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.

12 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 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. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.