Slashdot Mirror


FBI Rejects Freedom of Information Act Request About Carrier IQ

bonch writes with news that website Muckrock recently sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI asking for "manuals, documents or other written guidance used to access or analyze data gathered by programs developed or deployed by Carrier IQ." The Bureau has now responded with a rejection of the request, claiming an exemption applies because such documents "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." While many have been quick to assume the worst, the Muckrock article says it's unclear "whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors."

156 comments

  1. I'm stunned by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    1. Re:I'm stunned by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

      Perhaps Putin made some of his fortune as an adviser.

      being an ex-cagey bee and all...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I'm stunned by Gription · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Letting citizens exercise the rights could "interfere with enforcement proceedings" so hand over all your rights immediately!

    3. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

      The only thing we know for sure is that the companies that installed this iCarrier spyware definitely abused their power.

      If the abuse goes up to the FBI, then there's no way that information is not going to come out. We'll know soon enough where iCarrier came from and where we should aim our ire. The iCarrier story is just getting started.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I'm stunned by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

      ... or your government might not want to hand over information that it is investigating a criminal act by a corporation.

      If you filed a FOIA request for Maddof's case while they were building it, they would have denied that one, too, but not because they were abusing their power.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    5. Re:I'm stunned by danlip · · Score: 2

      That was for a particular case. Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long. I don't see any time limit for this, and it affects a much broader group (all of us).

    6. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

      The FBI doesn't need Carrier IQ. The FBI has the force of (unconstitutional) law. They'll just issue a national security letter and be done with it.

    7. Re:I'm stunned by erroneus · · Score: 3, Informative

      But when the FBI/CIA/NSA or some other TLA requests details of a carrier's customer, they PAY for it. Were you not here when there were massive discussions about the release of a carrier's price list for law enforcement and the services they offered to them? Law enforcement doesn't have to get a warrant or a subpoena, they just fill out an order form, check the appropriate boxes and send payment. It's not "law." It's commerce.

    8. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know it "for sure". I think the hyperbole is a bit deep here...

      Now they *may* have been abusing it. That I can buy. But "for sure"? You have proof?

      My *bet* is it came from some middle manager. Who came up with the idea of 'metrics'. "we need more metrics on how people use our system". That it can be used for more than that is icing on the cake for them.

    9. Re:I'm stunned by couchslug · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good thing we elected Obama to stop this shit.

      Oh.....

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:I'm stunned by forand · · Score: 2

      Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ. No clue what iCarrier is and Google only finds 4 pages with both terms so I am betting that iCarrier is not the name of their software product.

      The Carrier IQ software is a cross platform problem that seems to be associated with the carriers and headset makers, including both Android and Apple devices.

    11. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My *bet* is it came from some middle manager. Who came up with the idea of 'metrics'.

      So you believe that this spyware was installed on all those devices based on a decision that someone in "middle management" made?

      And this one middle manager made this decision for at least three separate companies (Apple, HTC and Samsung)?

      I had no idea that Apple, HTC and Samsung had all hired the same middle manager. I've heard of people with three jobs, but this must be one hard-working middle manager.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:I'm stunned by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Notably, both Stalin's regime and entire Stasi organisation have been significantly less successful at monitoring people. We long past the point where even those comparisons in terms of monitoring would be appropriate. To try to whine about Putin, who actually failed at any significant monitoring of his people (as in comparison to both above) shows extreme depth of ignorance in the subject. As it stands now, top countries in terms of monitoring their citizens are located in the West, and the gap between them and others is more of a huge chasm.

    13. Re:I'm stunned by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      they PAY for it

      There's a slashdot story about how the feds were having their wiretaps canceled for nonpayment.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    14. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ.

      No, that was just a mistake on my part.

      Although Apple is listed in the Wikipedia article about Carrier IQ as one of three companies that had installed Carrier IQ on their products. It also says that it is not included in iOS 5.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:I'm stunned by Nyder · · Score: 2

      A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

      The only thing we know for sure is that the companies that installed this iCarrier spyware definitely abused their power.

      If the abuse goes up to the FBI, then there's no way that information is not going to come out. We'll know soon enough where iCarrier came from and where we should aim our ire. The iCarrier story is just getting started.

      You know i love you like i do my brothers PopeRatzo, but wtf is iCarrier?

      You making shit up again?

      This discussion is about Carrier IQ, not whatever you are talking about.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    16. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH, absofuckinglutely! This guy/gal was a good teflon-coated pitch man. They got it through their company... The rest is just keeping up with the Joneses.

    17. Re:I'm stunned by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Citations?

      The KGB and Stasi were remarkably successful at what they did. Yes, I know that the US is moving beyond their example, but how far down that road are we? IMO, the UK is much further along than the US is. And, you could probably make a case for the UK surpassing the USSR. But, citations are in order, if you make that attempt. Not to mention, any attempts to quantify and to qualify the comparisons might be suspect. Are there records available somewhere, documenting how many Stasi there were, and how frequently they monitored each citizen? Can we check their reliability in identifying "enemies of the state"?

      Your final sentence is almost certainly correct. But, how do we verify that?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    18. Re:I'm stunned by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The existence of icarrier is abusive. And, the decision to implement it is abusive on the parts of SENIOR management at each carrier that had it installed.

      Middle management? Really? Dude - middle management decides how often the floors should be swept and mopped, how often machines are to be oiled, and which personnel are on call on holiday weekends. Upper management decides what hours the plant will be open, they determine budgets, and other important stuff. Executives - you know, like CEO's decide what products the company is going to offer, and the features incorporated into them. Icarrier may have been the brainchild of some lesser minion, but executives decided to use it.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    19. Re:I'm stunned by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good thing we elected Obama to stop this shit.

      Note to future voters: look at actions, not words.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:I'm stunned by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      And this one middle manager made this decision for at least three separate companies (Apple, HTC and Samsung)?

      You missunderstand business at large. Every company has middle managers which a certain amount of decision making and purchasing power. CarrierIQ came up with the idea, let us not mistake that. They then send their marketing goons to various companies, take the middle managers on various funded dinners, and the rest is history. The fact is that middle managers are plentiful and are introduced to a product that has potential to allow them to make a better product in the future.

      I probably have one of these meetings every 2 weeks. Someone from unknown company X comes in and shows us new product Y which will revolutionise our industry because it does Z.

      Actually the best technical demonstration I ever saw was some huge salesman from DAMM trying to sell us on a new TETRA based 2-way radio system. He came with 2 briefcases which had in them a full base radio repeater, PABX switch, VoIP router, phones, radios, and the works and was able to demonstrate every feature in full on the desk needing nothing more than a power outlet. Much better than the usual: "This is our product, see, it's red! Here's a brochure. No you can't turn it on."

    21. Re:I'm stunned by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long.

      It actually depends. Murder cases, due to a lack of statute of limitations, remain open until solved to the police's satisfaction. (Usually, catching the person, and the end of the prosecution. Either successful or not.)

      I don't see any time limit for this...

      There is a statute of limitations on illegal wiretapping, however each new act of illegal wiretapping would extend the investigative case.

      ... it affects a much broader group (all of us).

      Have you seen any lawyer movie or even a single episode of "Law and Order"? Criminal cases are brought in the form of "The People vs. ___", because the idea is that all criminal acts are made against The People, as a generic entire group.

      So, all of your arguments, despite sounding like they're good, are in fact specious, and do not apply within the legal framework used by the United States. So long as the FBI might be investigating CarrierIQ for a crime, any rejection of FOIA requests is actually entirely appropriate.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    22. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      He came with 2 briefcases which had in them a full base radio repeater, PABX switch, VoIP router, phones, radios, and the works and was able to demonstrate every feature in full on the desk needing nothing more than a power outlet.

      It's to your credit that you didn't kill him and take his stuff.

      It would have run through my mind.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You making shit up again?

      Not this time.

      It was an honest mistake, which I've explained above. Just one of those things. Not that there isn't something out there called iCarrier, but that's not what I was referring to.

      Sometimes, when I get really going, and my dudgeon has been sufficiently elevated, I have been known to make this kind of error.

      But now that you mention it, I wonder if my subconscious was making something of an illuminating connection. Like the tired traveler seeking a five-gallon jar of pickles and a box of shells for a Sig-Sauer P239 with a fancy checkered Cocobolo grip who looks up at the brilliantly-lit sign that says "Wal-Mart" and sees, "Voldemort".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:I'm stunned by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Stasi was capable actively monitoring every SEVENTH citizen of GDDR. This number was derived directly from their archives, and can be found in a number of currently in-print history books, along with proper sourcing. KGB was significantly weaker in this, in no small part due to the fact that much of USSR didn't even have telephone lines and proper roads until late 70s. The country was just so damn big and sparsely populated. Finally, there was the major problem of management - even if you gathered information like Stasi did, you ended up fucked by the fact that you didn't have resources to process it.

      There are multiple cases of people from companies like Palantir (use google to find citations that haven't been pulled yet due to DMCA or other ways they use to pull them off public websites) stating that not only do US/UK currently monitor EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN, they are officially marketing themselves as companies that have tools that can turn this huge influx of informational mess into useful datasets. In other words they've seen the data, and know that it's a mess due to sheer amounts of it. Which is the main reason why Stasi could only dream of having systems like this in place. Computers powerful enough, networking powerful enough and social incentives for people to put their daily lives into recordable, automatically sortable format simply weren't there in their times.

      I can't find it any more, but I have seen a really nice presentation from Palantir specifically stating all above points that I saw either on wired or ars (or linked from one of their articles on the topic). I'm not sure they still have it though, as it may have gotten pulled on copyright grounds.

    25. Re:I'm stunned by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0

      to balance your view: how would it be better if the R had gotton in?

      I agree that obama is a zero. but at least he's not as evil as the R guys are.

      it really does come down to 'which is the least sucky of the bad choices'.

      obama sucks but he sucked less. I never thought he was going to do anything real; but I also hoped he would not do as much bad shit as bush did, and I don't think he's as bad as bush. he's just a friggin no-op, really; but that's still better than pushing us at full speed into a country run by jesus freaks.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    26. Re:I'm stunned by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      So every single piece of information related to Carrier IQ is tied up in a handful of cases? Surely they could redact info. There's no justifiable reason to outright deny the request.

    27. Re:I'm stunned by houghi · · Score: 1

      and how frequently they monitored each citizen?

      All people on the internet are monitored all the time. I am not paranoia, I KNOW that I am being followed.
      Look at the amount of cameras in the UK.

      Verification is not needed as they will not allow us to verify them so the numbers will not be correct.

      They tell us that they need more police money because people FEEL less safe, not because they ARE. We now FEEL that we must have more insight into what is going on, so give it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    28. Re:I'm stunned by houghi · · Score: 1

      We are the government, we can't work that fast, but we are working on it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    29. Re:I'm stunned by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem is in itemised $$$. The base equipment he had is worth about $300k (or rather actually worth around $30k given how digital has turned radio from all hardware to mostly software). The radios are $2.5k each and he only brought 2 of them along. We needed 500 of them.

      Kind of makes the $300k look like chickenfeed.

      But this isn't the first time I have seen massive product displays in a briefcase. A manufacturer of emergency shutdown systems brought in a rather fat pelican case which had a full shutdown system with an array of input / output cards, as well as various gauges and switches so you can see the I/O in action and interface with this.
      Another manufacturer of coriolis meters brought along a kit that had piped up the meter to a little pump complete with a system that could inject air into the transparent pipework to prove he was selling a coriolis meter that had solved the entrained air problem.

      They be crafty them salesfolk. :)

    30. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone does not want to produce evidence which may link them to wrongdoing or if not, at least still look bad publicly.

      There, I fixed that so it reflects reality instead of being a typical pile of anti-government rhetoric.

    31. Re:I'm stunned by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      It's the same middle manager working at 18 different town halls who recommended methods and what time and date to evict the Occupy protestors.

      The people are being treated as the enemy of the state.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    32. Re:I'm stunned by zeeed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am not paranoia, I KNOW that I am being followed.

      That's pretty much the definition of paranoia, given that you don't have material evidence.

    33. Re:I'm stunned by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      As all politicians who are in any position to become president are 'owned' I have no faith in any politician's promises.

      This will continue to be true so long as big money interests can buy what they want with no anti-corruption legislation in place to stop the politicians from being bought.

      And yes Ron Paul fanboys, I do think that the people require legal and regulatory protection from big money interests and yes, I believe that just shrinking the size of government and thus of the quantity of those who can be corrupted does nothing to stop corruption other than making it less expensive for those big money interests to get what they want.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    34. Re:I'm stunned by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you could go back to the Cold War era and tell Western citizens that in 2011 they would all carry a device that is always on, is comprised of a microphone and a speaker and broadcast their location to central databases that archive that during several years they would tell you : "so, USSR won ?"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    35. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "is comprised of a microphone and a speaker"... and camera

    36. Re:I'm stunned by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      C'mon, dude. There's naive and there's this. You really don't think the FBI has a backdoor into Carrier IQ?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    37. Re:I'm stunned by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, let's install key loggers on all PCs. You know, just in case they need it for "enforcement proceedings".

      --
      I8-D
    38. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      adios are $2.5k each and he only brought 2 of them along. We needed 500 of them...emergency shutdown systems...coriolis meters...entrained air problem

      What are you, the head technician for a super-villain or something? Did you get the sales demo from the shark-with-laser-beam sales rep, too?

      No, don't tell me. Because then you'd have to kill me, I know.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:I'm stunned by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      So every single piece of information related to Carrier IQ is tied up in a handful of cases? Surely they could redact info. There's no justifiable reason to outright deny the request.

      Why would the FBI have any information on CarrierIQ that wasn't tied up in the investigation of a case? And you can't leak any case information to the public, not even redacted. In fact, if you can help it, it's better for your case if the public doesn't even know that you're investigating until you charge someone.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    40. Re:I'm stunned by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      head technician for a super-villain

      Electrical engineer for an oil company, but damn you were close ;-)

    41. Re:I'm stunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps. Those who read a little more would say, "So, the Germans won after all." ("Our Churmans are better zan your Churmans!")

  2. Exemptions may apply by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The rule is: If we don't want you to know, then there's an applicable exemption to the rule.

    And we know where you were last Summer...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Exemptions may apply by redkcir · · Score: 1

      So there's an app for that?

    2. Re:Exemptions may apply by isama · · Score: 1

      There is, but we don't want to tell you about it...

    3. Re:Exemptions may apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The rule is: If we don't want you to know, then there's an applicable exemption to the rule."

      This. An infinite times this.

      The entire point of law is to create exceptions. To make some theft permissible and some not. To make some murder permissible and some not. When a concession in the law is made for the ostentatious purpose of making things 'fair', one can simply wait until an application of that new rule involves something those with power to enforce the rules didn't consider and don't want held to the same standard.

      This is why I always point out that whatever government does is by definition legal, because it makes the law. So long as power determines legality, this will be the case.

    4. Re:Exemptions may apply by lennier · · Score: 1

      And we know where you were last Summer...

      But you don't know where I'll be next.

      And my name's not Summer.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:Exemptions may apply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found that quite humorous. I'm surprised it didn't get modded up.

  3. Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 2

    whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors.

    Does it really matter ? If they want CarrierIQ data for a customer, they can just get it from the carrier, and pay the carrier to collect it [for active investigations approved by a judge].

    1. Re:Does it really matter ? by nomel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think something about that last bit is where any interest in the data might come from.

    2. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      I'm still confused as to where the controversy comes from. The US government relies on vendors for just about everything.

    3. Re:Does it really matter ? by jimpop · · Score: 2

      Go ahead and guess which tool a carrier could use to collect that data.

    4. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?

      I wrote a post about how carrier privacy legislation will be required to fix this, since economic incentive and standard practice and legal precedent at the moment says it's all business as usual.

      Which is why I say ... does it matter *how* the data is being collected, or the fact that the data is being collected ( which is a given at this point ). I think what people really want, is a means to opt out of the data being collected. [law enforcement will be an obvious, unavoidable exception, given the reality of life on earth]

    5. Re:Does it really matter ? by poena.dare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wise question. Simple answer. 3rd party data collection is cheaper for the carriers.

      CEO: These constant warrantless wiretap requests are a pain in the ass. It's only going to get worse.

      CTO: There's a app for that, y'know.

    6. Re:Does it really matter ? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government relies on vendors for just about everything.

      Including circumventing Constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure!

      Hey! Look! Google and Facebook are a Trojan Horse for the unaccountable Police State!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      constant warrantless wiretap requests

      There is no evidence of any warrantless wiretapping occouring. Let me explain.

      Customer wants a phone, customer signs TOS agreeing to be monitored. Carrier does monitoring of customer, which customer agreed to. FBI wants data for an investigation. FBI pays carrier to get records of customer, which customer agreed to allow to be collected and logged. This is not a "warrantless wiretap" just as walking into an FBI office and handing them copies of all your records voluntarily is not a warrantless wiretap.

      I completely get that the outcome of the process, is essentially the same as allowing the FBI to have wiretaps, but only on those who agree to it voluntarily, by way of the carrier TOS. Much like it's a given that Googles log data will be sold to the FBI, and Google clearly spells it out in their TOS.

      The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).

    8. Re:Does it really matter ? by Synerg1y · · Score: 0

      Do you realize...

      you can live life w/o google and facebook?

      You just have to move to a remote mountain town here in the rockies and get real good at farming, ez right?

    9. Re:Does it really matter ? by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.

    10. Re:Does it really matter ? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Informative

      People, there is a path here...

      http://androidforums.com/evo-4g-all-things-root/459292-how-do-i-remove-carrier-iq-software.html

      Rom your phone, walla no more carrier ifucked.

      It's little things like this why the art of hacking is not all lost despite the American social media's mass confusion.

    11. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.

      You can check Verizons website for an example. Its in their "privacy policy" and it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and have 0 expectation of privacy. I assume other carriers have the same legal boilerplate, but have not personally investigated all the carriers to claim it as fact.

      As soon as you allow the carrier to log device data, via the TOS, that log data becomes property of the carrier, and they can sell it to whomever they want, which is also stated in their TOS, in wording similar to "data may be provided to 3rd parties."

      That is the mechanism by which this current, legal but controversial, practice is occurring.

    12. Re:Does it really matter ? by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you realize...

      you can live life w/o google and facebook?

      You just have to move to a remote mountain town here in the rockies and get real good at farming, ez right?

      Sure....

      I've read enough to know those little backcountry mountain towns are the power base for the invasive state security apparatus, "I don't care if a few eggs get broken, just so the one or two things we actually care about get overturned or banned." That attitude, on the part of millions of rural Americans paved the way for Iraq.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Does it really matter ? by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is Carrier IQ collecting data from customers without their knowledge? Does the FBI have warrants granting them access to those customers' data? If the answer to the former is yes and the answer to the latter is no, what we have is quite literally a warrantless wiretap. It's just that the wiretapping is being carried out by a different party than the one that's supposed to get a warrant.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    14. Re:Does it really matter ? by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. It's a legal warrantless wiretap, which is the problem.

    15. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will work until Google buys images obtained from DHS autonomous drones to create Google Mountainview.

    16. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      as an afterthought ...

      This is the exact same mechanism by which the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies ) have been obtaining peoples credit card statements for decades. Nobody is making a stink about it, claiming constitutional violations, etc. I'm pretty sure people realize, if you don't want to leave a trail, don't use a credit card.

    17. Re:Does it really matter ? by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and
      > have 0 expectation of privacy
      Website privacy policy != TOS, and provide a URL or it didn't happen.

      No contract with a carrier voids the constitution.

    18. Re:Does it really matter ? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      remote mountain towns are used by the CDC as disease test centers.(see if you can remember raccoon city)

      That is why I own a private island. I have cannons too. I can keep pirates and zombie hordes at bay.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has zip, 0, nada, to do with the constitution, but you don't get that, because you are on a witch hunt, looking for a witch to burn.

      Go read the mobile device privacy policy / TOS. It's spelled out in black and white. I know this to be a fact for Verizons network, which ironically, apparently, doesn't use CarrierIQ. When you sign up for phone service, you agree to be logged, and you agree to allow {carrier} to give the data to 3rd parties. You have agreed to this. It's no more a violation of the constitution as taking a test and handing it to the teacher, at which point, the teacher can do whatever they want with it. You wouldn't call that a warrantless wiretap would you ?

      When you are done with the witch hunt, the cries of constitutional violations, etc, and you actually start to focus on how to solve the problem, you will realize nothing short of legislation requiring carriers to allow you to opt out will fix this.

      In the meantime, have fun getting angry and burning witches. Anything short of demanding our government representatives fix this via legislation that allows you to opt out will just be wasted emotion, time, and energy.

    20. Re:Does it really matter ? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).

      I don't have a smart phone. Why? Because my work provides me with one. There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do. In essence, to be employed in any kind of technological, sales, management, or host of other areas, you are essentially required to be tracked at all times.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    21. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do.

      That does indeed add a whole other dimension to the problem of how to opt out of data logging, since I believe it has already been decided that employers can monitor employees activities on employer owned devices being used for work.

    22. Re:Does it really matter ? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      That will work until Google buys images obtained from DHS autonomous drones to create Google Mountainview.

      Ha! Little did you know Google already has this feature in Google Earth and Google Maps, they highly detailed views which are not only clear to mere centimetres, further, they are updated every five minutes and can be live when they need to be. DHS only has this view, which means FBI and CIA. But they don't want you to know about it, they don't want anyone to ...

      Hold on, someone at door..

      NO CARRIER

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    23. Re:Does it really matter ? by mhelander · · Score: 2

      Ha! Everyone know the French use private islands to test their nukes!

      I live in a rowing boat on a secret lake where I (almost) constantly row around in a criss-cross pattern determined by a quantum random generator.

    24. Re:Does it really matter ? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      While it's not a warrantless wiretap, it could be a warrantless pen register.

    25. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      It could be, except for the fact that people give permission for the carrier to "provide" ( that means give or sell ) the data to third parties, of which law enforcement is [a third party]. Therefore, it's not a warrantless pen register either.

    26. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?

      Oh c'mon, do you honestly not think the entire Carrier IQ thing was a dirty data collection operation?

      Note how the carriers BROADCAST things they want us to know about (and in fact pay tens of millions in advertising to achieve).

      In contrast, they probably wish we never new about Carrier IQ. Why do you think that may be?

    27. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      do you honestly not think the entire Carrier IQ thing was a dirty data collection operation?

      I completely agree it's dirty. So dirty, I refuse to get a smart phone from a US carrier and pay them to collect data on me. But dirty in this world of underhanded tactics and legal loopholes does not equate with illegal activity or violations of the constitution.

      If you read the rest of my posts concerning this issue, you will see I'm attempting to explain to people who are still crying about it, that legislation allowing customers to opt-out of the data collection process is necessary to solve this issue. The sooner people focus on insisting legislation be enacted that requires carriers to offer an opt-out provision, the sooner this problem can be solved, and people can regain a modicum of privacy in this digitally logged world of the matrix.

    28. Re:Does it really matter ? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That may be because everybody moved to the cities in search of a "better" life. If all of the sane people left the back country, who is left there?

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    29. Re:Does it really matter ? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 0

      When you are done with the witch hunt, the cries of constitutional violations, etc, and you actually start to focus on how to solve the problem, you will realize nothing short of legislation requiring carriers to allow you to opt out will fix this.

      That's rather the problem. The legislature has already proven it's perfectly willing to grant and even retroactively grant actual warrantless wiretaps. So, what hope is there in the legislature working to close a loophole that gives more power to people to control information about themselves instead of leaving "job creating" companies alone with their valid contracts? I mean, closing down or shrinking Carrier IQ or companies like it with stiffly worded privacy laws will cost jobs and in this difficult economic time--excuse me as I go vomit in a corner after hearing that tripe spewed again and again by Congress because it's more convenient to use an excuse of job killing to attack an actual issue than to actually discuss the issue and resolve it. Meanwhile, the executive branch is the one carrying out the effective abuse, be it unconstitutional or not. So, is it any wonder that people scream out "unconstitutional" with a hope that the courts might not be so corrupt to allow this absurd abuse; I mean, the courts have repeatedly demonstrated creative interpretation to the benefit of the people. Oh, right, Citizens United. Well, we're fucked.

      Meanwhile, I don't care, personally, if it's a witch or a duck. Clearly it's wrong and it should stop, period. I'm no more convinced the legislature will stop it with a new law than the FBI will chose to stop on its own. I mean, why should it, given it's all strictly legal? Of course, such a road is clearly the fascism of a police state, to use companies as the instrument of spying that the state can't legally do itself. It's no better than using foreign powers to spy on one's own citizens while spying on their citizens and swapping the data. And again, even if made illegal, it's just a matter of retroactive legalizing it because apparently "ex post facto" only works one way.

      But, you know, we could always protest or make a big scene. I mean, that's working so well with the whole Occupy movement, where the media is keen enough to comment about the evictions and not spend much time consideration the fucking mindset that has people wanting to Occupy in the first place, given the obvious past examples of people protesting. I mean, I find it funny how it's readily ignored that in the past it was quite common and standard that any redress of grievance against the government inherently meant an "occupy" of local land because the actual travel involved in the first place meant you weren't going to go marching home every day and even if you could you wanted to be there to make it constantly known to those in power what your issues were. Another thing is, it was enough to say "here is how we have been grieved" without having to hand the politicians language to insert into a bill to sign into law; but, then, I guess law makers aren't used to thinking on their own and making laws so they need 3rd parties to do all the leg work? Or are they really that clueless on a lot of what Occupy's grievances are?

      Well, excuse me, I'm just wasting my emotion, time, and energy. I mean, here I am posting on a website. Clearly I should be doing at least as much as you are and whatever you're doing to resolve the issue, assuming you see there's an issue. So, what was it you're doing again?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    30. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      So, what was it you're doing again?

      Boycotting the companies and products involved. Dollars, and the lack thereof, are votes that can't be ignored.

    31. Re:Does it really matter ? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily have a problem with my employer watching what apps I install, or what sites I browse. Afterall, it is their phone. But theoretically they also have complete access to where I am (though I suppose I could turn off location services).

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    32. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, people in Boulder (Colorado) aren't that bad - lots of startups, artists, and liberals.

      Colorado Springs (unfortunately, where I'm from) is a different story, however. Talk about a fucktarded city....

    33. Re:Does it really matter ? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I try to block all google domains. I avoid google directly and I block their api sites, the 'syndication' sites, etc.

      yet, I find that places that have no business even touching google are still sending outbound (via me) requests to google. case in point, I ordered some parts at mouser (chips, transistors, etc) and wouldn't you know, when you order on their site, they call google in some bizarre way. I didn't catch which google site was being hit, but it was while I was doing catalog searches on their site to add to my basket and then checking out. using my own credit card (not google checkout) but somewhere in the dialog, G kept coming up in 'connecting to...' messages.

      wtf!

      I can't even shop at a vendor and not have google mess with it? or be in the middle of it?

      I choose not to; but my vendors don't and so bit by bit, its becoming impossible to do anything online and not touch google.

      its fucked up, guys. this is not what a free internet was supposed to be. I wonder if anyone even cares and if we can stop this before it goes too far..

      too much power in the hands of one company. haven't we been thru this shit before??

      god, we have short memories, don't we.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    34. Re:Does it really matter ? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Or people could take personal responsibility and incorporate the knowledge of this spying into the purchase decision or flash their phones

    35. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Walla"?

      Protip: if you have no idea how a certain word is written, please avoid using it.

    36. Re:Does it really matter ? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      No contract with a carrier voids the constitution

      Your constitution offers you protection from THE GOVERNMENT doing these kind of things. You signed a contract with A PRIVATE PARTY. Your constitution means NOTHING.

      For fuck's sake, someone put this into an X-Factor song so you idiots finally get the message.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    37. Re:Does it really matter ? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The very gist of my signature.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    38. Re:Does it really matter ? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I believe he was referring to the system they had before, the illegal warrentless wiretapping.

    39. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are okay with this level of responsibility to be pushed back onto the consumer? Is the consumer then responsible for reverse-engineering their device to ensure that they're not subject to an unpublished provision that they never consented to?

    40. Re:Does it really matter ? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Ease up on the vitriol, friend.

      The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency of the Federal Government, whose activities are supposed to be constrained to the enumerated powers delegated to it by the states.

      My copy of the constitution does not mention any authority to track the comings and goings of the general citizenry, nor to engage in wholesale snooping on their communications, nor to blow smoke up the public's arse about the user guides to civilian software being a secret and critical component of some unspecified criminal investigation.

      It doesn't really matter if the carriers eagerly drop off all this info on the FBI's doorstep. The FBI is not entitled to look through this information. They are constitutionally limited to investigating a specific instance of a crime for which they have a specific warrant naming a specific person, time, place, and the nature of information they're allowed to seek.

      The idea that our allowing carriers to monitor our phone (which is technologically unavoidable) is equivalent to our voluntarily handing this information to the FBI, and therefore the FBI got it legally, is a silly playground attempt to rationalize the constitution into irrelevance.

    41. Re:Does it really matter ? by dwpro · · Score: 1

      If the FBI or some other government organization is mucking through citizens phone records the constitution absolutely applies, and the carriers TOS have shit all to do with that, historically anyway. If all it took was a TOS and a third party doing the collection don't you think the government would have been using that loophole long ago?

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    42. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · · Score: 1

      If all it took was a TOS and a third party doing the collection don't you think the government would have been using that loophole long ago?

      Well, first, it is the carrier who is collecting the data. CarrierIQ is providing tools and/or support to the carrier. The TOS is an agreement with the carrier, who is free to meet those obligations via subcontractors. The 3rd party is the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies, as well as, advertising companies, product vendors, etc etc etc ).

      Second, they *have* been doing this for decades. With credit card statements and phone billing summaries.

    43. Re:Does it really matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about US, but in Canada compagnies can write policies/TOS as they wish, but when it comes to legislation, it wouldn't be valid in front of a judge. Theses clauses 1. can't contradict constitution 2. must be reasonable (ex: you don't pay 1 month, your home will be seize.) 3. Important clauses like CarrierIQ must be read and agreed clearly (not in the middle of a TOS/policy of 500 pages.)

    44. Re:Does it really matter ? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That's just how the constitution works; The FBI cannot wholesale monitor "the people". However, if a private entity has data on those people, and gives it to the FBI, and they said they'd do this, then it's our fault for giving them our details instead of telling them to DIAF.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you let them get away with warrantless wiretapping once, they'll do it in perpetuity

    The game is over, citizens. They violated the Constitution and you didn't do anything about it. Enjoy the slow march into facism and your new police state.

  5. carriers already save text message content... by realized · · Score: 2

    The funny thing here is Carriers already save text message data Without Carrier IQ - and they have the ability to save URL data also since we are on their network. why would the FBI need Carrier IQ unless it was getting more data than that? Pictures we take on our phones? videos? emails ? http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1740,iid=313504,00.asp

    1. Re:carriers already save text message content... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      they have the ability to save URL data also since we are on their network.

      Not if you're connecting to the website using SSL, they don't.

  6. Data logging by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the FBI is using Carrier IQ data for investigative purposes, doesn't that call into question the earlier claim from security researchers that Carrier IQ isn't logging data?

    1. Re:Data logging by forkfail · · Score: 2

      Classic case of "We're not doing anything wrong, and even if we are, it's not really wrong anyway, and you should let us keep doing these not-wrong things, because, really, they're the right thing to do, because they're not wrong and we're not doing them."

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re:Data logging by rsborg · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the FBI is using Carrier IQ data for investigative purposes, doesn't that call into question the earlier claim from security researchers that Carrier IQ isn't logging data?

      If you read closely, you'll see that Carrier IQ's argument relies heavily on that data never hitting their servers. The fact that their keylogger-capable malware allows the carrier to extract that info, and consequently hand it to the FBI, is "not their fault" [1].

      [1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/08/carrier-iq-interview

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  7. What?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Silly me........and there I thought with Obama and Holder running things we'd have unicorns prancing down Main Street with rainbows shining out their butts.

    1. Re:What?????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that will happen .. but only during his 2nd term. Vote him in again and then we'll see Hope and Change

  8. These Are Not The Androids You're Looking For by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have violated Robot's Rules of Order, and will be asked to leave the future, immediately.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:These Are Not The Androids You're Looking For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You broke the president, man.

  9. Well, the 4th Amendment... by forkfail · · Score: 1

    ... itself also undoubtedly "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

    --
    Check your premises.
    1. Re:Well, the 4th Amendment... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Well, the 4th Amendment itself also undoubtedly "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

      Don't give them any ideas.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  10. Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - The Right to Read

    1. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - Richard Stallman

      Stallman is a prophet, a toe jam eating prophet, but a prophet none the less.

    2. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman is an Idiot.

      You can call him a prophet when I get arrested for running the OS of my choice.

    3. Re:Stallman Was Right by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Rooting your iPhone or console to put on your own OS is "hacking" (violating the TOS makes it unauthorized access of a computer system, even if you own it), and "hacking" got Terry Childs jailtime. Sure, nobody has been put in jail for OS upgrades, but the legal chain has been laid, and they are waiting for a good test case to send someone to jail for installing an OS. It could be done today, if they really wanted to.

    4. Re:Stallman Was Right by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Plenty of folks with Xboxes have already been arrested for doing just that!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like this guy who was modding them commecally, the first ever prosecuted case of its kind?
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/xboxmodding-trial/
      Where the Judge lambasted the prosecution for it's poor behavior?
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/xbox-judge-riled/
      And the case was finally dismissed?
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/

      So, I challenge you to name two successful prosecutions.

    6. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The FCC has came out and said rooting an iPhone is legal.
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/

      I take them a more authoritative on the matter then a random slashdot poster.

    7. Re:Stallman Was Right by alexo · · Score: 2

      Stallman is an Idiot.

      You can call him a prophet when I get arrested for running the OS of my choice.

      Don't you think it will be too late then?

    8. Re:Stallman Was Right by Cigarra · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't have a sig.
    9. Re:Stallman Was Right by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Right after you tell me how that guy paid his legal fees.

    10. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a non-sequitor, but:

      As a criminal prosecution, he is entitled to a public defender. None of the stories on the matter list how he did or did not pay for his defense, and I am obviously not privy to his finances.

      So far all successful prosecutions for modding an XBox ALSO involved distributing games in violation of the copyrights. This is diametrically opposed to what is implied by mrchaotica's post.

      The DMCA is a shit law, poorly written, unable to do what was intentioned, and having unintended consequences, BUT when applied but the courts within the framework of the rest of the existing law, the courts generally do the right thing. THIS is fundamentally why I maintain "Stallman is an idiot."

    11. Re:Stallman Was Right by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      I thought you didn't get a public defender in some states unless you can show you don't have any money-- if you have money you have to spend it; if you are broke enough then you get a public defender. Or maybe that was another country I was reading about...

  11. Congratulations by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations on making your request. Welcome to The List.

    1. Re:Congratulations by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      While your at it, might as well inquire about "The List" too.

      If there's going to be a dog and pony show, might as well go along for the ride.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  12. It's about to get worse! by the+linux+geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    The new National Defense Authorization Act contains an amendment allowing the military the authority to detain American citizens, on American soil, indefinitely and without access to an attorney. The President has said he'll veto it; write to him and hold him to it! This has wide bipartisan support, and while I'm typically hesitant of doomsaying about America becoming a police state, this is the legal codification of one!

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

    1. Re:It's about to get worse! by tobiah · · Score: 1

      The Senate passed it 92 to 7. I'm pretty sure that's more than a 2/3 majority.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    2. Re:It's about to get worse! by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      This already got passed.... the president signed it gladly.

    3. Re:It's about to get worse! by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Er, no it didn't. It's still in reconciliation committee.

    4. Re:It's about to get worse! by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      There's a new one every year, dumb fuck. It provides the military budget. The amendment is only in the 2011 version.

    5. Re:It's about to get worse! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Pants on fire!

      The NDAA hasn't even cleared Congress yet, just the Senate.

    6. Re:It's about to get worse! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Hey, you can't blame him. 2009 and 2011 are almost the same year, right?

    7. Re:It's about to get worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. The authoritarian-minded bootlickers on this site really have hardon for this amendment, don't they? So much so they're trying to convince others that passage of the Authorization act is already a fait accompli.

    8. Re:It's about to get worse! by ZenDragon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Haha my bad... in any case how about you go fuck yourself?

    9. Re:It's about to get worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but a different version passed the House so they're getting reconciled.

    10. Re:It's about to get worse! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I thought it wasn't going to get passed. I was just responding to the outright wrong claim that it had been passed and "gladly" signed into law by Obama.

    11. Re:It's about to get worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The President has said he'll veto it; write to him and hold him to it!

      I think the Americans and the ACLU are being hoodwinked.

      If you believe Senator Cal Levin in his speech on the senate floor it was the Obama Administration that requested that the sections from the Bill that protected US citizens be removed.

      Here is the Video Clip of Senator Levin's Speech where he says just that:
      http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/

      Or read Senator Levin official Gov page about the speech:
      http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-speech-on-the-detainee-provision-in-the-defense-authorization-bill/

      The Obama Administration has no problem with what they themselves requested it be removed!, The Obama Administration is objecting to (threatening a veto over) another section of the bill, section 1032 (see above link).

      It is all over the web, just search:

      obama levin section 1031 1032

      Crazy stuff.

  13. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri by Guppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

      --Pravin Lal

  14. Look by koan · · Score: 1

    I know legally you need hard evidence to make accusations but I would leave you with this thought, why would there be one exception to the invasion of privacy with the feds and carrierIQ when it's rampant in almost every other scenario.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  15. What about subsection (e)? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    The new National Defense Authorization Act contains an amendment allowing the military the authority to detain American citizens, on American soil, indefinitely and without access to an attorney.

    What about subsection (e)? Wouldn't that argue against that interpretation?

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:What about subsection (e)? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What about subsection (e)? Wouldn't that argue against that interpretation?

      I had a lawyer who specializes in civil rights tell me no, it has big holes in it. Also, Diane Feinstein's filed an amendment to counter it - perhaps for reason (it was soundly defeated and that's all the amendment did).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:What about subsection (e)? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

      I had a lawyer who specializes in civil rights tell me no, it has big holes in it.

      That doesn't surprise me.

      Thanks for the info, most people I've asked that question to haven't even read the bill.

      --

      dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
      I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  16. There's no FBI investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ironically to investigate Carrier IQ, they'd have to get a search warrant against them, but to use Carrier IQ's data, they'd just need to pay a fee.

    There is no FBI investigation because there is no search warrant.

  17. Apple Logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this have an Apple logo instead of an Android logo? Google came out and said they didn't put it in Android (the logo used). Apple on the other hand did include it in IOS. Spreading misinformation??

    1. Re:Apple Logo by jonwil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google didn't put it in Android but a number of Android OEMs ARE using CarrierIQ, mostly at the behest of carriers like AT&T who said "include CarrierIQ or we wont sell your new phone"

    2. Re:Apple Logo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple logo would be like shit to flies. Better not to use it when you don't have to.

  18. The sad truth is .. by Cherubim1 · · Score: 1

    The government and intelligence agencies are treating citizens like terrorists and internet users as enemy combatants. They have no interest in serving the people and are doing their very best to destroy our civil liberties and freedoms. Take a look at the S-1867 bill that was recently passed - it gives the military sweeping powers to arrest, detain and incarcerate people without any legal recourse. Welcome to hell. You are a number and have no rights.

    1. Re:The sad truth is .. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The government and intelligence agencies are treating citizens like terrorists and internet users as enemy combatants."

      Well, to be fair, most of them do have more than 7 days of food in their homes.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  19. Why was this modded down ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty

    I like this comment :)

    1. Re:Why was this modded down ? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      It wasn't. MK has just been an ass to so many people, on so many occasions, that slashdot itself assumes he is only capable of spewing forth bile -- and so it mods him accordingly.

      On the other hand you can turn this off in your preferences - if you register.

  20. Why would the FBI use by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Why would the FBI use commercial software like this? Don't they have computer scientist and software programmers them-selfs?

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  21. Re:Why would the FBI use by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    "Them-selfs" is a slang term for them Santa's elves, right? After all, why have the FBI develop in house and have to figure out how to get their software on everyone's phones, when Santa's elves can just deliver their spyware pre-installed on December 25th?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  22. This is a ROVE/Fox game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karl Rove dreamt this one up, the Democrats were *supposed* to reject it, Rove and Fox had a lot of talking points line up about how 'Democrats are trying to protect Al-Qaeda'.

    Instead the Democrats went 'um and er' and approved it, Obama then announced he would reject this 'BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH IN GIVING HIM POWERS TO TACKLE AL QAEDA', a neat way of sidestepping this Rove game.

    If you're not familiar with Karl Rove, he got Bush into power, even after losing the vote in 2000, he has $35 million to spend getting Republicans into power this time. His backers are mainly people like Bernie Madoff (who wants a Presidential pardon), Fund managers, who fear paying the same tax rate as the rest of us etc.

    He'll say whatever lie will get his Republicans into power.

  23. Current government philosophy (dem and repub) by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    FBI: "Even though we're supposed to serve the American people we don't care you stupid sheep. You'll take what we give you and be happy with it!"

  24. My advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go find a green agent and give him a few too many drinks. Most Federal agents aren't nearly as bright or clever as they'd like to think. Do it right and it shouldn't be hard to get something like a manual.

  25. Class action lawsuit? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Is there grounds for a class action suit? Once the ambulance chasers smell blood (money), Carrier IQ will have their hands full....out of our hair.

  26. tort reform by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Tort reform means that a class action may not do much harm to their business if they can make enough cash before losing such a case.