Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Gov't Spent $30M On Citizens' Personal Info

infosec_spaz writes "According to a news story on Yahoo! News, the U.S. Government has spent US$30 million in the last year on buying citizens' personal phone records from online brokers...The very ones who Congress is trying to put out of business." From the Article:"Congressional investigators estimated the U.S. government spent $30 million last year buying personal data from private brokers. But that number likely understates the breadth of transactions, since brokers said they rarely charge law enforcement agencies any price." "So...who is getting all of BellSouth, SBC(AT&T) and other phone records?"

11 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Makes me proud to be British by damburger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Silly American government, spending taxpayers money buying personal data...

    Our government *sells* personal data, saving the taxpayer money!

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  2. Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok first off, this is an AP story - not a Yahoo! News story, because Yahoo! News doesn't write or report news any more than slashdot does, they just cut and paste.

    But lets look down the bulleted list:

    _A U.S. Labor Department employee who used her government e-mail address and phone number to buy two months of personal cellular phone records of a woman in New Jersey.

    _A buyer who received credit card information about the father of murder victim Jon Benet Ramsey.

    _A buyer who obtained 20 printed pages of phone calls by pro basketball player Damon Jones of the Cleveland Cavaliers.

    OK, so these are individual people who happen to work for the Government - not the government itself, ie; it's not like theres the "department of buying phone records" set up somewhere.

    I was watching MSNBC's "to catch a predator", the sting operation where they lure pedophiles to a house thinking there's a 13 year old waiting, and then bust them. One guy they busted was some sort of government official, but nobody started reporting the news that "Government is now molesting children!"

    Blah, reactionary clap-trap "arrr we hate bush arrr".

    As far as the NSA - they don't need to buy your personal information. They already have it.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If government employees are doing something on government time in the process of doing their job, surely the government is doing that thing? (seeing as a government is, ultimately, just a group of people)

      The article is alarmist - but that is a better for the press to be too alarmist than to be insufficently dilligent.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, so these are individual people who happen to work for the Government . . .

      In law enforcement. For law enforcement purposes.

      I was watching MSNBC's "to catch a predator", the sting operation where they lure pedophiles to a house thinking there's a 13 year old waiting, and then bust them.

      These busts have always been of extremely dubious validity. As one guy who got busted said (my paraphrase) , "I didn't think there was a 13 year old waiting for me. I went to find out who the person really was and the woman who presented herself to me was obviously about 30 pretending to be younger. People lie. I know that."

      When you start busting people for thought crimes you start busting them for what you think they think and statutory rape is a crime of fact, i.e. it doesn't matter what they think, it matters what they did.

      Playing naughty cheerleader and coach isn't a crime if the "naughty cheerleader" isn't 13.

      As far as the NSA. . .

      They don't arrest people. Law enforcement does. Law enforcement is supposed to have checks and bounds on their surviellence activities.

      They already have it.

      Yeah, they bought it a few years ago.

      Blah, reactionary clap-trap "arrr we hate bush arrr".

      Well, if he's doing illegal surviellence, yeah. I react to that sort of thing.

      KFG

  3. That's why I hide everything by ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use CASH for alll transactions
    I take a different route every time I go somewhere
    I use different public pay phones all the time
    I use random public WiFi hotspots
    I don't use the Internet
    I don't surf Slashdot
    I don't use electricity
    I don't have any artificial fibers in my clothing
    I am a mountain man, my wild plant eating skills are unsurpassed
    And finally...
    I drink Budwiser, the king of beers for paranoid people

    1. Re:That's why I hide everything by ... by nog_lorp · · Score: 5, Funny

      You fool. You don't even realize what we put in Budwiser.

  4. What are you scared of? by Visaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This all comes down to what you are scared of and who you trust.

    Are you actually worried that a terrorist is going to kill you? Are you really concerned about the dealers on the corner selling drugs or the kids next door smoking pot? What is it you are afraid of and why? Does the government need personal information on millions of americans to fight what you are most afraid of?

    When I think about these questions I can answer them pretty quickly. I am more worried about being killed in a car crash than being blown away by terrorists. I don't care what people shoot/smoke/snort as long as they do it on their own property. What am I most afraid of? The government's reactionary and arbitrary laws. The government certainly doesn't need to know personal information about millions of american's to stay the fuck out of my life.

    What I see is the USA spending 30 mil on things I'm not concerned about when they could have put it into education, public transportation, food for the poor, social-security, research, etc, etc. But the question needs to be asked: Why does the goverment want to spy on americans? Because the majority of the american publics wants the government to. Most american's want the government to tell gays they can't marry. Most people don't want grandpa to be allowed to smoke a bowl before going to bed. Most people want to fine radio and TV stations for making certain vibrations in the air!

    Most people cannot handle freedom and they want someone else to tell then what they can and cannot do. We need to fix the people more than we need to fix the government.

    --

    I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
  5. Re:Data Warehouse by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FBI lawyers rationalized that even though data brokers may have obtained financial information, agents could still use the information because brokers were not acting as a consumer-reporting agency but rather as a data warehouse.

    So seriously, what's the difference?


    A few things:

    1) Apparently the "U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act" explicitly prevents them from getting some kinds of information. Ever.

    2) Someone (or multiple someone's) have given legal opinions that "The FBI said it relies only on well-respected data brokers and expects agents to abide by the law. "The FBI can only collect and retain data available from commercial databases in strict compliance with applicable federal law," spokesman Mike Kortan said Monday.

    Basically, they've been told it's OK to buy information they're not supposed to have, from someone who may have used illegal means, because since it's at arms length (ie. no Federal employee needed to break a law) and not an organization who is bound to obey any consumer protection laws, it must be all OK. All of the crimes were comitted by other people who apparently don't have to follow the rules.

    You know, it's like when Rumsfeld and Gonzales make any of their scary-assed interpretations on legal issues. We can torture them if we don't show photos or if we can keep it secret. We can deem constitutional protections don't apply to certain citizens when it's inconvenient. What Geneva convention? Trade agreements don't apply. That kind of stuff.

    Scary, indeed!
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Here's what its used for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.gregpalast.com/massacre-of-the-buffalo- soldiers#more-1418

    "African-American Soldiers Scrubbed by Secret GOP Hit List"

    "A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts." ...

    "Here's how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, "Do not forward", to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as "undeliverable."

    "The lists of soldiers of "undeliverable" letters were transmitted from state headquarters, in this case Florida, to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters' registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted." ....

    "The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican's national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, "Caging.xls." Each of these contained several hundred to a few thousand voters and their addresses.

    "A check of the demographics of the addresses on the "caging lists," as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes."

  7. "Grey area" that is more black than anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Legal experts said law enforcement agencies would be permitted to use illegally obtained information from private parties without violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure, as long as police did not encourage any crimes to be committed"
    Would just love to see them try to use any of this court, by the simple fact that they are paying for illegally obtained information they are encouraging crimes to be committed

    Also, as it is illegally obtained information, could very easyly be clasified as something simerlar as "recieving stolen goods"

    Americans really needs to wake up to their information being sold left and right and get real laws to put a stop to it....and also stop giving it out to anyone who asks

  8. Ignorance is Bliss by vldragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If it's on the Internet and it's been commended to us, we wouldn't do a full-scale investigation," Marshal's Service spokesman David Turner said. "We don't knowingly go into any source that would be illegal. We were not aware, I'm fairly certain, what technique was used by these subscriber services."

    Since when did "I didn't know it was illegal" become an acceptable response?

    --
    Eating the brains of your enemies does not make you smarter. But it's still fun.