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.
The FBI is the ENEMY of the American people...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.