'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.

Comments

Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules

[Who235]

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.

How many clauses in there can you count that have direct application to this matter?

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.

Let's check the Documentation... (4th Amendment)

[mikelieman]

"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...

Re:Someone help me understand

[d3ac0n]

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.

Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules

[smooth wombat]

No, it isn't fair, it's unconstitutional.

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:

To rely on this exception, the agent must be in a lawful position to observe and access the evidence, and its incriminating character must be immediately apparent.

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?