FBI Rejects Freedom of Information Act Request About Carrier IQ

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Rejects Freedom of Information Act Request About Carrier IQ

Posted by Soulskill on Monday December 12, 2011 @11:16AM from the let's-jump-to-conclusions dept.

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."

51 of 156 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'm stunned by mr1911 · 2011-12-12 11:18 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:20 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:23 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:57 · 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 · 2011-12-12 12:20 · 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 · 2011-12-12 12:38 · 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 erroneus · 2011-12-12 13:17 · 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.
7. Re:I'm stunned by couchslug · 2011-12-12 13:18 · 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."
8. Re:I'm stunned by forand · 2011-12-12 13:26 · 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.
9. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · 2011-12-12 13:28 · 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.
10. Re:I'm stunned by Luckyo · 2011-12-12 13:37 · 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.
11. Re:I'm stunned by Qzukk · 2011-12-12 13:51 · 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.
12. Re:I'm stunned by Nyder · 2011-12-12 14:35 · 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...
13. Re:I'm stunned by Runaway1956 · 2011-12-12 15:19 · 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
14. Re:I'm stunned by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-12-12 15:54 · 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)
15. Re:I'm stunned by thegarbz · 2011-12-12 16:46 · 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."
16. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · 2011-12-12 17:18 · 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.
17. Re:I'm stunned by PopeRatzo · 2011-12-12 17:26 · 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.
18. Re:I'm stunned by Luckyo · 2011-12-12 17:42 · 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.
19. Re:I'm stunned by sociocapitalist · 2011-12-12 21:53 · 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
20. Re:I'm stunned by Yvanhoe · 2011-12-12 23:12 · 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.
Exemptions may apply by ackthpt · 2011-12-12 11:19 · 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
Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · 2011-12-12 11:22 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:24 · 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 jimpop · 2011-12-12 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  Go ahead and guess which tool a carrier could use to collect that data.
3. Re:Does it really matter ? by poena.dare · 2011-12-12 11:32 · 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.
4. Re:Does it really matter ? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-12-12 11:37 · 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..."
5. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · 2011-12-12 11:40 · 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 ).
6. Re:Does it really matter ? by flaming+error · 2011-12-12 11:46 · 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.
7. Re:Does it really matter ? by Synerg1y · 2011-12-12 11:49 · 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.
8. Re:Does it really matter ? by ackthpt · 2011-12-12 11:52 · 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
9. Re:Does it really matter ? by Adrian+Lopez · 2011-12-12 11:53 · 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."
10. Re:Does it really matter ? by Sancho · 2011-12-12 11:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly. It's a legal warrantless wiretap, which is the problem.
11. Re:Does it really matter ? by flaming+error · 2011-12-12 12:13 · 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.
12. Re:Does it really matter ? by peragrin · 2011-12-12 12:16 · 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.
13. Re:Does it really matter ? by fsckmnky · 2011-12-12 12:21 · 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.
14. Re:Does it really matter ? by mhelander · 2011-12-12 13:23 · 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.
carriers already save text message content... by realized · 2011-12-12 11:25 · 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
Data logging by bonch · 2011-12-12 11:27 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:35 · 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 · 2011-12-12 11:57 · 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
These Are Not The Androids You're Looking For by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-12-12 11:29 · 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..."
Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 11:35 · 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 AK+Marc · 2011-12-12 12:54 · 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.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
2. Re:Stallman Was Right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 15:20 · 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.
3. Re:Stallman Was Right by alexo · 2011-12-12 15:32 · 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?
It's about to get worse! by the+linux+geek · 2011-12-12 11:45 · 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 the+linux+geek · 2011-12-12 12:06 · Score: 2
  
  There's a new one every year, dumb fuck. It provides the military budget. The amendment is only in the 2011 version.
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri by Guppy · 2011-12-12 12:15 · 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
Re:Apple Logo by jonwil · 2011-12-12 14:28 · 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"
Re:Why would the FBI use by Zero__Kelvin · 2011-12-12 16:22 · 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