Slashdot Mirror


EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations

An anonymous reader writes "EFF has uncovered widespread violations stemming from FBI intelligence investigations from 2001 — 2008. In a report released today, EFF documents alarming trends in the Bureau's intelligence investigation practices, suggesting that FBI intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed. Using documents obtained through EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, the report finds: Evidence of delays of 2.5 years, on average, between the occurrence of a violation and its eventual reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board; reports of serious misconduct by FBI agents including lying in declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas, and accessing password-protected files without a warrant; and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible intelligence violations in the 9 years since 9/11."

29 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they did by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

    We've seen it before.

    With this being known fact, the politicians are to blame for enacting the Patriot Act without even reading it just because they needed something to trumpet in the media that would appear patriotic after 9/11.

    1. Re:Of course they did by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What we need is a long, continuously updated list of every time our concerns have been assuaged by a promise that "the new powers will only be used in these specific and necessary circumstances". Then we add to the list documentary evidence of those promises being broken. Start reading it out every time a politician tries to make a new promise to that effect, and see how long it is before people get the point.

    2. Re:Of course they did by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, no... we are to blame. Stop voting Democrat/Republican if you want to get off this merry-go-round.

    3. Re:Of course they did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree whole-heartedly. Governments almost never return power to the people once given.

      Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law. Any member of law enforcement should exemplify the standard and therefore be fully accountable to it. Perjury is typically a felony in most jurisdictions and any FBI agent (or any other agent given special powers) should spend time in federal prison for such a crime. This will provide ample time to consider how they've trampled underfoot the blood of those who died to preserve the freedom Americans enjoy.

      I'M SICK OF THIS ABUSE OF POWER!

    4. Re:Of course they did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but who are you going to get to prosecute them. And even if you did find a prosecutor how long do you think it would take before someone visited them off the record to make sure that their case failed.

      Democracy is a sham, we live in republics and the bureaucracy controls the them.

    5. Re:Of course they did by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the system is broken.

      you guys are arguing about which privileged class gets to run the country.

      I question the very NOTION of a privileged class running the country. enough of the rich bastards having their way and taking care of their own!

      term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks. there should be a STRICT no profit restriction on public officials. only get the ones that want to do it 'for the right reasons' and not for the money or power.

      arguing about which of the 2 parties - or even if you can get a 3rd - does not change a damned thing. this is a false-choice that is given to you.

      fix the system, remove this party 'us and them' concept and let each person speak on their own terms, on issues. isn't what what we REALLY want? parties are bullshit and serve no useful purpose but to deceive. why keep that outdated notion?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Of course they did by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          Too bad there isn't a "Sad but true" moderation.

          Most people ignore things that don't directly involve them. Who cares if [insert agency] commits [insert action] against [someone else]. Until someone finds out that a questionable legal wire tap implicated them in some sort of crime, which could lead to serious jail time through new means, they could care less. As you said, they'll flip over to American Idol and otherwise numb their brains to oblivion.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Of course they did by Lucidus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In every decade since I was born (in the early 50's), the FBI has engaged in egregious misconduct, although sometimes we didn't find out about it until years later. I am amazed that they have any credibility left, and puzzled that people continue to act surprised when these things come to light.

    8. Re:Of course they did by ChatHuant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      term limits should be ONE. period - no renewals. that removes the 'profit incentive' or rather, the come-back-to-get-more-power incentive. you get one term to make a difference and then you're back to your old job; but with oversight to ensure you didn't make some sweetheart deals for post-office kickbacks.

      Except it won't work. If the official in question knows he won't be in power again, he has no good reason to fix anything; it's not like *he*'ll have to deal with the consequences. On the contrary, he'll have a strong incentive to fill his pockets as much and as quickly as he can, since it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ottoman sultans named merchants of Greek origin as delegate rulers of some of the vassal countries. Those Phanariots got the nomination via massive bribes, and, once the rulership was obtained, their main objective was to recoup the expenses and get rich quick, before somebody else replaced them, That led to massive mismanagement, excessive taxes and general misrule.

    9. Re:Of course they did by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just look at what's happening in other countries with different systems of election.

      Lets see:

        * Australia. Lower house is representative preferential, upper house is technically preferential too, but with a proportional bent (multi-seat voting). While there are two main parties in Australia, neither has a majority in either house. Until recently, there was a viable third party - a role slowly being taken up by the Greens at the moment. Lower house has a significant number of Independents. There are a number of instances of seats being won by candidates who polled quite badly on their primary vote, but were outright preferred over the major parties.

      * Holland. Bicameral proportional system, with 10 parties in each of their two houses of parliament. Neither house is controlled by a majority. In fact no *two* parties could even band together to form a majority in either house.

      * New Zealand. Unicameral proportional system with direct representation: Single house with 50% representative FPP seats, and 50% "list" seats which are granted to parties in such a way that parliament becomes proportional. Again, currently two main parties, but neither has a majority of seats. Parliament is made up of 8 parties in total.

      * Switzerland. Bicameral proportional: 6 parties in each house, with the greatest proportion being 31%.

      Compare with:
        * USA: Bicameral FPP with separate executive. Each house is made up of exactly 2 parties. One party, "the winner", holds an absolute majority, while the other party, "the loser" holds virtually no power. The only saving grace is the split terms of the senate, where you might get lucky and have each house independently controlled ("a tie"). In such cases, the two parties are said to "compromise", by filibustering.

    10. Re:Of course they did by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"

      60's style protests don't work anymore. The tempo is wrong - Gov makes a 3/4 concession, keeps 1/4 of the evil, then slides a nasty twist on their concession as a dessert. Thing is, there's no "timeline" on this one - there's no "are we done yet" to know when we can do the 50's period of recovery. It's a thundering case of cabin fever where we all go crazy.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    11. Re:Of course they did by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just for a moment let's give the public a mite more credit. I peg them at "we're upset but what can we really do?"

      Lobby. They have computers, they have word processors. 1 letter and a mail merge reaches a whole lot of politicians. I've done it and it works. They will ignore an email but a respectful single page letter gets a lot of attention. So apathy is a pretty good description.

      Best regards

      John Citizen

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re:Of course they did by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, what I would see happening is a serious civil "unrest". It would be when the people take back their power from the government, and act in ways the people want.

      Consider what has happened in the past. Not only in the short past of the United States of America, but all around the world.

      Those with the ability organize and do things for change. That isn't misguided attempts drawn from the rantings of a horrible example of a pseudo-leader.

      It is all of us, forming to stand up against what is wrong. "Legal" methods may not be enough. A letter writing campaign, and a few hundred of your friends standing on the sidewalk in front of the Congressional buildings with signs and chanting the slogan of the moment obviously has no effect. The 60's style protests didn't work in the 60's. They are, and always will be, an ineffective form of protest.

      I have to say the following disclaimer. Assume it's in huge bolt text, flashing at you. I AM NOT RECOMMENDING, SUGGESTING, OR OTHERWISE INCITING ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

      Before anyone reads any farther, go read that statement again. If you still don't get it, put down your gun and your beer, sober up, and read it again until it makes sense.

      So what would it take to bring change?

      60's sit-ins, peaceful protests, peaceful assemblies, petitions, letter writing campaigns, and free-love-ins, just won't work. Well, I'm still for the free-love-ins, but we'll save those for another conversation. :)

      The "Rally to Restore Sanity" brought about 250,000 people to Washington DC, and countless others who couldn't attend who supported from home. I was one of the later, as I couldn't afford to drive, fly, or walk to DC.

      With 250,000 people standing there wanting to make change, they made speeches, and went home. The folks in power may have noted that something happened, but really their appearance didn't do anything except raise the total tourism dollars for DC by a little for 2010.

      If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings).

      I would personally be proud to walk to the front of the group, stand in front of the representatives who are doing wrong and say "Sir, I represent these people, citizens of the United States of America. We do not believe that you are representing the needs, wants, and beliefs of the constituents who you have sworn to represent. We as the representatives of your constituents we respectively ask you to resign immediately and exit this building."

      There are plenty of people among us, who would be excellent leaders. We wouldn't accept corruption. We have better morals than to take bribes in any form.

      That sir, is how you make change in a totally non-violent way. Not one shot is fired. Not one person is injured (except for maybe the occasional trip and fall hazard). The only violence would come from the law enforcement professionals who some may take an unconstitutional stand against the people.

      It is said that we have the "Four boxes of liberty", the soap, ballot, jury, and ammo boxes. There is no need to go to the fourth, unless the powers that be decide to use it against the citizens standing up for their rights. In reality, a couple hundred thousand people standing there saying "we want change", and really meaning it, do not have any reason to use violence. Well, except for possibly gently moving anyone who may try to block their way. You can be assured that someone in a uniform will

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Of course they did by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that in this case, the violations were that clear-cut. And the best argument is that all 3 are potentially guilty of a serious crime.

      If I go to a lawyer and say "Is it legal to rob a bank?" and the lawyer says "Yes, go right ahead", I'm still in trouble if I go to rob a bank. The lawyer may also be considered a co-conspirator, and at the very least should have his bar membership in question. And anyone I work with as part of the plan is also a co-conspirator. Why would the crime of a FISA violation be any different?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  2. How long? by Zeroblitzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long until this is swept under the rug and American Idol is the headline news again?

    --
    Mr. America walk on by your schools that do not teach Mr. America walk on by the minds that won't be reached
    1. Re:How long? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No need. Our congress voted immunity to the telecoms who violated the law and our privacy, so of course they'll do the same for an agency actually part of the government. Using laws to sanction violations of the law is perverse but hey, you gotta protect your own! These FOIAs are from 2008 or so, so the real test is to file now and see if anything has changed since Obama took over the executive.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  3. Correction by tomthepom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and indications that the FBI may have committed upwards of 40,000 possible crimes in the 9 years since 9/11.

    There, fixed that for you.

  4. Morons by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they release this at the exact same time one of the largest middle eastern countries is undergoing a revolution? I EXPECT the FBI to be pulling shit like this, and rely on organizations like the EFF to uncover it. But if the EFF is so Tech and New Media savvy, it didn't occur to them that they might want to release this information on a slow news day as apposed to releasing it in the middle of the biggest story to hit the media in the past 2 years? there by assuring it will be completely missed by Mondays new cycle?!?! It's just plain incompetent.

  5. Not a lot statistically. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The summary makes it seem like a big number but if the FBI has ~36K people working for it that's just over 1 violation per employee in those 9 years. I'd expect to make at least one mistake in 9 years.

    1. Re:Not a lot statistically. by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Misconduct" is not "a mistake". You might be used to ending up in jail every 9 years or so, but that's not normal.

  6. Re:percentages are important by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Abuses like this aren't exactly like speeding (which aside from being quite possible to do without trying or even realizing it, is relatively harmless) - you have to go out of your way to set up wiretaps and perform other actions that violate America's core values. I can accept a small handful of instances where the time required to go through the proper channels (warrants, etc) would have taken too long, but that should be the exception rather than the rule - and some five thousand times per year is hardly an exception. That basically means one of three things - the process is broken, these people are doing things they have no need, right, or reason to do, or federal policy has agreed upon our constitution being worthless. If the latter is the case, fine - bring on the revolution, since we've voided the existence of our government and all of the laws it has created.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  7. Self prosecution? Not likely by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a solution to the problem with the FBI. Prosecute each violation vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law.

    You are asking the government to prosecute itself. Without a person at the top with a highly developed sense of morality it isn't likely to happen within the same branch of government. Even with such a person at the top, political reality may make it impossible. That's why we have separation of powers. It will ONLY happen if a different branch of government is the one who decides to press the issue. Expecting the executive branch to spank itself is simply wishful thinking most of the time. If congress or the judiciary can be prodded into action, then something might happen. Otherwise, forget it.

    For what it's worth I don't expect much out of Congress either. Very easy to score "soft on crime" political points on someone who criticizes the FBI even if the FBI deserves it.

  8. COINTELPRO never ended by alleycat0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although the Church Committee ostensibly ended COINTELPRO in 1971, revelations such as these that surface every few years make it clear that such tactics have *never* been abandoned by the FBI.

    --
    I am not a number - I am a free man!
  9. I blame TV shows like 24, MI-5, and Law & Orde by macraig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know the shows I'm talking about: the ones that show spooks and law enforcers breaking their own ethical rules (and everyone else's) in the obsessive pursuit of goals and people who have been quietly pre-convicted outside of any court or due process. They just KNOW the person is guilty... they just have to concoct some a-moral scheme to PROVE it!

    These shows plant the seed that such behavior is acceptable. It can't help but have repercussions in the real world, humans being as impressionable as they are. It's "the end justifies the means" yet again. Judicial impartiality? What's that?

  10. Wrong argument by snsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I cringe whenever I see an argument by the ACLU, EFF, etc that something has "compromised the civil liberties of American citizens", because they're making the wrong argument by casting it the opposite way it should be cast.

    When you make a claim like that, the response is always going to be "was any harm done?" and the answer to that is usually "no, no harm was actually done" and then the response to that becomes "stop being a sissy, no harm no foul. unless you're up to something illegal, you've got nothing to worry about."

    What the EFF should be claiming is that "government employees abuse the limits of their power". You have to focus the argument on the action, not the reaction. The way the Constitution is written, it doesn't guarantee the civil liberties of Americans. Instead, it limits the scope of authority of the federal government.

    1. Re:Wrong argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Er.. wrong.

      The U.S. Constitution defines quite specifically 4 things:

      1) Liberties granted to US citizens

      2) Formation of a governmental structure

      3) Powers granted to said structure

      4) Limitations of powers on said structure

      If you are unsure of what the liberties are, I can quote a couple for you. Limiting the powers of the government IS the essential building block of granting civil liberties.

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

  11. Re:Actually, it is a lot less by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Informative

    That "new math" you don't understand is the simple arithmetic and multiplication the rest of us learned before they let us *into* high school.

    Summary for you, the idiot:

    1. The data the EFF isn't everything and doesn't claim to be everything, however 33% of the potential violations in that data are NSL violations.
    2. Back in 2008, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine told the House Judiciary subcommittee that a 10% review of FBI field office NSLs found 640 potential NSL violations from 2003 to 2006.
    3. Oh look primary school math: (640 * 10) / 4 * 8 * 3 = 38,400. Or in words, if 10% were 640 then there were 6400 potential NSL violations over 4 years, so 1600 per year. So over the 8 years the EFF data is for 12800. Those type are 33% in the EFF data so multiply by 3 for 38400.

    And yes that's extrapolating an extrapolation. But that make that very clear in their report.

  12. Re:percentages are important by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is clear that the third is the case, and that at this point revolution is the only recourse the American people have to bring their government to heel. Bush started these abuses, Obama is continuing them, and it will get worse. The TSA is groping us; the big banks are plundering our country as fast as they can; Guantanamo is still operating; Congress is proposing a kill switch for the Internet rather than fess up to the misdeeds exposed by Wikileaks; and we still don't have any jobs worth a damn here.

    How much more evidence do you need, America?

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  13. In related news by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 5, Informative

    Republican Representative Darrel Issa wants the name of everyone who has filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

    Exhuming McCarthy, indeed.