Slashdot Mirror
Despite Controversy, Federal Wiretaps On the Rise
coondoggie writes with a report that "Federal and state requests for court permission to intercept or wiretap electronic communications increased 34% in 2010 over 2009 with California, New York, and New Jersey accounting for 68% of all wire taps approved by state judges. According to the 2010 Wiretap Report, released today by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) the most frequently noted location in wiretap requests was 'portable device,' a category that includes cellular telephones and digital pagers."
It's easier for the moment, and will be true shortly
So, we keep reducing the barriers to wiretaps and surveillance, and the police engage in more wiretapping and surveillance. Is this a surprise?
Palm trees and 8
They've been looking for me in some strange places if they're tracking my digital pager.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
It's not "despite" controversy, it's "regardless". They're not struggling against public opinion, they just don't care.
Lemme guess... it got swallowed by Moby Dick while you were deep sea fishing?
"with California, New York, and New Jersey accounting for 68% of all wire taps approved by state judges" - isn't that because those three states account for a larger percentage of the population then the rest of the US? It'd make sense for more taps to be implemented where there's more people...
What is being discussed in TFA are the known requests, but the article is completely unclear if each of these requests involved a warrant.
The more critical problem that "we the people" are most concerned about are the surveillance requests that do NOT involve a warrant, meaning that there is NO oversight into any reasoning or explanation for Just Cause, and instead tapping is done "just because". Previous stories seem to indicate that these warrantless taps are often under-reported or unreported.
Was there non-secret judicial oversight or not? Because the article is missing this critical piece of information, I don't know how to evaluate this or how to feel about it.
I was about to write a comment last night on another story, but I thought better and maybe shouldn't have. At what point do the citizens of this country exercise their rights? We have allowed the government or a collection of very messed up people to errode everything we have stood for since the beginning of this country in the name a national security against an enemy that is relatively nameless, faceless, and, shall I say, low rent. These guys are ruthless, but they are not particularly as dangerous as many would like us to believe. I'd love to see a group of radicalized Hell's Angles take on a grounp of radicalized Taliban in an Octogon. I'd pay money to see that. I am tired, very tired, of living in fear of the unknown and improbable. FUD, as everyone knows, motivates people in ways that is akin to manipulation, but I pretty much guarantee there will be a point where enough is enough. Can we get back to a civilized nation or is it too late? For the sticking your head in the sand notion, that won't work because they *will* find a reason to make that suspicious and pull it out to see what you're "hiding."
Amount of digital communication keeps rising and so does amount of investigations that needs to be performed that involve such communication. I am sure we all like "bad guys" to be caught and punished when they steal, lie and cheat. But noo - not wiretaps. Feds need to raise a bunch of Sherlock Holmes-clones who could solve crimes by tilting their head just so, squinting a bit and getting the whole story to us.
... Dennis Duffy did. I mean besides Liz Lemon.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I thought the controversy was over warrantless wire-tapping, and the answer by most everyone is that it's bad (grey area for when the warrant is obtained after the fact; some oppose it, most politicians don't). Does anyone really oppose wire-tapping when there is a warrant? Really?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is less of a concern, this is the wiretaps requiring a warrant (meaning judicial oversight). The bigger concern is the warrantless wiretapping. All international calls, traffic analysis on all domestic calls, and who knows what else. It is safer to just asume everything is tapped. I can't count the number of times I've made a disparaging comment about the government on an international call (friends overseas) and added in a "Just kidding, NSA!" I'm ashamed of what this country has become.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
1) The number of REQUESTED taps is on the rise. If they didn't give a shit, they wouldn't be requesting them, they'd just do it and not bother getting permission. At some level, the system is still working. (Most likely because without that request, anything they collect will be thrown out as inadmissible, and their target will walk.)
2) From TFA: "The state wiretap with the most intercepts was conducted in Queens County, New York, where a 62-day wiretap in a corruption investigation..." meaning they are targeting government officials or public servants. Privacy should NOT be expected for someone serving in those roles, if they are doing something wrong on the job. (Filming police, anyone?)
The knee-jerk reaction to "wiretapping" is "bad!" - but the knee-jerk reaction to a citizen recording a public figure is "Good!" The standard isn't that clear cut, especially when the conditions (i.e. - the person being recorded is a public figure) are the same on both sides.
These numbers are based on applications for court permission - I'm assuming that means a warrant or something equivalent to a warrant. Doesn't this mean there's some sort of due process going on? Seems to me it's warrantless wiretaps that are bad, since there is no due process and therefore violates an amendment or two of the constitution. The fact that law enforcement is actually following due process seems like it should be a *good* thing. Or am I missing something?
Glad to see it. Well, maybe not glad, since the paranoia is usually accompanied by wanton imprisonment and mass killings, a la Khmer Rouge.
It's all very disappointing to me, a life long Democrat and card carrying bleeding heart liberal... I voted for Obama with great hopes for open government and a roll-back of the affront that is the Patriot act.
Yet, under the guy that the Republican and Tea Party folks love to hate, the guy that Darth Chaney never passes a chance to skewer - under Obama the Patriot act continues to exist without a peep fro the People's President, whistle-blower prosecutions have never been higher, and the TSA continues to emulate the Sturmabteilung unabated. And we are still entrenched in the Middle East, pumping trillions into the pockets of corrupt "defense contractors" and corrupt Third World chieftains...
I've tried explaining to people why it is that in reality we live in a Police State that is little better than the former East Germany, but most people still don't get it.
From THX1138: It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.
Just so, so disappointing, I find myself wondering if I should have voted for McCain and that twit from Alaska. In 2012, I may just throw my vote away in the presidential election and vote my heart, it can't possible get any worse.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I say it right here and now; a lot of what I say (and write!) is *intentional disinformation* for the wire-tappers 'benefit'.
and I'm saying it now, so you should know that. slashdot is my publisher and I'm noting this officially. your datamining of me (should you desire) will get you more noise than signal.
oh, and fuck you nsa.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Liberals love a certain amount of socially responsible "liberty". But there's more to it, as you well know, for example a strong support of the concepts social responsibility.
Responsibility? Liberals, through effect, detest responsibility and seek to stamp it out where found. It would mean self control, which would mean the state was not IN control, and of course THAT would not be good.
Theres nothing working so well it cannot be regulated, no personal choice so inane the law should not have a formalized opinion on it.
Adding the word "Social" in front of responsibility is just code for who is responsible for an individual - hint, not the individual as "social" implies.
There's a reason why the term "nanny state" persists so well and so long...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just so, so disappointing, I find myself wondering if I should have voted for McCain and that twit from Alaska.
You should have voted in Palin (McCain probably would have just ended up a figurehead). She is as close to a libertarian as we are likely to get in a candidate for some time. If you feel like the police state is encroaching the ONLY solution is ambler government. Smaller government cannot spy on you as well. Government spending less does not have the funds to spy on you as much.
Stop listening to the lies you obviously are buying hook, line and sinker and think about who REALLY has your best interests at heart and is not just feeding you a line. You may not like religious people much at all but think on the fact that they hate a state with too much power as much as you do, because that rarely goes well for religions in the end.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Getting out and talking to informants, questioning suspects, developing leads, etc - it's a lot of hard work and leads to tons of paperwork. Technology allows our finest to do their jobs quickly and easily (if somewhat sloppily).
Here's how it works: stumble upon a criminal; a drug user for example. Stumbling upon them is how most of them get caught; usually in a motor vehicle stop. Now, get their cell phone records; cell phones are great because the cell carriers will hand it over without a quibble or warrant. Now you've got a list of that criminal's associates; get their cell phone records too and you can probably figure out who some of the other users are and who their dealer might be.
It's all educated guesses and even though they sometimes kick down the wrong door or arrest the wrong person, it leads to more good arrests with a lot less work. Law enforcement LOVES these wiretaps and they'll keep asking for more, more, more.
Of course, that "computers are always right" thing crops up. And you know that phone numbers are recycled; imagine that drug user that got popped a while back had a cell phone and since the bill didn't get paid they shut it off and now that phone number is recycled and it's your new phone number. Happy dreams; "checks and balances" got thrown overboard a while back.
BusHitler is out of office and the Dems control congress. I though we voted for change and hope? How is this change and hope?
(two FBI agents in an pizza van talk to each other. "he is on to us better scam!" and disconnect from my wifi, cell phone, analog phone, and cable TV devices.)
someone just make a ccxml transfer app for the telco's that does 100% callrecording and uses an extensive grammar to trigger a 3rd leg in half-duplex to the feds on key words; like "liberal" or "obama" or "mary juana" .... or hell, lets just go with "hello" that should get the coverage they are looking for. ...
"...'portable device,' a category that includes cellular telephones and digital pagers."
Uhhh, pagers? Seriously? Give me a break.
If you're still using a pager these days, that alone is probably enough to justify probable cause. Doubt you could find anyone under the age of 15 that even knows what a pager is.
Innumeracy at it's best. The number of electronic communications is increasing therefore so are the wiretaps. The real question is how are the total number of wiretaps as a percentage of population increasing.