Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Uncovers Widespread FBI Intelligence Violations

Posted by timothy on from the man-v-state-the-case-that-never-ends dept.

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."

19 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.

  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. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.