'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: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?