Slashdot Mirror


Sorry, Wrong Wiretap

Rick Zeman writes "CNN is covering a little-mentioned Inspector General's report which mentions that the FBI 'sometimes gets the wrong number when it intercepts conversations in terrorism investigations' due to various reasons, and that 'The FBI could not say Friday whether people are notified that their conversations were mistakenly intercepted or whether wrongly tapped telephone numbers were deleted from bureau records.'"

41 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Oops, wrong line... by elwin_windleaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if anything picked up on a unintentional wiretap is still admissable in court - could provide for a nasty loop hole...

    1. Re:Oops, wrong line... by wirehead_rick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really. Especially if for X reason you are decided to be a terrorist and get shipped off to Gitmo.

      No notice to family. No procedures. They just come in grab you and send you off. No phone call to a lawyer. No reasons. Just get hauled off into the gulag for no reason (except to the FBI's whims - say you have a contrarian political view and are deemed a _political_ threat).

      The long slope into a blatent facist state we have embarked on.

      --
      -- Mean People Suck
    2. Re:Oops, wrong line... by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

      Wiretaps are only given with permission of a court to a specific person (or specific people). Being permitted by a judge to wiretap a suspected bomb plotter and then accidentily tapping the wrong line and overhearing someone doing a drug deal is not a "good faith" effort. You were not making an effort to tap the WRONG phone (how can it be a "good faith" effort to admit into evidence of a phone line you didn't mean to tap?). You were not given permission to tap that phone so the evidence is not admissable in any court. Anything less would mean that the police would have carte blanche to use the order to wiretap one person's phone lines as an excuse to tap EVERYONE's phone lines and then finding whatever illegal information they can and using that to arrest totally unrelated people.

      See the exclusionary rule.

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
  2. Oops, wrong door... by Afecks · · Score: 2, Funny

    *smash* Sorry about that...you might want to fix your door...

  3. This is just one more reason... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To put the tinfoil hats away, or throw them out. Some want us to believe that the government is capable of all this conspiracy crap.... Hell, they can't even use the toilet by themselves if you look at stories like this one. Carnivore was supposed to be scary... the only real thing scary about it was the shortage of harddrives that it promised to create storing all those email messages... and I KNOW they weren't going to get away with using Exchange to store them!

    The government might be ominous, but its run by humans, and they are too busy tripping on their own resume's to do anything truthfully scary. Its only individuals who are left without oversight that can be scary... groups of people.. pfft! Hitler and Mousolini were individuals... groups of people just don't manage to get it together fast enough or hard enough... self regulating so to speak...

    Now, if individuals are doing wiretaps... could be different

    1. Re:This is just one more reason... by mpontes · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, why does your IP resolve to a .gov hostname? *ducks*

      --
      Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
    2. Re:This is just one more reason... by secolactico · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just want to endorse the parent. I'd like to see the FBI tap and sort my 400 kb/s bittorrent traffic that goes on 24/7. Then try and find an AIM message which looks corrupted because it's encrypted anyway.

      Good evening citizen, and thanks for granting explicit permission for us to wiretap your internet connection. Now if you'd be so kind as to provide us with your IP address, we can proceed at once.

      Yours in freedom,
      Federal Bureau of Investigation

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:This is just one more reason... by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Governments are often incompetent, yet they are quite capable of "conspiracy crap". See COINTELPRO and ECHELON for example. The fact that conspiracy crap sounds like conspiracy crap, counts in their favour.

    4. Re:This is just one more reason... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, if individuals are doing wiretaps... could be different

      Yeah, as long as it's the government itself, and not some human being listening in on you, there's no problem.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  4. Re:Not admissable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone expect privacy on the phone lines anyway? If you do, and you're up to no good, you're an idiot.

    Now that's a fucking lame excuse for breaking my rights.

  5. They're just making excuses... by marsperson · · Score: 3, Funny



    For all those times they "accidentally intercept" 1-900 sex lines...

    "We had reason to believe Ossama Bin Ladin calls this number frequently."

  6. Re:sounds like... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I checked they had these magical things called wiretaps before 2001.

    Right. The problem really is that there USED to be judicial oversight. No more. Supporters of PATRIOT claim it's never been abused, thus it's not a problem.

  7. Part of the blame .... by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    is on the phone company clerks for tapping the wrong line - See FA

    But, you do bring up a point that a lot of folks have been asking- especially after Katrina.
    There was advanced warning of a disaster, and there still was a lack of coordination and a delayed response. If TSA and local authorities couldn't get their act together with advanced warning, what are they going to do if we get attacked? And you're exactly right: How is it that these billions of dollars are being spent just to get what we saw these last few weeks?!?

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
  8. Shocking!! The Government Ain't Perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other news:
    Police sometimes arrest the wrong people who haven't committed any crime.
    Juries someimte convict the wrong person.
    The FBI isn't perfect.

    This is not exactly earth-shattering news here, unless you believe the government is some evil,perfect conspiracy out to get you. There's very little news value in this story.

    Scuttlemonkey, why'd you have to make that dig about saying oops makes it ok? Nobody would say that, so why'd you have to flamebait like a troll? The editors just get worse and worse.

    1. Re:Shocking!! The Government Ain't Perfect by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative
      Police sometimes arrest the wrong people who haven't committed any crime. Juries someimte convict the wrong person. The FBI isn't perfect.

      No! Next you'll be telling me that moderators sometimes label "informative" posts "insightful"

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Shocking!! The Government Ain't Perfect by bigtrike · · Score: 2, Informative

      Police sometimes arrest the wrong people who haven't committed any crime.

      Yes, but they need either a warrant or a very good reason such as witnessing you committing the crime, finding you covered in blood near a murder scene, etc.. That's the way it used to be with wiretaps. Thanks to the inappropriately named patriot act, they can do it to anyone at any time, without notification.

  9. Sorry, Wrong Wiretap by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    The FBI could not say Friday whether people are notified that their conversations were mistakenly intercepted or whether wrongly tapped telephone numbers were deleted from bureau records.

    Why should they tell people their phones were tapped and conversations recorded? I'd bet that the people involved would get vocal about wiretaps.

    use of warrants issued by a court that operates in secret under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    They use secret courts so they aren't accountable to the people who pay their salary, the taxpayers.

    Falcon
  10. Re:Who cares? by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Show me a man that has never broken the law and I'll show you a man that has never driven a car.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  11. Supporters of PATRIOT claim it's never been abused by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    thus it's not a problem.

    Who's to say it's not being abused, as they work in secrecy? "Just trust us." Not as far as I can throw you!!!

    Falcon
  12. Deleted? Yeah, right. by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 2

    I get the impression that the FBI looks at everyone as a criminal waiting to happen. They probably keep all the intercepts on file, just like they want to do with records of legal firearm purchases, DNA samples from acquitted persons, and the like.

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  13. The slashdot view by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you report yourself when you run a red light ?
    When you make a mistake on your taxes in your favor ?
    When the cable company is accidentally giving you free porn ?

    What would be the actual upshot of the FBI reporting these errors ? We'd have another source of employment for lawyers and another way to waste limited law enforcement resources.

    The pursuit of criminal and or investigations is both a legitimate and neccesesary function of the government. The prople that complain most about the government doing its job are the same people that get the most upset when something untoward occurs.

    1. Re:The slashdot view by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people enforcing the laws NEED to be held to a higher standard, because they have more power than a common citizen.

      With power comes responsibility. If the FBI could get away with wiretapping the wrong person, how long before they wiretap anyone?

      The question shouldn't be why not allow the police to do something, but should they be allowed to do something with the approiate oversight?

      Just because I don't have anything to hide doesn't mean I shouldn't hide my life, using encryption and such.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:The slashdot view by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, in fact, I do.

      Remember that we're all presumed innocent. To take an example of encryption, just because I'm using encryption does not mean that I am plotting nefarious schemes against my fellow citizens. I may be discussing confidential business things, for example. Y'know, dare I say it, I might actually work from home in an effort to not drive my car around and burn gas, hurt the environment, etc., etc.

      These sorts of mistakes can be dangerous. Imagine the above example--I'm some bigshot business-guy. I own a publicly traded company. The FBI inadvertently taps my phone and learns that someone at the company I work for has just invented something that will make the company a ton of money. Do you really think those agents aren't going to call up their stock-brokers and say, "BUY! BUY! BUY!" (Or, assume the other direction, if you prefer)

      Frankly, yes. I want to make it difficult for the government to wiretap it's citizens. I want somebody to look at the evidence that has been accumulated and act as my representative to say, "Hey, wait. Just because he encrypts his phone calls doesn't mean he's a terrorist." I want somebody to second-guess these guys.

      The story of the gutsy cop who goes against procedure to nab the bad guys before they enact their evil deeds is a great movie. But it's not real life--remember, in most cases we get the see the bad guys planning their acts in the movies so we know who the bad guy is. Reality is not that cut-and-dried.

      In short, I'm more worried about the government abusing it's power than of the terrorists blowing up a building. That happens alot more often.

    3. Re:The slashdot view by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      My point wasn't that they didn't do it, but that it wasn't legally admissible in courts. If they broke into some guys house thinking he was a terrorist, but only found bags of pot the CIA couldn't do anything about it... because they weren't "legally" supposed to be there. Legally, they couldn't even "leak" the info to other departments because the CIA broke the law... and that would poison any criminal investigation by the FBI or locals.

      The "patriot" act was around for at least 4 years before 9-11 because the drug enforcement people got tired of not being able to use that wonderful CIA installed intel base. The CIA knows who's smuggling what around the bays.. and can use illegal, unconstitutional means to make sure they're not plotting attacks.. That of course means their agents have first hand knowladge of "where the boddies are burried" for many crime bosses... but they can't tell because the info was obtained illegally... "Patriot" was all about a giant grab for that information so more "normal" crimes could be enforced from the CIA's extreme measures to get intel.

  14. Official Notification by craXORjack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Agent Johnson: Honey, I'm home! By the way, I'm supposed to tell you that your phone was accidently tapped during one of our terrorism investigations. It's all taken care of now though. There is absolutely no trace of your transcripts left. I took care of that myself so you don't worry about it. Oh, and that guy you were talking to about meeting at a hotel while I'm at work next Thursday... He won't be able to make it. He commited suicide.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  15. Re:sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem really is that there USED to be judicial oversight.

    Regular wiretaps must still be approved by the local federal district judge.

    National security wiretaps must be approved by the The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I don't see anywhere where one can get by without any judicial oversight, with the possible exception of short-term emergency taps. As far as I know, those still have to be reviewed by the judiciary.

  16. No Knock by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The government has established that police can collect evidence against people without a warrant (or other due process) when they "mistakenly" violate the security of people's persons, houses, papers and effects, if the police make the mistake "in good faith". Here in NYC, the cops go to apartment buildings where known offenders (like drug dealers) live, then break in neighbors' doors (on different floors, sometimes), look around, and score a bust without a warrant when they find something. Fourth Amendment? That's as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

    How will Chief Justice Roberts rule on torture of "mistakenly" captured people? The Supreme Court Chief Justice controls the secret FISA court which governs domestic spying. Not to mention the Chief Justice's control of whether foreign rulings have legal standing in American courts. When the government tortures to death Harry Buttle instead of Harry Tuttle, will Mrs. Buttle even be entitled to a refund?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:No Knock by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Police routinely face armed residents when they break into homes, or apprehend in cars. That's why police are well trained, highly armed, come in force of numbers. Many police are shot, often fatally. Yet the residents rarely avoid capture, and usually are shot, and killed, themselves, in the shootout.

      Those facts are among the stark facts that make the "we need private guns so we can inhibit the police state" line of propaganda so clearly invalid. The police and army, armed forces of the state, are going to destroy any armed resistance. Widespread armament just escalates the conflict, when it occurs, to ensure people are killed, the state's forces dehumanize the people they're attacking. And that the people kill each other, while they're waiting to defend from the police "takeover". In reality, we have decades of experience in countries around the world showing that nonviolent resistance is a much more effective way to oppose state rule by force. Neither strategy works very well, but "armed resistance" doesn't work at all, and "nonviolent resistance" works more often than not, while preserving the people's life, dignity and organization until a confrontation that the people can win.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  17. Backlog by Radicode · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What scares me most are the 38,514 hours of audio backlog to be translated. That's over 4 years worth of audio! "Hey boss! I've got some intel about a bombing in a city... but it already happened 2 years ago..."

    Radicode

  18. One day... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One day I was talking to a good friend of mine... Mid-sentence we both heard a "beeeeep" sound (probably 800-1000 Hz). After a few seconds of silence from both of us, I asked, "Was that you?" My friend replied "Nooooo..... Was that you?" To which I replied "Noooo..." So we both hung up and called each other again. No beep after that. To this day we joke about it, but we still wonder if we said something that caught "their" attention.

  19. Not true by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Cambodians had an evil machine run by groups of people that killed millions. So did Stalin, In the last 100 years think of all the evil that "groups" of people have carried out.

    Governments dont have to be efficient, in fact the incompetence is what is scary. Innocent people will get screwed and the guilty will go free. The commies failed because even though they killed a lot of people, it was not necessarily the people they wanted to get. That's what the lack of oversight brings. The reason oversight is frowned upon is so that mistakes can be covered up.

    If you are innocent, beware of inefficient groups of people.

    Sadly there are those who dont care if there are innocent people getting screwed, as long as it's not them and they feel safe.

    It's cheaper to "sacrifice" some innocents than to find out if their punishment is deserved.

    Why do you think people support the idea of not finding out whether a non citizen is guilty before locking them up for life in Gitmo?

    I'm keeping my tinfoil hat on. Tight.

    1. Re:Not true by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The commies failed because even though they killed a lot of people, it was not necessarily the people they wanted to get."

      Ugh! For cryin' out loud, how do comments like this get modded insightful?

      They weren't "commies". Communism had little to do with their government, let alone killing millions of people.

      Communism is what could be considered the utopia government. Everyone works together and contributes to the whole, and everyone gets an equal and fair share.

      But as has been shown in the past, the shiny happy cumbaya governments always fail or turn into something ugly due to the faults in human nature. People get greedy, and things fall apart from there.

      All the "communist" regimes I know of (I could be missing some) are more authoratarian or fascist in nature. They claim to be communist but they aren't.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  20. Re:Deleted? Yeah, right. by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Funny

    You forgot the Ark of the Covenant! I'm sure that's in an FBI warehouse too!

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  21. Oblig. bash.org quote by eyal · · Score: 5, Funny

    #88575 +(4830)- [X]

    <Stormrider> I should bomb something
    <Stormrider> ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
    <Stormrider> Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
    <Elzie_Ann> I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
    *** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
    <FBI> We saw it anyway.
    *** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

  22. What about the Constitution? by cnerd2025 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought that these were rights that were protected by the Constitution in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution? One is supposed to be informed of his crime before investigation can begin. The Writ of Habeas Corpus also applies here; since a crime hasn't been committed, there is no way that they can just listen because someone might commit a crime. Someone might talk about committing murder and how they plan to do it, but no one has the right to listen in on the conversation because one of the parties might conspire to commit murder. The Constitution protects rights of "criminals" by saying that a) to run an investigation a crime must be committed (habeas corupus) b) the accused must be told what his or her crime is (5th amendment) c) the person must be informed by the government with a cause and substantiation for search and seizure (4th amendment) d) the person is free from penalty of self-incrimination (5th amendment) e) the person is entitled to trial by jury (7th amendment and article 3) f) the person is granted the right to a fair punishment that fits his or her crime (8th amendment) g) the person has a right to a trial that quickly follows his or her endictment for the crime, as well as reasonable bail (6th amendment). So, wiretapping and using it in court would violate ALL of these. Since there is no proof of a crime that has been committed, the rest of the claims that would even validate a wiretap are false. If people knew that their phones were being tapped, they would clearly invoke the fifth amendment. This is a clear violation of authority and needs to be stopped. I'm sure a good corporate interest group would actually agree with us on this one.

    1. Re:What about the Constitution? by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm...what was that? Something about the constitution? Wasn't that like a boat or something in the civil war?

      Most people in the US would rather wipe their ass with it than try to read and comprehend it.

      And then the people elect officials with the same view. Over the past few years "We The People..." have sat idly by as all those flag wavers in raped and pillaged the founding document of this country.

      We let them do it. We encouraged them to do it. And some seem so shocked when they hear about it.

      It's comedic and sad at the same time.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  23. Re:sounds like... by toleraen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Analysis of the USA PATRIOT act

    Section I, subsection A. Paragraph 5.

    Second, FISA allows a secret court to authorize U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance using each of the four basic mechanisms listed above....The secret court's role here, however, is quite limited: it is not supposed to "second-guess" the government's certifications or representations. (Unsurprisingly, the secret FISA court has only denied one application in its over twenty-year existence.)

    Third party information, but the EFF is pretty much the ACLU for digital information. I've seen it other places, but don't have the links anymore.

  24. RTFA? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read the wire article in the local newspaper and can tell you that the "Court" is a secret court that hands out the permission to do the taps. This is set up under the PATRIOT Act that gives permission for wiretaps based on suspicion that the suspect is a "terrorist".

    Most people don't have to worry until they "accidentally" ask for a tap on your phone, e-mail address, and wireless phone. Even a payphone you might just use! The problem here is FBI "error", which makes me think that the court isn't asking enough questions.

  25. Re:Supporters of the imPatriot Act... by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Very simple. Read some history. Read about Hoover's direction of the FBI, McCarthy, COINTELPRO, and REALIZE, that one of the primary roles of the FBI (at least within the past 50 years) has been to trample all over people and freedom in general. Not terrorists, PEOPLE...American citizens...supposedly living in a 'free' country.

  26. Re:Not admissable by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    You sound like you have something to hide. Please report to the nearest re-education center for your own safety.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  27. The problem with communism by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with communism is that Marx, by condoning (or even promoting?) violence as a valid means of achieving communism, put a substantial flaw in the "design"/implementation plans.

    That opened a much larger window for the evil and violent sociopaths to get to the top and start running the show.

    Otherwise, you might just have the run of the mill sociopaths, who would be like those parasites that don't inflict so much harm to their hosts. If you are fortunate some of those sociopaths might actually choose to be symbiotic.

    --