Slashdot Mirror
FBI Admits More Privacy Violations
kwietman writes "The FBI admitted that in 2006, for the fourth straight year, they improperly accessed phone and internet records of U.S. citizens. Director Robert Mueller testified that the abuses occurred prior to sweeping reforms enacted in 2007, and actually blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested. In another unsurprising development, the FBI also underreported the number of security letters - used to authorize wiretaps and to subpoena internet and telecom records - by over 4,600. The use of these letters to identify potential terrorists has, according to the government audit, increased dramatically since the implementation of the Patriot Act. Over 1,000 of these security letters were found to be improper in 2005, and similar numbers were expected for 2006 and 2007."
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The Feds will never care, the White House will never care as it seems most people in the U.S. don't care about this issue. Without outrage we'll never see an improvement. "Catching" bad guys is what they think they're doing and no adjustment will be made from within. Sadly, it will most likely never become a major issue, though it most certainly should.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Wow! who would have thought!
Of course they did. I don't like it, and I'd like to see it stop, but the reality is that the Feds are watching you.
Use encryption.
so I'm not as intimately involved as many of you are. However, there seems to be a lot of 'accidental' - and otherwise - breaches occurring with regard to citizen's rights, but not a lot being done about it. By this, I mean - is punishment commensurate with the crime (and this is a crime) meted out to the perpetrators in cases such as this? I see a lot of articles talking about the breaches, but very few about justice being delivered with regard to those responsible.
The Mothership
Perhaps I am a cynic, but it seems to me that this is merely to be expected.
Stazi couldn't keep constant surveillance over all of the citizens of East Germany because the technology did not exist to obtain, process, store, and organize this data. Yet they tried, and got fairly close to being able to track anyone who even remotely questioned the regime.
Now we're getting close to the point where total surveillance of the citizenry is actually feasible. To expect that bureaucracy will go ahead with such a project is awfully optimistic. The goal of any political system is the preservation of status quo, and total surveillance is a very important step to ensure that no perturbations to the system can result from any member of the population that chooses to think for themselves.
Whether or not we're willing to tolerate this, is the question, because there is no doubt in my mind that it will happen.
Perhaps we should start with re-examining the concept of privacy, and decide precisely the level of privacy we're comfortable with.
" . . . blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested . . ."
Who needs abusive government bureaucracies to abuse our rights when corporations can do the job even better?
It's time to drag the paranoid, power-hungry trolls responsible for these outrages out into the sunlight for a little disinfecting.
Issue the subpoenas, investigate these abuses, and, yes, impeach the president. Even if he wasn't responsible for this debacle, then he's derelict in his duties to uphold the constitution.
Of course the feds don't care -- look, they feel free to even admit that they are abusing the powers granted to them, that they aren't even bothering to follow the already extremely permissive laws that guide them. It's been going on for years -- ever since the first report after the enactment of the USAPATRIOT Act -- and still they aren't called on it.
No, for some reason not enough people care. Firstly I blame the media -- just like the previous reports, and even the NSA wiretapping scandal, this will show up in the news for a little while then quietly vanish. Secondly I blame people who even when presented with facts by the media just blindly assume that it's all done to catch terrorists and they don't care. They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?
Even Congress -- now Democrat controlled -- doesn't do much but feign shock and dismay that the powers they granted without even reading what they were are being abused.
Some people care, but it just doesn't seem to be enough.
The enemies of Democracy are
"...You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he'd like to obtain Americans' records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to."
Like warrantless wiretapping, right? Yeah, we definitely shouldn't have that.
Looks like Mueller is fessing up more than expected, but perhaps not surprising given that this is Bush's last year.
I look forward to watch if/how the US will try to restore the rule-of-law.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Who knows, maybe I'm being too optimistic about the US...
How much of this FBI info appeared on a table in the First Lady's area?
I probably shouldn't post this, but I was at the meeting. Here's how it went down.
FBI: Hello, AT&T, can we have the phone records for 123-555-6789? As you can see here, we have a warrant here to tap that number, because it belongs to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, it says so right on the caller ID!
AT&T: Why, certainly! And while we're at it, here are the records for several hundred thousand Americans who are completely or only tangentially related. We hope this helps!
FBI: No, please, stop! We don't want that data!
AT&T: Don't be so modest. Here's a few hundred thousand more!
FBI: Please! Stop! Don't! You're offending the very values upon which J. Edgar Hoover built this place!
That's exactly how it happened.
I like the way that the Orwellian type language of the WOT infiltrates supposedly objective news. First, the phrasing suggests that more potential terrorists are identified from the use of the letters. Better, and more correct would be "attempt to identify potential terrorists". Second, the notion of "potential" terrorists bothers me to no end. Has any one done a ROC curve or the like on the use of these letters or any other method to identify "potential" terrorists? My guess is not. The lack of any scientific method in the identification of "potential" terrorists means we are dealing with an old fashioned witch hunt on a grand scale, full of suspicion, superstition, and prejudice.
Just callin' it like I see it.
I once attended a lecture by a prominent local individual in L.A. who was known for speaking out against the LAPD's blanket harassment (and assaults) of people living in the poorer areas.
He said the prevailing attitude seemed to be "Catch the Bad Guy." At first, this doesn't sound like it conflicts with the LAPD's motto: "To Protect and Serve." But, he explained, there's a huge difference when you think about it: "Catch the Bad Guy" implies treating everyone in a poor fashion just to maybe catch a bad guy. "To Protect and Serve" implies that everyone is innocent, and explicitly that the police must protect everyone and serve the communities in a good fashion as a priority, rather than suspect everyone and treat them badly.
That was almost 20 years ago. The LAPD's CRASH (anti-gang) unit has since been disbanded due to multiple court rulings of unconstitutionality (the LAPD suspected pretty much every minority) and civil liability case rulings/settlements (the LAPD busted more innocent heads than gang members). The attitude is still a problem, and I've seen it with many other police officers in different cities, BUT I'm not saying it's a majority... just a very annoying minority.
The main point here: "Catch the Bad Guy" is an easy trap to fall into, and many may not even realize they're acting this way, or simply don't see the distinction.
The court system is slow, tedious, and money draining -- same as the legislative system. However, we're not seeing our own citizens shot at by itchy-fingered National Guardsmen anymore. I have to remain optimistic, at least about large-scale shifts of thinking...
The fact that this information can be found via audits and released publicly signals that our system of government is working pretty well. An effective executive branch (one that can actually protect the innocent) requires some power to operate; that power will be mishandled because the people wielding it are human, meaning they are lazy, incompetent, unfocused. In some cases they may be malicious, but this is a worry for anyone wielding any power anywhere, from prosecutors to defense lawyers to legislators to judges to policemen to presidents.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
They want to deprive us of our privacy, lets start gathering masses of tens of thousands of people and march on Area 51, the Pentagon, and everywhere else the government labels private. Quid pro quo. We can't have privacy, so why should they?
Have you ever read a forum dominated by police who think that their violations of the law are justified in the line of duty? They think you ought to be grateful for them, as though you are some mewling little animal incapable of living in relative safety without them. These people aren't your congressman. They could give a shit less what you think. They think that you owe them a debt of gratitude for keeping you alive and free that's ten times higher than anything anyone in the military would feel.
Let me put on my "shocked" face. :-/
Who didn't see this one coming? I mean, besides the people who think Bush can do no wrong (except on immigration, of course).
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It is too late to start using the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land again. If we followed the Constitution exactly as it is written we would have to get rid of things like the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and many other government programs and agencies that people don't want to see taken away. After years of ignoring it, the Constitution has lost its power.
Creative Demolition
Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. That seems to be the correct answer to all these issues that keep popping up.
And yet he's viewed as a kook. What's that you're saying now? It's a damn shame he doesn't have Reagan's charisma, because it would be a tremendous step in the right direction if Ron Paul could sit in the Oval Office for a few years.
Since he obviously won't win, then the next best thing you can do is write to your representative and senators *with snail mail* and voice your support for RP's ideals. Yeah, it probably won't help much, but at least it will make them paranoid. Perhaps they'll infringe your rights less just so they can save their own skin down the line when the shit hits the fan.
1) 2/3 vote required to pass a VETO by the chimp
;-)
2) Democrats may be similar as republicans politically; but as a party they are NOT the same. The Dems seem to pride themselves on their 'distributed' nature and lack of organization and uniformity that constantly undercuts them despite historically having the largest membership.
3) Democrats have more in-fighting and less uniformity among their members; nor do they frequently threaten and undermine those who break rank - that is if they even bother to even force a position as a party (party positions are largely PR.)
4) The SENATE is 50/50. Joe Lieberman does whatever his blackmailers tell him to do (hint: warrantless watergate - one may recall that many staff members of watergate era work in the current whitehouse; break and enter isn't required. oh, they wouldn't be so dishonest as to datamine politicians would they?
5) Impeachment is off the table. Everybody is waiting it out until 2008. Can't believe they'd actually want McCain to have to take the fall for the growing mess that can't be cleaned up in 4 or even 8 years (which naturally, people will blame the one in office because they can't remember back more than 1 year. I'm NOT kidding I heard a GOP strategist plan on that statistic.)
Try participating in both parties. I have. Culture and voter turn-out issues are largely the only big differences.
see politicalcompass.org
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I see that Big Brother is modding you down too! We are doomed!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I'm sure glad Hillary Clinton took the time out of her presidential campaign to vote against the effort to grant the phone companies retroactive immunity. Oh, wait...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This leads to the second problem. The agencies responsible implementing the legislation or using the new powers are not bound by the politicians admonitions about their use. In fact, quite the opposite it true- their very nature and mission encourages them to take the full advantage of whatever powers, rules or procedural changes are implemented in the framework of legislation and common law under which they operate. The only way they can determine the true boundaries of their new powers or a new law is by a process of trial and error, generally involving court cases and other legal mechanisms.
Which is all fine and is the way that laws have been passed and refined by courts for a considerable period of time (if disasterous if you are the individual caught up in a grey area). However it becomes rather more slippery when the implementation of the legislation in question is subject to national security constraints, secret courts, exceptions for back-filling of paperwork and other get-out clauses.
Whilst I might object strenously to the notion that the FBI should be able to tap into my conversations without a warrant or that the UK govt. might like to lock me up for 42 days without charge on spurious 'security' related charges, my most strenuous objections are to the lack of transparency and oversight by independent judiciary in open court or similarly ungagged proceedings.
The correct title should be "Telcos give improper access to records, FBI acts swiftly to correct privacy violations". I'm not saying the FBI doesn't screw up (a lot), but come on. This article clearly has an agenda-driven bias.
Certainly not going to vouch for everything every government agency does, or argue that the US government (or ANY government) is perfect or free from corruption... but seriously, open source software is cool and all that, but open source government probably won't work very well.
This is why Telecom companies SHOULD NOT be given unlimited immunity.
If the telecom companies gave up information -- the minimum necessary that they were required to hand over in order to comply with the law, that could be an justification for immunity.
However, it doesn't sound like most of them did any due-diligence in ensuring the FBI got only the required information and only what the companies were required to hand over. They shouldn't be given a "free ticket" for
every action they've done -- indeed, they should be held accountable for "privacy malpractice" -- not engaging in standard practice, in the industry, to protect customer privacy against "rogue" government organizations.
That's what needs to be made clear in the discussions to provide immunity from prosecution -- if such is provided, it should not be provided only for the narrowest of defense of complying with mandatory requests.
On a tangential note -- I know some companies are good about making sure the government bears the cost of all these monitoring events, but stockholders should also consider suing any company that has not been following prudent procedures or has not been properly billing the legal-entries requiring the information. Stockholders shouldn't have to pay for government monitoring, nor their companies' business incompetence.
I mean seriously. We've got international intrigue and when you get down to it the phone company is the bad guy. Sounds plenty familiar to me. Only problem is it's not funny when it's real.
The FBI gonna get your number
They already got your picture
The FBI
And your fingerprints too.
(Has anyone seen GW Bush and Richard Nixon in the same room together? Exactly.)
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
The battle between rights and government intrusion has a long long history in the United States and it has swung back and forth many many times. Our Constitution was written by men who understood that this would happen and they attempted to write the Constitution so that it would balance the power of the government by enabling the citizens of this country: giving them power over the government. Therefore you are correct on your first point: this did not start with 9/11 or GW Bush. However, I object to your dismissal of our concern when you say "It doesn't really seem to be affecting your ability to do what you want to do, like complain about it on internet forums." It doesn't affect these abilities now, perhaps, but if we as citizens allow this capability and capacity to be developed without sufficient checks against it, it WILL be used against our personal liberties eventually. The government has spied on opposition parties before, it has imprisoned opposition figures on trumped up charges in past times, some say that this is happening on a small scale now, will you allow the government to establish this ability without empowering the citizens to hold it in check? I am not a luddite, times change, abilities change, I believe that it is altogether right and proper that the government use the newest tech to enable it to keep our citizenry as safe from harm as they can within the limits of their power. Yet, realizing the dangers of unchecked power, realizing the potential for abuse that these new techs make available, I will not, as a citizen, be silent while my government draws unto itself an unchecked power over me. This is what it is about. We need to act like responsible citizens before it does affect our ability to complain on these forums, or else it will be too late to complain when the government has all the capabilities in place and the precedent of power to use them.
The interesting thing is it promotes states rights..so if the STATES didnt want those they could dismiss them. People do not understand Federal laws very well. You know what happens to a state that ignores Federal laws? THey get money taken away. Thats it. If they want freedom from a whole lot of federal garbage all they have to do is say no. Feel free to see California, Lousiana as examples.
I wonder if the CEO's of these companies agree to things like this so that they can use that line on chicks without feeling like complete liars.
I understand catching the terrorists is a must, however, if average joe didn't do anything bad, he got nothing to hide, thus it should not be a problem.
Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
I don't want to pay for some idiot's screw-up/malicious intent. No, it should come directly out of the offender's pay, if anything. In reality they should all be fired and or prosecuted. They broke the law after all. Where the hell are the consequences?
This crap about putting process and procedures in place to prevent it from happening again is nonsense. It didn't work last time and it won't work this time because it's asking the fox to watch the hen house. If private industry were as inept at self-regulation there would be laws in place.
On another note: Do we have any objective evidence of how effective this snooping actually is? Say, 1 arrest in 10,000 phone taps? What am I getting for my freedom/tax payer dollars?