Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Responds To ACLU GPS Tracking Complaint

Posted by samzenpus on from the for-your-eyes-only dept.

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."

31 of 146 comments (clear)

  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: 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.

    4. 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 Go to them if you want new legislation passed, or old legislation repealed.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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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).

    7. 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)
    8. 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!
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  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 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/
  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/
  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.

  5. 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 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.
    5. 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 *
  6. 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"
  7. Re:Thank you for your request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Glad to have [redacted] you.

    There [R]TFY

  8. 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"
  9. 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"
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.