Slashdot Mirror


FBI Responds To ACLU GPS Tracking Complaint

Nerdolicious writes "Ars Technica reports that the ACLU has received a response from the FBI after a formal legal complaint was filed to release documents related to warrantless GPS tracking data. But, as you can see from the two memos the ACLU posted to its website, they have unsurprisingly been redacted to uselessness, consisting almost entirely of large black blocks covering full pages."

146 comments

  1. This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What the FBI does is wrong.
    And they know it, that is why they hide it.

    Inform your congressman.

    1. Re:This is wrong. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inform your congressman.

      Please. That's so naive.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Inform your congressman.

      Become your congressman.

    3. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inform your congressman.

      Please. That's so naive.

      Pleeze bitch. Inform is newspeak for buy.

    4. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Inform your congressman.

      Please. That's so naive.

      You're right. The real way to change a broken system is to participate in juvenile one-upmanship on Slashdot. That'll show 'em.

    5. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congress doesn't run the executive agencies. Go to them if you want new legislation passed, or old legislation repealed. Go to the Judicial branch if you want to do something about them violating existing law.

    6. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What the FBI does is wrong.
      And they know it, that is why they hide it.

      You have no idea just how right you are. I could tell you some insider
      stories but I will spare you because you'd have nightmares.

      The FBI exists to preserve power for itself and the Feds, and that is the
      ONLY thing the FBI is actually concerned with.

      The FBI will LIE under oath in order to secure a conviction. I know this because
      they did it to me.

      If you believe the FBI gives a fuck about the average citizen you are as naive as a young
      child.

    7. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congress doesn't run the agencies, but they do fund them. Holding their purse strings is effectively the same thing as running them.

    8. Re:This is wrong. by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.

      They can also do a private hearing if the subject is considered a matter of national security then release more of the information through leaks or bringing it up on the floor of congress.

      So while you are right in that you go to court over an agency violating existing laws, you can still go to congress to get the answers you are looking for (provided congress is willing to take the matter up).

    9. Re:This is wrong. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congress doesn't run the executive agencies. Go to them if you want new legislation passed, or old legislation repealed. Go to the Judicial branch if you want to do something about them violating existing law.

      Seems that's what the ACLU did. And we see how far it has gotten them so far.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    10. Re:This is wrong. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      You have no idea just how right you are. I could tell you some insider stories but I will spare you because you'd have nightmares.

      I already have nightmares. What's your story?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    11. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      What the FBI does is wrong.
      And they know it, that is why they hide it.

      Inform your congressman.

      Oh please grow up will you? If youre going to post something atleast be able to give example, talk about it or something. Just dont make up some lazy half assed and generic kneejerk reaction comment and run off. You sound like some ignorant hippie that has nothing to say but repeat "the corporations and governments are bad man" over and over again with no intelligent argument at all.

    12. Re:This is wrong. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only way to become a congressperson is to sell out to the very interests you seek to destroy by becoming a congress person.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:This is wrong. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1, Troll

      Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.

      Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.

      Or, just simply stonewall. Seems to work for the TSA-related stuff they've been stonewalling on.

      They seem to be channeling Andrew Jackson.

      "John Marshall (Congress/Courts) has made his (it's/their) decision, now let him enforce it!"

      When the government ceases to even pretend to be bound by the Rule of Law or any limitations on it's powers, that kinda narrows down the range of possible responses the People can take to correct it. It's not coincidental that the 2nd Amendment is under heavy attack. Soap, ballot, and jury boxes have proven ineffective.

      Completely unrelated, but did you see the new IDF remotely-controlled sniper-weapon mount system? Something like that could be controlled from a smartphone app.

      http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:835b7d06-e3e0-428d-930b-9ea88e088c29

      Doesn't seem like it would be too hard for hardware hackers to duplicate that functionality with mostly OTS robotics-hobbyist parts and components.

      Just sayin'

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    14. Re:This is wrong. by mrops · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and then do a about turn once you have become one.

      Unfortunately by then, you have forgotten your original agenda and become complacent with bribes.. um ah.. I mean lobby donations.

    15. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example,

      Kim Dotcom.

      Lied, broke both domestic, foreign and international law. Telling the judge they have no intention of following orders to return improperly seized items and information.

      Good enough?

    16. Re:This is wrong. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Unless Holder and Obama et al decide to abuse Executive Privilege as in the Fast & Furious fiasco, to prevent Congress and the Judicial from obtaining any evidence and/or documentation.

      The fact that Holder did not do a year in jail for his contempt of Congress is prima facie proof that pretty much all of our congresspeople on both sides of the aisle are either complicit or lack testicular fortitude. Just saying.

      Also, until I see proof to the country, I consider every Democrat who voted against holding Holder in contempt to be a traitor against the United States and not worthy of holding political office ever again. They chose their party over the good of the people and the public's right to hold the government accountable for its actions. There are very few truly unconscionable acts that a politician can commit under color of authority, but that's one of them.

      And I'm almost offended enough by Nancy Pelosi's actions to move an hour north just so I can run against her when she comes up for reelection. But not quite.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:This is wrong. by t4ng* · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, we can play this game all day, but let's remember that we live in a democracy, so this is really all on us. The only reason you have to sell out and act like a dickhole to be in Congress is because that's what voters are demanding right now.

      I would argue that voters are demanding this right now because they have been convinced to do so by a vast array of corporate control media that selectively suppresses some news, grossly distorts other news, and gives a far-reaching public stage to people that are clearly either uninformed idiots, completely unhinged mental cases, or corporate shills.

      Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.

    18. Re:This is wrong. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      We don't live in a democracy. We don't even live in a democratic republic anymore.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:This is wrong. by sjames · · Score: 1

      More to the point, along the way to getting support, you will have had to do a number of legally questionable things (or they stop the train). If you about face once you're in office, suddenly those things will come to light and you'll be prosecuted.

    20. Re:This is wrong. by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that we should start hunting FBI agents instead of playing angry birds?

    21. Re:This is wrong. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      are either complicit

      I'm going to go with complicit. After all, their guy will be President some day so they wouldn't want to do anything that would limit their options.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    22. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that we should start hunting FBI agents instead of playing angry birds?

      Agents, like individual field agents?

      Why? They're not making policy.

      I'd bet that most would silently cheer if some of their corrupt/treasonous bosses in the FBI/DoJ/DHS/Administration met a nasty fate.

    23. Re:This is wrong. by Genda · · Score: 2

      We currently live in a Corporate Sponsored quasi-totalitarian State with a long running reality program televised from its National Capitol called CSPAN. The occupants of the twin house bicker and feud and fulminate over all kinds of ridiculous trivialities in a loud and desperate attempt to distract the general populous from discovering that their nation's formal process and guarantees of liberty have been flushed into the Chesapeake.

      This is because the Executive Branch has been given virtually unlimited power, created a nearly complete parallel government answerable to nobody, and stuffed the Supreme Court with political toadies committed to handing over the keys to the Kingdom. Watching this slow motion coup over the last 30 years (which is not to say that the process hasn't been happening for a great deal longer... eg. Roosevelt and Johnson, just that the last 30 years have been a virtual free-fall) has been nothing less than tragic. Without a near complete overhaul, starting with cutting the executive branch right back to the Presidents eyebrows, removing the rights of PERSONHOOD from corporations, in fact pruning corporations back to their original life span of 20 years and separating commerce and state completely, putting back structures to ensure a free and unmolested press, yanking back the reins on the federal police and intelligence agencies with sufficient force to cause whiplash and pimp slapping D.C with the U. S. Constitution repeatedly until it shapes up and flies right, I see little hope for this American Experiment.

      It is the government that must stand bare naked before the people that the power or government might not be abused. A nation that forces its people to stand bare naked before their government is a nation of slaves with ungrateful masters.

    24. Re:This is wrong. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I'd bet that most would silently cheer if some of their corrupt/treasonous bosses in the FBI/DoJ/DHS/Administration met a nasty fate.

      You watch too many movies. Real FBI agents don't think like that. They are pro-authority. They are no different from the STASI agents that have already been mentioned. They don't want to bring down their bosses. They want to be their bosses. And I bet you'd have a very hard time finding an FBI agent who wasn't 100% enthusiastic about warrantless GPS tracking.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    25. Re:This is wrong. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      The only way to become a congressperson is to sell out to the very interests you seek to destroy by becoming a congress person.

      CONgressPERSON, FTFY

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    26. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's kind of the voters, fault, now isn't it? If they'd stop voting for conservatives we wouldn't be in this mess. But, without any real liberals in congress things will keep going to the right. But, at least we're not socialists, because it's not like fascism is a bad thing...

    27. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is perhaps the only truly insightful comment on this thread. What a shame people are so quick to dismiss it.

    28. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or change how the districting and primaries are done. WA took away the right of the winning party to draw districting lines in the early '80s and more recently switched to a top two primary system. It's led to more moderate candidates being elected as in even the most partisan districts the politicians have to worry about any opposition voters there are.

    29. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a fake-out to the people who put you into congress!

      Come on. I can't be the only genius here.

    30. Re:This is wrong. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You're right. The real way to change a broken system is to participate in juvenile one-upmanship on Slashdot. That'll show 'em.

      Nothing will "show them" but large infusions of cash. That's the way it's worked for decades now, and it shows absolutely no sign of changing. Any remarks in the nature of "write your congress-critter" are coming from the deluded or the intentionally deceptive. It has nothing to do with one-upsmanship, and everything to do with a government wildly out of control. We have fully transitioned from a nominal constitutional republic to a corporate oligarchy and there are now exactly zero "write-in" channels open from the citizens to those in power.

      It's bread and circuses all the way down. We see everything from the clueless "write a letter" to the bewildered "in a democracy, such and such..." presentations from those people who seriously have no clue what is going on around them even as sophisticated than what might arise from passing a 7th grade civics class.

      Our constitution is in tatters; our "representatives" don't; our laws treat liberty as a disease and our courts dispense rigid, classist authoritarian retribution in lieu of anything even remotely resembling justice. Our police range from jackbooted thugs to a blue conspiracy to hide malfeasance; our privacy and security, even our ability to travel, are up for grabs by an alphabet soup of three latter agencies. Our society is flaming out.

      I have no patience with some nitwit thinking that "write your congress-critter" is a meaningful act. When I said it was naive, I was being kind.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    31. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already have nightmares. What's your story?

      Sorry, but I don't want to go into details here because I have
      had enough of black Suburbans driven by feebies showing up
      in my driveway.

      I'm too old for any more of that shit, and I just want to
      live the rest of my life as peacefully as possible.

      My best advice for people who imagine they have more than a couple of
      decades of life left is : leave the US while you still can and don't
      look back. The day IS coming when you will not be permitted to leave.
      As it is now you have to engage in trickery to get all your assets out of the
      US; ask yourself exactly WHY it should be necessary to engage in subterfuge
      to leave with your own assets. If that doesn't tell you something then you
      need to get your ass down to the pasture with all the other sheep and watch
      American Idol or NASCAR or whatever else your tiny little brain finds amusing.

      The United States is a police state. Anyone who doesn't believe this is
      misinformed. If you disagree, then tell me why things like VIPR, domestic
      use of surveillance drones, warrantless wiretapping, and all the rest of the
      police state crap is happening. I can hardly wait to hear someone try to
      justify that shit.

    32. Re:This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in my state an unaffilated voter who can do some paperwork and get a thousand voters together most of whom want him to be POTUS gets on the ballot. 500 voters for congress critter i think. good luck in not having your paperwork disappear but still ...

      in passing i have difficulties with party politics effects and this could be a meaniful action even if you did not win

      i sort of poked around at doing some enabling of others via some web tools and the secretary of state office quickly,stopped talking to me :-)

      oh well

    33. Re:This is wrong. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I can hardly wait to hear someone try to justify that shit.

      It's for the children...

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    34. Re:This is wrong. by Burz · · Score: 1

      Go back to pre-1980's rules about about media outlet ownership and equal-time, and you might stand a chance of cutting the head off the snake.

      Media ownership yes, equal time NO for reasons that should be obvious: Guaranteeing a broadcast-level soapbox to every crackpot and scoundrel is a recipe for intensifying the crazy-making obfuscation we have today.

      Cut the conglomerates down to size, hold them to a standard of reporting significant events accurately (and don't renew their licenses if they don't), and move the cable infrastructure under the same rules as used for broadcasting over the air (based on the public right-of-way and investment that cable was founded on). I call that a good outline for Media Reform.

      Going beyond that into telecom, draw clear lines around what it means to be a Common Carrier, put the lions share of ISPs into that ring and force them to spin off their content businesses. No studio or large scale publisher should own the lines going in and out of our houses.

  2. Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When can we vote Bush/Cheney out of office?

    1. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know right? More FoIA requests were denied in the last four years than the 8 years before that. How much will the American people take before they rid themselves of BusHitler and his evil?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just want you to know that I love your sig and will likely be stealing it (for use elsewhere).

    3. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.
      2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them.
      3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.

      I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quit complaining, or they will redact the FoIA so citizens will quit bothering them.

    5. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How much will the American people take before they rid themselves of BusHitler and his evil?

      One shot, two shots, white shot, black shot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by alexo · · Score: 1

      1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.

      In order to get a chance of winning, a party needs traction. In order to get traction, it needs a non-trivial amount of votes. If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.

      2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them.
      3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.

      For #2 and #3 to become reality, you need to take care of #1 first.

      I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.

      How about spending your time helping the non-corrupt get more influence? The next generation will appreciate it.

    7. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by Dins · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. Just starting to realize that I need to get more involved. "Be the change you want to see..." and all that. It may not have much of an impact, but doing nothing will definitely have no impact.

    8. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics

      This is not necessary, ref RFC 1925 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html (See Fundamental Truth #3)

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    9. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.

      I did just vote for a party last November that doesn't have a chance of winning. In a "swing state". It's the least I can do. I took a lot of flak for that from people who are worried that the wrong candidate might have won because of it.

      As far as organizing to help the non-corrupt get more influence: I'm not a good political organizer. I know this from experience.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I tell people if they are worried about the wrong candidate winning then I tell them maybe their party should run a better candidate.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:Damn Bush and his warrantless crap by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this strategy like searching for your keys under the streetlight because you won't be able to find them anywhere else without a flashlight? Do something utterly useless because there is nothing else you can do? Why not just accept that you are powerless to change national politics on your own? All you can really do is form your own political party which no one will vote for because they think that voting for your candidate would be throwing their vote away, not realizing that their vote is already useless and won't make the slightest difference in who wins or loses. Ironically if more people would accept the uselessness of their one vote they might be more willing to 'throw it away' on a third party candidate allowing for at least the possibility of genuine changes. Unfortunately the masses have been so brainwashed about the incredible importance of their vote that I don't think this will ever happen. They will always vote for what they regard as the lesser evil of the two parties.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  3. Wrong topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is filed under "Privacy". I feel if would have been more appropriately filed under "Censorship".

    1. Re:Wrong topic by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be filed under "heinous government fuckery."

      Unfortunately, in the US government, it's filed under "we'll do whatever we want, to whomever we want, and if you complain, we've got a list we'll put you on."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Wrong topic by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      we've got a list we'll put you on.

      Sounds good! Plenty of other countries to vacation to :)

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Wrong topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Several lists actually. Well, I guess it's a good thing banks and other business in the financial sector have zero scrupules, because, otherwise they'd try to do the right thing, and make sure no terrorists use their services, based on those lists.

    4. Re:Wrong topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well unless you actually live here.

    5. Re:Wrong topic by Golddess · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "We're sorry Mr L4t3r4lu5, but it appears that you are on so many lists, you are not allowed to leave the country. Except via special government transport to Guantanamo Bay."

      Or were you speaking as someone from another country?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    6. Re:Wrong topic by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Sounds good! Plenty of other countries to vacation to :)

      I hear Guantanamo Bay is lovely this time of year.

    7. Re:Wrong topic by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should have a 1984 category.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  4. More like by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Donate millions of dollars to your congressman. Then they'll really be working for you.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:More like by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Donate millions of dollars to your congressman. Then they'll really be working for you.

      They're not honest crooks. They don't stay bought.

      Remember the opening of the Stasi archives a few years ago? Well, it looks like the US agencies are worse, with even more files, less openness and accountability. It's time to quit joking about police states when you live in one.

    2. Re:More like by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Letting you joke about it is how they convince the populace that they're still free. Say what you want about us; We're thick skinned. We bought our thick skins with your freedoms and your taxes. Thanks!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:More like by Burz · · Score: 1

      Letting you joke about it is how they convince the populace that they're still free. Say what you want about us; We're thick skinned. We bought our thick skins with your freedoms and your taxes. Thanks!

      I've given this some thought, and especially in light of the nasty overreaction of the police to Occupy Wall St and its branches, I've come to a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all of that magnanimity lasts only as long as people feel the cornucopia is still spilling forth its riches. We are indeed a police state (otherwise the police would not revel in surveillance and militarization), but one that hasn't recently experienced hard, systemic resistance from a population that sympathizes with radicals.

      After the market tumble in 2008, we started to go down that road just a little bit.

  5. Thank you for your request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank you for your request. We are happy to inform you that [redacted], conforming with sections [redacted] of [redacted]

    We hope this fully answers your questions. Please feel free to contact [redacted] if you have any further requests.
    Glad to have helped you.
    Signed [redacted]

    1. Re:Thank you for your request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Glad to have [redacted] you.

      There [R]TFY

    2. Re:Thank you for your request by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      ...completely safe for all uses as long as it does not come into contact with a dead body, in which case [DATA EXPUNGED]

  6. Government believers by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People who live and work in the system are usually believers. They will always believe that they are trying to do the right thing, that they are helping not hurting. Every time governments start doing evil things and people finally get prosecuted, they always seem to have convinced themselves that they were somehow acting in then best interests of the people.

    But, in this case, I just can't seem to figure out what the person who redacted those pages was thinking. Did they actually believe that it was too dangerous to communicate the FBI's policy to the very people they are supposed to be protecting? I just can't figure out what mental twisting they could have used to justify keeping this secret. I can only conclude that they don't actually believe they are acting in the best interests of the people, but in their own interests. Do they really have so much contempt for us?

    This is a very good time to point out how much organizations like the ACLU and EFF are needed. Donate if you can, it's tax deductible!

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Government believers by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".

      Complete bullshit, but the kind of thinking that people in the system readily embrace.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Government believers by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".

      Close. "If we reveal our policies, then the citizens whose behavior we are criminalizing will be aware of our attack on their liberties before it is too late."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Government believers by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 4, Informative

      Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purpose is beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

      Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941)
      Olmstead et al. vs. United States,
      277 U.S. 438, 478, 1928

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    4. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the EFF, but the ACLU is more miss than hit when it comes down to being on the right side of things. They're just another organization. They don't posess superpowers to preserve your rights so that you don't have to think about it. And speaking of organizations. You act like the government is an entity unto itself with a secret passage of indoctrination into sinister intent. In reality it's just made up of people. Some misguided, some trying to do the right thing, and some actively malicious. I'm not a big fan of government. I think less is more in that department. But to ascribe evil to such a broad sweeping entity is to ignore much of the truth in my opinion. It's less about what the government is taking away and more about what we the people are giving up and allowing to fade from view. It's about US getting off the computer and actively working to preserve what our forefathers fought and died for. It doesn't look like that many people really care. They'd rather donate their money than time. They'd rather shut up and let someone else speak for them so they don't have to stand in the fire of conflict.

    5. Re:Government believers by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also the kind of thinking that's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly over the past few millenia.

      The phrase "loose lips sink ships" was used to remind WWII soldiers and families that enemies could infer sensitive information (like ship itineraries) from casual conversation (like Cousin Joe getting leave for Christmas). Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.

      In computer security, we find it perfectly understandable that phishers will collect certain bits of public information (addresses, names, preferences) then use that information later to execute the actual scam (such as getting Amazon to resend products for free). Why is it so hard to believe that others could do similar assembly and use the established procedures against the FBI? Perhaps exploiting a weakness in the procedure to generate fake exculpatory evidence? Even a trivial procedural note like "GPS reception was poor in <standard position>, so we moved the tracker to <somewhere else>" could be easily turned into a list of places to check (or parts to swap) before using a vehicle.

      The expectation that the enemy will use all information they can get doesn't apply only to "believers" or "people in the system". It should apply to everyone with any interest in security. Yes, it'd be nice if the FBI had better oversight with an interest in preserving public freedom, but the make-everything-public ACLU isn't going to be able to provide that. All the ACLU will ever get is 90%-redacted memos. Any organization that is trusted by the FBI to provide such oversight without releasing sensitive information won't be trusted by the gub'mint-hating public.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Government believers by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Do they really have so much contempt for us?

      Does a polar bear shit on ice?

      The scary thing is that they probably don't see it as contempt, but have all kinds of justifications they have repeated so often that they truly believe in them. After all, they are the good guys, right? When they plant evidence on you, it's not out of contempt for you or the court, but because they truly believe you are guilty, and that they would do society a disservice by letting you go.
      They're paving their road with good intentions.

    7. Re:Government believers by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.

      And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law. The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.

      But if you meant "terrists" instead of "criminals" then your case is even WEAKER. You have about a 95% higher risk of dying from SUICIDE than from a terrorist attack.
      You, personally, is a MUCH higher threat to your safety.
      So in this case you are sacrificing essential liberty for NON-EXISTENT temporary safety, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.

      tl;dr - There is no freedom more essential than the right to KNOW the laws you live under.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Government believers by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      I'm going to guess its something like: "If we reveal our policies, then criminals will know our policies and figure out ways around them or loopholes to avoid them".

      Some will think that. Others will think: "If we reveal our policies, the public will demand that many of us go to jail for breaking the law."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely donate, but note that if you're giving money to the ACLU it's only tax deductible if you donate to the Foundation:
      http://www.aclupa.org/home/abouttheaclu/acluvsaclufoundation.htm

    10. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, not even close. More like "if we tell them our policy, we will be sued for the next two decades by the ACLU and all the people we illegally tracked".

    11. Re:Government believers by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      People who live and work in the system are usually believers. They will always believe that they are trying to do the right thing, that they are helping not hurting. Every time governments start doing evil things and people finally get prosecuted, they always seem to have convinced themselves that they were somehow acting in then best interests of the people.

      This is very insightful, and I think you are absolutely correct. It goes a long way toward explaining how people end up taking actions that seem so misguided from the outside.

      But, in this case, I just can't seem to figure out what the person who redacted those pages was thinking. Did they actually believe that it was too dangerous to communicate the FBI's policy to the very people they are supposed to be protecting? I just can't figure out what mental twisting they could have used to justify keeping this secret. I can only conclude that they don't actually believe they are acting in the best interests of the people, but in their own interests. Do they really have so much contempt for us?

      This is a very good time to point out how much organizations like the ACLU and EFF are needed. Donate if you can, it's tax deductible!

      If people see law enforcement as a force for Good, and the War on Terror as a righteous endeavor, they will work to protect the agency that is fighting those fights. They might not appreciate it when an organization like the ACLU comes in and wants to criticize their work. It's like Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men. He was up on that wall providing security for the country, and Lt. Kaffee had the temerity to question the manner in which he provided it. I think that's a likely dynamic at play here. And I do support the EFF and ACLU!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    12. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd wager their thinking is along the lines of "Oh, it's another of these pain-in-the-arse, namby-pamby-whiny-tree-hugging-politically-correct-starbucks-occupying civil liberties / human rights organisations. Well fuck them, always trying to make my job harder by imposing restraints and oversights on my righteous power, I'll send them pages of little black boxes, muahahahah!"

      The amount of right-wing dickpots who equate "human rights / civil liberties" with "political correctness / lazy lefties" is ridiculous. Hey, asstunnels, here's a clue:

      These concepts weren't dreamed up in the sixties by a bunch of pot-smoking hippies. They were, without exception, painstakingly devised by groups of smart, tough people who suffered under evil oppression or the imminent risk of it, then fought bloody wars for freedom, won, and finally set about establishing peaceful institutions and systems to prevent that kind of shit from ever happening again. I'm thinking War of Independence -> US constitution here, or WWII -> Geneva Convention, but there are countless other examples.

      Every time you say that due process is getting in the way of police work, or that human rights skew the courts in favour of criminals, or that (suspected) terrorists / illegal immigrants / kiddydiddlers don't deserve to be treated as people, then you are siding with Hitler.

      Yeah, I said Hitler. Go ahead and Godwin me motherfucker, I don't care.

    13. Re:Government believers by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The scary thing is that they probably don't see it as contempt, but have all kinds of justifications they have repeated so often that they truly believe in them.

      If you asked them, they would probably admit it is contempt. If I have to hear one more cop say "civilian" as if he were a member of the military I will probably brick myself. The same attitude is pervasive in each of these organizations tasked with protecting us, and double for any of them tasked with protecting us from ourselves. When you take the population as a body that's not even an oxymoron, but when people get too high and mighty about it they lose all perspective. If you're not a soldier, you're a civilian like anyone else, and if TPTB find you inconvenient you can find yourself dumped into the general population right quick like, so if it weren't horrifying it would be hilarious that these variously-empowered douchebags continue to help create a world they wouldn't want to live in without their particular privilege.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Security through obscurity is a bad idea?

    15. Re:Government believers by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      And these people, citizens or not, still have rights. If you can't enforce the law without violating those rights - then you need to change the law.

      Please tell me which Constitutional right is being violated by this redaction. The Fourth Amendment is close, but telling details of how a "search" is performed has little bearing on whether it's reasonable or not.

      The are not a country at war with you and cannot be treated like enemy combatants.

      Exactly. They are not a foreign nation, so they have widespread access to American infrastructure and resources. Simply having a guest list for a dinner party isn't enough to determine trust. Security measures must be appropriate for the threats at hand - no more and no less. It is ludicrous to expect a solemn oath to be an effective form of security today, and even more ludicrous to expect everyone to be subject to a full strip and cavity search to enter every public building.

      In certain cases, the appropriate investigative tool may be a GPS tracker on the suspect's vehicle. That's a matter for a judge (or a judge-revokable determination of "probable cause") to decide. Once that determination of appropriateness is made, how the tracker is applied is mostly irrelevant, so long as no other rights are violated. It doesn't affect your freedom whether the tracker was attached with glue, tape, or a magnet.

      But if you meant "terrists" instead of "criminals" then your case is even WEAKER. You have about a 95% higher risk of dying from SUICIDE than from a terrorist attack.

      If I had meant "terrorists", I would have said so. I'm well aware of the statistics.

      tl;dr - There is no freedom more essential than the right to KNOW the laws you live under.

      How the FBI tracks vehicles isn't a law. You don't have to abide by FBI procedure, so no, you don't have a right to know it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One clever tactic is to casually give information that is false to a potential enemy such that if a court case ever blooms they will blurt out that information in front of a jury or judge thus losing all credibility. For example if you graduated from the university of Missouri and tell your sweet heart that you graduated from the Univ. of Va.. and she blurts it out in a divorce trial it is fairly easy to make her look like a lying lunatic. Since you never know what information might be blurted out it is best to implant several false pieces of information. In essence you should never commit perjury but it may be easy to get an opponent to commit perjury with a bit of effort. You just might be able to get a business enemy to sue you by leaking false information. Imagine setting someone up who conspires with you. You appear to fire them all the while knowing that they have contact with the opponent or a close family member and tipping the guy that his computer code is being stolen and used in a product you create and ship all over the world. Enraged he files suit and you end up owning him over the false accusations.

    17. Re:Government believers by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?

      This is NOT about "how they track vehicles". The Judge said "you cannot track vehicles without a warrant" - as a result, the FBI has been falling back on OTHER ways to track people without a warrant. This was a request to reveal what tracking methods they use WITHOUT a warrant.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:Government believers by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Okay... so in short - you didn't even read the fucking summary ?!?!?

      That's a rather interesting argument, since the case details aren't even in the summary. I actually read the article, which was also pretty sparse on details, so I made a post that's not really even about the Jones case, but the constant demand to see what every law enforcement agency is doing.

      My argument still stands. Where does the Constitution (or any other legal document) guarantee you the right to know exactly how you're being investigated? Perhaps with more relevance, what guarantees the ACLU the right to know how other people are being investigated, without being a party to that case (and without the chance for the FBI to ask to keep the details secret)?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does the Constitution (or any other legal document) guarantee you the right to know exactly how you're being investigated?

      Right here:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      (text of the Fourth Amendment from archives.gov)

      Specifically, "Warrants... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.". No searches without a warrant and warrants must precisely state what they are warrants for.

    20. Re:Government believers by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Ah, but now there's the questions of what a "search" actually is, what "unreasonable" actually is, what "probable cause" actually is, and how specific "particularly describing" must be.

      The first one's the real problem, because the SCOTUS has determined that several things are not searches, primarily things that aren't the subject's own property. If one's not being searched (or having property seized), the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. Even if there is a warrant, the Fourth Amendment doesn't require that the warrant be public knowledge, or even revealed to the subject (in some cases).

      So while it's real easy to think that any kind of surveillance is a search, the reality is much more complicated. There's a fine balance between the freedom of citizens and impeding enforcement, and finding that balance is an ongoing task.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    21. Re:Government believers by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.

      Excuse me... since when has Congress or Enron or Academi or the FBI been an "underground organization"?

    22. Re:Government believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you're just a silly, paranoid coward afraid of every unlikely threat and willing to give up freedoms and allow the government to have easily abused powers because you want to feel safe.

    23. Re:Government believers by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Where in the constitution does it give the FBI the right to spy on any of us without cause? Is the FBI even allowed under the constitution? The constitution was all about telling the government what they are allowed to do. Anything that it doesn't explicitly allow the government to do is forbidden.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    24. Re:Government believers by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      There's a fine balance between the freedom of citizens and impeding enforcement, and finding that balance is an ongoing task.

      Riiight. Who is searching for such a balance exactly? You?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    25. Re:Government believers by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce among the states, with no stated restrictions. This is the biggest source of Congress' power, including the power to form the Department of Justice in 1870, which formed the FBI in the early 20th century.

      The usual test for validity is whether Congress' actions have a cumulative effect on the economy of the states. Given the FBI's budget and employment, it looks like they'd pass that test.

      The FBI is still required to have probable cause to conduct a "search", but as per my other post, not everything investigative is a search.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. Fuck you I'm gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC here, fuck you US legal system,
    Not like there is much holding most of your best minds to the US anymore. Whay should the talented mobile class bother staying in a country where spinning the wheel of terror can land anyone on the bad guy list and end up with a Death Star class federal prosecution. Prepare for a post-Soviet brain drain followed by Aparthide era South Africa emegration restrictions where you cant take worthless dollars with you when you leave.
    Me, I left two years after 9-11, I learned a new language and I actually have real civil rights and a like the rest of the world would face only limited prosecution budgets.
    Fuck you USA, I could never go home, with your terror fear and resultant changes, even when a visit it is not home anymore.

    1. Re:Fuck you I'm gone by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hope you can use your new language better than you can use English.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:Fuck you I'm gone by 3dr · · Score: 1

      Did you keep your US citizenship?

    3. Re:Fuck you I'm gone by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Nice to see you, Mr. McAfee.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  8. But the courts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall, the courts ruled that a warrant was required. Clearly the courts do not have any teeth against government agencies.

    To you judges... You are a joke, and until you actually use force on law enforcement and government agencies, that is a level that will sting them as agencies and the agents involved, you will continue to be a joke and will no longer be recognized by the public.

    You are just as guilty as thoseed that caused these problems.

    1. Re:But the courts... by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's more like a game. A law is created, then the FBI "interprets" how that law applies to them and they create policy to comply. Then it is taken to the courts and the judges publish a decision about how the law should be interpreted. Then the FBI "interprets" the implication of that decision and sets policy again.

      So, we need organizations like the ACLU to keep applying pressure to force the agencies to comply with the intention of the law. Donate today!

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  9. Re:What are you 12 years old? Its called redaction by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3

    Wow, you seem so wise. Please, oh enlightened one, tell use what exactly the hippies knew about FOIA in the 70's.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  10. Re:What are you 12 years old? Its called redaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont worry about him, he's just a goofy looking government snitch.

  11. File under: Officious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, esp. with regard to petty or trivial matters."

  12. Is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worst thing about the Censorship Bureau is [ Deleted By Censorship Bureau ].

    So here's a question. They work for us, the tax payers. Ok, ok, enough joking around, they work to make sure government continues to stay in power. So why would they give this information to others when some bad guys could use it to thwart their tracking policies?

    The primary goal of any organization is to make sure it stays in power. It doesn't matter what it is: a club, a company, a sports team, a religious organization, a government (any government). Why are people expecting more? Because we're the "land of the free"? How free are we, really? Have you read the laws coming out the last dozen years or so? How about clear precedence in halting habeas corpus going back 150 years, how about concentration camps? We have all that so why are people surprised that this kind of stuff is happening?

  13. Why did they do that? by drainbramage · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why did the ACLU redact those pages before posting them?
    What are they hiding?
    Is it aliens?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re:Why did they do that? by TheP4st · · Score: 0
      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  14. My bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, that was my fault. I used the black highlighter again.

  15. What's the point of sharing these redacted files.. by realsilly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... when one is marked as UNCLASSIFIED - sensitive, and the other is not marked with a classification at all (that I saw)? If it's not marked with a classification level the I believe that it is automatically unclassified and deemed suitable for public.

    Here is an interesting paper on understanding government classification of information.
    http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bagley.html

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  16. Incomplete work by aglider · · Score: 1

    They left unblanked both the page numbers and the side notes.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  17. "should not exist in a democratic society" by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Ah -- but could that premise be wrong?

  18. With their awesome history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...these thugs should not be granted the veil of secrecy.

  19. Read between the lines! by udoschuermann · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you print out all the pages and lay them vertically edge to edge, the redacted black resembles a big middle finger.

    --
    --Udo.
  20. Re:What's the point of sharing these redacted file by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    What's odd is that in the law enforcement community, Unclassified has several caveats, of which sensitive is pretty high. As I understand it, For Official Use Only is the highest level. In the intelligence community, Unclassified For Official Use Only is pretty much the lowest level used. So for the originator, Unclassified Sensitive means there is information unsuitable for public release in it. The reference seems focused on Intelligence Community markings. There are many more in the law enforcement community.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  21. Wow, that's (redacted) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy (redacted)! I can't believe that (redacted) was (redacted). Signed, (redacted)

  22. Re:What are you 12 years old? Its called redaction by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Do you have any actual "journalists" at geekwire? Redactions, advertorials - you kiddies act like you just found out how reporting and journalism works in the last 12 hours. Take a news reporting class at your local community college - you'll learn a thing or two that the hippies knew all about regarding the FOIA in the 70's. Or read a stinking "Reporting for Dummies" book.

    I see, so a group submits a request for information that the government refuses to release by way of redaction, and that's called Journalism? Thanks for clearing that up.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  23. Or admit that people don't have those rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least the Soviet Union didn't PRETEND to be open and honest with their citizens and give them all the freedoms they could want.

  24. Whew! Cliff avoided. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    GOD DAMN GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS SPYING INFRASTRU...

    wait, n/m.

    We are happy with bipartisanship breaking logjams.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  25. So they're just FUCKING with us by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    So the government is basically FUCKING WITH US. How much longer are we going to take this fucking bullshit?

    1. Re:So they're just FUCKING with us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forever my boy.
      they are going to ram their cocks up your collective bums forever.

    2. Re:So they're just FUCKING with us by alexo · · Score: 1

      How much longer are we going to take this fucking bullshit?

      Forever, basically.
      Because nobody wants to take a personal responsibility for doing something about it.

  26. OPEN Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    According to the OPEN Government Act of 2007, they are required to specify the reason for each redaction. I would really like to see their explanation for blocking out an entire document.

    1. Re:OPEN Government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I's written on there. "(b)(5)". http://www.osc.gov/foia.htm

  27. What was the point?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realise that the first linked document had a *lot* redacted from it but the second one literally had nothing but the title. Why even bother to release it? They could have seemed less in the wrong by just not bothering

  28. Government bad! Government covering up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah blah blah yeah yeah we have all heard it before. Its like a broken record by people with too much time on their hands spouting worn out kneejerk reactionary comments about how evil the government is. Unless you pussies actually do something about it nothing will change. All your internet conspiracy theory bitching will do nothing.

    What do you guys all copy/paste eachothers comments every single time someone mentions the government? Its always a parade of useless and horribly generic comments that dont actually say anything and have no shred of insight to them at all.

  29. Mod. Parent. Up! by alexo · · Score: 0

    Mod. Parent. Up!

  30. Re:What's the point of sharing these redacted file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Ben Franklin good people require little governing. The degree of regulation and police actions in America seem to be regulated by the quality of the population. Decline is the word that leaps to mind.

  31. Trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the Feds just trolled the country.

    Never let it be said that bureaucrats don't have a sense of humor. It's just a perverse one.

  32. Have a little fun with this! by Ranten_N_Raven · · Score: 1

    Reproduce the content now blacked out. So it's not what is in the FBI's copy? Oh well, let them prove otherwise. Imagine the fun--making up stuff about how the FBI is abusing other rights and planning to plant evidence. Go wild! Just make sure it fits in with what little text they do provide.

    Can you rise to the challenge?

    --

    READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
  33. Where's Wikileaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's Wikileaks when you need them? Anonymous hack? Anyone?

    If and when the original documents come to light - this could be a great example of how so much effort is made to protect so little.

    Also - anyone have equipment to track GPS plants? It would be awesome to be able to wander through large parking lots and remove GPS tracking devices from random cars to reprogram them or shuffle them around.

  34. That's what I love about FOI requests by ai4px · · Score: 1

    How many of the Freedom of Information requests come back in clear text? Most are blacked out to the point of making them incomprehensible. I can understand blotting out some private citizen's name or a social security number, but not whole paragraphs.

  35. Dear Redacted by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Your [REDACTED] is so [REDACTED], that when she [REDACTED], she [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. -- FBI

  36. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    report redacts you!!

  37. More like this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [REDACTED]

  38. More Please by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this is merely the first step in a process towards getting this stuff out in the open.

    I am sure the ACLU isn't going to give up after just a sing FOIA request.

    What the ACLU needs is more support. Along with similar organizations that actually are working along these lines.

    While this is the executive branch it still is worth writing to your elected overlord. They do hold the purse strings after all. And the fact that their voters are identifying this as an issue people care about will register.

  39. It's just as likely by EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC · · Score: 1

    The FBI didn't even create a response. They just cut-n-pasted some intern summary of the court's decision and surrounded it by large black boxes to give the effect of redacted text. The second document containing only black boxes was a nice touch, though.

    Cheap and effective.

    --
    Howdy howdy howdy
  40. Mad Libs by Fned · · Score: 2

    The next time they do this, the ACLU should just freely publish the FOIA response with all the redacted bits filled in with whatever they like. Make it as incriminating as possible.

    If the FBI files some sort of libel suit, the ACLU can say "Gee, that's what the documents we recieved said. Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary you'd like to enter into record?"

    It would get some fine media attention, if nothing else.

  41. What the hippies knew in the 70's. by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    If you get a document from the FBI or CIA or IRS or SEC etc under FOIA with big chunks blacked out - challenge it as overly broad redaction. Whatdo you think all these courts and attorneys general are there for? You think they are in trial all the time? They have constitutional and statutory responsibilities toward the citizenry (as in, "you") - put them to work, don't just sit and whine about how your government doesn't respect you. And if you don't get the information, find a different court or a different attorney general.

    This is why modern "activism" will never stack up to the hippies - those folks were smart and persistent. They learned the law and applied it until they were a complete, intractable thorn in the side of every oppressor in a position of power. You think Wall Street gives a crap about OWS? The hippies would have had those bankers on their knees begging for mercy. They brought a sudden and dramatic end to the largest conflict in US history (Vietnam), despite massive entrenched special interests that were making billions from weapon sales and war support. They crippled the nuclear power industry worldwide. What have anonymous and OWS done to end the current conflicts in the middle east? Anything? Nothing? Too busy Facebooking, or launching DDoS attacks at the RIAA over their right to share music?

    1. Re:What the hippies knew in the 70's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They brought a sudden and dramatic end to the largest conflict in US history (Vietnam)

      I don't think sudden means what you think it does.

    2. Re:What the hippies knew in the 70's. by almechist · · Score: 1

      The hippies would have had those bankers on their knees begging for mercy.

      I don't think hippie means quite what you think it does. And FWIW I actually lived through those times, as I rather strongly suspect you did not.

  42. Re:What's the point of sharing these redacted file by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Unclassified means it is not Secret or Top Secret. Sensitive means that while it is not Secret it still contains data that could be harmful but not tnecessarily to national security. SSN's are a very good example of data that is not classified but still sensitive, as is all PII data. FOUO usually means it's information that they just don't want spread around but does not warrant being Secret or above and does not warrant the protections that are required for Sensitive data.

    On top of all that just because something is not labeled does not mean that it shouldn't be. It is a very good point though that here they deliberately picked out a document to essentially publish and redacted bits from it and still didn't bother to properly mark it. I'd blame incompetence on that one.

  43. Time to Trim the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the Fourth Amendment! The ONLY one that matters is the Second!

    Cut gubernet waste!

    Or at least that is what Fox News tells me

  44. It's a test. by Timex · · Score: 1

    This is where we learn that the Government's response is written in their version of inverted Mindfuck.

    They want to see who's smart enough to figure it out.

    --
    When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
  45. You started strong, then went tin foil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barring foreign policy for a moment, how does the Executive Branch have virtually unlimited power?

    (Tada.)

  46. Re:FBI = Trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI is only trying to stop crooks. There are plenty of crooks here in this thread trying to discredit the good men and women at the FBI.

    Fuck you, you fucking tool.

    Go get terminal cancer and suffer horribly before you die.

  47. It's all redacted by romons · · Score: 1

    The ENTIRE DOCUMENT is redacted. This is the sort of thing that screams 'Well, here you go motherfucker! We have to give it to you, but we get to decide what parts are redacted, don't we?'

    --
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  48. This is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0