FBI Obtains Phone Records With a Post-it Note

Oblig. IP jokes. by LostCluster · 2010-01-20 12:27 · 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!

Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by 2.7182 · 2010-01-20 12:39 · 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.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by v1 · 2010-01-20 13:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by joocemann · 2010-01-20 13:20 · 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...
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by zippthorne · 2010-01-20 13:41 · 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?!
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by TehDuffman · 2010-01-20 13:46 · 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
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by glebovitz · 2010-01-20 14:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I am pretty sure I remember seeing a post-it notes exception clause in the Constitution pertaining to telecom.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Runaway1956 · 2010-01-20 14:31 · 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
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-20 19:23 · 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
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. by rtb61 · 2010-01-20 19:34 · 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

Hey by binarylarry · 2010-01-20 12:28 · 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!

Re:Hey by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:41 · 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...
Re:Hey by morgan_greywolf · 2010-01-20 12:42 · 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...

--
My blog

Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by LostCluster · 2010-01-20 12:29 · 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!

Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Tanman · 2010-01-20 12:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Verteiron · 2010-01-20 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

It can't be said enough: Encrypt everything.

--
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:43 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by JDevers · 2010-01-20 12:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do you encrypt a phone call again?
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by EkriirkE · 2010-01-20 12:50 · 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
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Ziekheid · 2010-01-20 12:54 · 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?
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Verteiron · 2010-01-20 12:56 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's also the tried & true drug dealer method....pre paid cells
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-20 13:00 · 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
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by joocemann · 2010-01-20 13:24 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by poopdeville · 2010-01-20 13:31 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by oakgrove · 2010-01-20 13:31 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by poopdeville · 2010-01-20 13:33 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · 2010-01-20 13:53 · 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?
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by timmarhy · 2010-01-20 14:29 · 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....
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Runaway1956 · 2010-01-20 14:45 · 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
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Obfuscant · 2010-01-20 15:00 · 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.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by fluffy99 · 2010-01-20 17:02 · 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
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by penguinbrat · 2010-01-20 17:53 · 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...
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-21 10:36 · 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

ThePlanet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:38 · 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.

Thank the PATRIOT Act by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:43 · 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.

"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Break the law, go to jail!

Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by goldaryn · 2010-01-20 15:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Break the law, go to jail!
I find your ideas fascinating, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:"LAW ENFORCEMENT" by 2obvious4u · 2010-01-21 04:44 · 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.

Unrelatedly by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-20 12:51 · 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.

No website really promises privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:52 · 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.

Re:Democrats, as usual! by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-20 12:52 · 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

Category name change by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 12:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Curse them... by tool462 · 2010-01-20 12:59 · 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!

Re:fucZk. by Clandestine_Blaze · 2010-01-20 13:00 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
Best "String" Ever!

Re:Democrats, as usual! by Ashriel · 2010-01-20 13:03 · 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.

Tried that at a bank once ;-) by syousef · 2010-01-20 13:04 · 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

Credit card statements by rwa2 · 2010-01-20 13:06 · 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?

Yet it is amazing... by QuietLagoon · 2010-01-20 13:25 · 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?

Re:Yet it is amazing... by Shatrat · 2010-01-20 14:11 · 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

Trump phrases by psithurism · 2010-01-20 13:51 · 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

How is this report "damning"?!? by geekmux · 2010-01-20 14:43 · 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.

Conclusions by Darth+Cider · 2010-01-20 17:35 · 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."

I am not american but ... by AftanGustur · 2010-01-20 19:55 · 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

Slashdot Mirror

FBI Obtains Phone Records With a Post-it Note

54 of 187 comments (clear)