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.'"
I wonder if anything picked up on a unintentional wiretap is still admissable in court - could provide for a nasty loop hole...
Hey, why does your IP resolve to a .gov hostname?
*ducks*
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
For all those times they "accidentally intercept" 1-900 sex lines...
"We had reason to believe Ossama Bin Ladin calls this number frequently."
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.
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.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
#88575 +(4830)- [X]
...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
<Stormrider> I should bomb something
<Stormrider>
<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: )
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.
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.
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.