Slashdot Mirror


Audit Finds FBI Abused Patriot Act

happyslayer writes to mention that according to Yahoo! News a recent audit shows that the FBI has improperly and in some cases illegally utilized the Patriot Act to obtain information. "The audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that FBI agents sometimes demanded personal data on individuals without proper authorization. The 126-page audit also found the FBI improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances. The audit blames agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct. Still, 'we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities,' the audit concludes."

17 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. What are the chances... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are the chances that anyone will ever - ever - be arrested over this?

    1. Re:What are the chances... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are the chances that anyone will ever - ever - be arrested over this?

      Arrested as a product of the illegal activity, or arrested for performing the illegal activity?

      The former has probably already happened, the latter is probably unlikely (summary says no criminal misconduct).

      You didn't really think they would get in trouble for abusing the law we've all been saying has huge potential for abuse, did you?

      While they might make policy that says internally they need to do things correctly in the future, I doubt that will prevent them from obtaining information on a whim because it's expedient. But, I'm a cynic about such things, hopefully I'm wrong. :-P

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:What are the chances... by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being woefully ignorant of the proper legal routes you're supposed to take doesn't exempt you from being held responsible if and when you don't take those routes. This article just says that they didn't intentionally break the law, but I don't see any difference.

    3. Re:What are the chances... by Twanfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When common citizens can get arrested and prosecuted in spite of ignorance of the law, then so can the enforcers of the law, the ones SPECIFICALLY in charge of enforcing and utilizing the law to safeguard the lives of the citizens. To say the FBI is ignorant of the law can be considered far worse than a citizen not being informed of it, simply because the FBI lives and breathes by what laws are currently enforceable.

  2. no surprise there by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, seriously does anybody really feel any surprise at all when reading this ?

    And if so what drug are you on ...

    Law enforcement agencies will abuse any law to get the maximum leverage that they
    can, it does not matter that the laws they use were not originally intended for
    the purpose they are being used for.

    In NL we only recently got the obligation to carry ID, ostensibly to fight heavy
    criminals that would not ID themselves. Of course now you can get arrested a
    lot easier for say being a jogger and having no ID on you.

    And that has already happened to a lot of people, but not to the so called heavy
    criminals.

    if you want to stop this trend I'm afraid it will take a lot more than a vote in
    a ballot box at some point.

    if that is still possible...

    1. Re:no surprise there by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, people work in agencies, and people have agendas, and people sometimes make mistakes.

      Cops screw up all the time, with the best of intentions. I know an officer who made a traffic stop, and searched the trunk based on an exhaust leak he noticed (they can bypass the right to an unlawful search in cases like these, safety trumps it). Trunk had two kilos of cocaine, perp gets off because the judge decided the search was unlawful.

      A lot of these guys really are out there trying to catch the bad guys, or just trying to get ahead in their careers. We all take shortcuts in our jobs and to reach our goals, and when you're on the street, with a bust so close you can feel it - and the only thing stopping you is what you percieve as "beurocratic red tape", it's easy to slip up.

      I'm not defending them, just offering some more rational explanation other than "da govment is out to get us". It's people that screwed up, in the end.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:no surprise there by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know an officer who made a traffic stop, and searched the trunk based on an exhaust leak he noticed (they can bypass the right to an unlawful search in cases like these, safety trumps it). Trunk had two kilos of cocaine, perp gets off because the judge decided the search was unlawful.

      That's probably because that judge knows a load of bullshit when he hears it. I mean, seriously, he decided to search the trunk because he noticed an exhaust leak?!?! Give me a break.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:no surprise there by Grinin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more...

      All this government has to do is use the word "terrorist" in a sentence and all of your civil liberties are thrown out a window. In fact, by me writing this, I'm sure it has been flagged on some ISP/Government computer somewhere and they will notice its just another user bad mouthing big brother. Its disturbing how we must all sit idly by and watch as all of our rights continue to be diminished... Hopefully something will change and soon.

    4. Re:no surprise there by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cops screw up all the time, with the best of intentions. I know an officer who made a traffic stop, and searched the trunk based on an exhaust leak he noticed (they can bypass the right to an unlawful search in cases like these, safety trumps it). Trunk had two kilos of cocaine, perp gets off because the judge decided the search was unlawful.

      There's nothing in the trunk that has anything to do with an exhaust leak. In addition, you can't actually tell if a car has an exhaust leak until you stop it, unless you go past it with open windows and hear the characteristic sound. The clouds of smoke could come from any number of sources. Once I got pulled over for excessive smoke because I had spilled some oil on my exhaust manifold while adding to my crankcase.

      Thus this is a clear violation of authority, and a clearly illegal search.

      A lot of these guys really are out there trying to catch the bad guys, or just trying to get ahead in their careers. We all take shortcuts in our jobs and to reach our goals, and when you're on the street, with a bust so close you can feel it - and the only thing stopping you is what you percieve as "beurocratic red tape", it's easy to slip up.

      Police have a responsibility to be more, well, responsible than "normal citizens" because they have more power. With power comes responsibility.

      This is why it is simply not acceptable for any cop to ever break any law. Period. I realize that's impossible, and it's why I told the CHP officer who pulled me over and tried to talk me into applying to work for the CHP (after he already had written out my ticket, for something I didn't do, what a fucking asshole) that I felt that the law is simply the arms of a corrupt system that I don't want to be a part of. He'd already written the ticket, so what did I have to lose? And of course I have convictions. And I don't mean legal ones :P

      But regardless, if someone isn't willing to live within the law, they shouldn't be a cop. And we should never let cops off when they do break the law. It's fucking hypocritical.

      I'm not defending them, just offering some more rational explanation other than "da govment is out to get us". It's people that screwed up, in the end.

      you are the government
      you are jurisprudence
      you are the volition
      you are jurisdiction
      and I make a difference too

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:no surprise there by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I've noticed that. And by "that", I mean whenever a cop stops you, it's always because something he saw "forced" him to pull you over due to the serious risk to your safety. "I pulled you over 'cause I noticed at that corner back there that your front wheels were pointed a different direction than your back wheels. I gotta check that out, 'cause that's a serious safety issue. If that was to happen at 70 mph, your vehicle could spin out of control. Mind if I check your tire beads in the trunk?"

      But did you know that if your hand is bigger than your face, you've got cancer?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  3. Accountable? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I am to be held accountable," Mueller said. He told reporters he would correct the problems and did not plan to resign.
    In what way is he to be held accountable? He expects to keep his job, presumably also pay, pension, benefits, etc. Where is the accountability?
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. We are shocked! Shocked! by Jaywalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There is no excuse for the mistakes that have been made, and we are going to make things right as quickly as possible," the attorney general said.
    And this time, we mean it!
    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  5. This is what happens when you ignore human nature by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The simple fact is that human nature tends to cause us to use power whenever we can. This is the reason that there are checks and balances in our government. Some smart guys realized a few hundred years ago, that a position with unchecked power will eventually be abused by a person seeking personal gain.

    This is a fact.

    This is a truth of humanity.

    Laws such as the patriot act, which remove checks and balances and allow individuals or small groups of like-minded individuals to act unilaterally in a way that is damaging to the rights of other citizens is a gross violation of this principle and is evidence to a loss of touch with what our government is put in place to do.

    While protecting the people is a primary goal of a government, protecting the people must weigh protections both on the freedom and liberty of people against the PHYSICAL protection of people.

    Unfortunately, our society is so sheltered from physical trauma, we have grown risk-averse in a disturbing way.

    A few hundred years ago, when most people did not reach 60, and 1/4 of children died before adolescence, we had a realistic view of how important liberty is in our society. People dealt with death and destruction, as it was part of nature. Liberty, however, was not a constant and had to be protected at all costs.

    Today, people take liberty for granted and so fear death and destruction that they will throw away their liberty for temporary saftey.

    This is the trap which our founding fathers warned us against. They saw its power and also its danger.

    We need to open our eyes to that truth as well.

    Stew

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  6. Re:And yesterday Captain America was shot to death by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome back, Tricky Dick!

    The tactics (and some of the players) never really left, they've only refined the techniques and the spin to explain it away to an apathetic public. At least Nixon stepped down when he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  7. The insurgency is REALLY in its last throes. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Dick Cheney seems to be absolutely right. The insurgency seems to be in its last throes. Only difference is it is not the insurgency in Iraq fueled by the blind racistic xenophobia of Iraqis, shias or sunnis.

    The insurgency that is dying is the one that began 230 odd years ago, against a distant King in England, by a ragtag group of people who believed in liberty. What kind of country we have now, if our citizenry can be so scared by the loss of couple of skyscrapers and surrender the freedoms so quickly?

    The insurgency led by Geroge Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers is really in its last throes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Re:Wait a minute, aren't we missing something here by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.

    I'm waiting.

    (and I probably will be for a while.)

    Since the first rule of National Security Letters is not to talk about National Security Letters, then ya, it will be a good while till you hear an actual example.

    Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? If that's the case, I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. BTW, can I have your SSN?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  9. It's starting all over again by rfc1394 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the 1960s and 1970s, as a result of FBI abuses including targeting of dissident groups, new laws were passed and court decisions occurred putting restrictions on the FBI and on state and local police because of agency misconduct. Consider Bull Connor and his thugs at the Birmingham (Alabama) Police, who felt the appropriate response for peaceful protests was attack dogs and firehosing. We did not 'hobble' them because we wanted to let criminals get away with things, we put restrictions on police because they could not be trusted not to abuse their authority.

    You didn't get decisions like Miranda , Escobedo , Mapp , and others because it was thought that it would be a good idea to make the job of law enforcement more difficult, but because law enforcement was acting in an improper and often illegal fashion. Depriving police of the ability to use illegally obtained evidence, of suppressing forced confessions and other such things would, it was claimed, destroy law enforcement. And you know what happened? Police officers learned, generally, to act within the rules, to be professional and to work on finding evidence in a proper manner. But it still wasn't enough.

    The Govenor of Illinois had to commute the death sentences of over 150 because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, including cases where prosecutors sought death sentences and sent people they knew were innocent to death row. The incident was so bad that some prosecutors were arrested for misconduct.

    There is an old saying in Latin, Quos custodes ipsos custodes?, i.e. Who will watch the watchers? When the police don't have serious restrictions, they will do anything they can get away with. Sometimes the police act properly and in a professinal manner. Sometimes the police can be almost as bad as the people they are supposed to catch.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.