Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Wants To Access Terror Suspect's Skype Records (bostonglobe.com)

Posted by msmash on from the fbi-vs-your-privacy dept.

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.

21 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Skype account? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. FBI Wants To Access Skype Records **legally** by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. I fail to see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?!

    1. Re:I fail to see the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In principle, I agree. Get a warrant. Got warrant? No problem.

      Things get muddy when I throw in two items:
      1) Define terrorist. That gets pretty broad, especially when you ask the government, because they consider everyone a potential terrorist.

      2) It's very easy to get warrants and have them abused. The threshold is quite low. I know because my word alone routinely gets houses raided. Let's just say I do/have done some informant work and we will leave it at that. With one phone call I could have a swat team charging through your front door. I've done it many times. Is that reasonable? I am technically complying with the spirit of the constitution. What if you're a terrorist?

    2. Re:I fail to see the problem here by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FBI requested chat logs; that doesn't mean that Microsoft actually has them. Having seen subpoenas and such (guess the "and such") to ISPs/telcos before, they always request everything they can think of, but that's just the request. It is perfectly legal to reply with "the requested data is not available."

    3. Re:I fail to see the problem here by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, not in this case.

      In the iPhone case, the FBI was demanding that encryption be weakened *across the board, for everybody* in order to get the contents of one phone.

      In this case, they're asking for a warrant (correctly this time), and only want the existing records for one person, without compromising any innocent parties' privacy.

      Big diff this time.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:I fail to see the problem here by cogeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Companies are called on all the time to assist law enforcement. Every time you hear about a security camera catching a crime in the vicinity, that's a business owner helping law enforcement. This is a non-story. The FBI is doing what they're supposed to do. Obtained a warrant, they're asking a company to turn over records. If the company has no such data, they simply respond those records don't exist. If they do and they're able to provide them without a major financial burden to the company then there's no reason they shouldn't be handed over. When it's illegal is when NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. try to strong arm companies when they have no warrant and just expect said companies to comply to help stop the a) terrorists b) pedophiles c) current enemy of the state of the day Anyone from groups a and b should be stopped by all legal means available, but the problem is when we start skirting the legal system to catch the really bad guys, it makes it easier and easier to use those tactics to go after the not-so-bad guys, then eventually abuse of the average populace to "keep them in line" and make sure they never become bad guys.

    5. Re:I fail to see the problem here by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      Maybe the issue isn't that reasonable procedure was followed, but that Microsoft has chat logs at all? Is it just connection info, or is it what was actually said?

      At work the company uses Skype. Skype keeps records of conversations. When you move from device to device it shows your conversation history with the person. You can also scroll back quite a long way even if the conversation was on a different machine.

      For a business-style conversation where you want to preserve logs and look up what was said in the past, and where people are constantly switching between their desktop computer, conference room computers, and phones, preserving the chat histories is a bullet-point feature that businesses typically want.

      Getting a legal order for the data, either via warrant or subpoena, is typically a non-issue. They differ slightly in method, but both end up requiring disclosure of business records if they exist. If you are concerned about it, use a system that makes NOT recording the conversation a bullet point.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:I fail to see the problem here by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For someone with a 6 digit UID you really are thick.

      They didn't ask for 'encryption' (actually, the auto device lockout after 10 tries) to be weakened 'across the board for everybody'.

      Try again.

      No, they were asking that Apple be conscripted into making malware in order to bypass the encryption. The legal precedent thus would have weakened encryption for everybody.

  4. Subject of Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  5. Counter productive by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    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.
  6. Is this supposed to make us mad? by Tanman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Is this supposed to make us mad? by andydread · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The elephant in the room that everyone seems to ignore is how easy it is to get a warrant from a Judge these days. The bar is so low that an ant could step right over it without touching it.

    2. Re:Is this supposed to make us mad? by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Holy shit, you do know that allowing the FBI to actually investigate terrorism is a Good Thing, right?

      The Three Letter Agencies aren't scorned for doing their jobs under the Constitution. They are scorned for abusing their power both within and without the Constitution. Their abuses of the system are legion. If they operated within the confines of protecting the citizenry they are changed with protecting, everyone would be on their side.

      In principle, I agree with you. But in practice, doing so is dangerous to one's health and liberty. The Three Letter Agencies are advocating a position of absolute power for themselves, and we all know where that leads. If they were on our side, they would be hell-bent on fighting any increase in power for their respective agencies. But they are doing just the opposite, which means they are on their own side only.

  7. Sounds serious by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    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
  8. The FBI wants X by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The FBI wants X by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      Will there be an article every time the FBI issues a warrant now?

      There definitely should be an article every time the FBI issues a warrant. That's not something they are allowed to do.

      Request a warrant and have it issued to them, yep I agree with you. Non-news. But issuing one themselves without a judge, that's just a touch news-worthy. </sarcasm>

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  9. Re:Glad terrorists are stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They aren't stupid, just normal. Even terrorists don't want to go through the hassle of actually getting SIP to work, nor fiddle with the hodgepodge collection of so-called "telecommunication" packages available via FOSS.

  10. Headline Correction - remove "Terror Suspects" by Maritz · · Score: 2

    And you're there. ;)

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  11. Re:Microsoft says they are against this by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    The bad news is provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act actually allow the US government to tap digital encrypted communications

    Which should be limited to empowering, but not to include forcing companies to make the technology or make technology which even they can't crack.

    The problem is that what they say will only be used for national security today, will in a short time be used for every form of law enforcement some asshole deems "legitimate" ... because that's exactly what they've been doing already. This week's "only in case of national emergency" is next week's "well, or drug charges, or tax evasion, or copyright infringement".

    Giving this to them now pretty much guarantees they'll demand it all of the time.

    And without someone putting very hard limits on this, you will have a situation in which the government can demand any and all records just because they feel they need it.

    At that point, the US will have truly become a country with its own Stasi, and you can give up any pretense of living in a free society ... and don't give us that bullshit that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

    Oh, and if the US keeps on this path, every US tech company might suddenly find the rest of the world has to start pulling back and saying "sorry, we can't use your shit because you're the enemy of freedom and liberty and we can't trust your asshole government".

    We wouldn't trust Iraq, Russia, or North Korea with this stuff. Don't act like we should trust the US.

    Mark my words, this will become something police forces just expect to demand and get without oversight. Because that's what they've done with every other form of information which was supposed to be highly restricted due to how it breaks civil liberties and bypasses the law.

    This will be no different.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  12. Re:Why not by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2

    My links were unfortunately deleted from my post above, but here:
    http://arstechnica.com/informa...
    https://bgr.com/2016/02/10/win...
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
    https://theintercept.com/2015/...