Slashdot Mirror
FBI Violated Electronic Communications Privacy Act
An anonymous reader writes to tell us of a report from the Washington Post which alleges that the FBI "illegally collected more than 2,000 US telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records." The report continues,
"E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats. ... FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show."
And they have been able to twist the "healthcare" debate into a discussion about government taking away "freedoms"... while this is going on under their noses.
We've got a lot of people here in the US right now that are running after not only RED herrings, but blue, pink, orange and red pokadotted herrings as well.
This is exactly why we protect our civil liberties. A lot of people are willing to hand over exceptional rights to the government to make them safe from terrorism. The reason we don't do that is because the government abuses our rights. Proponents for strong government say it's a slippery slope argument, fortunately, we now have the evidence of wrong-doing to point back and show why rights need to be protected, and people responsible for abusing those rights should be severely prosecuted.
Some Judges need to let some guilty people walk to teach the FBI that they have to play by the rules. I don't know how often that happens in the USofA, but clearly it's not enough. I know that in Canada, it is not that uncommon to have evidence invalidated because of invalid collection technique.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
After diligently criticizing the powers of government for over 11 months, we have more proof that Obama is destroying America.
Sincerely,
Your Fox Opinutainment Team
This is a false dichotomy. Giving away civil liberties does not equal more safety. There is much more that can be done to prevent crime and violence that would be much more productive than wasting time money and effort on wire tapping, and that is just legal wire tapping, not this.
Is anyone actually surprised by this?
You clearly have absolutely no fucking idea how unlikely you are to die in a terrorist attack, particularly in a pre-Patriot Act world. By your logic, we should all give up any semblance of freedom and have our government lock us away in cages to prevent automobile deaths.
I'd rather be dead then a slave.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Aren't these violations felonies? If so, then why are criminals employed by the FBI instead of in prison? If not, then (aside from the invasion of privacy), what's the problem?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
According to TFA, the US DOJ started investigating the FBI over this issue in 2006. Why aren't FBI agents in jail right now? And why didn't the Washington Post ask this question?
You sir, are an idiot.
The probability of getting killed by a terrorist attack is so low that it shouldn't be any valid excuse to give away your privacy.
Bend over if you'd like, but please let others fight for their rights.
"Post PS": "personal PC" is just wrong
Many American's, whether they are democrat or republican aren't very happy with Obama because he promised two major things with healthcare: he would not force people to buy insurance and that he would televise healthcare discussions with insurance and big pharma companies.
He did a complete 180 on both of those promises. Many democrats realize what Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, that the current healthcare bills are bailouts to the insurance companies and wall street.
On topic for the FBI; they have always broken the law in very deliberate ways. Go read about the FBI's COINTELPRO operations.
You can watch this documentary: COINTELPRO: The FBI's war on black America
Or you can read this Church Committee Report on how the FBI illegally spied on Martin Luther King Jr. for years, using the Communist scare to justify their actions (the more things that change...)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons why people don't trust their government and it has nothing to do with what color fish people enjoy consuming. This country was founded on the principle of treating government actions with a large dose of skepticism.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Police are just doing their job. They want their job to be easy and it is their boss's job to make sure they are not breaking the law
No, part of a police officer's job is to uphold the law, it is no more their boss's job to ensure they are not breaking it than it is my parents' job (given I am an adult) to make sure that I'm not breaking the law.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law.
'Technical violation of the law' is also known as 'crime.' The degree to which the law has been violated may be relevant for sentencing, but it's irrelevant in determining whether or not a crime has, in fact, taken place.
In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process.
So how many of these were actually true emergencies? And having the legal right to get something doesn't excuse getting it illegally. If the police have probable cause they can get a warrant to search my house. If they decided to skip getting a warrant and search it anyway, the results of that search are inadmissible even though the police could have done it legally. It should be no different in this case. In fact, in this case there's a statute specifically defining the crime, and it does not excuse a criminal act if it could have been done legally but wasn't.
Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.
That's not a legally recognized excuse. The intent that matters is the intent to intercept the communication, which was plainly present (this is not a case of accidentally tapping the wrong line or anything like that). Whether they knew what they were doing was illegal or whether they thought what they were doing was justified is irrelevant in this case, per the statute.
Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted.
Discipline? I hope that's just for starters. The ECPA provides for a jail sentence of up to 5 years per violation, and I would like to see prosecutors pursue significant jail sentences for the "senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level" that approved the procedures for emergency requests, particularly for those who did so "for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes." They betrayed the public trust and broke the law even after their illegal behavior was pointed out to them. It's utterly inexcusable.
The federal government should also be made to pay the appropriate statutory civil fine to the parties whose phone records were illegally gathered, which is the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000. If $10,000 in statutory damages seems excessive, the government should take a look at the Copyright Act some time. And if 5 years in jail seems excessive, it should take a look at the penalties for growing certain plants in your back yard.
If someone has a gun to your head you're probably not very worried about the misquitos, why? Because the gun is a larger and more immediate danger. You are 2 orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack (and even those numbers are skewed by the largest terrorist act in our nation's history, the real value is probably closer to 3 orders of magnitude).
Yet we still invest hundreds of billions of dollars, give away our rights, and piss off the international community all in an effort to reduce deaths by terrorism. If we had put that same amount of money into things like high speed rail, improved roads, or enforcing drunk driving laws, we could have saved many more lives.
We have to sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms. Even though our free society is better than an authoritarian one, authoritarianism is far better at protecting freedom. So, the only way to be free and have rights is to not be free and lose your rights. You dirty hippies get it now?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them. By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted. Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior? I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.
But with everyone covered and everyone in the risk pool, everyone's costs go down.
No, my costs go up because I'm forced to either buy insurance (which I don't need) or pay a penalty (for not buying insurance).
Question: why should I have to use my money to cover the medical expenses of my next door neighbor who smokes half a pack a day? Or how about my other neighbor who thinks it's great to drink a case of beer every weekend by himself.
What about some of the people I work with who waddle like hippos yet refuse to walk up one flight of stairs? (excluding those who legitimately can't walk due to arthritis and the like).
Why must I spend my money to cover someone else? Why should I be forced to pay for something I don't want?
And don't use that tired argument of how, if I need it at some point in the future, I'll have it because I could have been investing that money all along and be able to pay my bills if I ever need to. Nor will I ever be covered to the extent I've paid in. Ever.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower