Slashdot Mirror
FBI Wants To Access Terror Suspect's Skype Records (bostonglobe.com)
Milton J. Valencia, reporting for BostonGlobe: The FBI is investigating whether a third, unknown person discussed an alleged terrorism plot with Alexander Ciccolo, the Western Massachusetts man accused of planning to attack a state university with guns and explosives on behalf of the Islamic State terror group. FBI Special Agent Jeffrey J. Lawrence said in an affidavit filed in US District Court in Springfield last week that Ciccolo told a witness who was cooperating with the FBI that he had discussed his terrorism plans with one other person. The affidavit was part of an application for a search warrant authorities filed with the court. Officials are seeking access to Ciccolo's online Skype account as part of their investigation into the alleged terror plot. The search warrant seeks to have Microsoft -- which owns Skype -- provide the government with logs and the content of conversations and written messages made on Ciccolo's account, as well as passwords. Given Microsoft's stance on these matters, the company is likely to hand over the data FBI is looking for.
Only one?
Since they throw away burner phones after use, I'm sue they create a new Skype account as well each time they use it.
It's fairly widely known at this point that Microsoft services are essentially spyware, so it shouldn't be at all controversial to say that using Skype is an implicit consent to sacrifice all privacy.
microsoft *shouldn't* have "content of conversations and written messages" of *anyone*
a different agency, however, probably does... so the feds likely already have it, they're just asking the wrong people.
Headline should be "FBI Wants To Access Terror Suspect's Skype Records, legally and above the board this time" , because, as reported previously (US Mining Data Directly From 9 Silicon Valley Companies) with PRISM the DHS can pretty much do it already, only not blessed by public courts or clear legislation.
I fail to see the problem here. There's a suspected terrorist. A search warrant has been granted by a court requesting access to data stored on Skype servers controlled by Microsoft. This seems completely reasonable to me. However, this is Slashdot, where law enforcement officers are considered the bad guys and people are hell-bent on protecting the freedoms of terrorists. Even though the FBI is complying with the spirit and letter of the Constitution, Slashdot is still whining about it. Law enforcement is trying to do their job and stop terrorism. I wonder how Slashdot will view it?!
They are working on a search warrant? That's good. That shouldn't be news.
Now what? Are we supposed to be shocked about the usage of the existence of an account?
Where is the Skype datacenter? The US or Ireland? That might be the more interesting aspect of this.
It sounds like the government has a good case backed with reasonable evidence to suggest that these records are relevant to a criminal investigation.
Have we reached a point where /. thinks that ANY government request of ANY computer records is automatically evil?
The FBI gave this guy the guns
While I am on Apple's side (creating that software would have proved risky for all iPhone owners, not just suspects - and I believe the outcome - unlocks which don't scale to all owners because you need the hardware in custody) I am also on the side of the FBI of being able to do their job.
All this media coverage about the FBI will just reinforce the message that using any commercial apps will result in your operatives being exposed. It is only a matter of time before they create their own secure P2P messaging application which won't respond to a warrant or any US authority. At which point we are really FBI'd, (Fucked Beyond all Imagination) since unlocking the device is then useless. The FBI might eventually be able to crack it, through vulnerabilities, but over time we can assume these will be patched, then what? It goes dark.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Because if they simply used H264 video conferencing or SIP voice point to point they would have nothing to subpoena.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ok, hold on a sec. You have summertime actively under investigation. The FBI hours to the court and tries to get a legal subpoena/warrant/whatever to get information from a service provider. That is how the system is supposed to work!
It's when they get the data without going through proper channels that's bad. Holy shit, you do know that allowing the FBI to actually investigate terrorism is a Good Thing, right?
Summary says he was planning to do it, not that he did it.
Ergo, the conspirator(s), while researching and planning, discovered that what they were about to do was prohibited by law. That's probably why it ended up not happening: they didn't want to get into big trouble.
That does raise a question about conspiracies: it's illegal to plan to do a bad thing, but what if during the planning (e.g. after consulting with your lawyer) you back out because you learned you were about to break the law? There should be some sort of no-harm-no-foul defense in this sort of situation, nullifying conspiracy charges. "Get on the phone to legal," should make everything leading up to that point, be lawful.
No? Anyone disagree? Explain.
If you keep records, eventually someone will want to see them, and eventually they will leak. Someone once said something about information wanting to be free or some such.
So even Italian-Americans are joining ISIS?
Don't get Bill Gates' comments on this mixed up with Microsoft's stance on this. Microsoft has stated they back Apple, and even Gates backpedaled on it, saying he only supports breaking that one phone in order to fight terrorism.
The bad news is provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act actually allow the US government to tap digital encrypted communications, They also remove all responsibility from a company complying (so you can only sue the government) and can put a gag order on it, which is why sites like canary watch exist. I'm not exactly sure how this works in detail, but I read about it first on April fools day and wasn't sure if it was serious or a joke, but apparently reddit's canary disappeared that day, meaning they've received a gag order from the US government and are under surveillance. Makes me wonder if Slashdot needs or has one.
I heard there was a case where someone else was suspected of a crime, the cops went crying to a judge, and the judge gave them permission to Break and Enter the suspect's house!
Seriously, if there's a problem here, it's that when you talk directly to another person on the Internet, a layperson wouldn't normally think that this would leave many records on third parties' machines.
#0 BUT: they should be aware that it might leave records, though, even if just dumb (application-unaware) packet logs, maybe. It's a risk, at least.
#1 BUT: this is Skype, not direct communication. I think most people know that Skype is kind of weird/fucked-up/corporate-agenda-oriented.
#2 BUT: so much NAT! Even Skype aside, a lot of people don't directly connect to each other and instead use some kind of intermediate server, e.g. XMPP. If you're using someone else's server instead of your own, you might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Will there be an article every time the FBI issues a warrant now?
The iPhone unlocking case is newsworthy, but here, this is just police doing its job.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorance has never been a great defense against breaking the law. This would basically be an extension of that.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
But but but! Forcing someone at Skype to comply with the court order is tantamount to SLAVERY by making them work with no compensation!
The NSA has full video and audio of Skype conversations following PRISM. They actually had audio of Skype before it was sold to Microsoft, and bragged about getting video shortly after in the Snowden leaks (published by Der Spiegel I think). Wtf is the NSA doing with this information? Wasn't this their whole justification?
Pretty sure APK can tell us all how his host file program from 1904 or whenever it was written will stop the FBI reading your chats...
it's illegal to plan to do a bad thing
Found the bug.
That's thoughtcrime, something a civilized nation really shouldn't have.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
The NSA/CIA already have direct access to Skype's servers, every bit of data flowing through Skype is stored on the Alphabet agencies' servers.
And you're there. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The real issue here, and problem I have with this is that there is no defined scope with any of this. Every single person that account has ever connected to, or person that had him in their contact list becomes the subject of an active terror investigation. No reguard to the basis of the contact, school related, job related, etc. They are not using that information to track funding sources, but merely using it to find "targets of opportunity". Even if nothing comes of it, those people and contacts and friends of friends are stored in a database as having once been associated with a terror suspect.. and down the road if say, they don't like their google search history, or something else benign, can use their previous relationship / contact with that account as means to justify warrents etc in the future.
So when does that get applied to judges?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How should anybody have known that it was against the law to kill people; it's up to the FBI to tell them that.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/07/13/isis-inspired-son-of-boston-police-captain-arrested-as-part-of-counter-terrorism-sweep/
Other reports state that he has a history of mental illness.
Not sure what you mean...
Are you talking about a judge who happens to be on trial for a crime? I assume it would apply the same as it would apply to anyone else.
Are you talking about a judge overseeing a trial where they may be ignorant of the relevant laws? Probably depends on where you are, and at what level of government, but I'm sure there are procedures for removing judges who are deemed to be grossly incompetent. If you're talking SCOTUS, then you're SOL.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.