New FBI Operations Manual Increases Surveillance

betterunixthanunix writes "The New York Times is reporting that the new FBI operations manual suggests a broad increase in surveillance. Denoted the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the manual officially lowers the bar of acceptability when it comes to engaging in surveillance activities, including allowing agents to perform such surveillance on people who are not suspected terrorists without opening an inquiry or officially recording their actions. The new manual also relaxes rules on administering lie detector tests, searching through a person's trash, and the use of teams to follow targeted individuals. It should be noted that these guidelines still fall within the general limits put in place by the attorney general."

Comments

wow

[MagicM]

0 comments, because they're watching

Ugh, polygraphs

[TheSpoom]

Why is the federal government so in love with polygraph machines given the scientific community's near-complete dismissal of polygraphs as valid?

(The cynical side of me says it's because they give superiors and judges a reason to pass their opinion as judgement on someone without any real evidence...)

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[blair1q]

It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[MightyMartian]

They love it because of the placebo effect. If the perp thinks that the voodoo magic polygraph machine can actually tell if they're lying, it has some effect on investigations I suppose.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[rubycodez]

information extracted by torture is well known to be unreliable, while very effective ways of getting information and cooperation have been perfected for decades....but our government still went with the torture. Says a lot about the kind of contemptible thug scum we have running the place, doesn't it?

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[nabsltd]

And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense

Assuming that you have been advised of your rights, police in the United States are allowed to lie or otherwise mislead you when you are being questioned.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[Opportunist]

Not only perps. I'm scared shitless of it too, and I (probably) didn't even do it. I'm scared because I know that this thing is pretty much doing something akin to crystal ball reading and it could easily find me "guilty", no matter whether I am or not.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs

[element-o.p.]

I had to take a polygraph for a job once (it was a Federal job that required a security clearance). It took three tries, even though I was telling the truth (I have not EVER used illegal drugs, then or since, other than a couple of drinks when I was under age -- and that was only illegal because of my age *and* I told them about that). The problem was, for as long as I can remember, I've always used various breathing and relaxation techniques to, well, relax. That caused unusual spikes and dips on the polygraph test, which caused the administrator to think I was trying to hide something. Once I figured out that 1) they were intentionally trying to create stress in the test environment, and that 2) they were picking up the wild variations between when I would start to feel any anxiety and when I would start to try to calm myself down, I figured out what I needed to do to pass: build up the stress instead of trying to keep myself calm. Once the stress level was raised, it was easy to keep it relatively constant throughout the test.

No "firm reason" required!

[Thruen]

I like this line at the very end:

But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.

Is anyone else somewhat appalled that they don't need a "firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing" to waste time and money on an investigation? Add that to everything about this manual, and it kind of seems like the FBI is wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer money running around looking into random BS instead of focusing on serious issues. Even if we forget about the trampling of rights of innocent people here, and forget about them spending our money helping the MPAA/RIAA sue people, the mere fact that they are willing to investigate without a firm reason is bothersome from a "you-work-for-me-and-you're-wasting-time" perspective.

Personal accountability?

[swb]

When I read this story in the local paper (probably a NYT or AP version, likely shrunk) it made it sound like that many of these things they've already been doing but that they required "opening an official investigation" or something to that effect, which involved some oversight but a ton of bureaucracy and turning the wheels of process.

The net effect seemed to be that they could continue to do some of this stuff, except it would require less organizational oversight and more personal discretion.

THIS is the part I find shocking. I read a story recently about an IRS agent who makes a point of running plates on sports cars he sees on the streets and then checking to see if the people who own the car list enough income on their taxes to justify the ownership. If it seems fishy, he then does a criminal audit.

Even though the people may be cheating on their taxes, this strikes me as kind of rogue behavior that I'd hope the FBI would be restrained from.

Re:Personal accountability?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yeah, I'd love to see that sourced too!

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html

He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he'll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.

Re:4th?

[Plugh]

Fair questions. Different FSP members are likely to give you different answers as we all have different priorities. For me, the biggest wins are:

• Elected over 1 dozen FSP members to the State legislature
• Elected dozens of FSP members to local office all over the state (including myself, FWIW)
• Outright eliminated all knife laws in NH
• Passed a law forbidding NH from participating in the Real-ID program, or any de facto national ID that may follow therefrom
• Likely to pass a resolution this year asserting state sovereignty
• Passed laws reducing regulations on various businesses: contractors, home-schoolers
• Prevented any state income tax, sales tax, or seat belt law from passing, despite intense lobbying for such from other quarters
• Started libertarian TV shows, radio programs, and newspapers all over the state -- far more media saturation than in any other state

A lot more are listed over at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?253-New-Hampshire

FBI Gives Out New Powers Just After Patriot Act

[billstewart]

Surprisingly, the FBI waited to give out these new powers to their agents until just _after_ the Congress approved renewal of the PATRIOT Act. Wouldn't want to risk losing a few votes by doing it beforehand, while they were whining about how they needed to keep all the power they had.