Slashdot Mirror
FBI Kept Demanding Email Records Despite DOJ Saying It Needed a Warrant (theintercept.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The secret government requests for customer information Yahoo made public Wednesday reveal that the FBI is still demanding email records from companies without a warrant, despite being told by Justice Department lawyers in 2008 that it doesn't have the lawful authority to do so.
That comes as a particular surprise given that FBI Director James Comey has said that one of his top legislative priorities this year is to get the right to acquire precisely such records with those warrantless secret requests, called national security letters, or NSLs. 'We need it very much,' Comey told Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., during a congressional hearing in February.
That comes as a particular surprise given that FBI Director James Comey has said that one of his top legislative priorities this year is to get the right to acquire precisely such records with those warrantless secret requests, called national security letters, or NSLs. 'We need it very much,' Comey told Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., during a congressional hearing in February.
Of course they are ignoring the court.... they feel that they are above the courts.
And john doe is beneath their boot heels.... whatever they want to do, they will...
until someone stops them.
Someone with Moral fiber, Integrity and Honesty.
Probably not any of the Congress/Senate politicians, probably not the Executive Branch, or the Supreme Court.
Maybe a Super Hero?
Maybe.... Ant Man?
Maybe just Pinky and the Brain....
But then, it's always been this way.
Only just recently has the media been actually looking, and not even that much....
The FBI is the ENEMY of the American people...
And hope some idiot somewhere will cave.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Or were these fishing expeditions whose point was to gin up some extra parallel discovery?
Here's the thing. What I mind about this situation is the opaqueness. The article is very light on details of what the FBI thought it was trying to find or why it was going about it without the warrants. Did the agents involve not get the memo? Did their supervisors not know what the agents were up to? Were the agents told to not do it this was and actively ignoring those orders? That is where my problem with this starts. We don't know those details and as a voter and citizen in order to make a good decision about this, I need to know.
Instead we'll get another "thin blue line" stall while the "appropriate authorities" investigate. It makes it hard to have faith in the FBI's work when something like this happens. To the rest of us, it looks like it's another CYA situation. Another where no real punishments are handed down and agents are shuffled around like priests to outlying and small churches in order to avoid any further embarrassment. I, for one, don't want "optics" to change my mind, I want to see the evidence. I want to see those in charge engage and manage. And most of all, I want to see heads roll IF AND ONLY IF that is appropriate in the situation.
But like I said before, I don't know the situation and no one is talking. That is a big problem.
Weren't we all raised that it was the polite thing to do to ask before you take something? The FBI isn't demanding the emails. They were merely asking if they would be voluntarily be handed over. It's not the FBI's fault that the companies read more into the polite requests than was explicitly stated. /s
OIG can issue reports and opinions, but the office cannot make rules, only the OLC (Office of Legal Council) can do that.
This was not the Office of the Inspector General (((OIG))); this was the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
From the article: Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Snowden's revelations demonstrated that FBI has access to most of the electronic data without even asking anybody (Prism, Stellar wind, Fussion centes and many others - does that ring a bell?).
To justify they are "asking" for a warrant. One conclusion appears to be evident: they are drowning in illegally collected data. The right hand does not know what the left hand collected, they don't know if it is legal or not: they do not care. They know that they can always find one justification or another, yet maintaining straight and serious poker face, while stating that liberties and privacy of the citizens are respected.
Is there really a difference?
....", the person with said ability to provide such information would likely turn them down. It has nothing to do with being rude... it's simply that giving up that information like that would almost certainly leave the company to insane lawsuits from someone who has nothing better to do from behind bars than to hire ambulance chasers to go on full attack.
If someone from the FBI calls a communication company and says "Can I please have this information to aid in the investigation of
The FBI, if they issue a request without the word please, they are actually more likely to gain the information they're looking for since unless said company is educating their support staff on the laws of privacy etc... they might be able to get what they want. They don't care if it's fruit from a poisoned tree. They'll probably simply use it as a means to get the guy. Sometimes it's just the information they need to bust the guy... it doesn't have to be used to indict him.
I see stories like this every day, and nothing bad has happened to ME yet!
I guess it's no big threat. I guess I really don't need to defend myself or my family! Everything is bad, but it's not THAT bad!
This is seriously what you are supposed to think because of this bombardment of little stories skirting around the real issue:
The government is the agent of a total surveillance program that is a threat to the very lives of almost every man woman and child on the planet.
So what? Who's gonna stop them? The crooked politicians you keep reelecting?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So when do we put these spooks in jail for their crimes?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.
The problem is that the government has found a workaround for this. By bullying companies into releasing your emails and building surveillance technologies into everything, no one really expects their email to be private any more. And once there is no longer the expectation of privacy, they no longer need a warrant.
The same thing is happening with cellular location data:
First, people thought their location was safe. Then people figured out that cell towers knew your approximate location. Eventually everyone was convinced that the cell companies were recording that data and giving it to the FBI/NSA (and it doesn't matter if they really do, or not). And *bam* now there is no expectation of privacy any longer. So the government can have it without a warrant. Side bonus: The cell companies can sell it now too, because nobody expects it to be private. But fortunately, they didn't have your exact location, right?
Next, cell phones had to report GPS data during 9/11 calls. But conspiracies abound that it sends the data during all calls. And Google and Apple record all the information too, for traffic updates and "find my phone" apps. So over time, people stopped expecting their precise GPS coordinates to be private any longer either. So now the government argues that they can have that too.
Today, putting a GPS tracker on your car requires a warrant -- not because the location information is private -- but because they have to attach a device to your car to do it. But once every car has a GPS installed, the expectation of privacy there goes away too.
And so the erosion goes on...
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.
Italicized emphasis mine.
repetitive? check
burdensome? I'd have to ask Yahoo whether the FBI was going to foot the bill for the time spent gathering the information.
unwarranted? as suggested by the literal lack of warrant, check
All that's left is the FBI to try to apply the all writs act and now we've got the litigation portion covered.
Now you'd have Yahoo required and the FBI expressly forbidden from completing the actions by law. I think this needs to see trial.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I dare you.
Take this sig and smoke it.
So we will have to reverse the change in law (1996 Telecom Act, I think) that changed call data (metadata) from being the property of the calling/called parties to that of the carrier. The carrier will have a fiduciary duty to protect it's customers property (metadata) from other parties. I can still remember my old telephone service agreement which stated something to the effect that the phone company will access my calling data only for the purpose of call completion and billing.
Also, we will have to give telecoms some protection from retribution by various government agencies in the event that they are 'asked' but choose to protect their customers. This is already common practice in many contracts between private businesses and various government agencies: To indemnify the supplier against legal action stemming from the relationship. One of our local businesses was fined $500 million by the DoJ for ethics violations as a DoD contractor. The Pentagon was forced to cut them a $500 million check, which they just endorsed and handed to the DoJ. Internet service providers will need the same protection codified into law.
Have gnu, will travel.
They're "requesting" it in the same way that Vinnie from the mob "requests" protection money. So the crimes would be some combination of intimidation, coercion, extortion, racketeering, RICO act violations, etc.
I hope you agree that even if the government "can" currently do that (given that it's unlikely to prosecute itself for its own crimes), it should cease doing so.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Look, right now, many of these systems run Windows such as Bing. As such, Russia and China have FULL ACCESS to those e-mails. The idea of the US requiring a warrant to see an un-encrypted email, makes little sense. Basically, it puts us back.
OTOH, if we require a warrant to get the encrypted email, as well as require it of the owner, then it will encourage emailers to encrypt everything. This is the smart thing to do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean several courts have divergent opinions and rulings, and the Supreme Court has yet to take it up.
Heck the big one in the 6th Circuit says the exact opposite of what you claim. I mean seriously if your going to say something is settled you might want to look up some evidence to support your opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/J...
Maybe the Senate will take up https://www.congress.gov/bill/... and we can resolve this once and for all.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It is legal for them to ASK for data. It is NOT legal for them to DEMAND data under the cover of a National Security Letter.
They did the latter as documented by the now released NSL they gave to Yahoo.
Umm not really,
http://www.cnet.com/news/judge...
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
A decade ago you might have had a point, but with the "Patriot" Act NSLs were no longer voluntary. They carried all of the weight of a subpoena, which you ARE required to either submit to or challenge in court. The initial wording of the Patriot Act though was a Catch 22, you had to comply but you WERE NOT allowed to tell anyone, including lawyers and judges, that you had even received one. That's why it was found unconstitutional, and why the wording was changed, but it was still found unconstitutional (by at least one court) because a meaningful "review" they specified was impossible with the gag order provisions still imposed by the act.
If they are not spies, and only police... why are they spying on people without due process?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
First of all, FBI aren't "spooks" â" you are confusing them with the CIA and other no-such-agencies. FBI are federal police, not spies.
That line was already blurring in the 80s. After 9/11, with new mandates for inter-agency communication, it disappeared completely. The FBI is now a domestic intelligence agency that happens to have arrest authority.
Treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
Senator Cotton tried to PREVENT Obama from giving aid and comfort to the Iran.
One, Iran is not "the enemy." They might not be our BFF, but we aren't at war and we have open diplomatic relations with them.
Two, Senator Cotton demonstrated allegiance and fealty to a foreign leader (Netanyahu) before America. If Tom Cotton likes Israel so much, maybe he ought to move there.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Do you mean he was LYING ?? TO CONGRESS ?! AGAIN !!!?
How many times does he get to do this before he wins a prize?
But anything that information leads to is fruit from a poison tree and so should not be usable to indict or convict. They are knowingly pulling the wool over a judge's eyes and that is illegal.
Don't we have enough criminals out there without giving some of them a government paycheck?
That's like saying we weren't at war with China during the Vietnam war.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Well, the DOJ says you're wrong. And has been saying that since 2008.
Maybe you should wake up.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So when do we put these spooks in jail for their crimes?
First we need to make what they did a crime. And then we'd only be able to jail them for future infractions.
Remember, if a cop asks for information, and you give it to them, that is not a violation of the 4th amendment is is perfectly acceptable. But if the cop asks for information, you refuse to give it to them, and then they take it anyway without first getting a warrant, that is when a crime was committed.
"Pass a law that legitimizes what we're doing so we can stop breaking the law!"
Can we prosecute a few of these scumbags? Just an idea.
Who did what now?
But anything that information leads to is fruit from a poison tree and so should not be usable to indict or convict. They are knowingly pulling the wool over a judge's eyes and that is illegal.
Don't we have enough criminals out there without giving some of them a government paycheck?
Regardless they are still using it to take down bad people. While it might be a grey area on whether they have authority to request the data, the end result will be the same. We tie the government's hands so we can feel safe yet it's the government employing these agencies to protect us.
More importantly, what crimes?
Millions of illegal wiretaps, witness intimidation, obstruction of justice, death threats, and don't forget that they fronted the money to build the truck bomb used in the first world trade center attack.
The FBI is a criminal organization, and it has been ever since Hoover was prancing around in his dresses back in the 1920s.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That's what the "strong state", that Statists constantly bleat about, brings.
It is inevitable. If you want the government to "take care" of you: educate your children, treat your sickness, punish the "evil corporations" for not providing you the service you want or even in a manner you want, ban the speech you don't want to hear, etc., they will become big enough to be able to destroy you for opposing them:
Vinnie from the mob backs his question by a threat of illegal activity: he will break your knee and/or window, if you refuse. The government does not do that — armed with the leverage given to them by the electorate, they may audit your tax-returns back into Stone Age, confiscate your bank-accounts, cancel (or not renew) your business license (somehow, operating a business stopped being a right and became a privilege), open investigations into your business practices (sexual and racial discrimination, anyone?). All legal, all enthusiastically supported by the same sheep, who claim, the money they pay in taxes "buys civilization".
I ask you again: what crimes? Please, cite the law being broken.
Cease what, exactly? Asking people questions about other people?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Of course, it is legal. Moreover, they can blatantly lie too — unless under oath.
Your lawyer may advise you, their request is bluff and they have no leverage to compel you, but they can still try...
"Insightfulness" is rather skimpy today on /.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I see they're scraping the bottom of the barrel for their internet trolls these days.
Now run along, you pathetic little propaganda operative.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It is absolutely not legal to ask under an NSL. Otherwise they can lie and make vague threats (the latter is a gray area) but there is only so far they can go. The NSL is over the line.
Or it's not the people with ill intent they are after?
The sheer volume and scope of data they collect and store makes it very difficult to, say, find a lone terrorist or terrorist cell.
However, a mass trove of bulk data is just dandy for going after political opponents and people who try to curb the expansion of government power and/or expose government criminality or anyone else who they view as a threat to their agenda.
It was never about "terrorists". It's all about *control* over the populace. Heck, they fund and direct terrorist attacks themselves and ignore impending attacks they already know about, and then use the event to expand their power and scope.
I believe the US government has known about almost every major terrorist attack that has occurred but instead of trying to prevent them, facilitates them (or just doesn't act) in order to scare the populace into giving up their rights & freedoms.
It's all Kabuki theater for the masses while they put the finishing touches on the total surveillance network that the police state needs to eliminate dissidents, intimidate who they want, and coerce cooperation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think jail goes too far as a first response. Fired from the FBI with a "not permitted to work in federal law enforcement" flag would be a nice first step. They don't have to prosecute a crime to fire someone, and the people losing their employability in combination with the agency losing people in whom they had invested training might curtail that sort of behavior. I think it's worth a try before putting people in jail. Also, this is the sort of thing that Congress could achieve, as they could hold the FBI's funding hostage until a report was submitted detailing who the most senior offending individuals were and confirming their expulsion from the organization.
Something else Congress might ought to consider is an automatic $20 million/year budget cut for every instance of a member of the organization found to have been lying to Congress, which cut auto-renews if that person is still employed by the organization the next year. An individual may have a belief in an idea that will cause action ostensibly against self interest, but organizations are a lower form of life. They can be easily conditioned by manipulating their food supply.
If they had a good reason for wanting the information then the secret court would rubber stamp one. If they can't even top that low bar it means there is no reason for wanting the data, it's just a random fishing trip.
Corporate support staff don't receive those requests, it goes to corporate legal. All contact with the police is done by lawyers, it's much too expensive to have some random minimum wage flunky speaking on the record.
> One, Iran is not "the enemy." They might not be our BFF, but we aren't at war and we have open diplomatic relations with them.
The US ceased diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7th, 1980, after the 1979 Iranian revolution. That's when Iran was taken over by a party whose official stance is that America must be destroyed because it is "the Great Satan". We've been enforcing a trade embargo since then, with various exclusions at different times.
The US Congress stopped declaring war after WWII, Iran declares their intention to destroy the United States at every opportunity.
They're using it to take down people anyway. Since they're willing to try fooling a judge in court, all bets are off.
I'm pretty sure it would fall under illegal search and seizure. Which is technically a crime, but as you say, a law without teeth is barely a law at all.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And at the end of all of the measures that the government takes against you are men with guns. The difference between Vinnie from the mob and the government is that Vinnie does not expect you to sanction his actions but the government does. The government expects your praise for persecuting you.
It is not binding if there is no enforcement. This is just another way for the FBI which is part of the DOJ to say one thing and do another.
Despite any law, the only way to enforce this is to encrypt everything except what is needed to route the packet.
Ask around the office there, Special Agent Barney Fife. (Oh, there might be a taboo about talking about it, like mentioning J. Edgar Hoover's attempt to get MLK to kill himself.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And there's the problem. By sabotaging a fair trial, we are left unsure that the right people are being convicted. Trust in law enforcement, the courts, and government in general is eroded.