Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Can't Find Its Drone Privacy Reports

Posted by timothy on from the loaned-them-to-the-IRS dept.

v3rgEz (125380) writes "Programs run by the federal government are typically required to undergo a Privacy Impact Assessment if there's a chance they'll veer into monitoring the activities of citizens: The assessments help balance the risks and benefits of the program, and help guide any oversight to prevent abuse. But despite being legally mandated, the FBI and Justice Department have had a tough time producing the assessments done in conjunction with the Bureau's domestic surveillance drone program, first telling privacy advocates to file a FOIA request, and then rejecting that request, before ultimately claiming they now simply can't find the documents altogether."

38 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. What A Coincidence by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    I can't find my AKM with a giggle-switch, either.

  2. It was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    on the same crashed hard drive the IRS used.

    1. Re:It was... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And across multiple laptops, and backup arrays too! Remember folks, most transparent administration in history.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:It was... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Congrats on being one of the useful idiots still distracted by the political circus. Keep playing that party ticket!

      The only useful idiot is yourself. Otherwise, you'd be right there calling the bullshit, bullshit instead of hiding and going "oh-boo-hoo."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Stingray? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    Has anyone checked for this regarding the Stingray cell data collection program? Since "FBI Says All Public Records Requests For Stingray Documents Must Be Routed Through It," you'd think that these should also have a privacy report -- right?

  4. There, you have your answer! by leehwtsohg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The original question was if they did any privacy assessment report of the impact of using drones. I think by saying that they can't find any such report, the answer seems pretty obvious....

    1. Re:There, you have your answer! by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      The original question was if they did any privacy assessment report of the impact of using drones. I think by saying that they can't find any such report, the answer seems pretty obvious....

      I think they should look where they found the IRS emails...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:There, you have your answer! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      The original question was if they did any privacy assessment report of the impact of using drones. I think by saying that they can't find any such report, the answer seems pretty obvious....

      Not obvious at all actually, as it could be that they didn't do such assessments out of incompetence, which is relatively benign, or it could be that they did do the assessments and they don't want anyone to know how invasive they're being (perhaps illegally) which is a very different situation.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  5. Official Govm't Excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, "we can't find the legal documents to support this activity, but we're going to carry on doing it anyway" is now an excuse sanctioned by arms of the Federal Government?
    Cool. I will have to bear that in mind, because it'll make life a whole lot easier.

    "I can't find my driver's license or vehicle title documents, but you have no grounds to stop me driving"
    "I can't find my proof of legal residency, but that doesn't give you the right to deport me"
    "I can't find any proof that I filed my taxes last year, but so what?"

    Or am I being naive in thinking that one law applies to all?

    (Captcha: "drones". Wow.)

    1. Re:Official Govm't Excuse by Sarten-X · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're being naive in thinking that you understand the underlying basis of the relevant "one law".

      "The law" does not guarantee you the ability to drive, remain in the country, or escape from tax penalties. However, you are guaranteed due process, where the inconvenience to you is compared to the severity of the accusation, and an established procedure is followed to ultimately determine if (and if so, to what extent) you are liable for the incident in question.

      If you can't find your license or title, you may be given a citation or even prevented from driving temporarily, but that's usually not enough to cause a judge to suspend your driving outright. Similarly, having no proof of residency won't get you deported immediately, but it will get you into the court system while paperwork is sorted out to determine what should happen. Having no paperwork for last year's taxes is practically irrelevant, since as far as I know, prior years' tax forms are not necessary to fulfill any legal mandate, but getting rid of them may make other (voluntary) processes more difficult, like contesting the IRS during an audit or establishing a financial history.

      Absolutely none of your examples are the start of an imminent path to criminal liability. There's always a point where a court will consider the impact of the case, and decide whether punishing you will likely be beneficial enough to society to justify your inconvenience. Likewise, the FBI losing paperwork isn't a reason in itself to stop drone surveillance. Rather, the issue should now begin its own due process, with various oversight committees meeting and discussing whether the risk of privacy invasion outweighs the benefits of having a drone program.

      Of course, outside of the Internet echo chamber, privacy isn't really a big deal as long as it isn't being violated intentionally to harass someone, so I fully expect the program to continue, probably with a requirement to find the reports or redo the evaluation.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Official Govm't Excuse by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      ...and individuals do it too, but then it's often lumped in with "reasonable doubt". Everybody gets a chance to defend themselves and make things right.

      Apparently, though, it's "flamebait" to point out that world isn't as broken as the Slashdot hivemind thinks. Oi.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Official Govm't Excuse by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course, outside of the Internet echo chamber, privacy isn't really a big deal as long as it isn't being violated intentionally to harass someone, so I fully expect the program to continue, probably with a requirement to find the reports or redo the evaluation.

      Or used to rob someone blind or obtain a marketing advantage in elections or the creation of policy. Or used in the future to create and maintain some nasty tyranny. For example, some future proscription list of people to imprison or kill can be created from data taken today.

      There's always a point where a court will consider the impact of the case, and decide whether punishing you will likely be beneficial enough to society to justify your inconvenience.

      Unless the rule of law no longer exists at some future time. The that point doesn't exist as well. Massive, uncontrolled, unaccountable data collection on us is not just about what the government can do to us today, but also what they can do to us tomorrow as a result of having that power.

  6. Nothing ever happens to them. by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They do what they will under the guise of security theatre. LEOs and TLAs routinely disregard anything remotely inconvenient for them in the pursuit of their mission.

    Any citizen paying attention a small fraction of the time can see that the rights of the governed just get in the way of these "patriots" solemn duty to protect us.

    I don't know who you blame for the way things are. Is it the fault of the violators of the Constitution or the complacence the general public seems to have regarding government malfeasance?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Nothing ever happens to them. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      And yet it was A-OK when Lois Lerner at the IRS lost her records. Ooops! Well, better not to investigate that, let's move on.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Nothing ever happens to them. by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      I don't know who you blame for the way things are. Is it the fault of the violators of the Constitution or the complacence the general public seems to have regarding government malfeasance?

      I have to place the blame with government officials. 80% of the public sways with the breeze because they are busy making the economy run and raising their families. It is both the job and the duty of elected officials to take their job as our representatives seriously; to not abuse the implicit trust of the 80% that is too busy working and raising their families to check up on the politicians' every decision. Assuming you have a sufficiently professional job, your boss doesn't check your work every day to make sure you haven't become corrupt or malevolent. It is not unreasonable to expect the same of our representatives.

      The unfortunate reality -- tested countless times through ages -- is that when government officials neglect that responsibility for too long, the club, guillotine, or musket will make a sloppy end to their hubris. The Founding Fathers were wise to lower the barriers to that path; not because it is desirable, but because once it becomes inevitable, the least suffering comes from getting it done quickly.

      --
      Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    3. Re:Nothing ever happens to them. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The lost documents there were internal emails, which were normally retained for six months, and there was no clear existing requirement to keep them longer, as they weren't considered official documents. When official documents with required retention go AWOL, that's time for concern.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Next to the stingray reports by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's filed right next to the stingray privacy reports where they justify pissing all over the FCC's rules against operating an unlicensed transmitter.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Next to the stingray reports by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      where they justify pissing all over the FCC's rules against operating an unlicensed transmitter.

      The FBI is a federal agency, and as such are covered by NTIA rules, not the FCC. FBI radios don't need FCC licenses, and you will not find any in the FCC ULS. It's a waste of time to complain about how the FBI isn't following FCC rules.

    2. Re:Next to the stingray reports by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      ntia only gives them assignment(license) to use their bands, not to interfere with fcc licensed bands... intercepting and decoding private comms permission then again is acquired from a judge in the form of a warrant. the rules the fbi is breaking were not made for the fbi and the fbi shouldn't have a free pass to break 'em in the first place.

      it's not a waste of time as such to complain about it. in your view fbi would be free to block all transmissions on a whim which clearly is not the case.

      they're using stingrays as they think(thought) they can get away with it without anyone noticing.. and the usage time for stingray devices is limited anyways since newer cell tech makes them obsolete so they only need to hush them for a while.

      as to the privacy report.. I suppose it's just really, really private.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Next to the stingray reports by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      ntia only gives them assignment(license) to use their bands, not to interfere with fcc licensed bands...

      First, wrong. Primary users have authority to interfere with secondary users in any band, whether it is pure FCC, pure NTIA, or a mix. And secondary users must not cause interference to, and must accept any interference from, primary users. It depends on the services involved, but your blanket statement is incorrect in its breadth.

      For example, the US Air Force (a federal agency operating under NTIA rules) is a primary user in a part of the amateur (FCC rules) 70cm radio band. USAF operates OTH radar in California in that band. Amateurs are thus required to reduce power or cease operation to prevent interference to that radar, and they must accept any interference from that radar. QED, NTIA rules absolutely allow a federal agency to interfere with FCC licensees.

      intercepting and decoding private comms permission then again is acquired from a judge in the form of a warrant.

      This has nothing to do with the one, very specific comment I made regarding the FBI (or any other federal agency, for that matter) breaking FCC rules.

      the rules the fbi is breaking were not made for the fbi and the fbi shouldn't have a free pass to break 'em in the first place.

      It appears you missed the point completely. The FBI is NOT SUBJECT TO FCC RULES. They are regulated by the NTIA. They don't need a "free pass" to break FCC rules any more than someone living in Germany needs a pass of any kind to break FCC rules.

      Complaints that the FBI is breaking rules they aren't subject to are going to fall on deaf ears.

      in your view fbi would be free to block all transmissions on a whim which clearly is not the case.

      I did not say that, so do not try claiming that such a stupid statement is "in my view". I said that the FBI is not subject to FCC rules, not that they have no rules.

    4. Re:Next to the stingray reports by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Primary users have authority to interfere with secondary users in any band, whether it is pure FCC, pure NTIA, or a mix.

      This term, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      A Primary User in radio spectrum jargon means the entity(s)/group(s) primarily licensed to use a specific piece of the radio spectrum. As such, the FBI is most definitely not a Primary User of the spectrum assigned to cellphones.

      To argue otherwise would be to argue against 80 years of FCC regulatory terms and definitions, including their interpretation and implementation to date.

      Seeing as your primary premise is incorrect, the rest of your argument is moot.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Next to the stingray reports by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      A Primary User in radio spectrum jargon means the entity(s)/group(s) primarily licensed to use a specific piece of the radio spectrum.

      You have just provided a perfect example of a tautology. Primary users have primary licenses. Ok. What I gave is the practical result of that definition. Primary users, no matter which agency they get their license from, can cause interference to secondary users. That's the correction to the original statement I replied to that NTIA cannot issue licenses to agencies that would interfere with FCC licensed users.

      As such, the FBI is most definitely not a Primary User of the spectrum assigned to cellphones.

      I didn't say they were.

      Seeing as your primary premise is incorrect, the rest of your argument is moot.

      Seeing as you didn't understand what was being said ... show me where I said that the FBI was a primary user of any frequency allocated to cell phone services. Or are you saying I am incorrect in the fact that the NTIA can authorize agencies to use frequencies that will cause interference to other licensed users? That's my "primary premise" in what you replied to.

      Now read again: what I said was 1) The FBI does not operate under FCC rules (a fact.) 2) The FBI operates under NTIA rules (another fact.) 3) Both the FCC and the NTIA can issue licenses for operations that will interfere with other licensed users (another fact). Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

  8. Re:Stingray? - Saw one UP CLOSE! by gabrieltss · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was looking at houses in Wisconsin and looked at the below house. There is a cell tower on it that is fenced in. The realtor told us that the property the cell tower is on is owned by a . We drove up to the fenced in area around the cell tower and to the right of it is a brick building with a big steel door on it it that has a sign that says "Property of the Federal Government". There are big black cables going right from the cell tower into the brick building and back out again. It's a DIRECT tap off the cell phone tower!

    https://www.google.com/maps?q=...

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  9. Hope and Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Good thing Obama promised us "Hope and Change" and how he was going to run "the most transparent administration ever". Would hate for him to actually just be more of the same of his predecessor.

  10. Re:Stingray? - Saw one UP CLOSE! by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The realtor told us that the property the cell tower is on is owned by a .

    Owned by an "invisible agency"?

    There are big black cables going right from the cell tower into the brick building and back out again. It's a DIRECT tap off the cell phone tower!

    Makes for a great conspiracy theory, but all fluff and no bite. It is very common for towers to have several co-located radio systems. Every location I know of in this area has several agencies all on the same tower. One coastal site I work at has Verizon, Coast Guard, and state radios.

    You should realize that the 700/800MHz antennas for public service and feds look identical to the same band antennas that cell phone carriers use, and even different bands can be hard to differentiate from a distance. Especially when the federal systems are trunking and need the same kind of directionality that cell systems do. A "tap off the cell phone tower" is meaningless scare-mongering. You don't tap the tower.

  11. Re:Stingray? - Saw one UP CLOSE! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Informative

    And Stingray devices are inherently mobile -- you aren't going to see one fixed-mounted like this.

  12. put mulder and scully on the case by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    put mulder and scully on the case

  13. How about asking the by singlevalley · · Score: 1

    default backup guys? It is now common knowledge that free backups are available for all your information at a single source.

  14. Re:Next Step by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't have gone quite that far. But I think maybe it is time the FBI went the way of the dodo... because according to this, they already did.

  15. Re:Stingray? - Saw one UP CLOSE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ever see any US gov't property that had signs, "Property of the Federal Government"? Not me, and I've seen hundreds or thousands of "Property of U.S. Government" signs. (I used to work for the government.)

    As someone else mentioned, Stingrays are small, mobile devices.

    There are thousands of mobile towers, most of them for cell service, some for 2-way radio systems, some for use by licensed amateurs. One could look in an FCC database to see who owns the license of transmitters at that site.

  16. You don't understand how govt documents work by ArgumentBoy · · Score: 1

    The FBI is simply undertaking a minor delay tactic. Given current trajectories, I believe they have calculated that within a short time frame American citizens will have no remaining privacy. Then they can check the box (I am morally certain there is one) that says, "no discernible effect on citizens' privacy." Then they will be happy to post it.

  17. What a load! by sabbede · · Score: 1

    The FBI "lost" their privacy assessment? No. I don't buy it.

  18. Re:Next Step by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think the FBI has control of the moderation system....

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  19. Badges? by yusing · · Score: 1

    Badges? We don't need no steenking badges.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  20. Re:Good Job by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    So when is this second amendment right going to be put to use? Honestly Americans just keep slavishly knuckling under to their government whenever their civil liberties are infringed. Whether it's the NSA's illegal surveillance programs or the stingray use by the police or the FBI's privacy-invading drone program the public still does nothing. All the harping on about freedom, liberty and the need for guns in case the government needs to be replaced is all just bullshit, how much more downtrodden can you even get?!

    The Second Amendment right will be put to use when people have more to gain than to lose. That is not the case today, and really we should hope it does not become the case. How would it work anyway, this Second Amendment option? Just start shooting at FBI agents? See how far that gets you.

    As for how much more downtrodden we can get, it's a lot. A lot more downtrodden. We are not even close to being downtrodden enough to violently revolt against the government. As I said earlier, we should hope we do not get to that point.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  21. Aha! by blue9steel · · Score: 2

    So they publicly admitted to committing a federal crime, I'm sure criminal prosecutions will be following swiftly then? Oh wait sorry, I forgot that the law only applies to little people.

  22. no reports no operating drones until...simple by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight; The FBI can not investigate itself losing a report? Let us see how long it would take them to "find" the reports if all future drone spying is dependent on them releasing the report first. Of course national security will never allow such a "tool" to be turned off. They need 24hr operation on everyone in case the citizens have had enough corporate thuggery, right? The latest headlines; "Now we've seen it all, Drones used for keeping agents happy...Federal Boob Inspectors"

  23. Re:Stingray? - Saw one UP CLOSE! by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    There was no one there on the Sunday I went to look at it.

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!