Slashdot Mirror


Hidden FBI Microphones Exposed In California (cbslocal.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "Federal agents are planting microphones to secretly record conversations," reports CBS Local, noting that for 10 months starting in 2010, FBI agents hid microphones inside light fixtures, and also at a bus stop outside the Oakland Courthouse, to record conversations without a warrant. "They put microphones under rocks, they put microphones in trees, they plant microphones in equipment," a security analyst and former FBI special agent told CBS Local. "I mean, there's microphones that are planted in places that people don't think about, because thats the intent!" Federal authorities are currently investigating fraud and bid-rigging charges against a group of real estate investors, and the secret recordings came to light when they were submitted as evidence. "Private communication in a public place qualifies as a protected 'oral communication'..." says one of the investor's lawyers, "and therefore may not be intercepted without judicial authorization."

205 comments

  1. Found a microphone -> cut it off? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Surely they can't admit they've planted it there.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  2. And also... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They put a microphone in my iPhone.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:And also... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      They put a microphone in my iPhone.

      "Hey Siri. Call the local FBI Branch Office."

      iPhone is not the only one (TVs, game systems, other smartphones). "Hey Siri" is disabled by default, and only works when the iPhone is plugged-in to a power source. People are griping about this, but it is a very reasonable way to implement the feature. It means that Siri is not listening to your every word, all day long, as you walk around.

    2. Re:And also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When enabled, "Hey Siri" is always listening regardless if the device is connected to a power source or not on the latest iPhone models (6s and SE). This is possible without draining battery life because of the M9 motion coprocessor.

    3. Re:And also... by Burz · · Score: 1

      To some people, that would be "put it back in my iPhone". (People who remove their internal mic, which I think is smart.)

    4. Re:And also... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      When enabled, "Hey Siri" is always listening regardless if the device is connected to a power source or not on the latest iPhone models (6s and SE). This is possible without draining battery life because of the M9 motion coprocessor.

      Duly noted. iPhone 6 here.

  3. Mic Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They can admit it, as this came to light as the article explains when the recordings were submitted as evidence.

    It would be nice to have a crowdsourced google map however. Anyone know how to set one of those up?

    Along those lines, california is a two-party consent state for wiretapped conversation-- this sounds like a zero-party consent program. Even in a public space, you can't record private conversations without both parties being aware and consenting to the practice. So I wonder if this involves some kind of waiver, otherwise the investigators, if operating without a warrant, would seemingly be in violation of this law, which is usually taken very seriously by judges in California

    Finally, once that crowd sourced map shows up (which would be nice to include speedtraps, fake mobile towers, and license plate readers), there's no reason I could think of for volunteers to go have a private reading of some crime drama such as a scene from "Cops" or something-- hopefully no copyright laws would apply here.

    1. Re:Mic Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add information layers on top of Google maps.

      Notice that once Google said they will "do no evil", then they renamed themselves to "Alphabet" (agency) so now they "can do evil" (since it is a new company) :)

    2. Re:Mic Hammer by hughbar · · Score: 1

      And, bonus, Can Do Evil, makes CDE part of (the) Alphabet. I'm using two layers of foil to make my hats now, it's only sensible given the level of ambient conspiracies.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    3. Re:Mic Hammer by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2

      This seems like something ideal for OpenStreetMap.

    4. Re:Mic Hammer by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Time to start throwing these bastards in jail. The fact they have a badge just makes the crime all the worse.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    5. Re: Mic Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good choice. A clear improvement over your Google fan boy propeller hat.

      http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ONO1YWR-L._UX385_.jpg

    6. Re: Mic Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that. They'll get a slap on the wrist at most.

  4. I used this as a ridiculous example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On the threads about the FBI wanting to be able to crack into cell phones via backdoors - I said "well I can have a conversation walking down the street with somebody, and the FBA and NSA can't get into those. I mean, there has to be a way to catch EVERYTHING, right? Where does the surveillance state end? We should be required to wear recording equipment so that all conversations can be discoverable - just in case!". I was being ridiculous to prove a point - but then I read this! It goes to show you how the TLA agencies really do think there shouldn't be ANYTHING they can't discover. It drives them crazy that there could be anything private in our "Free" (ha ha) society... what we've learned in the past few years with Snowden, etc., is that even the tinfoil hats who thought there was no way... we are finding out that our worst paranoid thoughts about what the government COULD be doing... are in fact LESS than they actually are doing. Pretty much if you can envision it, it's already happening.

    1. Re:I used this as a ridiculous example by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was being ridiculous to prove a point - but then I read this!

      They were listening and you gave them an idea.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  5. "Protecting us from real estate investors" by axewolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What this really means is that there is a group of people who are encroaching upon a wealthier and better-connected group of people's interest. And the FBI, serving its purpose, is being used as a tool to prevent competition.

    Mod up the truth.

    1. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Depends, do you live in Canada? If so, then protecting you from real estate investors is actually a strong possibility. Very likely at that. I can't really say for the US, but right now here in Canada with housing prices that have broken US bubble levels in quite a few big cities, when the crash comes it's going to be spectacular.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years, I welcome the burst. Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.

      The article however mentions bus stops, I doubt any investors know what a bus is let alone why people stand at signs waiting for one.

    3. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.

      Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it - especially when you hear your politicians tell you how wonderfully Canada and the Canadian economy is doing. Yet foreigners can come and buy up your country because they just happen to have more money than Canadians.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years"

      Not sure what you're expecting, that's the way it works for most people. I think the rules just changed, it's 25 years.

    5. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That is called capitalism. and it is why Canada, and the USA have a lot more money than other systems.

      We spread resources around to those who can pay the most for them. It isn't the most efficient system but it is at least fair. In the sense that everyone is equal in who can do the buying. maybe not having the cash to buy, but that is another story.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Capitalism isn't fair unless inheritances are banned. Otherwise you're left with a class of perpetually rich people that did nothing to earn their wealth. How is that "fair?"

    7. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years, I welcome the burst. Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.

      Gets worse then that actually. A lot of those houses especially in metro Vancouver/Victoria and Toronto are empty. These people are using real estate to sink cash into expecting either a huge economic crash or believing that there is no limit to making money in the real estate market.

      My parents bought in during the very early 1980's, and I know a couple of police constables who bought in then. Then the inflation hit, mortgages became impossible because of 19% interest rates. But people who had COLA tied to their contracts were suddenly in the money and were able to buy two, three, four houses and flip them. Taking a 20-30k house and selling it for 90-150k. Really though, I've been expecting the bubble here in Canada to pop for the last 4 years the situation is very similar to what happened in the US prior to the 2006-2008 bubble pop, but it hasn't hit yet. I expect it more has to do with the current levels of debt, they're not quite at where they were in the US, but if the number of insta-loan(aka legal loan sharks) places popping up over the last 3-4 years is any indication, it won't be too many more years.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by mjm1231 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is called capitalism. and it is why Canada, and the USA have a lot more money than other systems.

      We spread resources around to those who can pay the most for them. It isn't the most efficient system but it is at least fair. In the sense that everyone is equal in who can do the buying. maybe not having the cash to buy, but that is another story.

      It's not at all another story. Unless all participants begin the game from the same starting position, any definition of "fair" is going to be complete and utter nonsense. Of course, fair is not a possibility anyway. Some people are born with greater or lesser skills on one area or another. Some people are born with higher risk of heart disease. Some people are born with cleft palates. Some people are born with cancer.

      Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair. So maybe it's time for societies to stop clinging to a 5 year old's vision of fairness and instead decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    9. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Canada, and the USA have a lot more debt than other systems.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then you're supposed to pull capital out of your ass. Seriously do you even have a brain?

    11. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair.

      No, his mama told him he was a special snowflake, the smartest most beautiful boy in the world. Mama always made sure he got a prize, even when he came in last. Mama let him do whatever he wanted and told him that he could be or do anything in the world, he just had to close his eyes and wish hard enough. In short, life is extremely fair and you're just a racist bigoted nazi for saying it isn't.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "working", a concept that's probably foreign to you.

    13. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Housing prices are INSANE

      In Alberta our housing market is so hot it is literally on fire. (Too soon?)

    14. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luxury......luxury !!! Try Australia on for size. We have the most severely unaffordable real estate in the entire world. When our bubble burst it will tank the economy. Mefian house price on Sydney now is over a million bucks.....its more expensive to buy a shitbox in a poor area of Sydney than a brownstone in Paris. Fucking madness !!!

    15. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      I think the result that is worth pursuing is maximum freedom of any individual from any vollective and that all cooperation and collaboration needs to be voluntary. Minimize the oppression, maximize individual freedom.

    16. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, if Canada was a productive manufacturing country it too could have much wealthier people who could compete for housing in the global market. The market is global today and competition is for everything. Be productive, manufacturr, mine, grow, build, provide good service or live like a bum.

    17. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Correct, and both countries are 'working hard' to grow the amount of debt they owe. Without a productive manufacturing sector, *exporting more* than importing from others, the populations of these countries *will pay for those imports somehow* and being out competed for housing based on the falling dollar value compared to the more productive foreigner currencies and earnings is a payment as well. Years ago I was already saying that payment will come in some form - a falling standard of living due to rising pricess is a payment. Foreigners are buying properties and businesses because foreigners have collected enough money from all the debt that Americans and Canadians accumulated. This should be obvious but apparently not to everyone.

    18. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Nobody ever said capitalism was fair. In fact capitalism sucks in a lot of ways, it just sucks a lot less than any of the alternatives people have come up with.

    19. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Cheap, factory-produced modular housing (and I don't mean trailer homes) was invented 20, or 40 years ago.

      Look to your beloved people-loving politicians as to why you can't buy 4000 square food homes for $80k.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    20. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My hope is that our leaders are not completely ignoring long term consequences... but then I look at defense spending and think, "Oh crap that better not be their backup plan for when shit hits the fan domestically!"

    21. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I 100% agree that politicians are responsible for inflation that causes rising prices. The root cause of it is feeling of jealousy in the masses who vote in politicians promising to steal and redistribute from those who have more to the majority. These promises end up unworkable and grow debt, eventually causing default on honest money (in case of the USA this happened in 1971, with Nixon defaulting on the gold dollar). Then inflation (money printing)accelerates, this causes outflow of capital investment and manufacturing jobs. Eventually the economy stops being productive, goods are imported and not paid for in anything of value. The foreigners accumulate bonds and printed money but cannot spend these to buy anything from the issuer to offset the trade imbalance. At this point this money returns back to the country of origin to buy properties, lands, any remaining productive assets (businesses).

      The locals haven't been productive in decades by this point and cannot compete with the returning cash.

    22. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Maybe your mama told you this: Life isn't fair. So maybe it's time for societies to stop clinging to a 5 year old's vision of fairness and instead decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result.

      We know what most people want, they want what's best for themselves. But selfish need is never a good argument for why society should or should not intervene. It's certainly possible that their wants not to be put in jail for a crime they didn't do share a common interest with society's interest in due process and the rule of law, but it could equally well be the opposite like the criminal's wants not to be put in jail for a crime they did do. What people want society to do doesn't mean it's what society ought to do, that's why we discuss what's right and fair.

      A lot of slave owners were quite happy with slavery, if you don't want to go into what's right and fair then it's basically might makes right. The other golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Sure what's fair is a disputed subject, like if we're splitting a cake is it 50-50? Does it matter that you're starving and I'm not? Does it matter who bought the ingredients and baked it? Equal opportunity, equal need, equal effort lead to different and conflicting answers. Your post reads a little like "it's hard and ambiguous so let's not try".

      For example that everybody is equal under the law is an equal opportunity to be protected by the law. It doesn't have to be, we've certainly have historic examples of race laws. That you will get a lawyer if you can't afford one is a case of equal need, everybody should have a lawyer but the rich don't get theirs for free. It's certainly possible to argue that the rich should get a free lawyer too. Equal effort could be for example tax rates, are progressive rates fair? Like if society provides one court system for everyone from high to low shouldn't that be a flat rate? Why should the rich pay more for the exact same service? If we're not going to discuss whether it's fair, on what basis should we discuss it? Popular opinion, if most support slavery then slavery is fine?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Yet foreigners can come and buy up your country because they just happen to have more money than Canadians.

      This is a good argument for reciprocity. If the government of the foreign buyers won't allow Canadians to own land in their country then Canada shouldn't allow them to own land in Canada.

    24. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      High housing prices are not the fault of the politicians, they are the fault of the people, especially the NIMBYs and BANANAs. It is astonishing how little new housing is being produced in major cities. People that live in a city get to vote, and have a vested interest in higher prices. People that want to live in that city, but can't afford to, don't get a vote.

    25. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      And then you're supposed to pull capital out of your ass.

      Right, because the only possible way of raising it is by correctly choosing your parents.

      I mean imagine, back in the the late middle ages, a townload of merchants clubbing together to hire a ship to bring spices & silk & stuff from foreign lands and then dividing up the profit. Unthinkable!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, if Canada was a productive manufacturing country

      Manufacturing is about as relevant as farming to wealth in the modern world. Sure, it's a non-trivial part of the economy, just like farming, but it's an odd thing to focus on.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Aha, so if it is a trivial part of the economy then how is it that people want to get manufactured goods, stores are filled with grown, manufactured goods that are the result of production, which requires mined and grown resources, energy, land, capital and labour? Manufacturing is the most non trivial part of the economy and the societies that forget it lose their productivity and ability to trade and thus to purchase. Consumption is the most trivial part of an economy, not production.

    28. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since money is coercive when you don't have any, we should implement the basic income so that employment is truly voluntary.

    29. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, nobody forces you to have money. You are the one who wants money to obtain productive output of others. There is no such thing as 'basic income', there is only theft and redistribution and theft is always oppressive and coercive.

    30. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless all participants begin the game from the same starting position, any definition of "fair" is going to be complete and utter nonsense.

      All participants did begin the game from the same starting position, some transitional figure between ape and man in the Rift Valley long ago. We call that starting position "Mitochondrial Eve." She had children who had children who had children unto many generations. Along the way, some did better than others, and those that did conferred advantages upon their children, as they had been taught by Darwin, the Angel whom the Lord set over man to prevent the stupid from inheriting the earth. The imbalances of society today, all the "privilege" and "oppression," is merely the end result of some lines being more successful than others. And Darwin looked down upon them and was pleased.

    31. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I mean imagine, back in the the late middle ages, a townload of merchants clubbing together to hire a ship to bring spices & silk & stuff from foreign lands and then dividing up the profit. Unthinkable!

      It was called a Joint Stock Venture, or, to use a modern term "Corporation".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 2

      Homelessness is constructively illegal in the U.S. So is farming on property you don't own. So yes, you are legally required to have at least some wealth, even if you somehow perfect breatharianism in spite of the laws of physics.

      Are you willing to undo the enclosure?

    33. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Fucking really? Next you'll be telling me that I never went on a school trip to a medieval guild hall where they used to do exactly that!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman is showing us he is a selfish cunt again.

    35. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Bartles · · Score: 1

      You are not entitled to that wealth. In a fair system you are free to go out and create your own wealth.

    36. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 1

      So this is more of an "I got mine, screw you" sort of thing. Personal;ly, I'm fine in that department, but I recognize that there are plenty of people looking for but not finding work that pays enough for food, clothing, and shelter.

      Undo the enclosure so they have a place to legally live and grow food and you might have a point. Otherwise, having money *IS* a requirement and so it amounts to coercion, which you claim to abhor.

    37. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Once again, who is forcing you to do anything? Having income is not that difficult, it is definitely easier than growing your own food, or maybe you are under the impression that farming is not actual work?????? If you want to eat you have to produce that food or buy it from somebody who produced it. If you want to be a farmer buy the land and grow whatever you want on it. Oh, nobody will give up their for you for free? Oh the humanity. Why don't you work, save, buy your land and give it away for free to somebody else who is going to be talking at that time about how he is 'coerced' to trade and cannot just take something for free.

      I am of the opinion that nothing comes for free if it is worth having.

    38. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 2

      You are living in some Randian dreamland, obviously. I never claimed that farming wasn't work or anything of the sort. I claimed that not everyone who is willing to work is able to find a job that pays enough to live on and that because of the surrounding laws, having sufficient wealth is necessary to comply with the law. Are you prepared to repeal all vagrancy laws?

      But enough of trying to spoon feed you like a baby that doesn't want his strained carrots for one day.

    39. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so you're taking all this rage out on the poor people who want jobs but can't get them because the companies have sent all the work overseas?

      Employment, like so many other things, is a dance, it takes two to tango. If the employers quit hiring, no amount of screaming at the employees is going to get them a job. Oh, I guess this is the "entitlement" talking, nobody should be required to give them a job, they should just make one out of thin air on their own, right?

    40. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I communist/socialist societies self-serving polit-bureau bosses take the loot, in capitalist countries self-serving businessmen take the loot. The non-aggressive citizen gets as little as possible in either case.
      Democracy is the worst thing ever for "the 1%" and these types have been been diluting this threat since day one.
      Power is not given, it is taken.
       

    41. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And isn't it interesting: 'not everyone willing to work can find a job that pays what they need'. No shit. So did these people pop out of vacuum? They just magically appeared out of nowhere without any understanding or skills or use in the world? Who are their parents and were there any? Where and what and for what did they study? Did they bother to learn to do things that let them be something more than a toilet cleaner? Hmmm, I take it in your world people are just appearing, ready to work but without any idea or knowledge or parents, completely oblivious how anything works.

      As to vagrancy laws - I am against all government, but anybody should be free to run and protect their own property in any way they see fit. Not any child or a teenager can do something useful enough to feed themselves but by the time a person is more or less grown they better figure this part out.

    42. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Gets worse then that actually. A lot of those houses especially in metro Vancouver/Victoria and Toronto are empty. These people are using real estate to sink cash into expecting either a huge economic crash

      That makes no sense. If you are expecting an economic crash, you don't invest in property, you buy gold.

    43. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Pop up? No. Have a job, then it gets categorically off-shored leaving them with little prospect just a few years short of retirement? Happens all the time. Get replaced by H1-Bs? All the time. Reasonably intelligent and ready to learn but no entry level jobs available? All the time. Newly minted degree in a useful field but nobody's hiring? All too common.

      Been reading too much cyberpunk? In real life, a new skill takes more than $50 and plugging a memory stick into a socket at the back of your skull. It costs a good bit of money and time they don't have.

      Like I said, a Randian dreamland.

      But of course, you now say you don't believe in any government so I guess you've converted to anarchism?

    44. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's a non-trivial part of the economy

      Aha, so if it is a trivial part of the economy

      Umm, yeah.

      Anyhow, manufacturing mostly all robots, only about 10% of people work in it, and at least the US has plenty of it (never researched Canada). Can't get by without food either, but it takes less than 5% of people working in the field.

      Just because we need something doesn't mean it takes a lot of people, or a large portion of the economy, to provide it.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by lgw · · Score: 1

      And so you're taking all this rage out on the poor people

      Are you replying to the right post?

      . Oh, I guess this is the "entitlement" talking, nobody should be required to give them a job, they should just make one out of thin air on their own, right?

      Every job comes from the same place. A human sees something that another human needs, and finds a way to provide it at a profit. Both humans now have more than they used to. You act like these some group of people keeping the Job Fairy in a cage, or building a wall around the Job Tree or something. Someone has to make that job "out of thin air"; there's no other place jobs come from.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. If you are expecting an economic crash, you don't invest in property, you buy gold.

      Of course it doesn't make any sense, but that's what's happening anyway. Lot of the "new money" are going to lose their shirt over it when it happens too, the parallels are striking on that between the 70 and dotcom crashes and people buying into a high priced real estate market thinking that it was a safe bet.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    47. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Canada used to be a productive manufacturing country, and people were wealthy because of it. In the 90's the federal government of the day decided to shit all over the manufacturing sector and a lot of places simply closed up or went out of country where they weren't being crushed under environmental regs/taxes/etc. These days the provincial government in Ontario(once the main manufacturing hub) is doing the same thing with punishing environmental taxes, high electricity prices and so on. When a company can move from Ontario to Michigan and pay 1/8th the price for electricity there's a problem, especially with the massive glut of power that Ontario generates.

      This has led Canada to become a "resource export" country, meaning we're pulling shit out of the ground/cutting down trees/etc to fuel the economy. Now our forestry stuff is top notch, we've got an entire generational cut/plant/harvest cycle here. But other resources? Pretty finite in the long term, and industry jobs where people made the money have pretty much dried up. It also doesn't help that the current government believes that importing TFWs(aka H1B's) to do jobs is a great idea. Look at a place like Windsor or Sarnia with 9% unemployment, but the companies are allowed to hire outside of the country for workers...when people are willing to work.

      It'll hit a breaking point sooner or later, and when it does it's going to be nasty and messy as all hell.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    48. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian still unable to afford a house without signing my life away to debt for the next 30 years, I welcome the burst. Housing prices are INSANE and a lot of that is owned by foreigners.

      Couldn't agree more. I don't know about Canada but buy to let mortgages are killing it in the UK. Bunch of twats buying up loads of property, taking them off the market then putting them back on at higher cost so they can not only basically get a free house but profit from it too.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    49. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      This is the problem, not the solution: "decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result"

      Instead of passing laws to influence who will win the game, we should focus on just the rules. Make the *rules* fair. That is what we can control. We cannot control the outcome, nor even the initial conditions.

    50. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      why should I 'convert'? I am an anarcho capitalist, always have been, as long as I can remember myself.

      I off-shored jobs myself, it makes perfect sense to do that given the taxes, regulations, laws, inflation. All these things is what makes Americans (and Canadian and many others) unproductive, while making others much more productive by the very virtue of the fact that their governments will not or cannot regulate and tax in the same manner. I don't owe anybody a job, nobody has any entitlement to the jobs that I create when I need another person to add to the team effort and I hire and train somebody. Nobody is entitle to shit. I worked and saved and started my own company, didn't steal from anybody and didn't need government assistance to do it, in fact everything I do is somehow interfered with by some government somewhere, so I never stop looking. It is tiring, to have to think about such things instead of just running the business, but it's the only way in today's world.

    51. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nobody is entitle to shit.

      Remember that when someone who needs to feed his family "finds" your wallet in your back pocket.

    52. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nobody is entitled to shit. My wallet is my problem, my security is my problem, don't worry about it.

    53. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Easy to say when you have all that government locking up people who might help themselves and limiting the number of people who might be desperate enough to take that wallet.

      But it occurs to me, you sure seem to feel entitled to keep your money when the taxman comes knocking. He disagrees.

    54. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      You're completely missing your own point. In making rules (regardless of "fairness"), we are deciding on what the game itself is, and what constitutes "winning". I think as a species we can do better than running a who has the biggest yacht contest.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    55. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Gussington · · Score: 1

      people buying into a high priced real estate market thinking that it was a safe bet.

      How do you know that today's prices aren'y medium, and that truly high prices are yet to come?
      That's the great thing about the future, it has a habit of making fools of anyone.

    56. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      The other golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

      This is what we have now, yeah?

      Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

      This will become a problem when the number of powerful is greater than the number of powerless. We're a safe way off from that happening. Or did you not notice that all of your examples were 1 wolf and 10 sheep deciding what's for dinner?

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    57. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      How do you know that today's prices aren'y medium, and that truly high prices are yet to come?
      That's the great thing about the future, it has a habit of making fools of anyone.

      Really want to know? This will help you out. You can also look up bulk goods and durable goods orders. Top that with it income not keeping pace to the housing prices, much like in years past you're in for a serious correction. That means that houses even down payments are pricing out people. Remember, when the housing bubble went in the US and Europe went, wages weren't keeping pace. After the crash happened, wages actually declined. Some economies(especially nordic) are in a deflationary spiral still from 2008.

      I was going to hunt around and dig up the charts, but I can't be bothered right now because I'm too tired. But feel free to dig around ZH, and you'll find the peak vs mean numbers on housing prices are mirroring 2008. We're at the peak.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    58. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Easy to say when you have all that government locking up people who might help themselves and limiting the number of people who might be desperate enough to take that wallet.

      - I don't mind taking care of those people myself, but why bother, there is already a system for it.

      But it occurs to me, you sure seem to feel entitled to keep your money when the taxman comes knocking. He disagrees.

      - it occurs to me you don't know the meaning of the word 'entitled'. The state surely feels entitled to my money, which is why I do what needs to be done...

    59. Re:"Protecting us from real estate investors" by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Really want to know?

      You realise this is just some guy's opinion right?
      And everyone in the finance game has an opinion, and all of them are wrong sometime or another.

      Remember, when the housing bubble went in the US and Europe went, wages weren't keeping pace.

      The GFC was a complex thing that can't be explained away in a one line statement. But the fact is that prices are higher now than pre-crash.
      There is no law of nature that says houses must be a certain price.
      Supply and demand is as close as it gets, and last time I checked global population is up, global wealth is up, especially among the billions in developing nations, immigration is up, land is finite, but desirable land is get less and less.

      There is no rule saying how much a house should cost, but based on the facts above, I'm willing to literally bet my house that prices in good cities/suburbs will always be expensive from now on. This might just be the new normal.

    60. Re: "Protecting us from real estate investors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you're supposed to pull capital out of your ass.

      Right, because the only possible way of raising it is by correctly choosing your parents.

      I mean imagine, back in the the late middle ages, a townload of merchants clubbing together to hire a ship to bring spices & silk & stuff from foreign lands and then dividing up the profit. Unthinkable!

      Refer to the Silk Road. The original one that is...

  6. Charge them with a crime by Bruce66423 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI is doing it, so it must be legal... /sarcasm

    It's time that these abuses of rights were charged as criminal offences. Sadly this requires an organisation with the ability to investigate the FBI and bring charges. The US constitution gives that power to a grand jury, but it would be a brave prosecutor who enpanelled one to do it.Oh well - here's hoping...

    1. Re:Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself.

    2. Re: Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he wrong? I see that he's been marked "Offtopic", which is fair, but is he wrong?

    3. Re: Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes. He is wrong. The DoJ is not a single individual capable only of completing serial tasks. It's a total fallacy to assume that because DoJ is pursuing civil rights for the LGBT community, pursuit of FBI misdeeds are inhibited because of it. It was not obly a bullshit inflammatory troll, but it was also incorrect.

    4. Re: Charge them with a crime by Imrik · · Score: 2

      It is entirely reasonable to assume that devoting resources to one thing means that less resources are available for other things. This is the entire basis for Obama's stance on immigration.

    5. Re:Charge them with a crime by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They bugged places where you can reasonably expect lawyers would be having private conversations with their clients, this is illegal under federal law. Spying on lawyers is a dangerous game, also known as "winning the lottery".

    6. Re:Charge them with a crime by taustin · · Score: 1

      Audio recordings without the permission of all participants is illegal in many states. It's a misdemeanor in some. In California, and only in California, it's a felony.

      All the talk over the last few years about various wingnut states making it a felony for federal law enforcement to enforce federal gun laws, and the more realistic chance we have to prosecute FBI agents for doing their jobs illegally come from California.

      Not that it'll happen. California is run by California Democrats, who love overreaching federal authority.

    7. Re:Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he's not legally forcing "women", eg people with penises, testosterone, and a sexual attraction to women", to use the women's toilets. Such a well-thought-through stance you have there.

    8. Re:Charge them with a crime by sjames · · Score: 1

      Very much THIS!

    9. Re:Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure do spend a lot of time thinking about people using the bathroom. Perv.

    10. Re:Charge them with a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the land of reality, there is a very long list of tests and psychiatric evaluations that are required before ANY psychiatrist that wants to keep their medical license will say that this person qualifies as "not being what they believe to be their correct sex".

      So, no anyone "deciding" that today I'm of the opposite sex, isn't about to use said sex's bathroom the same day or even the same week. Those tests take months / years, and if this were to become a real issue, I'd imagine that passing these tests would be a prerequisite under the law to receive this kind of treatment. I'd also imagine that anyone caught in such an obvious fake attempt would be in for a very unpleasant experience from the bystanders. (And possibly the LGBT community as well.) At least where I live.

    11. Re:Charge them with a crime by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sadly, that's not how the laws are being written - Houston's "anyone can use either bathroom, just shut up" law is the pattern.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Sieg heil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third Reich 2.0. For the US goverment the biggest problem seems to be its own citizens. Historically, no country has been able to steer away from collapse after that. I like the USA more than any other superpower in history so I am keeping my fingers crossed but still it is getting pretty ugly.

    1. Re:Sieg heil by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      wouldnt that be the fouth reich? tho that's EUs current situation so it'd need to be the fifth.

  8. The Overton Window by hidflect · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the 1980's a high-rise Telecom building with no windows opened in my city and it had security cameras in the lobby to film anyone entering. This was ostensibly because communications hubs were considered a strategic civil asset to be defended from attack. Do you know that a lot of people refused to enter the building or take jobs there because they thought it was a violation to be recorded without their consent (banks notwithstanding)? A couple of years later it was a non issue. Now the cameras record us on the streets and nobody minds. Trepidatious at first, the authorities have found that there is little or no pushback at all to the encroachment on our privacies and rights and they're ramming home the intrusions while they can.

    1. Re:The Overton Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...Now the cameras record us on the streets and nobody minds.

      speak for yourself...It isn't that 'nobody minds' it's more 'we can't do a bloody thing about it'. Big, big difference.

    2. Re:The Overton Window by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      .It isn't that 'nobody minds' it's more 'we can't do a bloody thing about it'. Big, big difference.

      It's not a matter of "can't do anything about it" but "won't do anything about it".

      There's always civil disobedience as in smashing these cameras and microphones. Sure, you might go to jail for a while if caught, but so what? The jail is being built around you. You're going to be there whether or not you fight. The thing is, if you fight, the jail time (if caught) will be temporary, if you don't fight, it will be permanent and inescapable.

      "Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war
      for a lead role in a cage?"

      - Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here

      Freedom is not "free". Hashtags don't do crap but massage your conscience. Making it too costly and impractical to implement and maintain for little to no return works.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:The Overton Window by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      > Do you know that a lot of people refused to enter the building or take jobs there because they thought it was a violation to be recorded without their consent (banks notwithstanding)?

      how do you know that?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:The Overton Window by hidflect · · Score: 1

      Yes, my mother worked there. Sorry, this was pre-internet so there's no Google to verify. You had to be there.

    5. Re:The Overton Window by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      Camera's recording us in public is not an issue. You are in public.

    6. Re:The Overton Window by hidflect · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, my point exactly. You see nothing creepy in this at all. Tell someone in the 1940's the government would be filming them in public wherever they go. What do you think they would say?

    7. Re:The Overton Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-applying PInk Floyd lyrics in a new context, perhaps a better choice would be:
      "There must have been a door there in the wall, When I came in." - Pink Floyd The Trial from The Wall

    8. Re:The Overton Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay tough guy, how many cameras have you smashed?

    9. Re:The Overton Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay tough guy, how many cameras have you smashed?

      I believe he's a bit smarter than to confess to committing illegal acts in posts on a public internet forum if he had smashed cameras or whatever. WTF, are you a government shill, asking stupidly-incriminating questions like that? STFU and go bring your supervisor his coffee before it gets cold, peon! While you still have a job.

    10. Re:The Overton Window by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1
      IDK, I remember going to stores and stuff in the early 80s and they had CCTV. It was not at all uncommon and I don't think the stores lost much business because of it (less than theft or they would have stopped doing it).

      This was in California.

    11. Re:The Overton Window by sjames · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between private property and a public sidewalk.

    12. Re:The Overton Window by Bartles · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot.

    13. Re:The Overton Window by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1
      OP was talking about a particular building. But I think having a camera with 1980s technology just about anywhere in public is unproblematic, because I don't expect my public movement to be completely private—and using 1980s means that the government (or whoever) must expend real resources to track my movements.

      Using facial recognition, it is easy to track where everyone goes, and we can no longer rely of the laws of economics to protect our privacy.

      In this case (and adding to my post below) the defendants may have another argument that they never consented to the relevant recordings, since their appearance in court may not have been voluntary (if they were subpoenaed) or because they should not have to give up X-much privacy (where X is having their conversation recorded) to voluntarily exercise their right to appear in court.

    14. Re:The Overton Window by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Sure, you might go to jail for a while if caught, but so what? The jail is being built around you. You're going to be there whether or not you fight.

      I assure you that the 'jail' around me is a whole lot nicer than real jail.

    15. Re:The Overton Window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, you might go to jail for a while if caught, but so what? The jail is being built around you. You're going to be there whether or not you fight.

      I assure you that the 'jail' around me is a whole lot nicer than real jail.

      Only for now, while the one being built around you is still under "construction".

    16. Re:The Overton Window by buck-yar · · Score: 2

      "Good, we need to find those Communists."

      The red scare - http://www.history.com/topics/...

    17. Re:The Overton Window by sjames · · Score: 1

      Technology advances have clearly overrun our privacy laws. Much of our privacy was based on the simple impossibility of violating it. There were no cameras or microphones when the Constitution was written. Until recently, as you point out, there was no reliable facial recognition and no system large enough to correlate all of the data to track people's movements. Even keeping all of the recordings for a month would have been a serious strain, much less being able to actually find the relevant recording for a time and place.

      We relied on difficulty and time consumed to restrict police surveillance to situations where they had ample probable cause. Now, it's easy enough that they might speculatively surveil someone based on the faintest trace of suspicion or even at random.

  9. Western liberal democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This kind of BS is behaviour I'd expect from an Eastern Bloc dictatorship rather than a Western liberal democracy. I say that reluctantly because invoking East Germany or the USSR is usually a sign of hyperbole. But ... what other countries plant hidden mics in trees to track citizens rather than aliens?

    1. Re:Western liberal democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was young, we'd make fun of the need for people in the USSR to present papers when travelling around. Now we do it every time we fly. Similarly, we would tell horror stories of German STASI surveillance, but now the NSA and FBI have surveillance mechanisms that far surpass those the Germans ever had.

    2. Re:Western liberal democracy? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Western liberal democracy? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".

      Actually, for the last week or two, all of Eastern Europe has been mourning the 70th Anniversary of the defeat of Hitler, for which they paid a very heavy price.

      It is in some ways very fortunate that Hitler was stupid enough to open up a second, Eastern front in this gigantic war – by back-stabbing the 20th Century's other most heinous monsters – Stalin.

      Ground troops and tanks, mostly. Sieges of major cities for two, three, or more years. More deaths were from starvation than from bullets & bombs. They really bore the brunt of Hitler's land-based attacks: The biggest tank battles in history were fought in Russia and Ukraine. Kursk (Kirsk) was the biggest, and I believe there were actually three giant tank battles in that city alone.

    4. Re:Western liberal democracy? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Fail. Nothing really to do with WW2, you idiot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Western liberal democracy? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Fail. Nothing really to do with WW2, you idiot.

      You missed my point entirely. I was responding to the tone of the reply just above mine:

      Hognoxious: I suspect that plenty of people, if you told them that, would be like "Yay, we sure stuck it to them thar krauts! Number one!".

      That is, I was noting that many people are not jumping up-and-down shouting "Yay" about Hitler (Hobnoxious: "... we sure stuck it to [the] krauts!"). Hobnoxious was the one to bring in WW2, and at a very inappropriate time.

      And to reply to your statement of in-applicability of WW2 to this thread: I agree. It was primarily after WW2 that the neighbor-spying, Stasi, citizenry-spying, and all the rest occurred.

  10. Re: Did you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe it's the more sinister conspiracy of 'People who don't want to hear annoying, crackpot, conspiracy theorists'.

  11. Re:Did you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sssssssssssssshhhh!

  12. Very Interesting Legally Speaking by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    What they are doing is quite interesting legally speaking. So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space, why would a sound recording differ from a video recording. The second point, the fine point about randomly recording events at a specific location, rather than specifically targeting an individual, does that public location have an expectation of privacy. The legal fine point, you sit in a public space with a smart phone and make a call, does someone sitting close by have an expectation that you will stop using your phone so as not accidentally capture and transmit their communications with someone else.

    So cheeky but not really illegal as they are continuously recording a public space and have no control over who wanders into it and what they do or say in it, no different to a video security camera, so add in a microphone and is a security camera that monitors public space illegal.

    Police have a duty to monitor public space and citizens had a right to monitor police in that public space. A fixed microphone at a location versus a mobile one tracking a specific individual. By happen stance when recording bird song in a public park I recorded two people plotting a murder, keep in mind the recording was purposeful but not targeted at a specific individual, except if you take into account the private communications of those birds. So provide that recording to the police or destroy for invading the privacy of those individuals plotting the murder, so which is the greater crime, invading someone's privacy or accessory before the fact to a crime, specifically in this case a murder.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference is someone not participating in the conversation is taping it and they are doing completely stealthy making your perfectly private conversation on a fucking empty bus stop, public. Also the idea that only people with cars or houses should be able to speak privately is extremely retarded, even on an obama scale of retardation and stupidity

      that is worlds appart from the sound recording capabilities of a random guy recording with a camera in front of you, who is basically recording video not you and might catch a few sentences, this situation records you and everyone else, with stealth, distance and in most countries would be illegal because in fact they are going to be taping private conversations without warrant

      i guess this is not a problem in communist usa, yes?

    2. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,

      The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.

      If there were public speeches being recorded, it would be very different. But the bus stop outside a court house is a prime place to record personal conversations of plaintiffs or defendants, or their attorneys, in legal matters. It could be clear violation of attorney-client privilege if they recorded such conversations. I'm frankly unsurprised that the .FBI committed such acts, they've repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence and willingness to violate the law to pursue "big fish". What startles me is that they revealed the surveillance in court: anyone who's ever discovered criminal violations, or workplace improprieties through accidental or deliberate illegal surveillance knows to gather other evidence legally, now that you know where to dig for that evidence, and use the legally obtained information for termination or prosecution. That is what "confidential informants" and "anonymous tips" are often used for, to provide plausible deniability of criminal activity by investigating officers or manipulative personnel managers.

    3. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by phayes · · Score: 1

      Oh, look! An adult posting on slashdot!

      Clearly, the opinions of a defense attorney are not to be taken as established law as TFA attempts to do. We're clearly in a gray area here that will only be defined as lawful/unlawful in a decade or two when a case makes it up to the USSC. Or who knows, congress may actually come out with a law giving clear guidance... Yeah, I know, I jest, I jest...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re: Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I put a mic outside my office in a public building, I can record the police banter with all of its idiocy and colloquial questionable speech, and publish it without repercussion?

      I didnt think so.

    5. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      public space is public space. It doesn't matter if anyone is there or not. You do not have control over what is in the space so you as a target of the recording cannot assume no one is listening.

    6. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Would that matter if it's a two party state in regards to audio recordings? There's a reason all those cameras in gas stations etc don't record audio, some states require permission from both parties (not just the one recording), or they run afoul of wiretap laws if I remember correctly. Caveat: IAANAL

    7. Re: Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again, depends on the state. You should try learning to read.

    8. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      > So what are the realistic expectations of privacy in a public space,

      The legal limitations seem to depend very much on the state. Unless the records were of people personally aware that they were being recorded, or at least one party was aware of the recording, I cannot see how the FBI's recordings of _personal_ conversations meets even the minimum requirements of states wehre a single party can record without the knowledge of the other party. In states where both parties must consent to record a personal conversation, I don't see any way these recordings could have been legal.

      They are the feds and there laws and rules trump a state's. If they are allowed to do so by federal law or regulation then there isn't a lot a state can do about it.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    9. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by hidflect · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've never read "1984" then. A particular plot point rotates around the fear that the government is listening to the protagonists when they are in a field. It's intended to be creepy and scary. Which it is. But here you are, "We have nothing to fear from the Secret Security Service!" Jawohl!

    10. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by taustin · · Score: 1

      There is a legal distinction between video an audio recordings. It may not make sense to you, hell it may not make sense to the people who passed the laws, but it's there.

    11. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by taustin · · Score: 2

      The law doesn't allow recording without permission in public spaces, it allows recoding without permission in places where there is no expectation of privacy. A subtle difference, perhaps, but on that, in California, can mean the difference between a felony conviction and selling the recording to the 10:00 news for five figures.

    12. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by taustin · · Score: 1

      I believe the federal standard is "one party consent." California, however, is "all parties consent," and it's the only state where it's a felony to violate that requirement.

    13. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1
      It may be that there is a sign in the basement that says "THIS BUILDING AND THE SURROUNDING PREMISES ARE BEING RECORDED. BEWARE OF THE THE LEOPARD." If so, the FBI would argue that the people consented to the recording by being on the premises and having the conversation. The problem with this that the quality of the audio is apparently much greater than I would expect (and probably not where I would expect).

      The defendants should have a good case to exclude the evidence, since they cannot be reasonably said to consent to the recording.

      This is too bad, since I really don't like big firms conspiring to rip off taxpayers.

    14. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Burz · · Score: 1

      Indeed... http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
      Earlier this year, Microflown's researchers discovered by chance that the device can hear, record or stream an ordinary conversation from as far away as 20 metres, says Hans-Elias de Bree, the firm's co-founder. Signal-processing software filters out unwanted noise like wind or traffic commotion. Work is now underway to increase the range. ...

      "Not only could this work, it has worked," says Ron Barrett-Gonzalez at the University of Kansas. He has helped boost the sensor's range by 28 per cent to more than 25 metres. It will be possible to record a parade of people on a busy sidewalk all day using a camera and acoustic sensor, and tune into each conversation or voice, live or via stored files, he says.

      Security technologist Bruce Schneier says this new capability is unwelcome particularly given the recent claims about the NSA's success at tapping into our private lives. "It's not just this one technology that's the problem," Schneier says. "It's the mic plus the drones, plus the signal processing, plus voice recognition."

    15. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, only folks with money to buy property can speak without being monitored?

      Somehow that does not sound like the land of liberty and justice for all.

    16. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In a US context that difference between audio and video is very complex, as it varies hugely from location to location and also with regards to federal law. Then there is the context of old laws written prior to effective video recording, hence the continual reference to wire taps. So it makes no sense what so ever and is even more out of date when recording occurs so much more easily now, due to technological changes. Likely a complete rehash of privacy laws and investigatory warrants and public space versus private space and even worse, how technology is advancing to the level where it can be all faked. So just another example of the mess the current laws are.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Very Interesting Legally Speaking by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the idea of interesting versus desirable. To help with context I present you this Chinese Proverb "May you live in interesting times" with explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., hmm, doesn't even seem to be Chinese, how 'interesting'.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. Land of the free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Papers, please.

    1. Re:Land of the free. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They're going to drop the "please" any minute now.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Activating the Cone of Silence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Maxwell had it right.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA

  15. It is perfectly legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. The courts have ruled on this. Also, you cannot use these precedents to say that it's okay to videotape and record police and then turn around and say it's not okay to record anyone else.

    1. Re: It is perfectly legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you enjoy life on your knees?

    2. Re:It is perfectly legit by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      First off police are public servants they have less rights to privacy while on duty or otherwise using the privileges/responsibilities that come with the job. Second there are legal differences between covert and obvious recordings, if I shove a mic in your face you're free to stop talking and insist it go away before continuing thats far different than clandestine monitoring. CA in particular is a 2 party state requiring that both parties are informed of any recording, that standard is for anytime it's reasonable to assume nobody else is listening so your right to have a private conversation on a park bench is supposed to be protected..

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:It is perfectly legit by Imrik · · Score: 1

      CA is a 2 party consent state, meaning not only do both parties have to be informed, they have to agree to be recorded.

    4. Re:It is perfectly legit by taustin · · Score: 1

      And it's a felony if you don't, making California unique.

    5. Re:It is perfectly legit by fred911 · · Score: 1

      "There is no expectation of privacy in a public place."

      There is an expectation of privacy in a public bathroom, do we apply the same rules to all public spaces? If I communicate in a public area that I would normally expect to be private, is that communication protected? This is something the courts need to decide.

        One thing that isn't of question is disclosure of private conversation to third parties allows for damages to be awarded to the injured party. Someone needs to sue the FBI.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  16. China will grow larger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remind me again what is the difference between US and China?

    1. Re:China will grow larger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China/Russia and countless dictatorships spies, harass, torture and/or kill dissidents, political opponents, journalists, human rights activists/lawyers...
      US spies on criminals to condemn them through the legal system. Yes there has been some extra-judicial rendition and torture for terrorists.
      But yes, other than that little detail, it's just the same, and the US is a police state /s

    2. Re:China will grow larger by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Chinese middle class is doing pretty well.

    3. Re:China will grow larger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More Chinese citizens actually turn out to vote in China. The problem with the US isn't the leaders, it's the people who can't even be bothered to vote, much less elect someone of moral fiber.

    4. Re:China will grow larger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dissidents, political opponents, journalists, human rights activists, and lawyers are criminals in those jurisdictions. So, the difference between the two is that we have a different criteria for what constitutes "criminal". In the USA, this criteria is becoming equally arbitrary.

  17. There are WiFi Chips with Arduino and Mics... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    ...The ESP 8266-12E has a nifty 1V analogue input where you can attach a microphone to it with very little extra parts (we're talking a resistor and a cap here), and you have a powerful WiFi unit with an onboard 80MHz processor and 4mbit ram...guess what? It can connect to an encrypted WiFI connection, costs less than 2 dollars and with Arduino is so easy to code that a kid can do it.

    You know...welcome to the brave new world where EVERYONE can listen to ANYONE.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  18. Microphones in equipment, trees and rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They even put a microphone in a microphone

    1. Re:Microphones in equipment, trees and rocks by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Yo, dawg, I herd you liek microphones so I put a microphone in your microphone so you can snoop while you snoop.

  19. Not illegal by tom229 · · Score: 0

    I know this fires up all the anarchist types, but it's not really that big of a deal. It's not illegal to record people in public. When you enter a public area you need to assume that you lose most of your rights to personal privacy. This includes being recording, video taped, searched, and seized. Of course, like anything in the law there's a fair amount of grey area and reason needs to be applied in all cases. Law enforcement bugging a public bench as part of a criminal investigation is not a new or extraordinary circumstance though.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    1. Re:Not illegal by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      The lack of warrant, or other check on power is the objectionable part of this.

    2. Re:Not illegal by Imrik · · Score: 1

      I can reasonably assume that no one is eavesdropping on a conversation I have while walking down an empty street. It is therefore illegal (in a two party consent state) to record the conversation without both me and the person/people I am talking to agreeing to it.

    3. Re:Not illegal by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Again, a warrant wouldn't be needed to survail a public area. You're confusing what's required to survail private property. To bug your house phone, would require a warrant. To listen to an open conservation on the street does not.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    4. Re:Not illegal by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Again, it can become grey area but there's lots of precedent for this. Walking behind two people on the street and overhearing their conversation does not require a warrant. There may be stipulations on what you can use as evidence in a court, and this might be determined on a case by case basis by a judge, but for information gathering purposes it is perfectly legal. It's a small leap from this, to putting a microphone at a bus stop and parking around the corner. You may not like it, you may feel violated, but this is the way it's always been. There's no new over extension of power here.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    5. Re:Not illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can reasonably assume

      No you can't.

    6. Re:Not illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not merely illegal, it's a felony as this was in California. Voice recordings require consent from both parties, or a judicial order. There isn't much grey area here, though it's highly unlikely that the FBI will be taken in to custody and charged. Selective enforcement.

    7. Re:Not illegal by jewens · · Score: 1
      A person sitting next to you on a park bench listening to you talk doesn't invade your privacy because you know he is there. A person listening to you over a microphone installed on the back side of the very same bench when you appear to be alone does.

      .

      In the above you/your are presumed to be plural, but it may be more entertaining to include the singular aspect as well.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
    8. Re:Not illegal by Imrik · · Score: 1

      It's actually a huge leap, if someone's walking behind me, when I look behind me to see if someone's listening in, someone will be there.

  20. why are you surpriswd ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you surprised ? Big Brother been listening for a long time. Our phone calls have been routinely monitored... 9/11 just helped justify money allocated to Carnivore (DCS1000) later replaced by commercial software (NauruInsight and such(. Reality is getting close to Science Fiction. Have you ever watched "Person of Interest" ? . AI isn't anywhere close to that. AI algorithms do render a computer self aware. But you should research the IBM Watson project for yourself. If you use code similar to the FBI's DCS1000 to preprocess and feed to Watson. Benjamin Franklin summed it up pretty much.. If you sacrifice liberty for security you would have neither.

  21. The cognitive dissonance, it burns! by jsh1972 · · Score: 0

    I've been told if you're doing nothing wrong what do you have to hide so many times I lost track a long time ago. So, if they're doing nothing wrong why were they trying to hide this?

    1. Re:The cognitive dissonance, it burns! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, the cognitive dissonance is that it's absolutely 100% legal to record a cop on his beat with your cellphone - even surreptitiously - in a public place, but it's illegal for the FBI to do it.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re: The cognitive dissonance, it burns! by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that too... Still didn't answer the question. They tell you if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, so again, why were they hiding the mics? I can see unobtrusive mics installed at a bus stand, but under rocks and in bushes? If they don't think they're doing anything wrong why not just have them in a huge grid at quarter block intervals? You have no expectation of privacy in public, I get it, but if two people are sitting on a bench in an otherwise empty park, is that realistic to not expect at least a degree of privacy? This is the equivalent of an agent hiding in the bushes with a mic, just trolling trying to catch random people. What happened to needing warrants for surveillance?

    3. Re:The cognitive dissonance, it burns! by Qzukk · · Score: 1
      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  22. Roll reversal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their blithe attitude towards the concept that they "might" be overstepping their bounds speaks volumes to how out of touch law enforcement has become. Imagine if a private individual did the same thing, placing microphones in a restaurant or location favored by law enforcement and after accumulating a healthy supply of incriminating conversations before released it to the public. They would be in court/jail within days on charges of one kind or another. It is the EXACT same concept as Mr. Harps "if you’re going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home" but would garner a completely different response from law enforcement and in many cases the courts.

  23. Monkeywrenching them by swb · · Score: 1

    Is there any way to electronically monkeywrench cameras? Some way to fuck with automatic gain control so that the image isn't any good, some kind of discreet light source that could be aimed in their direction or omnidirectionally if you didn't know where it was?

    Smashing them physically seems kind of counterproductive, as it has a lot of risk and may result in the camera being moved or hardened in a way that makes smashing impractical. Plus monitoring systems may flag a down camera, especially an IP one.

    I think something like an aerosol hair spray might not be a bad alternative. It would apply a blurring film that would render the image mostly useless, be a lot less unobtrusive than a smashed camera to the casual observer. And in a lot of cases, few cameras are actively monitored so the results may last a long time before it was noticed. The camera would otherwise appear operational (active circuit for analog cameras, active IP status for IP ones).

    Getting at the high mounts might be a challenge, but I could see some kind of "selfie stick" type of widget which would allow you to mount a can of whatever you're spraying to a pole and push the spray button from a handle.

    1. Re:Monkeywrenching them by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try filming the police (in public only) on a massive scale. I expect if that caught on they would find an excuse to ban cameras in public places.

    2. Re:Monkeywrenching them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would specifically ban filming police and leave the rest of the laws intact, just how dubious laws always have exceptions for members of Congress.

    3. Re:Monkeywrenching them by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Eventually they will have a "scramble suit" (see "A Scanner Darkly", Philip K. Dick). Technology transfer from the military (i.e. bucks to be made).

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Monkeywrenching them by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Monkeywrenching them by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Might I suggest lots of high output IR LEDs in a hat maybe. To do a dazzle effect is hard but screwing up the exposure is easier if you can have an abnormally bright area. I have wanted to do somehting like that to automated license plate readers (ALPR) and some people have played around with that idea but they were trying to dazzle the reader where I want a larger area of high output LEDs to throw off the exposure, like a couple hundred watts of IR LED light.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Monkeywrenching them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be obstruction of justice.

    7. Re:Monkeywrenching them by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Go piss up a rope.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  24. 4th Amendment intent, not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI guy says if you want to conduct something in private, do it at home. That's the intent of the 4th amendment.

    First, I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers did not envision or intend electronic listening devices in public spaces.
    Second, it is up to the judge and hopefully he won't decide that I should live in a world where this is the norm.

    This seems like a case where the cost to society to catch the bad guys are waaaay worse than the bad guys.

  25. If I were an FBI agent on the take... by mi · · Score: 2

    Federal authorities are currently investigating fraud and bid-rigging charges against a group of real estate investors, and the secret recordings came to light when they were submitted as evidence

    Which makes such evidence inadmissible...

    If I were an FBI agent promised a decent reward for making the lawsuit go away, maybe, I would've thought up a scheme like this... I'd demonstrate the zeal and the willingness to bend the rules (and the Constitution) — and the charges would be dismissed because the primary evidence will be thrown out.

    I may get fired for the failure, maybe even reprimanded for the rule-bending, but not prosecuted for the bribery, which no one will even suspect...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:If I were an FBI agent on the take... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      >Which makes such evidence inadmissible...

      That's what 'parallel construction' is for.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:If I were an FBI agent on the take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone adept at pointing out problems, without offering any actual solutions.

    3. Re:If I were an FBI agent on the take... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Which they somehow forgot to do and went for the hail-mary of telling the court "uhhh, we just recorded everything everyone said and hoped we heard something good"

      I would be tempted to agree with mi on this, but honestly after seeing the behavior of the FBI with respect to Apple, it seems that the current game plan at the agency is to just beat their head on walls until someone installs a door where they want it. I'm sure that they hope the outcome of this case will be that they can go to the public and tell everyone they have to be able to record everything everyone says or else "The terror^Wpedo^Wreal estate agents will be able to get away with horrible things!" (Do we need to add a fifth horeseman of the infocapalypse now?)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  26. All Because of Timmy Donald Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that Timmy has really pissed off the FBI they are going after him everywhere.

    Whenever and where ever Timmy is twerking down a public street he will be audioed and videoed.

    Ha ha Thanks Timmy

  27. A tad frightening by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    It's frightening that a federal group paid with taxpayer dollars, that was instituted to protect the law, now seems to break it with impunity. I fear for our future as it doesn't look like anyone is protecting the people anymore.

  28. Speculation is a symptom of wealth inequity by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 1% now has so much wealth at their command they don't know what to do with it, which fuels these speculative bubbles.

    If the middle classes had this money instead, they'd be buying houses and living in them--arguably much healthier for the market than the very rich bidding up these assets because they've got nothing better to do with their money.

    It's just another of the ways that the 1% is going to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg--the middle class--via their own unfettered insane greed. Because unless the people have money, there is no market, eventually, for the things the rich make via their assets.

    --PM

    1. Re:Speculation is a symptom of wealth inequity by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The 1% now has so much wealth at their command they don't know what to do with it, which fuels these speculative bubbles.

      In my country, the majority of second home owners earn under $80k.
      Real Estate investment is a middle class hobby. 1%ers know the real gains are had on the stock market.

  29. And in Dinners by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Local cops I assume are the ones who bug booths in diners and those juke boxes that allow you to select tunes from your booth but play from a central location are also rigged. I can't complain. Six well armed individuals got out of a car to rob the business that I managed. the cops were all over them before they got to the front door as they had recorded the scheme in a dinner.

    1. Re:And in Dinners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six well armed individuals got out of a car to rob the business that I managed. the cops were all over them before they got to the front door as they had recorded the scheme in a dinner.

      "Waiter, what's that bug doing in my soup?" "Recording your conversation, I believe." You can't trust anything anymore. That turkey could be wearing a wire. Those ears of corn have ears. Next, they'll start bugging our lunches and breakfasts. Nothing is safe, not even brunch!

  30. The Orwelleian Dream come true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    George Orwell foretold of this future of Big Brother. The US populous and government representatives fell asleep as the pot of water slowly simmered towards a state of surveillance comparable only to the Soviet Eastern Bloc of its Cold War yesteryear. Shame on each of them for killing the American dream all in the name of fear.

  31. California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peace Officers in California are exempt from the recording restrictions when they are investigating a crime.

  32. "There's no place like home" speak up! by thexfile · · Score: 1

    Welcome to your Security State.

  33. It helps them break encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By doing this they have half of an encrypted conversation that takes place outside a courthouse. It's much easier to break encryption if they already have one side of the conversation unencrypted as well as timing data.

  34. If you only knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had any idea of the extent of pay for play corruption in the Bay Area you might understand why investigators would go to such lengths. The conspirators believe they are untouchable. Just ask Willie Brown and the other players.

  35. ftg by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    WTF? I thought we lived in a free society?

  36. This should be front page national news by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    BUT we've become the frogs in the slowing warming pot of water it seems.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  37. THis is why I like the NSA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Feds, police, NSA, CIA, DOD, etc will attempt to cheat corners on gathering intelligence. Why?
    Because it is SO DAMN HARD to get it in the first place. However, where I have a REAL issue is that FBI, Police, CIA, and DOD all have weapons, and all sorts of political will be behind them.
    OTOH, NSA, does NOT carry weapons, other than for personal protection. NSA's job is just to acquire intel as well as safeguard our systems (which they are failing on the later). NSA's intel is used for national security, as opposed to going after individuals.

    It is insane that FBI thinks that they have the RIGHT to do this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:THis is why I like the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that, yet there's all those stories of gov agencies buying ammo.
      I bet the NSA has people with guns.

    2. Re:THis is why I like the NSA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      they have ppl with guns. None of them are entitled to hunt a terrorists. They are only allowed for self protection.
      Basically, NSA has no real power, but, they pass information up the ladder that has been vetted for terrorism, spying, etc.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  38. Privacy of our own home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the same privacy they're wiretapping without a warrant?
    The same one they're floating drones just outside our windows "to protect"?

    We're not going to get the privacy we have a right to until we've made sure there's no one left to violate it in all of law enforcement, are we?

  39. Re:Found a microphone - cut it off? by Gussington · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming the microphone doesn't like the thing the news guy holds on TV.
    We used to plant radio mics around for a laugh when we we're younger. Even with spare parts and dodgy soldering they were as smaller than a pack of chewing gum and looked equally inconspicuous. Unless you were an electronics person you'd have no idea what it was (or even that it was a thing).

  40. Cabalist Jewish FBI Agents in Massive Conspiracy by abmw · · Score: 1

    A secret Jewish investigative technical sub-division of the FBI, along with liaison officers and technicians from the Jewish Subdivisions of the NSA and all other Jewish TLOs, are planting hidden, solar powered mics every 1" on center across the continental USA - there is no need to spy overseas when your citizenry is so chock full of bad intent and democratic / subversive Constitutional based values. Jews Jews Jews, etc. Get it?

  41. Its quite legal actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Qualified Immunity