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...
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.
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
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...
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.
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?
> 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.
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...
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.
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!
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.