Slashdot Mirror


Cops To Congress: We Need Logs of Americans' Text Messages

Dainsanefh tips a CNET report about a number of law enforcement groups who have put forth a proposal to the U.S. Senate to require wireless providers to keep logs of subscriber text messages for a minimum of two years. "As the popularity of text messages has exploded in recent years, so has their use in criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. They have been introduced as evidence in armed robbery, cocaine distribution, and wire fraud prosecutions. In one 2009 case in Michigan, wireless provider SkyTel turned over the contents of 626,638 SMS messages, a figure described by a federal judge as 'staggering.' Chuck DeWitt, a spokesman for the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, which represents the 63 largest U.S. police forces including New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, said 'all such records should be retained for two years.' Some providers, like Verizon, retain the contents of SMS messages for a brief period of time, while others like T-Mobile do not store them at all. Along with the police association, other law enforcement groups making the request to the Senate include the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, DeWitt said."

28 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Americans to cops: by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We'll start using encrypted apps instead of SMS

    1. Re:Americans to cops: by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No we wont. We may SAY we will, but we cant be bothered.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Americans to cops: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I really am not interested in training my drug dealer how to use encryption.

    3. Re:Americans to cops: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because warrants today are trivial, meaningless documents, except for the ridiculously wealthy. The average Joe doesn't know how to or have the means to hire somebody that can fight cases on procedural grounds, which results in a system that can be abused 99% of the time without repercussion... and you'd be a fool to think that the police do not both know about and take advantage of this.

      In a system where you are entitled to only so much justice as you can afford, it is in our best interest to restrict whenever possible the powers of the police and the judiciary.

    4. Re:Americans to cops: by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except if only 1 out of 10,000 is using encryption, guess who is getting red flagged? the 1 in 10,000. Its called a chilling effect, look it up. These aren't the keystone cops ya know, they generally know how exactly to word that shit so they can get away with doing pretty much whatever, hell its why they have laws like resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, its because these are "catch all" laws that they can use on anybody at any time. After all, who decides what is disorderly? And of course they can use resisting even when they have no valid reason to arrest you in the first place, so they get to do what they want and you can't say shit.

      I would urge everyone to watch The end of America by Naomi Wolf where she lays out step by step, using historical cases, how a free society becomes non free. BTW she is now on the NSA watchlists for daring to talk about constitutional rights, can't have that now. She argues there are ways to stop it but I would counter short of violent revolution it is inevitable, with the propaganda power of the mass media and the ability to get these laws through by either slipping them in on an unaware populace or targeting them at "the other" that no one will dare defend, terrorists, pedos, they can get pretty much any police powers they desire and then the laws will simply be widened until they can use it on anybody.

      As some law professors pointed out a couple of years back you ARE a criminal, and so am I, and them, and your family, because they have managed to get so many vaguely worded laws on the books that simply going through your daily lives you break probably a dozen laws a day, laws that could get you anywhere from 6 months to a couple of years per charge. the ONLY reason these laws haven't been used against you is they simply haven't had a reason to, but if they can spy on 10,000 and can't spy on only 1 out of that 10,000? Well then time to dust those laws off huh?

      While I think Ayn Rand was total batshit even the crazy can have a moment of truth, and her idea that to the government ALL are criminals, its only a question of the charges, is pretty damned spot on. You can protest, write your congress critter, in the end they'll just tack this to the end of some bill at 3 AM and run it through.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. The People to Cops.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No.

    1. Re:The People to Cops.... by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about, "Sure thing, but you need a warrant to access them"?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:The People to Cops.... by Paran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get a warrant, intercept them realtime. Next they'll want recordings of conversations to be saved for X years. If a judge thinks a person is worth surveillance, then fine, but my past communications shouldn't be archived "just in case I'm a criminal".

  3. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These messages shouldn't be archived. If the police need to see the communications, they should be required to get a warrent, and only be able to intercept communications as their happening - as would happen with a wiretap.

    Law enforcement should not be able to go back through prior communications that occurred before they got a warrant.

    1. Re:No by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The police normally only investigate crimes after they have already happened so they need to get evidence from the time period that the crime happened in.

      I agree with you that they should need to get a warrant, much like they have to to get your phone records, but I think that they should be allowed to get text messages that are less than one month old, but beyond one month they should only get a notice that a text happened, but not the actual message.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:No by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you think they should be able to get the audio of any phone conversation up to a month old? Why should one kind of data be retained, for no other reason than its easy and cheap to retain, but not another?

      Why should text recieve, in any way, less protection than audio, other than due to a side effect of the technical details of how it is implemented?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:No by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't granting them access with a warrant. The problem is that they are trying to induce storage for no other reason than to maintain a POTENTIAL evidence database.

      Why should there be a requirement to maintain these messages? Should there be a requirement to make a copy of every letter that passes through the post office and maintain it for x months? Of course not, because such a copy isn't necessary to transmit the letter.

      I hate that people treat the default for all Rights these days in the manner of: None, unless proven otherwise.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  4. What's the analagous communication type? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does the USPS need to scan all letters? Do cell conversations need to be recorded and stored? Do emails need to be retained by the host?

    Is this April 1st?

  5. Why stop there? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about complete audio recordings of all phone calls, and copies of every piece of mail delivered?

    Or did you try that before, and ran into some trouble with the Supreme Court, the Fourth Ammendment, and a planet full of Ewoks over forty years ago?

  6. Know what would really make sense? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not require cops to put video/audio recorders in all their cars and require them to keep the tapes for 2 years. Make any missing tape a felony so that the incentive to "lose" them disappears. That would do more to make our country a better place than keeping SMS messages.

    1. Re:Know what would really make sense? by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And suddenly, 50% of the nation's police force is behind bars for assault, bribery, extortion, racketeering, corruption, domestic violence, solicitation..... you get the idea.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:Know what would really make sense? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      And that would be a bad thing? If your number (50%) is correct, I believe we would be living in a safer world.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  7. Re:they never had it before... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And yet, you are totally missing the point. Its not a question of whether they should be able to obtain the messages, legally, with a warrant (which, incidentally, they currently don't actually need as far as I know). Thats totally off topic, if its there, of course they can get at it with cause.

    The question is, why should it be retained. Why should the phone company be REQUIRED to store data, from everyone, all the time, based on their assertion that they might need to request it later?

    My phone calls are not recorded, why should they not also be required to retain the audio of the calls? Why, other than current details of old laws, should the two types of personal data, be in in any way, treated differently?

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  8. Libraries Too by TheAngryMob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like the fact that my library (and most others) destroy records of checkouts after you return a book so that the information can't be used in an investigation or trial.

    Just because I read some Karl Marx, doesn't make me a commie. Likewise, just because I texted a quote from the Koran doesn't make me a terrorist.

    --

    Don't just game, Dungeoneer
  9. 18 terabytes per month by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it would be unrealistic to record every phone call

    I disagree. The capacity of communications networks increases over time, but the user base of voice does not increase as fast because it's already hit saturation. Say there are 300 million cell phone subscribers in a market, and each spends 1000 minutes on the phone per month, and each call is recorded at 8 kilobits per second. 300,000,000*1000*60*8/8 is only 18 terabytes per month. What's the total size in bytes of video uploaded to, say, YouTube per month?

  10. Re:Catch 22: by logjon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why encrypt data if you do to care if the government knows it? Because it's none of their fucking business. Or you actually believe that the FBI could not know everything about you if they wanted to? If they want to waste their time, they can go right ahead. I'm not going to help them, though. Let them bore the fuck out of themselves. Encryption does no good if you control the sender/receiver, or built a back-door into the encryptor/phone to begin with. No shit.

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  11. Re:Catch 22: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    For my part, everything in my house, save the gaming rigs, uses encrypted storage not because I have anything terribly important stored, but because I want it to be as difficult and time-consuming as humanly possible for the jackboots to find absolutely nothing. I'm sort of an asshole like that.

  12. Re:Catch 22: by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was investigated repeatedly by the NSA and they couldn't produce more than half a sheet of paper about me. They got a 20 page thick tome when they were done, made up entirely of things I admitted to under polygraph, and denied my clearance. 80% of my life was unaccountable to them. It frightened the shit out of them.

    I don't go to any great lengths to hide. I'm just highly compartmentalized, enough that few people know much about me at all, and there's not a lot of pieces to put together. People who grew up with me can't ascribe anything more to me than face-value. Where does he go? What are his hobbies? Oh... I dunno, we just went to high school together for four years, never seen him outside school, never talked about his home life or family ... he seems good at computers, I think one day he'll be Bill Gates..

    Absolutely nothing on me. Not like... no criminal history, no dirt... but nothing. I look like a constructed identity. A really obvious constructed identity. Problem is they're looking at my real identity and I have no actual background; records for school, medical records--which barely fit on half a page--and a few people who recognize my name but know nothing about me and have no alibi for where I've been ever.

  13. Re:Catch 22: by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then you were denied a clearance for an obvious lack of community ties. Stuff like that is important, because if you're going to be trusted with sensitive information, your superiors will want to be sure you have "something to lose," like your family and friends back home. If you are a non-entity with no clear motives and no attachments to other people, what's to stop you from selling everything you know to the highest bidder?

  14. Re:Catch 22: by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Currently, the FBI really only sticks its nose into people that have done something 'big.'

    You're serious? You haven't seen the dozens of cases where the FBI manufactured a bomb plot from some moron who chimed in on a 'shady' website that he wanted to bomb the US?

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  15. Re:Catch 22: by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UID 723572 doesn't seem to hide anything imho. He is just very conscience about his position in a world where both the government and corporate entities want to know ALL there is about EVERYONE. He probably prefers to talk personally rather than SMS/tweet/FB/chat everything to the entire world, and I salute him for it, for he is right.
    Somehow western societies (both in Yurp and Yankeeland) these day's think you are a weirdo if you like your privacy.
    The "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"-card is played far to easy, just as the "we need to do this to fight terrorists/paedophiles"-card. (respectively Yankeeland and Yurp in case you wondered) Do you, as a /. reader, REALLY believe terrorists and paedophiles use facebook to achieve their goals? Really? I surely hope not. So why does the government have to be able to access that?
    The exception here is Germany, but than again they have had some experience with the government wanting to know a little bit to much about its civilians (Gestapo / Stasi, in case you were puzzled a bit again). The most important tool a government has to control its people is data. And if you think things like that wont happen these day's I guess you go and do a history course... ...Or go and live in North Korea for a while...

    While you're there say hi to the guys of the SSD for me, will you! :-)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Department

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
  16. Re:Catch 22: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's the whole point. I pointed out in a talk once that the unencrypted email we used (this was in the 90s) was like sending everything written on a postcard. Encrypted email, was more like sending it in an envelope (yes I know an envelope or insecure encryption can be bypassed easily but it stops casual inspection).

    We'd think someone a bit odd if they insisted that all mail to and from them, even love letters, bills, and financial statements had to be sent as postcards rather than in an envelope.

    And yet, many at the time thought it odd that anyone would go to the trouble of encrypting email unless they had some deep dark secret to hide.

    The history of email was such that we trained ourselves to not use the equivalent of envelopes.

    Because of that, encrypting common messages that aren't among accepted sensitive categories seems odd. In truth, it would be better to have encryption be by default and unencrypted be the oddity. That way truly sensitive information wouldn't be flagged as interesting because they were encrypted.

  17. Re:Catch 22: by EdIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My favorite is the posts about how you create a hidden subdirectory with files that have child porn names like, "9yr_old_girl_first_time_anal". The FBI has to view the file, only to find a video with a 10 hour long loop of some hilarious shit like He-Man Master of the Universe in the gayest music video ever.

    Of course, the real joke being the policy that the FBI has to actually inspect all 10 hours of a footage, lest some clever pedophile hide the video 2/3rds of the way in, interlaced in the frames like something from the movie Contact.

    I figure wasting a TB on nested TrueCrypt containers, all with stuff of that nature, plus inane bullshit like cook books, could keep the FBI busy for months on end.... even if they got the keys from me.

    Then of course I realize, the joke would also be on us. The FBI would go to the Senate and demand 50 billion dollars to increase their task force and processing power to actually comply with something so fucking ridiculous. We would pay for the joke in our taxes. It's not like they would learn anything, or get a clue right?