Slashdot Mirror


FBI Obtains Phone Records With a Post-it Note

angry tapir writes "The FBI was so cavalier — and telecom companies so eager to help — that a verbal request or even one written on a Post-it note was enough for operators to hand over customer phone records, according to a damning report (PDF) released on Wednesday by the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General."

187 comments

  1. Oblig. IP jokes. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    The "Canary Yellow" color of Post-It Notes is a trademark of 3M. See the legalese at the bottom of that site. Canary? Yellow? Too easy.... let's see some punchlines!

    1. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.

    2. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or how about we hold the government to their obligation to work within the law?

    3. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's for the public safety, you do realize that trumps all laws?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by joocemann · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.

      Sometimes a good investigator doesn't really need a reason. This is what hunches are all about. Some of the best investigators come from Notre Dame -- and why not? The place is so ridden with valuable hunch-making environments that a man developed a full out hunchback!

      I've got a *feeling* that said hunchback ought lead our best forces. FBI or CIA head? Why not!

      I'm gonna go with my gut and say I think I ate something sarcastic for lunch and it's not sitting well... eeeggh... brrrff...

    5. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by besalope · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought the trump card was "But think of the children!"

    6. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And that would explain why we have a constitutional amendment which provides for hunches. Wait, there is no such amendment you say, just some that prevent unreasonable search and seizure?

    7. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hunches are just what you call it when the evidence was gathered illegally. "Police Psychics" are similar evidence launderers. Either that or they're straight up scammers. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your joke is funny because the majority of the FBI are Catholic, and Notre Dame is a Catholic university.

      Which explains why they do whatever the hell they please. They're doing God's work ridding the world of the infidels and faggots which dwell in the closets of their minds. They answer to nobody but God.

    9. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      CANARIES. Convict Army Nearly All Retarded Inbred Evil Sheepshaggers.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    10. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by TehDuffman · · Score: 2, Informative

      And that would explain why we have a constitutional amendment which provides for hunches. Wait, there is no such amendment you say, just some that prevent unreasonable search and seizure?

      Whoosh

    11. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Or how about we hold the government to their obligation to work within the law?

      It's not their fault! No one wrote what they should be limited to on a post-it note! The stupid framers of the constitution used lame non-sticky parchment or some crap like that. Their fault for making it not self-adhesive and concise.

      Another acceptable alternative would have been to make the constitution some type of transforming robot which would beat us up when we got complacent about our rights and proper limits for law enforcement.

    12. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by glebovitz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am pretty sure I remember seeing a post-it notes exception clause in the Constitution pertaining to telecom.

    13. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you're confusing, or allowing others to confuse, real hunches with cover ups.

      I've had hunches. Probably everyone has. You just KNOW something to be true, but you can't explain rationally how or why it is true. There's nothing illegal or wrong with a hunch - it's just not admissable as evidence. It DOES make a decent reason to investigate something, but it doesn't validate a warrant.

      So - you get your hunch, you investigate as far as you can, and if you find evidence supporting the hunch that convinces a judge, then you get your warrant.

      Let's not confuse this with a bad cop who breaks both of a man's knees to get a confession, then calls it a "hunch".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! It's quite enough imposition searching someone's house. To then start flopping around on their floor is simply unreasonable!

    15. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      I can do my job without punching you in the face. So the FBI can also do their job without side-stepping our laws.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    16. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's not confuse this with a bad cop who breaks both of a man's knees to get a confession, then calls it a "hunch".

      That's true, because to be honest, my real hunch was that I'd only have to break one of his knees to get him to say whatever I wanted. I was wrong, I admit it.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now was this debacle the FBI's doing or the incumbent Telecoms doing. From what I understand the telecoms had managed under the Republicans to whack in some pretty hefty and highly profitable charges for handing over customer info, hundreds of times the cost of actually doing it. So on basically the flimsiest request they handed over data because once thousands or request were flowing through the books the revenue was outstanding.

      Now of the FBI's side of things, an investigating needs to be carried out not so much for infringing the US constitution but, for wasting millions of dollars of tax payer dollars on pointless hunches and wild guesses. I guess sitting in a comfy chair in an air-conditioned office reading (well pretending to read) those pointless bits of paper was a lot better than going out in the field and carrying out an actual real investigation. Political appointees without suitable qualifications or experience, a sure recipe for fat profits and zero results (D.H.S.). I'm glad people's lives weren't dependent upon this, oh wait ;D.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But how much easier and more satisfying would your job be if you could punch at will? Especially when you're in support and you could punch through the phone?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Careful, don't play it too often. If you think of the children all the time, you're probably a pedophile.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

    21. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Artifex · · Score: 1

      Let's not confuse this with a bad cop who breaks both of a man's knees to get a confession, then calls it a "hunch".

      True. But could you say it if you broke his back? Not that you'd stoop to that, of course.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    22. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.

      Just remember. Innocent people have nothing to worry about.

      Oh by the way, we're the ones who decide who's innocent, not you.

    23. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's for the public safety, you do realize that trumps all laws?

      Don't forget trumping the Constitution, too.

      Especially the Second Amendment.

      Oh, wait. You don't like that one? You want to pick and choose?

    24. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      There are two trump cards. "Think of the Children!" and "Terrorism!" That's why I found the recent debate over airport security scanners being able to generate "naked" images of children so funny. It pitted the "Think of the Children!" group against the "Terrorism!" group.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's scrawled in the margin in either Bill Clinton's or George Bush's hand-writing. I can't quite make out which.

    26. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      Your joke is funny because the majority of the FBI are Catholic

      [citation needed]

    27. Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.

      I wonder if they wrote it in pencil too.

  2. Hey by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if this method would work at a bank?

    I might save some time in the drive thru...

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about the bank, but taxoffice, yes :)

      My stalking ex-gf knew someone working at the taxoffices and felt she could query me in these PCs. Ofcourse that pulled out all my financial data and adress. She did that before she was my gf, unknowing to me, to find my adress and god knows what else, and later to stalk me.

      Don't overestimate workers...

    2. Re:Hey by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder if this method would work at a bank?

      I might save some time in the drive thru...

      Well, it would definitely attract the attention of the FBI anyway...

    3. Re:Hey by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Just count yourself lucky your stalker wasn't a cop. This is also how the cops do it in California (according to a recent lawsuit in San Francisco from a disgruntled employee). Before they're dating someone, or if one of their relatives is dating someone, they'll pull up all his/her medication information and mental health history. They can do that from their own laptop/computer. It doesn't matter how low of a rank they are. No justification is needed. And their query for this information doesn't even get tracked.

  3. Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is one of the biggest problems with cloud-stored data... if the FBI calls and wants it, they'll also attach a request that the service provider not tell you... and as we see that all fits on a Post-It Note. The FBI doesn't like letting the target of their investigations know they're been snooped upon... and the service provider is glad to not tell you they've violated their own privacy policy by giving out info without the proof that they're being legally obligated to do so. There could be a law in the way requiring... wait, they're already doing this despite there being laws in the way!

    1. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Tanman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.

    2. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It can't be said enough: Encrypt everything.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    3. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.

      Well, there are two laws in effect here:

      For the public: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

      For the government: "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide."

      It's not the crime, it's the coverup. I wouldn't mind living surveillance state half as much as I do, if only the government were honest with its citizens about it. If that's what it takes to make it legal, go through channels and repeal the Fourth and Fifth.

      And yet, even though they have nothing to fear, they still try to hide.

    4. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by JDevers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you encrypt a phone call again?

    5. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by EkriirkE · · Score: 2

      GSM.. oh, wait...

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    6. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.voipnow.org/2007/04/how_to_encrypt_.html

    7. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by astar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I am kind of amused by this story. a lot of people are my country right or wrong patriots, but they are patriots. Looking as most recently yesterdays vote in mass. I wonder how long anybody is going to tolerate all this stuff. it does not look to me very much longer. nothing to pat ourselves on the back about yet, but things are looking up. does not have much of anything to do with political parties. pooh, in mass., both candidates were completely credible for the usual core voters.

    8. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Ziekheid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whenever I tell someone I actuall do that they always start to wonder what I have to hide, they'll be uploading new pictures of last weekends night out on their community profile which isn't set to private a few hours later..
      My reason for doing it is simple though, it's none of their damn business. Isn't that enough?

    9. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Verteiron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, there's this, which is probably the safest method for voice communication. There are software apps for Windows Mobile that encrypt voice connections. You could use an Android phone and Google Voice, provided Google doesn't crater immediately to post-it requests. You could use Skype with the same proviso.

      Bottom line is, though, if you have something that you really, really don't want the government to know about it, don't use a phone (particularly and especially a regular cell phone) to communicate it.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    10. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      there is nothing illegal about a service provider handing over their own data - which is exactly what this is. you don't own the phone records, the phone company does.

      there's no law against responding to a request from the FBI of your own accord.

      does it suck that society has gotten to the point that no one is willing to stick up for anyone else? yes, but this is not illegal.

      the only solution is if you paranoid enough about it, only make encrypted IP phone calls from internet cafes.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    11. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's also the tried & true drug dealer method....pre paid cells

    12. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't mind living surveillance state half as much as I do, if only the government were honest with its citizens about it.

      You mean like in 1984, where the government was quite explicitly and openly spying on everyone, and sometimes the spook spying on you would speak directly to you if you weren't being a good enough citizen? Yeah that'd be sooo much better.

      The coverup isn't good... but no, it's the crime.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with skype israel's mossad snoops on fring voice and data so there is no protection if you have ever used fring to access your skype account (or any other account for that matter).

    14. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Futhermore, how do you not disclose the number you dialed? Even if the traffic is encrypted, "envelope data" must remain in-the-clear or the service provider doesn't know what to do with the message.

    15. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by The+FBI · · Score: 0

      The FBI would like you to know that you are currently not being investigated. How you managed to get a +3, Insightful with that kind of post, however, calls for an investigation.

    16. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by joocemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.

      Justice continues to escape US Citizens. Current leadership and administrations said they would care, but ultimately have shown complacency and tolerance for injustice. When are we to believe them to be any different? Actions speak louder than words, and the last year of inaction speaks loud and clear as to who we're really dealing with.

    17. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean like in 1984, where the government was quite explicitly and openly spying on everyone, and sometimes the spook spying on you would speak directly to you if you weren't being a good enough citizen? Yeah that'd be sooo much better.

      This happens already. You've seen those people in black or blue uniforms outside, right? Sometimes they wear tan or brown, if they patrol "highways". Sometimes they go "undercover". Sometimes they walk into ATT's international data routing center and install an entire hidden floor in the building.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    18. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whenever I tell someone I actuall do that they always start to wonder what I have to hide

      Do they have curtains covering their windows? What do they have to hide?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    19. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is nothing illegal about a service provider handing over their own data - which is exactly what this is. you don't own the phone records, the phone company does.

      Breach of contract. They include a privacy policy in their TOS.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    20. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      and the service provider is glad to not tell you they've violated their own privacy policy by giving out info without the proof that they're being legally obligated to do so.

      The typical service provider terms of service agreement warns you that the provider will cooperate with law enforcement requests for information.

      It's the rule rather than the exception to the rule, that law enforcement can simply nicely ask the service provider, and get the info they need, contact details, data, etc.

      It's easy to see how this can lead to use of post-it notes, once certain companies become well enough acquainted with certain law enforcement officers.

    21. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      There could be a law in the way requiring... wait, they're already doing this despite there being laws in the way!

      Exactly what law is in the way of the FBI making a request for information and the source giving it to them?

      Now, there's a requirement for warrants and stuff if the source isn't cooperative, but gosh if I can find a law that says the FBI cannot ASK for information without a warrant. The only ones I know say that they cannot DEMAND it without one.

      ...and the service provider is glad to not tell you they've violated their own privacy policy by giving out info without the proof that they're being legally obligated to do so.

      Hey! That's the point. They weren't legally obligated to do so.

      The bad guys here aren't the FBI for asking, it's the sources for giving it without being forced to do so.

      Car analogy: who's the stupid one if a cop pulls you over and then asks to search your car AND YOU SAY OK? Which one of your constitutional rights was violated? (Hint: none.)

    22. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Steganography. Work out a code to talk to your friends: it's fun! Buy cheap pay-as-you-go phones and throw them away when you've used up the minutes. See how long it takes the FBI to catch on!

    23. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Breach of contract. They include a privacy policy in their TOS.

      Have you ever read your telco privacy policy? My telco is Qwest, and I just went to their website to see exactly what their policy is. I quote:

      Qwest discloses personal information collected online to affiliates and to others, including our business partners and vendors, to provide the products and services you request and to enhance those products and services. We may share personal information collected online with the government or third parties who make a lawful request for it. We may also disclose personal information collected online to others to assert and defend our legal rights, and as otherwise authorized or required by law.

      They are quite upfront about sharing your information with the government. All they need to do is make "a lawful request" for it. There is no law that says the FBI cannot ASK Qwest for your information, so ASKING is a lawful request.

      So, wanna try again? What contract do YOU have?

    24. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a term for "right or wrong patriots" and it's not patriots. They're more properly referred to as "jingoists." This country would be in much better shape if more citizens understood this.

    25. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by samkass · · Score: 1

      there is nothing illegal about a service provider handing over their own data

      IMHO, the question isn't about the legality of handing it over, but the legality of the Government asking for it without a court order. The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is an argument to be made that there is an expectation of privacy regarding this information.

      In any case, I don't care if the FBI gets the information with a post-it note, as long as that note has reasonable cause and a judge's signature on it.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    26. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Prepaid phone.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    27. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement thinks they're above the law

      I don't think you understand how it works in the US. Let me clarify:

      Major Industry Association
      Lobbyists
      Rich People
      Big Business
      Dept. of Justice
      Politicians
      President
      Foreign Nations & Laws
      Law Enforcement
      Law
      Stupid Rich People
      Really poor People
      Small Business
      Everyone else.
      Piece of Dog Poo
      YOU reading this.

      See? Now what did you learn? Ans: Don't look up!

    28. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      IMHO, the question isn't about the legality of handing it over, but the legality of the Government asking for it without a court order.

      There is no law preventing the government from asking without a court order. There is a constitutional amendment dealing with the government compelling the release. I read some of the "damning report", and the worst I could find is where one agent told the telco they were going to get a subpoena for the data, but it was clear from the letter that they hadn't done so. The telco turned it over voluntarily.

      The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is an argument to be made that there is an expectation of privacy regarding this information.

      Even when the telco tells you EXPLICITLY that they will happily hand your private information over to the government upon request? I posted a paragraph from the Qwest policy just above, and it is clear that all the government has to do is ask for it. I expect other telco's policies are similar of not identical.

      In any case, I don't care if the FBI gets the information with a post-it note, as long as that note has reasonable cause and a judge's signature on it.

      Why in God's name do you think a request for information needs to have a judge's signature on it? A subpoena, yes. A "can you send us..." note? Do you think that every question that every cop asks someone needs to have a judge's approval? Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous.

      The issue here is not the government asking, it's that the telcos give it. But then, they've told you they will, so you have no reason to expect them to grow a backbone and say "no" when asked.

    29. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...which in a little while you won't be able to buy with cash.

    30. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That doesn't work as well as you might think.
      There is location data on where the phone is while it is turned on.
      Traffic analysis of who you call can reveal who you are (or that you are likely the same person as used a different prepaid cell phone last week).

    31. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      this is one reason the USA is going down the tubes - the idea that everything needs to tie up court time.

      government agents are legally allowed to ask for the teleco's co operation, and the teleco can refuse or provide the info. IF the teleco refuses and the FBI wishs to pursue it and FORCE them to comply, THEN it requires a court order.

      people, why is this concept so hard to grasp? every communications contract i've ever seen states clearly they will assist law enforcement, and makes zero promise to protect you from investigation.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    32. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous."

      In the US? Yes, he does. I've denied permission to search my vehicle on three occasions, and got different answers each time. 1. "If a dog smells something, I can search without your permission." "So, get the dog!" 2. "I can arrest you, and take you jail, then impound your car and search it." "Arrest me on what charge? Failure to agree to be searched?" 3. "I can get a warrant." "If you have probable cause, why don't you already have the warrant?"

      In short, my car has NOT been searched, because I DENIED PERMISSION. The moment you waver, and say something that might be construed as permission to search, you WILL BE searched.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    33. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they not post their keystoke logs on the internet? What do they have to hide?

    34. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous."

      In the US? Yes, he does.

      NO, he does not. He can ask you at any time if he can search your vehicle. There is no reason to call a judge to get permission to ask. If he's going to call a judge, it's because you said NO and he's going to get a warrant.

      I've denied permission to search my vehicle on three occasions,

      And did the cop call a judge prior to asking you for permission on any of those three occasions? Of course not. There is no requirement for him to do so.

      The moment you waver, and say something that might be construed as permission to search, you WILL BE searched.

      Of course. And if you try to claim "he didn't ask a judge before asking me for permission" you'll be laughed ... I was going to write "out of court", but really "laughed into a jail cell".

      If the telcos are giving the information to the FBI voluntarily, then there is no judge and no subpoena required. The Constitution protects you from involuntary acts (like searches of your car) but not from voluntary ones (like searches where you said "ok"). The FBI can ASK the telco for information anytime they want. The law does not prohibit this. Just like they can ask to search your car. They cannot DEMAND the information without a warrant. A "post-it note" doesn't require a judge's signature. A subpoena does.

    35. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk in Klingon or revert to a WWII tactic of using Code Talkers. Even the Japanese could not break that level of encryption.

    36. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by RawsonDR · · Score: 1

      There is no law that says the FBI cannot ASK Qwest for your information, so ASKING is a lawful request.

      There's no law that says I can't ASK Qwest for your information, but neither Qwest nor the feds would consider that "a lawful request." They would be held accountable if they were caught giving it to me.

      But, indeed, Qwest still seems to be covering their asses with that statement as it pertains to the government. But the "lawful" aspect is referring to whether or not the person lawfully has a right to the information. This is the grey area - does it require a warrant or is that kind of info not considered to be in the same realm of private? That question has to be answered by a court at this point, and that's only if the right people get it pushed that far.

    37. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by FLEB · · Score: 1

      every communications contract i've ever seen states clearly they will assist law enforcement, and makes zero promise to protect you from investigation.

      And this is (part of) the problem.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    38. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      You have stated your point well. Runaway needs to go back and read what your argument actually is.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    39. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous."

      In the US? Yes, he does.

      NO, he does not.

      Of course the cop doesn't need a permission from a judge to ask. The cop can always ask, but you don't have to agree to the search. In fact you are best off to explicitly state that you do not consent to a search. They can still do an involuntary search in some circumstances like probable cause, open view, etc.

      http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/54988/know_when_police_can_search_your_vehicle.html?cat=17
      http://flexyourrights.org/faq/74

    40. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by cetialphav · · Score: 1

      there is nothing illegal about a service provider handing over their own data

      The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) disagrees with you. This law restricts what communications information can be shared with government agencies. It still makes it too easy for the government to get information, but it at least requires the FBI to certify that the information requested is part of a counterterrorism investigation (in that case no judicial intervention is required). The report in the article points out that the FBI was not even following the ridiculously easy rules laid out by the ECPA and the phone companies were still providing information.

      The ECPA laws were definitely violated. The phone company is guilty for not insisting that the letter of the law be followed. The FBI is also guilty for being lax in its policies and for flat out lying in many cases.

    41. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by cetialphav · · Score: 1

      There is no law preventing the government from asking without a court order.

      The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) should prevent this. Since the FBI is bound to uphold the law, they should certainly not induce or pressure others to violate the law by giving out information that the ECPA says should be withheld from the government. It is very troubling that both the FBI and phone companies had no trouble in playing fast and loose with ECPA.

      In order for the FBI to get information from the phone companies without having to seek a warrant, they needed to certify that the information was related to a counterterrorism investigation. They did this with a form that required 4 signatures from senior FBI people. The phone companies are obligated by law to require this. At some point, people stopped following these procedures but the phone companies still turned over records.

    42. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by penguinbrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd be curious to know if there was some kind of unofficial threat from the FBI that if the given operator doesn't comply they will be investigated for impeding the given investigation or something - as we all know we are breaking some kind of law at any given moment, although with the newly in acted laws for national security due to terrorism, we are probably violating these as well at any given time - let alone in the past...

    43. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN DAMN LINK?!! "Under the ECPA it is relatively easy for a governmental agency to demand service providers hand over consumer data that has been stored on servers."

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    44. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So, wanna try again? What contract do YOU have?

      http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneaboutyou.html

      That's the contract I have. What you're reading in the Qwest contract is regarding what you do ONLINE, not relating to your phone call info, or as it is termed in the industry, your CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information).

      So they can suck it, if they don't have a warrant or a legal OBLIGATION to give that info to the FBI, then they (the phone company) are not only liable as a company, but as a matter of fact the person who actually GIVES the info to them is PERSONALLY legally liable and can end up in jail with a big fine.

      Disclaimer- I work for a phone company. Everybody who works here knows this. The FBI should too.

    45. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by cetialphav · · Score: 1

      Of course I read the link. I didn't say anything about the difficulty of obtaining said information. The original story laid out just how easy it was. At times, a simple phone call or a post-it note was enough. It was also illegal, which was my point. The ECPA says when and how you can get information without a warrant. It lays out specific conditions. If those conditions are not met, then the data access is illegal.

      I posted the link to refute the various statements I see that claim that it is legal for the phone company to hand over customer data anytime the government says "please".

    46. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      they always start to wonder what I have to hide

      I usually tell them that it is nobody else's business just how much of my porn collection consists of midget nuns dressed up as penguins peeing on each-other while singing 'I'm a little tea pot'.

      All you have to do is bring up an example that is embarrassing enough that no-one wants to know about it, yet is still perfectly legal.

    47. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's both.

      The crime becomes unpunishable due to the coverup, but the crime itself is despicable. Only the combination makes it the mess it is now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    48. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Well, there's this, which is probably the safest method for voice communication. There are software apps for Windows Mobile that encrypt voice connections.

      A couple years ago, I looked high and low for a functional Windows Mobile app to do this that is compatible with modern phones.. if you have any useful links I'd love if you could share them? Thanks in advance :)

    49. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention I was looking for a solution that worked actually over the voice channel (not CSD over GSM), and so it should be carrier agnostic and work over CDMA. I'm sure that narrows the field a bit :) I did find this if anyone was interested and has CSD-GSM capabilities - http://www.securegsm.com/pages.php?pageid=73

    50. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      There's also the tried & true drug dealer method....pre paid cells.

      Honestly, in the current environment of paranoia, how is it that unregistered, unlisted, untraceable cell phones can still be purchased, for cash, with no forms to fill out or IDs to be checked, at any Wal-Mart or 7-11? I've been expecting this loophole to be permanently sealed for years now, and am shocked that it hasn't been addressed by the Powers That Be(TM).

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    51. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > The FBI doesn't like letting the target of their investigations
      > know they're been snooped upon... and the service provider is glad
      > to not tell you they've violated their own privacy policy by giving
      > out info without the proof that they're being legally obligated to
      > do so.

      Great point. In fact, most contracts with Telco's have in some form
      or another this (paraphrased): "We won't share your information with
      any third parties unless LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so by law enforcement
      etc.".
      There's a very easy solution to this: If it does get out, that a
      customer has had his/her records transferred to the FBI via Post-It
      request (hardly 'legally required'), s/he'll have to sue the crap out
      of the offending telco for BREACH OF CONTRACT. If enough people do
      this and most likely win, the telco's will be a lot more careful in
      the future about stuff like that.

    52. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they have curtains covering their windows? What do they have to hide?

      ...my skin from the sun's damaging rays?

    53. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man they get whole floors now? Last I heard it was limited to unassuming back rooms. Must have needed to add more computing power...BLACKBRIAR!

    54. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You've seen those people in black or blue uniforms outside, right?

      I made note of this in an old journal, Trolling at the Springfield St. Patrick's Day Parade

      Still needing caffiene I went in search of coffee, and asked a cop if he knew where I could get coffee. He looked at me like I was crazy. "Maybe in one of the bars," he said. I noticed then that about everyone had at least a little green (I was wearing my old field jacket from when I was in the military), and there wasn't even a tiny bit of green on a Springfield police officer's uniform. In fact, they look all black, like a Nazi stormtrooper, or Darth Vader.

    55. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by phorm · · Score: 1

      I think your sig says it all:

      Oh my God. It's full of naked Boomers!

      Don't close your curtains for your sake... do it for ours (and think of the chiiiiildren) :-)

    56. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I don't have anything to hide behind the curtains. The curtains are there to protect the people outside. I don't care if they see my genitals, they care and get upset.

    57. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Except upon getting your drivers license you sign an agreement to let your car be searched or you forfeit your license. So yes you can refuse, but at that time you loose your license and then your car doesn't do much good.

      However, even though your car can be searched, your person cannot. So if you are carrying drugs in your car, keep them on your person and refuse for your person to be searched.

    58. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's true -- I was pulled over in Florida a couple of decades ago for having a black woman in the back seat; apparently to the cops, two white people and one black means "drugs". He wanted to search the car and I refused, and it was similar to your scenarios.

      OTOH, a couple of summers ago my car and person were searched without permission and without warrant. They didn't even ask permission -- they had guns drawn. I'd parked in front of a "dope house"; the ladies I was with were next door collecting for a cleaning job they'd done. Apparently, parking in front of a dope dealer's house is "probable cause", even if you don't go in the house itself. In fact, I never even left the car, sitting outside waiting for them.

    59. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Xoltri · · Score: 1

      I poop in public toilets with the door open because I have nothing to hide.

      --
      -Xoltri
    60. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yes, just like in 1984...a completely fictional piece of literature.

    61. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Dude, I've been pulled over maybe three times...my entire LIFE (I'm 40). What in the hell are you doing to appear so suspicious to a cop?

    62. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      I would like to suggest that your responses are inappropriate and are likely to get you in trouble. You are correct on purely legal grounds but when you're face to face with a cop, your answers sound antagonistic.

      In your examples...

      COP: "If a dog smells something, I can search without your permission."
      YOUR ANSWER: ""So, get the dog!"

      Don't challenge an officer. Again, your answer is legally okay, but if the cop thinks you're being an ass, he can make your life miserable. Remember: He's getting paid whether he's standing there giving you a hard time for an hour while he waits for the dogs to show up, or not. You, on the other hand, presumably don't want to wait for an hour and have your car searched.

      The better way to respond to the officer's statement is to either say "Am I free to go now?" or just keep your mouth shut and say nothing. Seriously.

      I'd hold this to be true for your other examples as well. It's not going to do you any good to talk back or come off as anything but unswervingly polite. That doesn't mean being spineless and letting the cop do whatever he wants. It means poltely but firmly saying you don't agree to a search, and then responding to all of his threats with a re-iteration of that, and "Am I free to go now?"

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    63. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And the non-fictional description of a hypothetical future with omnipresent electronic surveillance would be...?

      And your point would be...?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    64. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Oh no! When I went into town yesterday I was wearing black trousers, a black shirt, a black jumper, and had a long black coat on over it. I might be a Nazi! Or Darth Vader! I knew I should have worn the grey coat instead...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    65. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint for the zphone developers: If you want your protocol to be widely adopted, don't use the GPL and definitely don't use the AGPL, for the reference implementation. Release it under the most permissive license you can. The AGPLv3 means it can be used in GPLv3 or AGPLv3 projects. It can't even be used in GPLv2 or AGPLv2 projects.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    66. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      My point is that 1984 is fictional literature and nothing like the current state of government. It's over-the-top hyperbole.

    67. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      We weren't talking about the current state of government. We were talking about a hypothetical future in which it was accepted and known that the government could spy on everyone whenever they wanted. That's similar to 1984, if not in scale then in kind.

      So it's hyperbole. Does that change the point? Does it change the implication? Or is this the "well it's not that bad yet, and as long as it's not that bad it's okay" argument?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    68. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      My point is that 1984 is fictional literature and nothing like the current state of government. It's over-the-top hyperbole.

      The title is over-the-top hyperbole. Is the rest?

      --
      $ make available
    69. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFLink, so I don't know, but I'd guess it involves/is vaguely similar to onion routing?

      --
      $ make available
    70. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      There is location data on where the phone is while it is turned on.

      Cheap prepaid phone.

      --
      $ make available
    71. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying the guy's post is over-the-top, not the book. It is pure hyperbole to compare the current state of government to that represented in the book 1984.

    72. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I misunderstood your post then. It sounded to me like you were inferring that the current state of government (i.e. that portrayed in the article) is as bad as that portrayed in the novel 1984.

      I'm simply saying we're not there (yet), and to posit otherwise is a bit tinfoilhatish.

    73. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, no no. Definitely not. I do like to use behaviors that resemble things from 1984 as warnings, though. I mean it'd be a real facepalm-worthy moment if one day we said "Welp, direct comparisons of todays government to that of 1984 are no longer hyperbolic" without seeing it coming. ;)

      No my point was just unreasonable and unrestrained surveillance that is hidden vs in the open... The AC was saying they wouldn't mind if it wasn't hidden, and I was just pointing out that I don't think that actually helps much.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    74. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      My point is that 1984 is fictional literature and nothing like the current state of government. It's over-the-top hyperbole.

      It's dystopian fiction. It's supposed to be.

      Utopian fiction shows you how good the world would be if everyone just did exactly what the author thinks they should do.

      Dystopian fiction shows you how bad the world would be if everyone just did exactly what the author thinks they WILL do.

    75. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I won't fault your reasoning. But, I've also worn a uniform, and I see past the uniform, no matter which uniform it is. I don't see "a cop", so much as a see a man or a woman. Yes, I remember the days of my youth when all I saw was the uniform - I guess that's why I wanted to wear one.

      Anyway - each situation is different. Each of these guys came across with different attitudes, which were kinda shitty, and I decided to make them WORK for whatever they wanted.

      I could tell you about the one real badass I met in a cop's uniform. He was going to beat my ass in front of a bunch of women, no matter what - and I was prepared to defend myself. Luckily, his watch commander showed up and defused the situation.

      My dealings with idiots in uniform make me appreciate the good cops even more, believe me. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    76. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I've lived on the road almost all of my adult life. I drove truck for almost 15 years, worked construction, two enlistments in the Navy, among other things. The outsider is ALWAYS stopped for questioning before locals. When you've driven a million miles, complete with the log books to show where you've been, and when, come back and tell me how many times you've spoken to a cop. Of, if you've got the time and money to just go touring the country, take your out-of-state-plates through as many southern towns as possible. If you happen to be black or Hispanic, try East Texas.

      Life on the road can be educational, aside from geography.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    77. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      As jim_v2000 posted, I read what I thought you meant, rather than what you actually typed. Of course you're right - the cop needs no warrant to ASK if I mind if he searches me, or my vehicle, or my house, or anything else. It's up to me to deny permission, and make him get his warrant.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    78. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but my point wasn't really about good cops versus bad cops. I don't really have a problem with cops as such. My point was that, even if the ratio is fifty good cops for every one bad cop, that one bad cop can really make your life hell if he wants, and even with the good cops, there's no point in antagonising them with holier-than-thou, self-righteous posturing, no matter how correct you think you are. Why be a dick about it?

      Know your rights and stand your ground, but defiantly shouting "Oh yeah, well, you go and GET the dogs, then!" isn't really going to win you any points with anyone.

      This goes for any professional interaction, if you ask me. There's a huge difference between being assertive and aggressive, and while being aggressive makes you feel macho for a minute, that's all it does. Remaining polite but assertive in your stance is far more effective, whether you're dealing with a cop, a baker, a janitor, a cabbie, an executive, an accountant, or your boss.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    79. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The difference between your costume and cop's, or Nazi storm trooper's, or Darth Vader's, is that they are visibly armed.

      Maybe the Springfield cops are just Emos and Goths with guns?

    80. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Why be a dick about it? "

      Well - maybe because I am a dick? I've made a lot of claims about myself, here and elsewhere, but I've never claimed to be a nice guy. ;^) In fact, if someone goes to the trouble to get under my skin, I am a real SOB!

      Yeah, that kind of an attitude can bite you in the ass, but so far, I've judged human character well enough that they haven't been able to bite me.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    81. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Except upon getting your drivers license you sign an agreement to let your car be searched or you forfeit your license. So yes you can refuse, but at that time you loose your license and then your car doesn't do much good.

      I did not sign any such agreement, and I expect that any half-wit lawyer could get that provision of the "contract" thrown out as invalid. It's coercive.

      On the other hand, the law does call for loss of license if you refuse a breath-alyzer test after adequate cause has been shown to justify it. That's considerably different than a blanket agreement to allow a search of your vehicle.

    82. Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Of course I read the link. I didn't say anything about the difficulty of obtaining said information. The original story laid out just how easy it was. At times, a simple phone call or a post-it note was enough. It was also illegal, which was my point. The ECPA says when and how you can get information without a warrant. It lays out specific conditions. If those conditions are not met, then the data access is illegal.

      You should read the ECPA and not just the link, although the wiki link was also pretty clear about it. It is NOT illegal for the FBI to ask for calling records without a warrant because calling records are not interception of an electronic communication as covered by the ECPA. The FBI cannot ask the telco to put a tap on a line and report the content of the communications without a warrant, but that's not what was happening.

      You WANT it to be illegal, but sorry, the ECPA doesn't make it that way. The facts remain: the FBI, CIA, NSA, state or local law enforcement, or even Nutty Uncle Joe, can ASK the telco for calling records without breaking the law. The telco can GIVE them the records without breaking the law. They don't HAVE to give them. If the telco says "no", then a warrant would be required.

      I posted the link to refute the various statements I see that claim that it is legal for the phone company to hand over customer data anytime the government says "please".

      You should have read the link and noticed that it doesn't say that before posting it. You should have also read the Qwest privacy policy which I posted the relevant paragraph from earlier where it says explicitly that it CAN and WILL do exactly that.

  4. ThePlanet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From an ex-employee who worked there, I have heard FBI agents walk into TP's data center with their own key cards, pull whatever they want and on the way out, wave at the guy running the DC while dropping off the necessary paperwork on the way out.

    1. Re:ThePlanet by geekmux · · Score: 1

      From an ex-employee who worked there, I have heard FBI agents walk into TP's data center with their own key cards, pull whatever they want and on the way out, wave at the guy running the DC while dropping off the necessary paperwork on the way out.

      Ah, if you're going to be that ignorant about how you run a Data Center, why in the hell even require any "necessary paperwork"? Obviously no one cares what they take, so what's the point of a paper trail?

    2. Re:ThePlanet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you hear them wave?

    3. Re:ThePlanet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I work at a hosting provider larger than TP that has had to cooperate with the law before and disagree that this really happens with so little background action. Cool idea for a movie though.

  5. Thank the PATRIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're not above the law -- they are following PATRIOT Act that is still in place. This wonderful piece of legislature allows FBI to ask for records while placing a gag order on the source, i.e. whoever is going to give you up will not be allowed to tell you that your records are going to be send to law enforcement agencies.

    Want change? Ask Obama to finally become the president of the U.S.

    1. Re:Thank the PATRIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want change? Ask Obama to finally become the president of the U.S.

      It's not his fault, his party only had a supermajority in the senate for a year!

  6. Re:Democrats, as usual! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check your facts. This has been going on for more than 1 year.

  7. In the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    there is no need for the government to hack corporations. They cooperate.

    This allows us to feel indignant when it happens in other countries.

  8. "LAW ENFORCEMENT" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Break the law, go to jail!

    1. Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by goldaryn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Break the law, go to jail!

      I find your ideas fascinating, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by 2obvious4u · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My dad had a saying "Plain and simple its against the law." This would be when he was telling me not to do something. Usually it was him telling me not to speed.

      Now that I'm the Dad I realize that that is the dumbest saying ever. Its not simple, idiots make stupid laws. People don't look at statistics, they become emotionally attached to a cause and throw all logic out the window and then pass a super restrictive law that really doesn't do any good. The majority of the population can break these dumb laws and everyone is safe; however a statistically insignificant number of people who are already ripe for a Darwin award break the law to deadly results. Therefore 10 people do something stupid and the other 6 billion people on the planet have to suffer.

      Here is a listing of stupid laws:
      Can't grow your own marijuana.
      Can't go faster than 70mpg on the interstate, even when nobody is withing 10 miles of you.
      Can't date a freshman as a senior in highschool, if you do you're stigmatized by law for life.
      Can't copy a song off a CD and give it to your significant other (mix tapes are technically illegal).
      Have to wear a seatbelt at ALL times. No sleeping on the floor of the SUV during 8 and 10 hour car trips. The instant that seatbelt unclicks, for whatever reason and the vehicle is in motion, you've broken the law.

      Not to mention that the judicial system, which was designed to allow for exceptions based on circumstance, has had the feature removed. The law which is supposed to have grey areas where your peers could decide that in that particular case it would be ok, has had that power effectively removed. Yes in some extreme cases juries still have that power, but for common violations of the law it has become a cash crop for the state.

      Oh and the local law enforcement isn't your friend. They serve a purpose and your friend isn't one of them. Always, Always do as little as possible to cooperate with them because you're probably breaking a law and don't even realize it. The officer will and will fine you or arrest you for it. And if you protest to the officer they'll add resisting arrest or a number of other trump charges. And even when they are wrong and proved so in court they'll still create some other lesser charge just so they save face.

      Can you tell I'm bitter about the legal system? There was a great story on "This American Life" about someone who got arrested for grand theft auto because of one of those bait cars. They parked it in front of his apartment and he was trying to find the owner to get it removed. He even called the police about it repeatedly. The stupid bait car even leaves the doors unlocked with the keys in it. He didn't do anything wrong yet had to fight in court for years.

      Then you add in technology which the Luddites can't understand and you get kids being brought up on charges for sexting. Its like they've completely forgotten what its like to be a kid. It is just the modern version of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" except in the digital age. And "they" are just so happy to ruin peoples lives beyond what their own stupidity has already done.

    3. Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you right up until:

      Can't grow your own marijuana

      Which immediately turned what could otherwise be an intelligent post into a pothead's ramblings.

      What, is another "bad law" going to be "can't run my own crystal meth lab"?

    4. Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Actually. Why not? Why can't you run your own crystal meth lab?

      The reason it is so dangerous is because it is against the law. People have to use equipment in ways it wasn't designed for in places that should never be used as a chemical lab. They also have no way to properly dispose of hazardous waist and no means to properly vent their work space.

      If you could legally buy proper lab equipment and the raw components for meth without having to "cook" the ingredients it wouldn't be dangerous. Not only that you could make it in a safe location, like an industrial office instead of some slum house.

      The reason cooking meth is dangerous is because it is against the law.

      Second your point is a little exaggerated. Marijuana is a plant, other than the stupid law there is nothing wrong with growing it. Read some of the history of growing marijuana in the US, it wasn't until the 1920-30's that it even became an issue. reference

      The last three presidents of the United States have smoked more marijuana than I ever have. Logically the prohibition of marijuana is a bad law. Look at the research.

      We only get to live one life. People should be free to live it as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others. It is a travesty that there are so many prohibitions in life because of closed minded people such as yourself.

    5. Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by JimFive · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your dad was at stage 4 of Kohlberg's scale. Of course, you were probably at stage 3 at the time so it wasn't completely useless.

      And yes, I only posted this because I remembered it from that college ethics class 20 years ago.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  9. Best part of the story by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    The FBI director's password was written on the back of the post-it note.

  10. Unrelatedly by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The FBI used these phone records to send a text message to a New York based purse theif asking him to turn himself in, in which he kindly obliged.

  11. No website really promises privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every privacy policy that I've read - and I read every one for every website I do business with - states that they will give information to law enforcement or to entities that enable them to do business or to enhance my customer experience and then some.

    They also say that they can change the terms any time they want.

    In other words, no website really promises to keep you or your data private in their policies.

    Google is one of the biggest offenders, btw. They constantly change their shit.

  12. Re:Democrats, as usual! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, remember, exposing what the FBI is doing is what destroys America. If you don't want the FBI to illegally spy on terrorists -- and of course that's the only people they spy on, even if the report says the opposite -- then you want terrorists to destroy America. Because you love terrorists. And hate America.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  13. But was it official? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    But was it an official FBI 3M PostIt Note?

  14. Category name change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I propose that yro be renamed wro - What Rights Online?

  15. Curse them... by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Curse Romy and Michelle for inventing something that the government is using to spy on it's own people!

    I say we hang them for treason!

  16. Re:fucZk. by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 2, Funny

    One of the rare times an AC goatse post should actually be considered insightful and informative.

  17. Re:Democrats, as usual! by Ashriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, if you had read the article, you'd realize that the DoJ findings pertain to FBI activity between 2003-2007. The report also mentions that towards the end, the FBI began cleaning up its practices a little - probably in anticipation of a new administration. Of course, now that the new administration has revealed itself as the same old administration with better table manners, they're probably back at it again.

  18. Tried that at a bank once ;-) by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wrote on a post-it-note "Want $2,000,000" in small unmarked notes. All they did was have me arrested:( Clearly I need to work on my social engineering skills. Maybe next time I won't walk in with my helmet on, so they can see my big friendly smile.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Tried that at a bank once ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you also write the teller you have a gub so they'd better abt natural?

  19. Credit card statements by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't really care about my phone records (I never really call anyone anyway). But how hard is it for them to sift through my credit card records looking for dirt?

    1. Re:Credit card statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know what you mean. The other day I was chatting up this hooker and..woahhhhhhh. Wait a minute...

    2. Re:Credit card statements by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      One or two queries to their database

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:Credit card statements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very easy.

    4. Re:Credit card statements by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about my phone records (I never really call anyone anyway). But how hard is it for them to sift through my credit card records looking for dirt?

      Not as hard as it should be. :(

  20. Of course, the operators will be prosecuted by Night64 · · Score: 1

    Or sued. Not the agents or supervisors, of course. But some low level telecom operator will pay. They need a scapegoat. Now.

    --
    Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
  21. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FBI is agile!

  22. Yet it is amazing... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... that there are those, even a major cable news network, who want to return to the days of the Bush era. What are they fuckin' thinking? Are they even thinking at all?

    1. Re:Yet it is amazing... by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretending this is a partisan issue is one good way to guarantee it continues and gets worse.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Yet it is amazing... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Wish I could mod you to +11.

    3. Re:Yet it is amazing... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Clearly they are not thinking at all. If they were, they would want to return to the days of the Reagan era.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  23. Embeded employees by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The report refers to three telecom providers that placed employees in FBI offices, but it does not name the operators.

    That should scare you even more than using post-it notes..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. MOD PARENT DOWN!!1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot. We're not going to get facts get in the way of a good Democrat-bashing, are we?! Mod parent down!

  25. Trump phrases by psithurism · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wait, I thought the trump card was "But think of the children!"

    There's a whole suit of 'em:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

    1. Re:Trump phrases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm shocked, it's like they copy&pasted my lexicon in a single wikipedia article.

    2. Re:Trump phrases by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, that was an awful article.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:Trump phrases by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      IIRC there are 3 million articles but only ~2k "featured" articles.

      --
      $ make available
  26. Remember by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    You could be thrown into Guantanamo forever if the President declared you an enemy combatant. No post-it or evidence required.

  27. Well they are used to companies cooperating by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    That's part of the problem is that these companies get so overly cooperative that the FBI doesn't have to bother with proper procedure, and so doesn't because it is easier.

    We've run in to that on occasion. The FBI will want some info and we are more than happy to provide it. However, being that I work at a university, they have to do it right and get a subpoena and all that. The has vexed them before and taken way longer than it should. They don't get mad or threatening or anything, it just seems like it hasn't occurred to them that they might have to go through the proper channels before we can give them what they want.

  28. Keep your business in your box by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

    It's kinda like that keep your pant's off the ground Rap.

    F- a cloud, i hate even the concept of the Cloud.

    I started out with a box that went out to the world and just came back(BBS), (it was by phone modem for the younger ones out there) not this James Bond/Enemy of the State stuff. It's getting Stupid.

    --
    I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    1. Re:Keep your business in your box by Zorque · · Score: 1

      I don't really know what you're saying or how it relates to the story, but good job being overcoming your schizophrenia enough to able to click "submit"!

    2. Re:Keep your business in your box by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      Ok.

      Maybe i made a mistake, it happens.

      I mean't if you keep everything in your head instead of relying on some easily accessable device (Post-it or Thumbdrive) you might not get caught. But only if your'e a criminal.

      I'm not.

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
  29. Easily Abusable by muphin · · Score: 1

    Phone Company: Hello you have called ###
    Bad Person: I am Agent Poopyganger from the FBI Division of Computer Crime, i need to records of mobile number [insert celebrity #] from the last 72 hours.
    Phone Company: Please Hold
    Phone Company: where would you like me to send this data?
    Bad Person: send it to horny86@gmail.com
    Phone Company: Is there anything else I can help you with?
    Bad Person: Not right now, cya
    Hang Up.

    --
    It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
  30. How is this report "damning"?!? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll believe it is a "damning" report when I see the FBI Director forced to "retire" over this. Not bloody likely.

    Yeah, I know this kind of shit probably went on pre-9/11. It was likely kept a bit more secret then. I just have a problem with the whole "yeah, so what if I did...What the fuck are YOU gonna do about it?" mentality they seem to take today with it, that's all. They don't operate along side, around, or even above the law. They just don't give a fuck anymore because everyone was issued a master key labeled "anti-terrorism". Why should I be worried about a terrorist attack when I'm too busy being attacked by my own Government?

    I find it absurdly ironic that the "Justice" Department released this. Why do we have that Department again? They don't seem to be doing much these days to earn their name or the billions we pour into it.

  31. Re:Democrats, as usual! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I love my country--signed up to take a bullet (or an IED for her); however, I fear my gov't FAR more than any terrorist.

    Al-Qaeda: 10,000 kills (approx)

    Fed & State felony convictions: 9,000,000 (approx)

    I'll take my chances with the terrorists, thank you.

  32. Post-It Note by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    But it was a really, really impressive Post-It note...

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Post-It Note by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      But it was a really, really impressive Post-It note...

      Raymond Shaw, I have here a Queen of Diamonds.

  33. In the morning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police State, here we come.

  34. Suprised? by oljanx · · Score: 1

    "Some telecom employees, who were based in FBI offices so as to quickly respond to such requests..." The exchange of information is so direct that the parties involved literally work side by side. "Hi, my name is Bob and I've been hired by TelecomX specifically to provide information to the FBI." Nothing about this is frightening.

  35. Conclusions by Darth+Cider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The obvious inferences, which aren't being expressed here so far, are:

    1. Journalists are still important, in that they dig up this kind of information.
    2. We all knew this would happen, after the relaxation of civil liberties laws.
    3. There are probably worse things going on that we will never know about.
    4. It's patriotic to insist that law enforcement personnel do what is right, and obey the law, and not look for ways to subvert it or bend the rules, because otherwise they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    It's human nature to take the easy way and do what is expedient, which is how it plays out in TV cop shows. But in the real world, these guys have to do what is right, for the sake of the light of liberty - which is incredibly fragile. They're supposed to be defenders of the Constitution, which is a very fragile idea about freedom. I hope the agencies involved see the big picture and understand what is really at stake, rather than get defensive and cynical about troublesome rules and regulations that "only make their work harder."

  36. I am not american but ... by AftanGustur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why aren't these people prosecuted ??

    I mean, in a country where the average Joe gets in big trouble for telling the wrong joke at a airport you would have thought this to be a more serious crime ?!?

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:I am not american but ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Why aren't these people prosecuted ??

      That would boil down to the president prosecuting himself, according to the unitary executive theory. (Never forget that prosecutors are part of the executive branch.)

    2. Re:I am not american but ... by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      You must not understand the american psyche.

      Americans only have so much energy to devote to critical thinking, maybe 30 seconds. So we'll let the talking heads on TV tell us what to be outraged about. Health care has been the best thing for the nation the past few months - it can help avoid people thinking about 2 wars, horrid economy, national debt, and all the other ills. Although it's a new season of American Idol and 24 so even things like earthquake coverage of Haiti won't matter much.

      For many of the fringe types that want to get their news from TV but have more than 30 seconds to give a damn, they watch the Daily show on Comedy Central.

  37. Is this any surprise? by cbope · · Score: 1

    Since the US government is owned and controlled by large corporations through lobbyists and "campaign donations" (otherwise known as bribes, graft or payoffs), aren't the FBI just considered employees of said corporations? So in effect they are just sharing information within the corporation, right? Nothing wrong with that... :)

  38. First they came ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out."

    Martin Niemoller, a one-time supporter of Adolf Hitler.

  39. wish it was funny... by muckracer · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, KGB gets your phone records.

    Congrats, USA! Well-done.

  40. You can't blame this on the PATRIOT Act by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    I don't like it as much as the next guy, but there are limits on the use of National Security Letters and the FBI doesn't pay attention to them. The Inspector General has cried foul on numerous occasions about this, but Congress is too busy debating "more important things" like redistributions of wealth of to the health insurance industry to care.

    1. Re:You can't blame this on the PATRIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually about distributing health to citizens, but what do I know, I live in a crazy socialist system where the choice is between public and private coverage, not between coverage and nothing.

  41. Re:Democrats, as usual! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While funny and snarky the proper response to that is

    'Those very rules you need to get around, are the very rules that make our country great. If you skip the rules then you are no better than the thugs you are trying to take out.'

  42. Telco's fault by phorm · · Score: 1

    Which actually brings up a good question:
    What is the fault against law enforcement in an offhand manner, vs that against the Telco's for cooperating with a request that has no legal enforcement.

    In other words, the FBI is naughty for asking via postie-note, but the Telco's are sure as hell guilty by simply handing over data to such an informal request. The proper response should be "sure, we'll send it over once you fax us all the proper authorizing paperwork."

  43. Don't forget... by uslurper · · Score: 1

    ..Its now "Obama's Department of Justice"

    We can still call it the DOJ for short, but the O is for Obama!

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
  44. Our FBI by cscoot03 · · Score: 1

    The FBI is here to protect as all the Law agencies. Personally, as long as we have our privacy abiding by the Law, these agencies should have no trouble protecting us. Deal with it, I am.

  45. Why can't FBI if Google gives IPs to Indian Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google doesn't ask Indian Police for justification. All it takes is an email request, and these IP addresses could be in USA!

    A common reason India Cyber Crime cops ask for IP addresses is "cyber defamation"... and India has Criminal Defamation laws still in the books.
    (Despite the original land of their laws changing with the times: United Kingdom: Defamation Decriminalised)

    In 2005, a Singapore company eSys won the 2005 Ernst and Young award, rubbed shoulders with the elite, launched a Foundation and so on.

    Things became more noteworthy when eSys used Indian Police Cyber Crime cell to fight their cyber-defamation ... and by 2009, it was clear that there was some serious fraud at eSys.

    Mumbai Police even ordered an American to delete a Cartoon... did they need an excuse to do that ?

    So if Indian Police can get IP address records from USA simply by asking, why not FBI ?