Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping, The Year in Review
An AC was the first to send in this CNN article about FBI wiretapping, based on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request. (I found the article funny because the documents were so heavily censored - the FBI gets to eavesdrop on the public, but not vice-versa.) According to CNN: wiretapping is up, up, up. But the Electronic Privacy Information Center notes that the U.S. court system has just released its annual wiretapping report, and according to EPIC, wiretapping is down. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 somewhere.
It's the FBI's right to eavesdrop on any and all communications with or without permission from a judge. They are just trying to stop possible drug law violators, hackers, pedophiles, pirates, pedophiles, etc.
The constitution doesn't apply because the FBI isn't obliged to obey any parts of the constitution. Niether is the rest of the government. The Bill of rights has been interpreted as a meaningless piece of trash... and it is. You do not have any legitimate reason to own guns, question the government, use hate speech, or have due process, etc. It was merely a suggestion and a bad one at that.
All of you so called "geeks" and "linux dorks" need very badly to be put into prison for the rest of your lives for being criminals. Your disrespect for intellectual property should cost you your "freedom."
On a related note, FBI Director Louis Freeh will be resigning in June. Freeh was the guy who wanted to require Cell Companies to provide the FBI with the location of mobile phone users without a court order or warrant. He was also against legislation that would have eased the restrictions on the export of crypto.
Sounds like a good thing to me.
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
That was when I started to think about how a few large corporations such as Disney and Gannet control almost all news media in the United States.
Anyhow, read my writeup of the experience, and judge for yourself. Are you being told the real news?
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
--
You're relaxing on the couch, watching the tv, when you hear your backdoor open. You see a man, dressed in a dark suit and wearing sunglasses walking towards your desk. Without hesitation he sits down and begins going through your papers.
"Excuse me," you say "Can I help you?".
"No thank you sir, just checking for anything illegal, be done in a few moments."
Since this happens about once a week you think nothing more of it and walk back to your couch and your sheep-like lifestyle.
AND YOU'RE OK WITH THIS SCENARIO?????
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
So how can I find out if I have been the lucky victim of a wiretap?
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
> In the FBI's defense, they are saddled with "justifying" everything within the law.
;-)
> The CIA and NSA, on the other hand, can break the law all day long and get away with it.
> Different structures, different sets of accountability.
Well, the FBI gets singled out because, of all the agencies you mention, the FBI is the only one that's a consistent threat to the American people themselves. The FBI and ATF together are, in my opinion, the most egregeous threat to civil liberties in this country. Waco and Ruby Ridge aren't even what I'm talking about, although they were absolutely horrendous. What I'm talking about is the fact that the FBI, even after J. Edgar Hoover's reign of terror, has spied on citizens without cause or warrant, kept dossiers on people based merely on political beliefs, and with the ATF seems to raid everyone who collects legal guns as per our 2nd Amendment rights if a "flag" goes up--i.e., don't own too many guns, or just a few guns and have non-mainstream political ideals.
Contrast this with the NSA and CIA. The latter doesn't even investigate Americans, and even if they did they're concerned with intelligence. The CIA doesn't care if you have a bunch of fanatical religious followers living with you in Texas, have unusual political beliefs and a survivalist mentality, own two hundred firearms, operate a terabyte RAID array of copyrighted mp3s, pirated DivXs, and hardcore child pornography, grow massive fields of marijuana and coca, evade your taxes, and do all sorts of other major and minor violations. In fact, they'd likely just discard any such information unless it could prove useful to them, since they are interested in things with important international ramifications or at least intelligence interest, not minor domestic affairs. They probably would just destroy info on you, or at least lock it up rather than passing it on, if you are a U.S. citizen caught up in their intel. And I say this as someone who used to have lengthy dinners with a former Deputy Director of the CIA each weekend, who was fond of talking policy if understandably not willing to talk about some things. The only threat the CIA ever posed to us was their experimentation with drugs and radiation on some unsuspecting citizens back in the 50s and 60s, which was horrible but confined to a small number of people and would be too risky to do these days.
And as for the NSA, they're charged with domestic intelligence and security issues and do not care about most things the FBI and ATF would be all over. They may consult on code cracking, but all in all they're not much of a threat compared to the FBI and ATF.
And then there's the IRS, but that's another matter entirely...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
The CNN article is reporting that the requests for internet wiretaps is up since 1997. The EPIC information is showing the actual number of taps for each year. It also indicates that the number of taps is increasing (except for state taps, which are down from 1998 to 1999, but up from 1997 to 1999).
So what? Is being a militia group illegal? Does everybody need to be monitored?
Was being a cult in Waco illegal? It's not something I would choose, but whatever they did, it was bad enough to be burned to death.
As long as the FBI doesn't break that law as part of enforcing the law, I have no problem with what they do. But history shows this group routinely breaks the law. At some point you either shit or get off the pot: enforce the law or leave people the hell alone.
In the FBI's defense, they are saddled with "justifying" everything within the law. The CIA and NSA, on the other hand, can break the law all day long and get away with it. Different structures, different sets of accountability.
Someday, consiousness will expanded, until then, do your best. Until then, know that the prison guards are often as sick as the inmates.
These reports just deal with federal wiretaps. Unfortunately, I know of no data gathered about wiretaps by state and local law enforcement agencies. According to this article, the Los Angeles Police Department conducted about 100,000 wiretaps thanks to some shady activity on the part of LAPD officers to make the wiretaps look legal. I would not be surprised if such practice was common among many state and local agencies.
in their cybercrime division?
*Scene: Budgetary meeting on Capitol Hill*
FBI rep: So, as you can see, numbers of cases solved are up, percentages of convictions are up, crime is down, and fraud is down.
Senate committee: But here there is a 1% decrease in the number of wiretaps
FBI: Yes, but...
Senate committee: But in your annual report you committed to increases of....5%, wasn't it
FBI: But....
Senate committee: No buts, your productivity is clearly down in your cybercrime division. Your request for $2.5 million extra for your cybercrime division this year is denied until you meet your targets.
FBI: But...
Chairman : Shush
FBI: B...
Chairman : I've got a whole bag of "shush's" here all with your name on them. Now go.
*FBI representative exits the room muttering "I hate you"*
Rational thought is the only true freedom
The FBI has used Internet eavesdropping tools to track fugitives, drug dealers, extortionists, computer hackers and suspected foreign intelligence agents, documents show.(bold-faced emphasis mine)
Notice that of this list, only foreign intelligence agents are described as "suspected". Everyone else is given a "true" identifier, or at least one with no modifier indicating lack of certainity. This may seem like nit-picking, but contextual analysis of this nature certainly can give insight into the inherent biases of a given culture.
So what does this mean? I interpret it as CNN implicitly assuming the FBI is correct in their allegations against these sub-groups with the possible exception of foreign spies. Perhaps this indicates a bewilderment to the point of denial that anyone would freely choose to spy on the US. Scary as that last inference is, it is nothing compared to the former. In essence, CNN is promulgating the belief that if you are under suspicion, then you probably are guilty.
So much for the "liberal media" myth.
I agree with the person that said, "I have nothing to hide." I can understand how people would want their privacy, but unless you have something to hide, why not let them read your emails? It's not like they're going to care if you send messages to your lover behind your wife/husband's back. All they're looking for are illegal things that people aren't doing.. aren't they?