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."
They put a microphone in my iPhone.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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.
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...
...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.
.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.
> 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.
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.
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!
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." -