you think the criminal element is going to go? They're going to invest their now illegal drug profits in the legal drugs of the future. They'll pay taxes, and they'll get their chance to buy off congresscritters, just like the buggers at Enron and the RIAA. They'll write legislation to benefit them - hell, I wouldn't be surprised to find SUBSIDIES for drug production, just the same as for tobacco farmers!
Ranting aside, here are the legacies of re-legalizing alcohol and tobacco: We have the infamous Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), a direct decendant of the treasury group in charge of busting heads during prohibition. You don't want to mess with these guys. Not to mention drunk driving (and flying), deaths from direct and indirect tobacco use, and charges from minority groups that liquor stores attract crime and unfairly exploit lower income communities.
Face it, this is the US. We'll find some way of turning lessons from Asia and Europe completely on their ears...
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
Re:Article Revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
Reforming the war on drugs is one of my principal interests, but I am not entierly blind to opposing positions and there are some reasonable arguments to support the war on drugs. However, these arguments just don't appear in your post. While I have done it many times before let me go through it point by point.
--
Would everyone here like to legalize meth labs too? How about legalizing one in the house next door or the apartment below yours?
What's an explosion or two in your neighborhood?
--
So let us suppose we legalize meth labs. What do you suppose is more cost efficent?
a) cooking meth in your apartment.
b) A large chemical production facility which turns out meth. THE SAME WAY ALL OTHER INDUSTRIAL/PHARMACUETICAL CHEMICALS ARE PRODUCED?
Meth labs blow up not because there is anything essentially dangerous about meth production (hell it is way easier than making prozac) but because it is illegal so it is done by someone without chemical traning in a basement.
--
Not too mention the utter silliness of the idea that legalizing drugs would drop prices and eliminate drug related crime. It just wouldn't happen. People will charge what the market will bear and addicts will bear anything to get a fix. Don't think so. In N.Y. City cigarettes now cost 7.50 a pack and people still buy them.
--
Well for starters cigarettes cost $7.50 a pack not because this is the price the free market has settled on but because of taxation by the city. Thus what the price of cigarettes is set at is hardly relevant.
Yes the drug addicts will pay any price *necessery* to aquire their drugs. However, drugs are the ultimate commodity item. An addict could give a fuck which brand name heroin he scores as long as it is heroin. Now from basic economics we see that in a competitive market the price of a commodity drops to the cost of production (yes in a monopoly it will be increased as high as the market will bear but a legal drug market will have plenty of competition). Take a look at the UK/netherlands plans to prescribe heroin to addicts...legal opiates (and certainly legal synthetic drugs like meth) are cheap as ass to produce. The rarity is caused by police enforcement not any essential high price of precursurs.
--
And since addicts can't hold jobs and drugs will never be free- they will always be stealing, mugging, etc. to feed their habit. Not to mention my cost for health care for the drug babies. And that wont stop after they are out of Pediatric ICU. They are damaged. They will grow up and become a burden on society- because their parents made poor life choices. The whole thing is sickening.
--
If you had been keeping up with the research you would be aware that "crack babies" were pretty much debunked. The decreased performance seen on babies born to crack addicts and etc.. disappeared as soon as the effects of legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) were accounted for.
In fact ironically enough it is alcohol which is particularly bad at harming fetuses.
Do drugs deystroy lives. Certainly. However, this is mostly a result of legal and economic consequences of the drug war.
Some drugs such as meth, ecstasy etc.. are never going to be able to be used for long periods of time because they cause neurological damage to the user. However, other drugs which, if readily availible, would be abused instead such as heroin don't have these problems.
Long medical experience with opiates, as well as the large number of upper class mothers who were addicted to laudinum in the early 1900s, show that opiate depence does not cause neurological harm and in fact that opiate users will do work to get their fix. Add to this the wonderful fact that new synthetic opiates are *ridiclously* strong and you have addicts getting their fix for well under a dollar a day. A fucking welfare check would cover this.
There was an interesting article written some time ago (in the mercury news I believe) about heroin addiction amoung programers. Now certainly the individual in question wasnt happy about his heroin habit (alot of this seemed to stem from his excesive spending and need to hide his habit at work) but it was clear that he was able to hold down a high paying programming job to support his habit. If it was cheap and legal no one would be stealing to get a fix.
Another fun fact (though I can't remember my source for this). Of the hundred or so drug related homicides in LA something like 2 of them were related to drug use while the rest somehow involved distribution or sale. In other words the violence simply isn't commited by the drug user but by the illicit dealer. As I have yet to see Hoffman-LaRouche employees do a driveby on Bayer I think it is safe to say in a legal market this would disappear.
Yes, we should be carefull so we don't create a country where kids see glamorous heroin coke commercials and all become addicts at age 10 but this is an entierly differnt issue. Not to mention that a life in jail is certainly far more harmfull and unpleasant than a life addicted to drugs.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
Yes the drug addicts will pay any price *necessery* to aquire their drugs. However, drugs are the ultimate commodity item. An addict could give a fuck which brand name heroin he scores as long as it is heroin. Now from basic economics we see that in a competitive market the price of a commodity drops to the cost of production (yes in a monopoly it will be increased as high as the market will bear but a legal drug market will have plenty of competition). Take a look at the UK/netherlands plans to prescribe heroin to addicts...legal opiates (and certainly legal synthetic drugs like meth) are cheap as ass to produce. The rarity is caused by police enforcement not any essential high price of precursurs.
Maybe the mindset should be to push cigarette prices downward below a workable profit margin. Then the dealers can distribute as much as they want an never make a profit (shades of some internet websites business models).
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
There would be a period of adjustment while society worked its way out of a dark age. But in the end, it may be the only way.
No, it's not particularly kind. But draconian methods may be the only way out of the current mess.
Fake liberal! (Score:2, Informative)
> this is mostly a result of legal and economic
> consequences of the drug war.
Do drugs destroy people? Yes, drugs *do* destroy people by making them *slaves*to*the*drug*habit*. Do you condone slavery? Why do you oppose the government clamping down on extremely addictive drugs then?
My point briefly is this:
Hey, maybe you're a "liberal". Maybe you say that "Hands-off! People are solely responsible for what they do to their own bodies"
Hey, just maybe, a few centuries back, you'd be one of those unsavory Europeans making a fortune trading booze to native Americans.
A true liberal is kind and loving to people. You probably are a fake liberal - the type who puts his own desires first and assuages your own conscience by throwing money at problems... yours and other's tax dollars.
Re:Fake liberal! (Score:2)
Thus, the most addictive drug is legal, and one of the most destructive (alcohol) is legal too. Marijuana, barely addictive and with minor health affects (less than nicotine) is still illegal. The government, then, is not "clamping down on extremely addictive drugs," at least not at all consistently.
Second, you talk of slavery but neglect to mention that it is by personal choice that people use substances, and as long as that choice doesn't affect other people, the government has no right to interfere. If you disagree, then are you pushing to pass a law mandating regular exercise and good eating habits?
Finally, if you had to choose between (1) a life addicted to marijuana or cocaine or (2) five years in prison with all the nice trappings that brings, which would you choose? You see, punishing people severely for choosing to take action that may cause them harm is hardly liberal. And don't try to claim that prison is about correction.
Re:Fake liberal! (Score:2)
Nicotine would best be described as a "legal hard drug", as well as being a highly toxic alkaloid.
Marijuana, barely addictive and with minor health affects (less than nicotine) is still illegal.
Depends how it's ingested. Breathing the smoke from burning plants probably isn't too healthy regardless of if they contain any drugs or not.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
You may have some good ideas about U.S. drug policy, but I'd hate to be your Chem Lab partner, as I've grown relatively fond of my fingers and eyebrows. Meth productoin involves some very volatile compounds, so it does have a very high danger factor.
Chem plants don't routinely blow up, true, but it's not because the processes are not inherently dangerous. It's because the chem companies are rather fanatical about safety (at least DuPont is, I contracted for them for a few years.) Every once and a while you get a Bhopal to remind you of what happens when you're not.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:3, Informative)
I have thought about it. How come my not agreeing w/you means I haven't thought about it? That I'm stupid or gullible or in some other way deficient? This intolerance for other opinions is not as strong anywhere as it is in the "free speech- free ideas" community.
It is interesting how so many of the responses are almost identical. That's when you know you are not necessarily dealing w/something that's been thought out by the individual but rather the rhetoric of some position or party. But that's just a side thing.
Your post is one of the more rational- (by rational I don't mean you agree w/me more but that it's just not a knee jerk reaction- you use facts, a little less insulting/emotional rhetoric). My question to you first is--
How would legalizing some drugs help? You say that some drugs are harmful to the user and will wreck their brain/kill them. (Maybe you think that's o.k. Then we are at a bit of an impasse as we've reached what is a pretty fundamental difference of opinion.) But if some drugs are still illegal you still have the war on drugs.
A common theme to all the replys is- Drugs wont be expensive when they are manufactured by large companies and their wont be dangerous meth labs in your community any more.
This must be considered a pretty strong argument because just about everyone here used it. This surprises me because the problems with this idea are so obvious. (Not to mention how completely contradictory this is to so many other championed 'ideas' around here)
What large company is going to manufacture and retail a product that has already been proven to be lethal to the consumer? Phillip-Morris? Maybe- they've got lots of action fighting class action suits. It would be economic suicide.
This is a pipe dream (sorry - not trying to be funny) that this kind of thing would take place. Lets say that the big companies only produce the harmless narcotics. (I'm going to look more into this I don't buy it completely- the physical damage may be minimal but there are other kinds of harm that it causes) There will still be a heavy cost to society as a whole. You wont save money you'll just shift the allocation to different places.
There are many employers who will not want their employees working while impaired. If for no other reason- liability. There will be the cost of trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Then there will be the time lost in productivity- the sick time, etc.
Someone may be able to function while actively using some drugs but there is no way they can keep that up for an extended period of time. I would also have questions in regard to the quality of what they produce. The only high/inebreated person who thinks that they are 'good to go' is that person. Sober people around them can see that they are not functioning in a normal manner.
Just one quick last note- I've got some other replys to make and I can't do this all day. You state, "Do drugs destroy lives. Certainly. However, this is mostly a result of legal and economic consequences fo the drug war."
I just don't buy it. I meet people all the time in work I do at a homeless shelter who have had their lives ruined and it all revolves around drug use. Many of them have never been arrested or had trouble with the law. Many don't like what drugs do to them. But they are hooked and they can't quit. They cannot maintain healthy interpersonal relationships w/family and loved ones, they cannot hold onto jobs or housing.
They hit rock bottom. Live at the shelter for a while. Clean up. Get a job- get a place- get some friends- get high- end up back at the shelter. I see some of these same guys over and over.
I'm not defending the drug war as THE solution. But I'm not just tossing it out the window because it seems unwinnable. I don't know that there is any kind of society/govt. imposed kind of solution that exists. But I do believe that humans have a moral obligation to try and stop evil and promote good. Just sitting there and watching is not acceptable to me.
.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2, Interesting)
However, the evidence is quite strong that at some dosage regimene the animals are experiencing some sort of neural degeneration (intrestingly enough no toxicity is seen if the MDMA is injected directly into the brain but this is a long topic and we don't need to go into it). In fact in very high doses MDMA produces non-serotonin specific neurotoxicity like the amphetamines but this is probably well outside the normal dose range.
The question that is debatable is whether these degenerative effects are significant in normal users of the drug. I personally and observing my friends use sparingly have seen no ill effects. HOWEVER, if you talk to people who have used excesively (yes there are people who pop 5 pills every weekend or a pill every day for years) they have serious concentration, memory and emotional problems.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
There's a good reason why the neighbors aren't all refining oil, manufacturing pesticides, bottling carbonated sugarwater, or pouring chicken-goo into mcnugget-sized molds: because they would get their ass kicked in the marketplace by the likes of Exxon and McDonalds. The kind of people who currently manufacture meth, are no different. Nobody's going to want to buy $100 of meth from him when they can get the same thing -- perhaps a little more homogenous and with a little less of that local handcrafted charm -- from the corner store for $10.
Sounds like you've got some pretty major local taxes.
Re:Article Revealing (Score:2)
Let me give an example about the effect of not taking drugs so seriously. When the cold war was over Albania had a huge problem. They had no money. BUt they had plenty of wine hills with good potential for wine. What did they do? They ripped out the wines and planted pot. This did they well since the profits in pot was much higher that wine.
But then Europe decided not to prosecute against pot. Pot prices fell massively. Albania then had a crop that made them no money at all. Actually wine would make more money, but because they ripped out the wine grapes they were in a double whammy.
The point is that growing pot has become entirely unprofitable. And while many say pot is a stone step to coke, that is because of marketing. Seriously people who take pot are not necessarily going to take coke. What happens is that those that sell pot in the past also sold coke. And it was advantegous to get people on coke because it was more profitable. But if people have pot and can get it from "clean" places they will not step to coke.
And these are FACTS proven in Europe after 20 years of drugs and legalization!
Re:blatant errors in your thread (Score:2)
And the British empire was bent on making sure that drugs were legal... in China. Talk about foreign influence - if you control the drugs, you can can control the users (ie, the addicted bureaucrats.) You know, there's a reason why if you have drugs in your posession, you're subject to execution in China today...
This plays into govt's hands... (Score:4, Informative)
I know I'm preaching to the choir here
Four Hundred and Fifty Tons!? (Score:2, Interesting)
[The IT system] is a major reason that cocaine shipments to the United States from Colombia hit an estimated 450 tons last year
How the heck do people find the time, money and inclination to stick 450 tons of that crap up their noses in a year!?
Not to mention the fact that it could be many times that amount once it is cut and sold.
Re:Four Hundred and Fifty Tons!? (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think it's all one person...
Re:Four Hundred and Fifty Tons!? (Score:2)
I don't think it's all one person...
It would explain the diehard defenders of the Criminal Republican Criminal Party Criminals.
Crack Whores will say anything for their next fix.
That's nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Part of that is probably because the U.S. Government actually does make some attempt to respect the privacy of the people living there. The drug dealers were (according to the article, at least) only able to do this because they got complete call logs from the phone company. The U.S. Government can't just go around tracking down everyone's calling habits without a good reason.
As a previous poster said [slashdot.org] about the government's inability to keep this secret, this is probably an indication about their tendency to monitor people's habits. If the cocaine cartel can find moles just by looking at who people were calling, just think about what the NSA could do if they actually listened in to every phone call. How could organized crime survive if the government really was listening in to everything that everyone says on the phone?
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
It's interesting that a drug cartel could have the imagination, foresight, and intelligence to set up a mole hunting operation to ferret out informants, but the US government can't catch spies this quickly or effeciently.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The situations are not only different in scale, but in kind. It's a totally unfair comparison.
The drug cartels monitor employees, not citizens; the employees are in absolutely no position of power. What can they do? Unionize?
The government, on the other hand, is answerable to the people. They can get voted out of office. They are supposed to make their decisions and take their actions openly, within reason. Now, you may be cynical about the reality of this situation, but remember that drug cartels are not answerable to anyone, not even in theory.
Drug organizations don't have a constitution that says "we the employees" with a bill or rights, a judicial arm with a court system, nor interest groups and lobbyists working from within to keep its leaders in line.
Finally, the job is made mind-bogglingly difficult by the sheer size of the population of the U.S., and the relative openness of its borders.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, because the Columbian drug lords aren't governed by restrictive rules on their behavior?
For instance, data mining the telco's call logs to find potential enemies - would be (highly!) illegal for US law enforcement. Even post-9/11, even post-PATRIOT act. Evidence gathered thusly would be inadmissible in court, and might not even be enough to get a warrant to get evidence that would be admissible in court. The doctrine of "fruit from the poisoned tree" would probably apply.
Finally - even assuming it could be lawfully-gathered and admitted in court - it wouldn't constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, AT&T's records show my client received a phone call from a guy using the phone of a known terrorist, and that my client called in sick to work half an hour later, but that doesn't mean he knew there would be an attack!" is pretty strong circumstantial evidence, but there might be reasonable doubt ("...it only means the terrorist called the wrong number, and my client was hung over from drinking too much the night before!") in the mind of at least one juror.
Pop quiz! Columbian drug lords...
a) ...aren't bound by privacy regs in the first place, ...don't care if the evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law, because they care only about whether or not Jose' Blow is a mole -- not about whether he got a "fair trial", or ...don't care if the evidence (however obtained) doesn't meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, because killing innocents while not good for business (waste of a hit man's time, attracts unnecessary attention), if it's done in moderation, it's also not bad for business, or
b)
c)
d) all of the above.
If you're a Colombian drug lord, data mining your telco's call logs to find possible informants allows you to find the moles and eliminate 'em. This is Good For Business, so you do it.
But if you're an FBI d00d on the trail of a badass, why on earth would you gather your evidence in such a way that it'd be useless to your case (at best), or (more likely) guarantee that your suspect gets off scot-free as a very angry judge publicly tears your attorney and your agency a new asshole?
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the thing most law enforcement does not seem to understand, or maybe they only understand it in one direction. A mole in your midsts can cause alot of damage.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
why cant they show some common sense just once when it comes to shit like this. I am amazed that *nobody* would have thought to use this tool to their benifit.
Next stop the World! (Score:2, Funny)
I can't wait to run ratoutasnitch@home.
Not suprising (Score:4, Funny)
This isn't real data mining (Score:5, Informative)
Data Mining is looking for UNKNOWN relationships between that data, not KNOWN relationships. So although referring to it as Data Mining may make it sound advanced and exotic, it's incorrect.
- CySurflex
Semi-OT: when did the 'war on drugs' start exactly (Score:2)
I mean, when did a government (of any type, anywhere) start trying to control the citizen's access to a then desirable substance 'for the good of the country/kingdom/fiefdom/whatever'
I can think of many examples where this has been done so the 'government' could make money off taxes on the substance that was being smuggled in, but I can't quite find any decent resource that would tell me that, for example, it was King Foozle in some_year that used his power to ban chocolate (for example) in his kingdom.
The only thing approaching the 'war on drugs' that I can think about is the 'war on proscribed texts' by various religious entities (Catholic Church during the middle ages for example), but that's about it.
Anybody?
Re:Semi-OT: when did the 'war on drugs' start exac (Score:2)
Re:Semi-OT: when did the 'war on drugs' start exac (Score:2)
The original "War on drugs" And incidentally the cause of much gang related crime in the US. You dont really hear about people going blind from moonshine anymore these days, but it was a big problem during prohibition. I wish more people would learn lessons from history.
In Related News... (Score:2, Funny)
And the lesson we learn is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if the umpteen billions that are pissed away on fruitless DEA efforts were instead put into drug education and drug rehab programs.
Imagine if instead of creating a criminal underground, all drugs were legalized. The criminal underground would literally vanish: there would be no profit in the trade. We'd have as much a criminal drug trade as we have in criminal moonshine trade: which is to say, virtually none.
Imagine if the government were to tax these drugs, as they do nicotine and alcohol. Imagine if those tax revenues were put into safe injection centres, better policing of impaired drivers, a crackdown on petty thefts, and job training programs for prisoners.
There'd be a drastic reduction in crime. There'd be a reduction in drug abuse, as the abusers would be able to seek the help they need without arrest and with reduced stigmatization. The government would save billions of dollars. Income taxes could be lowered. There'd be world peace.
But will this ever happen? Probably not. There's too much money being made by the people who are in control of the "War on Drugs." Follow the money trail... you'll see that for the powerful, drug illegalization is profitable.
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
Yes, they'd vanish into operations like casino gambling, internet porn/gambling, and controlling large multinational corporations, now with private armies and submarines. After bootlegging in the 20's was over, the criminal elements that made it big didn't disappear - they diversified.
You may not like government under the drug war, but would you like it any better under the government of the drug cartels?
Regarding the taxation issue - many foreign governments do little to crack down on tobacco, despite the fact that it's killing their citizens. Why? The tax revenue is too profitable to pass up
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
For someone with a large smuggling operation going, smuggling counterfeit pharmaseuticals would be a logical switch, or smuggling weapons.
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
What you have right now is an unregulated, uncontrolled environment. Those that want it, do it, and you have no way of knowing.
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting something different to happen. By that definition, the failed "War on Drugs" is insane.
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
2) And how many deaths from cigarette smuggling do we have? How many smokers are funding their nasty habit with B&Es? When was the last time you heard of a moonshine bust (last month, if you were paying attention, and several years back to find the previous one)?
Legalization and government-controlled distribution is a helluva lot more of a solution than the farcical "War on Drugs."
Re:And the lesson we learn is... (Score:2)
Yeah, like the cartels are going to let that happen.
Wrong arithmetic (Score:2)
17000% markup multiplies the price by 171. Still a formidable value. I had always heard the street value of drugs was inflated roughly 100 times due to being illegal. Not much real difference between 100 and 171
printable (and easier to read) version of story (Score:2)
th printable version - which has all th text on one page
and less advertising and graphics - is here [business2.com]
in general it is a nice courtesy
to link to th printable version of stories
when this option is available
(this is not meant as criticism of th submitter of this story
- i appreciated yr submission)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:printable (and easier to read) version of story (Score:2)
Yeah, the printable version is usually much nicer, but it's more polite (to the people who wrote the article) to link to the ad-infested version. They need to make a buck too.
ok, let me rephrase my original comment :
for those who believe that th web was created
for information sharing rather than making a buck
yr desire to share a story is best achieved
by linking to th page which best displays that story
(usually th printable version if it exists)
Where do I send my resume? (Score:2, Funny)
Organized crime and technology (Score:4, Insightful)
http://neoteric.nu/history.html
Making the war a real war (Score:2, Interesting)
We could wipe out these cartels overnight by legalizing and regulated the trade of cocaine and other recreational drugs - just like we do for alcohol.
There are many who would argue with you on that. Personally, I think legalizing some of these drugs would seriously hurt them (although I'd stop short of saying "wipe them out"). However, there's also another way of winning the war on drugs.
We could make this so-called war on drugs a real war. We go in to Columbia with some military force and start taking out the cartels. I'm not trolling -- I'm serious. I'm sure our satellites must be able to detect some large drug facilities. We'll just go in there and bomb them.
I can hear people screaming that we don't have the right to do that. We don't have "jurisdiction" to take out the cartels -- we're supposed to wait for the Columbian government to clean up that mess. But how would that be different than what we just did in Afganistan? There was an organization in that country that caused serious damage to the United States. We ordered the ruling government (the Taliban) to turn over the terrorists or we'd go in there and do it ourselves. They didn't so we did. So how would it be different for us to demand the Columbian government takes care of the drug cartels. And if they don't, we'd do it ourselves.
Either we should legalize these drugs or we should fight a full-scale war. This half-assed bullshit that we're doing now is just not going anywhere. Are we fighting a war on drugs or not?
GMD
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't be different. What worries me is your assumuption that what the US is doing in Afganistan is right or even justifiable.
afganastan? (Score:2)
You obviously haven't visited Afghanistan ever, nor read a book about war in some time. It's the Taliban, and we didn't really kick them out; most of them simply switched sides. And it's the brown shirts, and while both the brown shirts and the Taliban are bad news, they are nothing like one another. The military force we backed in Afghanistan is known for the same abuses as the Taliban; in fact the guy who first came up with te idea of throwing acid in women's faces who weren't wearing burqas was a Northern Alliance hero.
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:2, Insightful)
You are advocating violation of the sovereignty of a nation because its members have slighted the United States. Perhaps Columbia is ill equipped to deal with this issue, perhaps it will never be resolved.
But the United States is not the world's police force. It may have the guns but it does not have the right. Simply having the power to do something does not make it right.
The United States, the land of the free? Such an action would be "dictating the rights" to the Columbian Government. "You have the right to rule your Nation, except when it affects us and then we must step in because you are not capable."
How long till the United States declares the "War against Al Queda" won and withdraws from Afganistan? The United States helped Afganis oppose the Russian Occupation and left them a broken country. Once the United State's goals are complete Afganistan will be forced to build alone, and they may not be able to overcome the many warlords of their nation.
The United States does not have the right to interfere in the sovereignty of foreign nations.
Columbia isn't the only source of drugs (Score:2)
And look at Afganistan, we blew the piss out of it, and have taken control of the country, but that doesn't stop the opium poppy crop from being the first thing replanted.
Your going to have to take out every country in the world, as well as all your neighbors houses.
Be a whole lot easier to legalize it, just like caffiene is legal. Regulation is far more effective than prohibition.
Re:Columbia isn't the only source of drugs (Score:2)
Besides, I've never been desperate enough to break into someone's house and steal their TV so I can afford my Starbucks fix.
The CIA's Columbian drug cartels (Score:2)
What would the US gub'mint destroy the Columbia drug cartels that it created, funded, gave "aid" to (free airplanes and guns), and even flown their drugs in CIA planes? The CIA has been aiding drug cartels, toppling their competition and political opposition, and sabotaging DEA investigations and arrests in South America for many decades. This has been well documented in many sources. See Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press [wwwamazonc...95-7924610] for a good introduction.
Of course, the CIA has also been funding drug cartels in Afganistan and Pakistan, but that is a story for another time..
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:2)
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:2)
We fucked Afghanistan up pretty badly though. Again, that is not a win. We've already helped fuck up Colombia pretty well too. That hasn't helped. Fucking Colombia harder doesn't seem to be a very good answer.
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:2)
Re:Making the war a real war (Score:2)
Wow, that's brilliant. A few years back the Thai government passed a resolution banning cigarette advertising -- not even import or sale -- as they were sick of the massive health problems and wanted to decrease smoking. The U.S. suppliers cried foul and had the WTO and IMF step in to pressure them to revoke the decision. Are you saying then that Thailand had the right to initiate bombing raids on the U.S. to destroy tobacco fields?
i can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
...that's 1 degree of seperation. That's business w/
(yeah, it was low;)
The Obvious Question (Score:2, Funny)
*groan*
Cue the 70s music... (Score:4, Funny)
ba da da DUM ba da DUM
If you wanna deal, you gotta use SQL, cocaine
If you wanna get stoned, you gotta write the code, cocaine
Data mine, data mine, data mine, COCAINE
ba da da DUM ba da DUM
ba da da DUM ba da DUM...
Data mine, data mine, data mine, COCAINE
ouch (Score:2)
Can you imagine how livid agents of the DEA and CIA would be if this was common knowledge amongst them? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but who better can you think of to keep this kind of knowledge from -- "yeah, yeah, we're sending you on assignment to fight the Cali cartel, oh, and by the way, they've been tracing your hotel phone calls for 3 months")
Security is a process, not a check box option,
- RLJ
just think (Score:2)
Of course, it would be unpatriotic to suggest that this will never happen because the cartels are spending far more on US politician campaign contributions than they are on IT, right?
If they searched the cartel's server disks... (Score:2)
But is that? (Score:2)
Is that street value?
Legalize Drugs? Muahahahahahha! (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to break it to all the apologists who always sympathize with the underdog (even when they're so blatantly wrong as like in this case), but _drug dealers are killers_. They kill with drugs, they kill by shooting people in the head. You do not "put them out of business" by legalizing drugs. You put them out of business by arresting them and putting them in front of a judge, or perhaps far more satisfyingly, shooting each and every one of the bastards in the heads.
To hell with "out of Colombia". To hell with "what will the rest of the world think?". It's amazing that Nader-lovers and other socialists can spew the crap they do, really. According to them, the US _deserved_ 9/11. That sort of talk is _morally repugnant_. Next thing you know, Israeli babies who get slaughtered in suicide bombing attacks deserved it, too! Oh, wait, they already do say that! I could care less that the "poor people of Colombia who've been horribly hurt by globalization, and now need to turn to drugs for money". That's totally inane. YOUR SUFFERING DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO HURT OTHER _INNOCENT_ PEOPLE. Really! If the rest of the world thinks that saving your citizens' lives through force is wrong, then I really could care less what they think. Better to be alone and doing the right thing than being wrong with everyone else. Moral relativism will kill us all someday.
My countrymen are _dying_ because our country is too damn timid to go in and fix a problem, as the last resort, with the barrel of a gun. Drug dealers are taking over a country with the fruit of their deadly labors, and _terrorizing_ it. Diplomacy doesn't work unless you've got a solution when it fails. Diplomacy has failed - the friendly drug dealers aren't listening to us or the Colombian government. We need to start giving them another sort of talk - the type with lead teeth.
For all those who'd like to convince me otherwise, I've had this sort of discussion a hundred times before, and I've listened, too. I just _don't agree_. Yes, people can disagree and be educated and not fanatical. Don't even bother wasting your misguided fingers on me by typing out some response I've already heard before. Go pamphlet a campus with pro-Nader flyers or something that'll be far more entertaining than reading your responses.
Before you all crucify me for my views, realize that I am not totally against the legalization of marijuana. I just do not believe that legalizing crack cocaine and kow-towing to drug dealer scum will help anyone in this world, and would prefer to deal with them in a more terminal way, or arrest them.
My apologies for being forceful. I understand what the other side of the issue is... I just seriously do not agree.
-Erwos
The scary part (Score:2)
Countries that like to crack down on dissidents are going to love this stuff. So far, China doesn't seem to be able to bring it off, but eventually they'll probably get it.
Script Kiddies Beware (Score:2)
This is one server you definitely don't want to hack...
Re:Solid IT means $$$ (Score:2)
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Technology is NOT the problem .. (Score:4, Informative)
The datamining link should be:
www.ccsu.edu/datamining/resources.html [ccsu.edu]
Re:MOD DOWN- NASTY PORN PICTURE (Score:2)
Then why not post the link directly? Why the redirect?
Whats kind of amusing about the whole thing is the series of popup/under, banner-adds, and tracking cookies gracing the initial redirect page. It actually plays to the "datamining isn't evil" argument rather nicely.
Either the poster is clueless, trying to play troll games, trying to convert the Slashdot Effect to cash, or has a really crooked sense of humor.
Re:The alternative is worse than the drug trade (Score:3, Insightful)