Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans' Real Time Credit Card Activity

PatPending writes "A 10-page Powerpoint presentation (PDF) that security and privacy analyst Christopher Soghoian recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request to the Department of Justice reveals that law enforcement agencies routinely seek and obtain real-time surveillance of credit card transactions. The government's guidelines reveal that this surveillance often occurs with a simple subpoena, thus sidestepping any Fourth Amendment protections."

Comments

We are all suspects, welcome to the police state.

[elucido]

In the police state we are all potential terrorists. Just like this guy http://www.jbhfile.com/invest_beginnings.html

Let it be a lesson, don't piss off the banks and financial institutions of America.

Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it.

[elucido]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

Duh!! We don't own the data

[cenobyte40k]

Duh!! Honestly the data isn't private protected data, it belongs to the companies we did business with and they can do what they want with it. They might not want to piss us off, but it's better not to piss of the legal authorities either. As a result they are more than welcome to give it to the govt., police, or any party they like. Honestly this has been going on in dozens and dozens of ways for a long, long time and I can't believe this is really news. Didn't we all already know this?

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[thue]

Well, the email log at my email provider is also owned by my email provider, not me. But I certainly consider the contents as private information.

And why do you think the AOL search scandal a scandal? The data was owned by AOL, but they still need to handle it confidentially.

Same with credit card transactions. I am pretty sure that they are private here in Denmark. I remember asking my bank about a transaction, and being told that the employees could only see the amount of the transactions, not the accompanying text.

Re:Duh!! We don't own the data

[7-Vodka]

What the hell are you smoking?

Your local high street bank's financial information about you is also on their systems, it doesn't make it "their" information. The government needs WARRANTS for financial information.

Your medical records are on a bunch of corporate owned systems. It doesn't give them the right to divulge it either.

Talk about rolling over and lubricating your own anal cavity. With people like you we don't even need tyrants. You take it upon yourself to tell other people to roll over for them.

I assume everything I do is tracked

[peter303]

By the government, commercial data mining firms, and my employer. As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[bhartman34]

Zuckerberg and co. can't seem to manage a website properly. Are we really supposed to take (self-serving) privacy advice from them?

I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, and as such, I try not to put anything on the Internet that might embarrass me (now or later on). Having said that, accepting the premise that your actions on the Internet are inevitably going to be seen by other people doesn't mean it's okay for just anyone to see them. To put it bluntly, I see no reason to lube up and hand to them the anal probe they want to use on me.

Re:I assume everything I do is tracked

[Minwee]

As Zuckerberg said, "There is no privacy in the modern world, Learn to live with it."

You misspelled "Scott McNealy", and he said it in January of 1999 when Zuckerberg was still in High School.

This just in...

[GPLDAN]

The NSA watches you play World of Warcraft in REAL TIME! If you play the Horde, you are a terrorist.

How does this violate the 4th?

[MobyDisk]

How does a subpoena violate the 4th amendment? Subpoenas are granted by a judge - that's exactly what the 4th amendment is meant to require.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Hatta]

A subpoena is not a warrant. The 4th amendment requires warrants issued with probable cause.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[bhartman34]

A subpoena isn't a search. It's an order to produce documents. No searching is involved. A search warrant would be inappropriate in this situation, because there isn't any doubt that the credit card companies have kept this information.

And has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, the card holder's rights to privacy aren't being violated any way you slice it, because it's not the card holder's records that are being examined. It's the credit card company's.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not the card holder's records that are being examined. It's the credit card company's.

Ahh, so, that means that the doctors examine their medical records, not mine? You might want to work on your powers of deductive reasoning... I assert ownership of all information related to myself, and my rights to information about myself supersede anyone else, even if they collected that information.

Re:How does this violate the 4th?

[Ephemeriis]

That seems like a dangerous loophole since almost any information would fall under that. It seems like we are saying the data isn't protected, it is the records themselves.

If I go to your store and buy something from you, you're going to keep track of that transaction. You'll note down that you sold some item for some amount of money. This is your data, not mine. You use it to keep track of your inventory and balance your books and whatever else.

If you get subpoenaed for all your records pertaining to a certain date, my privacy isn't being violated. Even if I bought something on that date. They're your records, not mine. You may have recorded some data about me... But that's still your data. Not mine.

This is the same thing, only larger.

These aren't your records, they belong to the banks and credit card companies and whoever else. They keep these records to make sure that everybody gets paid/charged the right amount.

You buy something at a store with a credit card - that credit card company needs to keep track of it. Not for your sake, but for theirs. They need to know that $X was paid to this store, in your name, and you now need to pay back $Y on your next bill. This information is necessary for the credit card company to stay in business. If they don't track it, they don't know where their money is going, or who owes them money.

It is data about your actions... But it isn't your data. It belongs to the credit card company. They're the ones generating it and maintaining it for their own purposes. And when you use their credit card you agree to let them generate and use this data, because the credit card wouldn't function without it.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Locke2005]

By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Sponge Bath]

Was her ex really short, bearded, and wearing a funny hat?

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[elucido]

By his own words, that guy meets all the requirements for a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis. I had a girlfriend once who complained that her ex used to break into her house on a regular basis and inventory her underwear drawer. Logic dictates that the costs/benefits of paying a staff to do 24/7 harassment of an ex-employee just don't make sense.

That depends on who you work for. I'm sure a bank or the feds would have the money to do 24/7 surveillance on anyone they choose. That includes you.

A records subpoena is a court order.

[blair1q]

Business records are not your personal "papers and effects", so they don't really live under the 4th amendment, but even if they did they're covered because subpoenas of records are issued by the court; they're merely requested by the prosecutor. This is a non-issue.

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[the_raptor]

Business records aren't "papers"? Are you clinically retarded or just a Big Brother Lover? Business records is exactly the kind of thing the Founding Fathers were thinking about, not your collection of Japanese scat porn.

The records detailing the service provided by your credit card provider/bank should be just as private as the records of a business you run. The whole point of the 4th amendment is to stop Government fishing expeditions (by requiring evidence of probable cause) which is exactly what this is.

The only way you can defend this is if you are a short sighted fool who thinks unlimited surveillance by the Government is the only way to stop the terrorists taking your freedoms (at least this objective would be achieved as the terrorists wouldn't want your freedoms after the Government has left muddy boot prints all over them).

Also get back to me when politicians, police, and prosecutors give disclosure of their business records on request so the public can be sure they aren't taking money from criminal activity. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:A records subpoena is a court order.

[moeinvt]

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a law enforcement officer can, with NO search warrant, and with no intervention whatsoever by a court:

- Track every credit card purchase that I've ever made up to the present moment
- Search through the history of transactions I've made at my local library
- See records of all of my telephone calls
- view my accountant's copy of all of my tax records
- review any and all personal correspondences that I've sent to friends
- see my complete transaction history at my bank
- review all of the stock/bond transactions that I've made with my broker. ...

I certainly hope that no court would subscribe to your bizarre interpretation of the Fourth Amendement.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Lumpy]

You can have privacy, it's just getting a lot more expensive to do so.

Here are some steps for you.

1 - cash only. Yes kiddies, saving for and buying your item.
2 - Used only. This one works really well. Buying used from a private party leaves no paper trail.
3 - when presed for information give randomized false information. Giving the same false info builds a profile. Use incredibly common names, large apartment complexes as address, etc..
4 - Dress to blend in. Honestly, you need to be forgettable and blend in. You cant have a 4 foot tall bright red mohawk and expect privacy.
5 - Keep your mouth shut. Loose lips sink ships and give away your information.
6 - reassess and reevaluate your practices regularly. Keeps you from getting sloppy.

Is it easy? not a chance, it sucks. But it also works if you want to be "invisible". And that is exactly what you need to do. Live as if you are on the run and need to hide.
That said, I know people that live that way, but most of them are nutty.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[blair1q]

It always was. A subpoena is a demand for a witness to appear or for the delivery of records. If it's for a witness the court doesn't get involved before the subpoena is served. If it's for records from someone who isn't a party to the case the court issues the subpoena.

You are protected by the 4th amendment. Information other people have about you, who aren't your lawyer or your immedate family, is not.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[countertrolling]

We are moving into a world in which being a statistical anomaly is a criminal offense.

We already live in a world in which being a statistical minority is a criminal offense.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[postbigbang]

And sadly none of that should have to be the norm for living free, and living in a country founded on liberty and privacy and mutual respect.

In another note, we've traced you through our subpoena to /. message databases, and we found your IP. I'd watch what you download, if I were you.

Re:I write my own, thank you

[BJ_Covert_Action]

And in a world where it is, supposedly, very profitable to gather together any and all data about you and sell it to the highest bidder, no information regarding you is protected by the 4th amendment.

It's funny, our founding fathers put massive amounts of effort and intellectual practice into drafting a fantastic document that protects the people from the government. It's too bad none of them thought to draft up the same type of document to protect the people from large social entities like corporations, businesses, special interest groups, powerful churches, political parties, etc. You would have thought they had heard about the abuses of the British East India Trading Company and the abuses of the Vatican that caused Martin Luther to separate back then...ah well. Maybe next time around we'll get it right.

what do you expect?

[circletimessquare]

when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card

if you don't like that, use cash

but don't depend upon the government... to protect you from the government. that's absurd. besides, its not only the government that does this, all sorts of unscrupulous activity goes on with your data outside their purview. and i'm not talking about hackers and criminals and mafia. i'm talking about the merchants themselves: they freely offer your info up for advertising and data mining and targeted offers and other intrusive purposes. you know this already. facebook does the same thing. you are basically giving facebook the means to exploit you when you use facebook

there's money to be made in taking advantage of your data. so why do you think rules will ever be passed against the exploitation of your data, and even if there were rules made about that, why do you expect the players to respect those rules? so don't feed your data to the beast

don't depend upon the government to protect you from the government

don't depend upon corporations to protect you from corporations

depend upon YOURSELF and alter your own behavior

use cash. and stop blabbing about your social life to a beast which exists for the expressed business purpose to take your info and use it to market, track, and otherwise deny you your privacy. if you continue to use facebook, and you know that, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME

but if it's too inconvenient for you to stop using facebook and credit cards, then stop complaining, because that lack of effort on your part reveals how unimportant to you these concerns really are to you. sure, you'll cry high holy indignation here on slashdot, but you won't change your behavior will you? lots of people talk a good game, and back it up with no action whatsoever

so either you are horrified that the feds know what you buy at the grocery store, or you don't. put your money where your mouth is, and take responsibility for your privacy. if you put it on a network, whether facebook, or using your credit card, you WILL be violated and exploited. now you know. so choose. its as simple as that

but don't look at the exploiters as your protectors or express surprise when they do what already know they will do. it's absurd to expect privacy on a network. so stop being surprised when you find out you don't have any

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Obfuscant]

We don't have privacy because we don't deserve it. We must accept that we are peasants to large financial institutions. They own our souls.

You don't have privacy because you agreed to the terms and conditions when you accepted the credit card offer from the "large financial institution.". They didn't have to give you credit, and you didn't have to take it when they offered. It was your choice.

Similarly, you don't have privacy at the grocery store because you accepted the terms and conditions of that "club card" when they offered it. They didn't have to offer it to you, and you didn't have to accept. You have to know they're getting something FROM you when they let you buy their stuff for less money when you have that card. Why do you think they do that, because they are altruistic and nice and like you?

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[Dishevel]

In the US at least you are correct. We as a people do not deserve the freedoms we once had. We sold them for a sense of security and a government check.

So feel secure, cash your check and shut the fuck up.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Samalie]

Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable.

I mean sure, one or two slip in from time to time. But the majority of the time, by supporting a 3rd party candidate you are directly syphoning votes away from the person who is the "lesser of two evils" in your mind, making it easier for the "greater of two evils" to get the most votes.

Not to mention having many parties just fucks to hell with the vote. Here in Canada, a haven of multi-party politics, our last election the ruling party got 37% of the vote. 37-fucking-percent.

Remember the uproar when George won with 47% of the vote in 2000? Selected, not elected? Imagine he got the presidency with 37% of the popular vote. People would freak the fuck out.

Don't get me wrong...I think multi-party is better than the 2-party system that ya'all have. But to make it work in the US, IMHO you'll have to entirely overhaul the entire electoral system. Otherwise you're just asking for chaos.

Old news...

[sgt_doom]

..although I appreciate the the post and update.

This first started online and realtime when First Data (whose CEO at the time was on the Council on Foreign Relations, I forget the twit's name) offered Bush administration that info for free (back in either 2001, but really around 2000).

Now First Data and TransUnion are government contractors, and together with 90 or so other private government contractors, the NSA, DIA, CIFA and NGA, make up the Total Information Awareness, actually begun under the auspices of the banksters' Regulatory DataCorp (RDC) and their Global Regulatory Information Database, or G.R.I.D.

If you don't believe me, try to crack their firewall setups, and research them.

and they call Assange a criminal?!?!?

[Phizzle]

As law abiding citizens we get sexually assaulted by the TSA, and have our privacy constantly violated by every 3 letter government parasite, and when we complain we are told that its all in the name of "Greater Good" and the ole Family Guy "Everything changed on 911..... EVERYTHING!!!", but when guy like Assange basically does what American news agencies do for ratings suddenly even the most staunch conservatives call for his head ignoring our own constitution and the international laws. Boooooooogles teh mind!

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[pspahn]

37%, 10%, 100%, completely irrelevant if elected officials actually did the things people want them to do. If someone wins with 37%, well that's great and all, but that doesn't mean that the other 63% are going to disagree with everything that person does. There is too much importance placed on the election, and very little importance placed on what the elected subsequently do.

I vote third party precisely because I want to siphon votes away from either a Demican or a Republocrat. There is no "lesser of two evils". They are both equally shitty.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[Oriumpor]

One need only attend Security conferences to know the hardware and software vendors are required to provide this sort of (audited mind you) access to LE. They can do pretty much whatever they want by contacting their internal liason. Do a little research on "lawful" interception.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[aristotle-dude]

"Independants/3rd party candidates are all but un-electable."

If you really believe that then you get exactly what you deserve. Democracy dies when people stop believing in it and just do what they are told.

Imagine if everyone started voting by their conscience instead of blindly voting for a party or strategically.

You can get a multi-party system by just voting for a party and encouraging everyone to vote for the party that actually represents their desires.

Re:Julian Assange is not fighting for your privacy

[fyngyrz]

Unfortunately, the people who most agree with me can't vote.

That's part of the mechanism to create a permanent underclass. Add that to the social conditioning that felons can no longer be forgiven, and they become un-hirable, have more trouble finding places to live, cannot advance... which of course leads them to the (correct) conclusion that the only way to actually get ahead is crime.

One of the nasty facets of this is that many "felons" were only guilty of consensual "crimes"; they really were zero danger to other people. But now, in order to have some measure of material success, crime is the only door that remains open.

One of our more serious social errors, born of hysteria and foolishness.

Tracking leads to trouble

[fyngyrz]

Or your "cold meds" example. OK, some database somewhere knows that I bought cold meds. So? I've yet to see a single targeted ad for cold meds, and even if I did... how does that actually hurt me?

Step 1: Buy a bottle of original NyQuil from a pharmacy
Step 2: Drive across town.
Step 3: Buy another bottle of original NyQuil from different pharmacy
Step 4: Learn how it hurts you

The answer, to save you the trouble, is you get arrested, you pay bail (if you can), you pay lawyers (if you can... if you can't, you're going to jail for a long time, because you're now an easy notch on some prosecutor's stick.) You meth-head, you.

"Oh, but I would never do that"

There are other things, and combinations of things, that can get you a serious, guns-pulled, door-breaking visit from your local gendarmes. Even trying to buy an Erlenmeyer flask or glass tubing can do it in some jurisdictions. Odds are hugely in favor of you having done these things innocently. That won't reduce your legal bills, though.

It's worth looking into.

Re:Anyone is a potential terrorist, get used to it

[fyngyrz]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It is a falsehood to claim that because bad situation A is worse than unrelated bad situation B, that B is therefore acceptable. As you would be well aware if you had been falsely accused of anything.

That IS what it means...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that a law enforcement officer can, with NO search warrant, and with no intervention whatsoever by a court:

- Track every credit card purchase that I've ever made up to the present moment
- Search through the history of transactions I've made at my local library
- See records of all of my telephone calls
- view my accountant's copy of all of my tax records
- review any and all personal correspondences that I've sent to friends
- see my complete transaction history at my bank
- review all of the stock/bond transactions that I've made with my broker. ...

I certainly hope that no court would subscribe to your bizarre interpretation of the Fourth Amendement.

Actually, disturbingly, this is close to a more or less accurate interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Other laws may prevent police from doing the things you list, and the police can't break laws while doing those things--but the Fourth Amendment does not usually protect information you have communicated to other people. Maryland v. Smith, IIRC, allows them to use telephone numbers you call against you in court without a warrant because you have to communicate those numbers to the telephone company, so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in them. California v. Greenwood is another big case in this area.

"Unreasonable search" doesn't mean "unreasonable search," it means what judges and justices, over decades of argument (most of the important stuff since 1969's Mapp v. Ohio), have reasoned out that "unreasonable search" means. Constitutional Law works like that--there's a debate over what something means, and the appointed and confirmed judge listens to both sides and then has a clerk write an opinion that becomes law. Then someone appeals, and it happens again, only this time with references to the prior opinions. Each opinion usually changes or refines the meaning at least slightly.

Also, "unreasonable search" means something different today than it did 200 years ago.

Re:We are all suspects, welcome to the police stat

[bell.colin]

You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?

It's called California and it's been near bankruptcy for years, It does NOT work.

Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.