Slashdot Mirror
'Full-Pipe' FBI Internet Monitoring Questionably Legal
CNet is running a piece looking at what they refer to as a 'questionably legal' internet surveillance technique being employed by the FBI. In situations where isolating a specific IP address for a suspect is not possible, the FBI has taken to 'full-pipe' surveillance: all activity for a bank of IPs is recorded, and then data mining is used to attempt to isolate their target. The questionable legality of this situation results from a requirement that, under federal law, the FBI is required to use 'minimization'. The article describes it this way: "Federal law says that agents must 'minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception' and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations." Full-pipe surveillance would seem to abandon that principle in favor of getting to the target faster.
People, we really need to go back to teaching Government and Civics in high school. There are some people here who have been left behind.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Well, since sniffing the whole pipe on it's face violates:
"Particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
I would say, that once again, the FBI is overstepping it's lawfully delegated powers.
In other news, the sky is blue...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Many ISPs in the U.S. use an IP addressing scheme called "Multinetting" (I'm not certain if that's the correct term, it's just the one I learned for it) Whereby they create multiple virtual IP networks behind one router. This allows them to dynamically expand their network without having to deploy thousands of high-end routers for their network as they expand. As most ISPs also dynamically assign IP's in their network, this allows them great flexibility of network topology.
The downside is that it's somewhat difficult to tie an IP down to a specific MAC address. Most times the best you can do is find the block (or blocks) of IP's assigned to a given area. For example: let's say that the FBI has a hostname, but no IP. The hostname will often have the region or township name in it. If the FBI provides that to the ISP, the ISP will be able to say "That area uses these IP blocks." and then the FBI would have to monitor ALL those blocks to try and separate the suspect's individual IP from all the other innocent people's IPs.
The really tricky part is where the Subpoena comes in. If it's really general IE: it allows them to monitor for "suspicious activity", then it could be used as a virtual dragnet, pulling in lots of people unrelated to the original investigation. However, Judges understand this and will usually issue a very specific subpoena so that they can avoid such a "dragnet" situation.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
One of the problems with searching an Internet pipe is that the conventional methods and doctrines for search warrants don't apply easily or at all (i.e.: plain view doctrine). Search warrants have to be specific as to what the officers are looking for.
Example: if the search warrant is for a TV, and the officers look in a desk drawer and find kiddy porn, they can't take it. Now, what will probably happen is some of the officers will stay there (or close by) while another tries to get another warrant (with probable cause) for the material. It will all depend on whether the judge believes they had a right to be opening the desk in the first place; even if the search warrant is issued, it will definately be challenged by the defense in court. Subsequent grants for search warrants will also be scrutenized by previous requests for search warrants by the officer as well (i.e.: if Officer Joe has a history of leaving out details, writing poorly, or making frivilous requests in search warrants, they will likely be denied by the judge until the officer can get it right).
Just because the officers find evidence of some other crime while executing a search warrant, it doesn't necessiarly mean that that will be able to keep the evidence of the other crime (it depends on probable cause, whether the officer has a right to the evidence, and other court-established doctrines).
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
No, it's not. It's called the plain view exception and has been found to be completely constitutional. I refer you to this page from the Justice Department (ok, no snickers) which references Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
The relevant part is as follows:
How this exception would apply in the current situation will be up for debate but the exception of an officer finding evidence of another crime, while executing a search warrant for a different crime, is fully constitutional. For a further reading of just this subject, see Danny Weitzner's comments with a much more detailed discussion of the plain view exception.
What, you expect the cops to ignore the dead body missing its arms lying in the back room because they were only looking for the stash of cocaine in the house?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If they can get a warrent that says so, then yes.
:particularly describing the place to be searched. Of course precedent (and possibly even law, though I am not sure) says you can't do this.
It does not actualy violate the constitution. The constitution just says that a warrent must be
The thing being is that I finaly actualy reread tfa and it says NOTHING about warrents, jsut that they are doign this b/c they can, and THAT is unconstitutional.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.