FBI's Unknown Eavesdropping Network

An anonymous reader writes "Building off the design mandates of CALEA, the FBI has constructed a 'point-and-click surveillance system' that creates instant wiretaps on almost any communications device. A thousand pages of restricted documents released under the Freedom of Information Act were required to determine the veracity of this clandestine project, Wired News reports. Called the Digital Collection System Network, it connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It is intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure. From the article: 'FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf. The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation.'"

Comments

Sounds a bit too smooth

[kalpol]

This is the government - and the FBI. Somehow I can't believe it actually works as smoothly as that.

Re:Sounds a bit too smooth

[Sunburnt]

Hey mods: how, exactly, is this comment "insightful?" All it does is parrot standard /. groupthink ("Everything the government ever does sucks and doesn't work") without taking into consideration the fact that one of the highest-paying users of contract labor just might be able to afford top-notch engineers when they really care about results.

I mean, it's not surprising that they keep fucking up some things, but surveillance of American citizens? Sadly, that's something I trust my government to do quite well.

And just when is the warrant issued?

[EWAdams]

Forgive me for being old-fashioned and naive, but I was under the impression that law enforcement had to present a judge with probable cause before somebody could be wiretapped in the USA. Or is that, like, SO 20th century? Do we now have one-click warrants? Maybe Amazon should sue.

You realize, of course, the majority of the time this facility will be used to obtain free service from phone sex lines...

It's not unknown anymore!

[HangingChad]

I think it's safe to say most everyone knows about it now. As long as a warrant is required to set up the bugging, I don't have a big problem with it.

I just can't shake the nagging suspicion they've gotten a little slack on the warrant thing lately. Bugging someone's phone without a warrant is spying. Spying on Americans, regardless of the perceived justification, is not protecting the public, it's undermining everything this country stands for.

Exactly!

[FatSean]

The same generation of people who shoved anti-USSR pro-USA propaganda down my throat in school are the ones trying to make the USA like the 1980s USSR they hated so much. "The USA is the best country because we have freedom of speech, and the government doesn't spy on you." they said. Now-a-days political speech at conventions is squealched and the government lackies can spy on the people with no need to get a warrant or create any other paper trail that could help a wrongfully-targeted citizen defend themself.

We're not USSR yet, but we seem to be trending in that direction.

If we give up all our freedoms, will the terrorists stop hating us?

Re:Exactly!

[soren100]

The FBI has been tapping phones since day one. In the US they must have a court order to do it.

The FBI has also been abusing our rights since day one. They have been doing many illegal things in the name of "suppressing communist activity". Just check out operation COINTELPRO

from the linked article -- these are the methods the FBI used to suppress domestic political activity:

" 1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents." [5]

2. "Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists." [6]

3. "Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, 'investigative' interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters."

4. "Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans [citation needed]), these attacksincluding political assassinationswere so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official 'terrorism.'". [7]

The FBI also conducted "black bag jobs", warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[8]

Supporters of the FBI argue that the Bureau was convinced that there was such a threat of domestic subversion posed by radical groups that extraordinary efforts were required to forestall violence and revolutionary insurgency. Hoover was willing to use false claims to attack his political enemies.

As far as any restrictions on political speech? Not that I have seen. I am not fond of the patriot act but your rant is a little over the top.

That's because you have only been listening to the corporate media. If you actually do the research on the published activities of the FBI (and CIA as well) you will be shocked.

Here's what an official congressional committee that was tasked to study domestic intelligence activities said in 1976:

"Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence."

You haven't "seen" any of this stuff because our corporate media gets huge amounts of money in tax breaks and other forms of special treatment from the government, so the media is not wanting to upset the government in any way, shape or form. You w

Said the spider to the fly

[Tony]

I have nothing to hide.

Of course you don't, Anonymous Coward.

Where's OSAMA?

[Doc Ruby]

All this spying on Americans, justified by "the hunt for Osama bin Laden". But instead of catching him, Bush invaded Iraq. Said he doesn't spend much time thinking about Osama, doesn't think catching him is important. 6 years since 9/11/2001, and where's Osama?

It's more important to Bush to spy on Americans than to catch Osama, because catching Osama might mean the "temporary suspension" of American rights (including Habeas Corpus, when Bush says so) could end, leaving Bush with less power.

Now let's watch the trollMods try to suppress me for telling the simple truth.

WHERE'S OSAMA?

Yes because

[Xonstantine]

That's because we needed to go back before the conservative movement decided to make government fail by underfunding it. the Federal government is certainly underfunded, spending only 2.8 trillion USD for 2008 under the proposed Bush budget.

Including:
12.4% increase for Medicare and a 7.0% increase for Medicare.

The problem isn't Republicans and their evil budget cutting ways, the problem is rampant and out of control entitlement spending, which both Democrats and Republicans contribute to and neither is willing to control.