What do you think hfunderground's "threat score" is?

[Antennae]

Here's an article of a police station that uses software to help them determine how much of a threat somebody is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

Basically the software digs into online public data including social media and come up with a threat score.  Its like a credit score but for the police so they can know how much of their finger needs to be on the trigger of their weapon when they respond to a call. 

Does anybody think being a member of hfunderground would make them more "threatening" to the FCC or FBI? 

[EliteData]

no because everything on the "net" is circumstantial and speculated, even an IP address.
the only way to be confident the information about a certain subject on the net is 100% accurate to the subjects self, is by validating the origination of the subjects information by substantial fact and proof and this is only accomplished by access to a federal/state warrant.
for example, just because you know my IP address does not mean the geo-location from it is my actual or nearby location, it also does not mean the subscriber of that IP address is the same individual using it and unless proof of a crime being committed using that IP address can be substantially established, you're not getting this information.
hence, the FCC can't possibly, legally and factually establish a definitive connection between an IP address and a pirate radio operator and use this information as a means to send NOUO letters or as a "guide" to locating a pirate.
the FCC cannot obtain a warrant on an IP address for further information simply based that the IP address was "associated" with a posted comment related to "illegal" activities because it could be anyone, even someone pretending to be someone else.
it's not like file sharing where IP addresses are connected with each other and files are accessed, that's solid proof.

[Antennae]

Wow, thanks for expounding on the details, I learned a lot.  But what I'm talking about is something that the officer's use to help them do a quick judgement of a person to see how likely it is that they will hurt the officer or others.  Its not evidence used in the courts. Its like the cop is asking a robot, "Hey Robey, I just pulled over this car, what threat level is the owner to me." 

Similarly, I figure the FBI could consult robots to do the same with the likely hood of committing a crime with radio.  Say there's a terrorism crime where somebody uses radio transmissions.  I can see that just being a SW listening member like myself would make my "radio-using-terrorist threat score" go up.  And if I'm in the same neighborhood of the terrorist act, I think it would go way up.

[EliteData]

Wow, thanks for expounding on the details, I learned a lot.  But what I'm talking about is something that the officer's use to help them do a quick judgement of a person to see how likely it is that they will hurt the officer or others.  Its not evidence used in the courts. Its like the cop is asking a robot, "Hey Robey, I just pulled over this car, what threat level is the owner to me." 

Similarly, I figure the FBI could consult robots to do the same with the likely hood of committing a crime with radio.  Say there's a terrorism crime where somebody uses radio transmissions.  I can see that just being a SW listening member like myself would make my "radio-using-terrorist threat score" go up.  And if I'm in the same neighborhood of the terrorist act, I think it would go way up.

completely understand you Antennae but a law enforcement officer would only be able to use whatever information he/she obtains through the net about a subject as circumstantial information "as is" - the FBI may have higher jurisdiction in obtaining better detailed information about a subject than state/county law enforcement but the FBI would still need to obtain a warrant (just like lower level authorities) under certain circumstances, the CIA on the other hand is a completely different story - under certain circumstances, state/county law enforcement could use this information to "assist" in their enforcement operations provided no civil rights are being violated using it (think false arrest based on speculated circumstantial information = big lawsuit) - the same way the FCC could use this information to "assist" in their findings and investigation but apart and beyond that, sufficient validated proof for a warrant is needed - one thing does however help in any investigation with state/county law enforcement, is if they have on record prior history that matches the same name/address of the subject's information on the net - in a nutshell, yes, federal authorities (with exceptions), state and county law enforcement and other "low level" authorities could use information about a subject obtained over the net or otherwise, to profile a subject - social media and search engines aggregate this information together but only information that is made publicly available - on a side note, i "profile" new "dates" from dating websites before i *actually* meet them

[ka1iic]

Such things, like collected information ( including profiling ) are nothing more than devices to keep the out spoken folks quiet.  They have no place in a free speech society. That being said such things should be collected only if any person is a known and a true threat to the people.

The Federal Agencies  have a poor track record of using such information because of 'road blocks' set up by fear of racial and religious discrimination.  Read the facts that were known in the California Massacre.  They had the information well in hand but the Federal agencies, for some reason, did not use it.  It is my personal opinion it was because the killers were of a certain religious background.

Information collected and not used is worthless and the agencies that collect said information need to get a 'real' job.  My opinion take it or leave it and yes I am of mixed race... but that might be my problem ;-)

Am I some sort of threat?  Only if words hurt more than rocks and sticks.

Have a good day and a better tomorrow :-)

[John Poet]

I think it's a little higher than it would be, if I wasn't here...

You guys are all gonna suffer from 'guilt by association'...

 

[ka1iic]

I think it's a little higher than it would be, if I wasn't here...

You guys are all gonna suffer from 'guilt by association'...

 

Not to worry JP...  I've been in a lot worse company :-)  I consider this group and you of course... quite calm indeed...  this place gives me a 'warm and fuzzy' feeling <hah>

Have a great day JP and if anyone asks...  JP who??? only if you do the same for me my friend ;-)

[clobdell]

I think all pirate operations within the jurisdiction of the FCC's Detroit office need to be very careful!  One or possibly more of the field agents working there regularly listen to pirates.
If you are in their area, they will go after you.  I see a NOUO [Notice of Unlicensed Operation] was issued in October for a bust made back in August on 6876 in Lansing, MI.
I do not know what the area Detroit serves, but it does include at least part of Ohio and of course Michigan.