Slashdot Mirror
Tech Firms Say FBI Wants Browsing History Without Warrant (engadget.com)
Aaron Souppouris, reporting for Engadget: Tech companies and privacy advocates are warning against new legislation that would give the FBI the ability to access "electronic communication transactional records" (ECTRs) without a warrant in spy and terrorism cases. ECTRs include high-level information on what sites a person visited, the time spent on those sites, email metadata, location information and IP addresses. To gain access to this data, a special agent in charge of a bureau field office need only write a "national security letter" (NSL) that doesn't require a judge's approval. It's worth noting that ECTRs don't amount to a full browsing history. If a suspected terrorist were reading this article, the FBI would only see they read "engadget.com" and how long for, rather than the specific page links. Additionally, the ECTRs won't include the content of emails, search queries, or form content, but will feature metadata, so the FBI would know who someone is messaging and when.
Thanks to everyone who submitted similar stories.
RIP Privacy
Tech firms say FBI always wants EVERYTHING THEY CAN GET without warrent.
If they walk up to my house and look in a window from the street and see something fine. If the blinds are drawn and they want to see what is behind that window, they need to convince a judge (either before the fact via a warrant, or after the fact with probably cause). Why is it that so many people, especially in government, lose their minds when computers are involved? If I can visit engadget.com and see who is on the site and from where, then fine. If I want them to open up their access logs, I ought to need a judge's approval. Seriously, in this day and age a Judge's approval is never more than 15 or 20 minutes away. It's not like two centuries ago where judges rode circuit and you might have to wait a month until the next time you saw one. Aside from that, if the matters are sensitive, there is an entire court of judges (FISA) with top secret clearances and plenty of federal and even state court judges who have litigated or presided over sensitive cases and also have security clearances. If law enforcement complains that "it's hard" then that is how it should be. Infringing on someone's rights (and that's exactly what a search by the government is) shouldn't be easy.
Seeing the article with a facebook logo, I wonder if FBI stands for "FaceBook International".
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
in every household. Put one in every store and put one in every corporate office. Put one in every school and every city bus. In fact just make every US citizen an FBI agent then you can keep tabs on EVERYTHING.
May be because they think that this is gonna help to fight crime. But also this will let them see the personal life of common people.
Why the fuck does the FBI have a problem with getting a warrant? This isn't Apple's ridiculous refusal to decrypt data when the owner of the phone had consented. This is actually private data and should be protected accordingly. If there's a legitimate reason to access the data, then there shouldn't be any difficulty in obtaining a warrant to obtain access.
I can see where this is going.
You might hate terrorism and be looking at isis.com or whataver for legitmate academinc or other reasons, yet the FBI will now just put you on the no fly list anyway.
Obligatory link to [url=https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/]Using Metadata to find Paul Revere[/url]
It's apparently not difficult to get an essentially rubber stamp warrant from a judge. At least that has a modicum of accountability in the process. Why the hell don't they simply get a warrant?!?!
And I want a solid rhodium toilet. In a sane world I would be more likely to get that toilet than the FBI would bet to get warrantless searches but alas we seem to have gone insane.
Time to offend someone
Good for them. They'll see 100% of my traffic is https and goes through a VPN in Russia.
Russia because it's now more free than America !!!
Oh right, advertising and analytics. Thanks, guys, for ruining the internet for everyone.
ECTR's arent a formal technical definition, its a smoke-and-mirrors piece of jargon invented by the FBI to conceal the meaning and definition of what it really wants and to prevent overstepping the "metadata" line.
ECTRs are apache, postfix, nginx, and php logs from transactions. they are asking for your system logs.
Good people go to bed earlier.
NO NO NO
The FBI, CIA, NSA, etc should get NOTHING, not even their paychecks, without a warrant.
Enough already, this is way out of hand.
Any suspected terrorist stupid enough to be caught browsing HTTP (or even HTTPS) sites to co-ordinate their activities really ARE NOT the people we need to worry about.
And any "activity report" that just looks at DNS lookups for websites is really useless against the rest.
Honestly, even an SSH to a foreign remote server that does the actual lookup stuff for you would make it much harder to detect what you were looking up, and that's not even counting looking for it on a proper "darkweb" rather than just anything you could find in a normal web browser with no special software.
"I just came from a meeting, today, in the situation room, in which I’ve got people who we know have been on ISIL websites living here in the United States — US citizens. And we’re allowed to put them on the no fly list when it comes to airlines, ..."
Based on browser history - pardon? What the president just confirmed is that someone from the government is noting everyone's browsing history, determining which websites are not to be visited, and furthermore, if someone does visit the website for whatever reason they get put on a no fly list.
How are they tracking how long you stay on a page? I normally open up a bunch of tabs then go through them one by one.
Just another case where we've gotten the government we deserve.
"Tech Firms Say FBI Wants Browsing History Without Warrant"
The solution is simple, don't give anyone this information. If you just have to have the convenience, then do whatever you want, I don't care.
Is the excuse they give when they're literally caught jacking off to pictures of your children.
This will be a great troll tactic. Way better than rick rolling.
Trick people into visiting terrorist websites and they'll be on the no fly list forever.
trolololo
If they're routing any of the traffic, they can see US-based IP addresses going to those sites.
Anyone routing any of your traffic can see that, actually, and IP has never been an anonymizing technology by itself.
If the US government isn't routing anything itself, it can easily traceroute to ISIL servers and ask the last-hop provider(s) on US soil to log the source of all connections to those servers.
This simple and legal method might not be how they're doing it---but the fact is that a simple and legal method exists by which the government can know that US citizens (and roughly how many) are accessing ISIL web sites.
Now, unmasking those people and identifying them individually would (or should) take a bit more legal work. But the framework is there to start an investigation based on that initial, reasonable observation.
I wonder if this is how they actually go about it because I wonder what monitoring capabilities they actually have. Still, this much can quite conceivably be done (a) legally and (b) without logging any other internet usage.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Why do they think that they can tell the time I spent on a site from those logs? They only have the times that I requested the pages. There's no mechanism to say when you are finished reading a page. I can get distracted by a phone call, mail, or someone else. Or maybe I open a link from one article in another tab to read later.
Just how is this different — in principle — from the normal and old-fashioned investigation, where the investigator would talk to the suspect's friends, business-partners, grocery-suppliers, neighbors, and landlords? And, if the folks had any relevant records, ask to see them?
Sherlock Holmes would do that, Perry Mason would do that, Hercule Poirot would do that, Miss Marple would do that. Why can't the FBI — which law are they violating by the mere asking? There is no allegation in TFA of any illegal threats the agents have made against the companies for non-compliance or for demanding a warrant or some other approval from the Judiciary... What is the there there?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I do not see in Obama's words where it says the information based on browser history.
I am sure there are other ways to monitor who is visiting a site besides browser history.
You should not be recording the browsing history of your users. Don't log the shit out of everything. Carry the data, don't keep it. WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
Tech companies and privacy advocates are warning against new legislation that would give the FBI the ability to access "electronic communication transactional records" (ECTRs) without a warrant in spy and terrorism cases.
For the article to have been accurate I'm pretty sure the words "in spy and terrorism cases" should have been omitted. Who added those words? Is it an un-attributed quote, or was it put there by some overly zealous and/or boot-licking reporter or editor? Does anybody really believe that the scope of such investigations will be limited to those that can legitimately be called "spy and terrorism cases"?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Are you or have you ever been part of a group that was part of the Tea Party?
If yes, IRS audit with guaranteed failure.
Have you ever visited an ISIS website?
If yes, you go on no fly list.
Now, was McCarthy wrong looking for communists in State Department employee lists? And now Obama is targeting civilians in his own country, how is he not far worse?
If a suspected terrorist were reading this article, the FBI would only see they read "engadget.com" and how long for, rather than the specific page links.
Does anyone even believe that after all the times they have lied?
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
We as a society want crime off our streets. So, we want officers to do their job as effectively and efficiently as possible. If someone's in the process of committing a crime, we want it stopped. Waiting for a warrant to get processed is time the perps have to get away and for the crime to go unpunished, and nobody wants that except the criminal.
As I've said repeatedly before, Law Comic is your friend. Borrowing from this page: "Rules are respectable. They're how things are supposed to work. But police officers sometimes see the rules as obstacles that get in the way of justice. And some criminals see the rules as handicaps they can take advantage of, to get away with it. And so, in real life, the rules are often ignored in favor of a kind of rough "street justice"." Besides, as this comic notes in a later section, most arrests get plea bargained anyways, making illegally obtained evidence a moot point.
To put it another way, ask yourself this question: What would upset you more, allowing a criminal to go free because evidence cannot be obtained legally, or arresting a criminal using evidence that was obtained illegally? (For the purpose of the question, assume the person has indeed committed a crime.)
Current text of 18 U.S. Code 2709 - Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates
Cornwyn amended text [pdf]
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/s356-cornyn1_-oll16601
Purpose: To amend section 2709 of title 18, United States
Code, to clarify that the Government may obtain a speci-
fied set of electronic communication transactional
records under that section.
pertinent section:
(b)
(2) OBTAINABLE TYPES OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS.—The information and records described
in this paragraph are the following:
(A) Name, physical address, e-mail address, telephone number, instrument number,
and other similar account identifying information.
(B) Account number, login history, length of service (including start date), types of service, and means and sources of payment for service (including any card or bank account information).
(C) Local and long distance toll billing records.
(D) Internet Protocol (commonly known as ‘IP’) address or other network address, including any temporarily assigned IP or network address, communication addressing, routing, or
transmission information, including any network address translation information (but excluding cell tower information), and session times and durations for an electronic communication.’’.
Um, not seeing anything about browsing history. Frankly, it seems a reasonable update to that section which had changed very little since 2001. Before 2001, subsection (A) read, "the information sought is relevant to an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation;" which is very open ended and obviously vulnerable to overreach by the state. That latest amendment doesn't expand the FBI powers since they were already requesting that information, but it actually clarifies in law what exactly what the FBI can request. For instance, previously the FBI was requesting cell tower info and location data under 2709, but now they can't because it would explicitly excluded. The FBI would have to get that information under another law. This amendment is not that bad.
All of you are idiots. The fact that the O.P. and many other believe this can be done is what enables them to violate our rights in the first place. You need to recognize that and make a stand, or it will spread.
Let me be very clear. It doe not matter if 100% of congress and the president agrees to this and passes a law and signs it, becuase no law passed by congress/president can trump a Constitutional right. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that. That goes for 4th Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, 1st Amendment, 9th Amendment, etc. etc.
I don't care what power the FBI thinks they have; if they come to me asking for any such information, I will require a specific warrant. and all of you need to do the same, and encourage all corporations and service providers to do the same.
This is why I abandoned my gmail.com account and switched to yandex.com, which is in Moscow. The KGB snoops, sure, but the KGB doesn't talk to the NSA.
I only search for old Dragnet scripts.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is based on a ridiculous ruling that phone numbers dialed are not private information because they're voluntarily shared with a third party (the phone company) and therefore don't have am expectation of privacy. The case is Smith v. Maryland (1979). Basically they ruled that because phone companies keep records of the numbers dialed that users shouldn't expect any privacy and therefore no warrant is required. This ruling could easily be extended to content with that same logic. For example, Facebook has to keep a record of the messages you send in Messenger because they show your conversation history. You've voluntarily shared that content with them. Phone companies now back up SMS messages in the cloud that can be restored to a new phone or after a factory data reset. In either case, you've voluntarily shared the content with a third party and therefore the same logic could be used to argue no expectation of privacy exists there, either. It is, of course, an awful ruling with ludicrous logic applied. It is one of the most shameful rulings ever issued by SCOTUS.
The first question when analyzing a search issue is whether a person has an expectation of privacy in the information. When Smith v. Maryland was decided, the judges on SCOTUS had grown up in an era when "party line" telephone lines were used. On a "party line," you share the telephone line with your neighbor or neighbors and your neighbor can listen to your call by picking up their phone. While you are right that they used the sharing-numbers-dialed-with-the-phone-company as the formal reason for a lack of an expectation of privacy, the judges on the Court who decided that case were also just raised in an era when a phone *was* a much less private thing.
Real lawyers write in C++
Which you can't get off of, and he wants to make that a requirement to make you able to buy a gun. So, you have a hidden search, not proving criminal intent, in order to justify to put you on a list you don't know you're on, and can't check, to deny you a basic, fundamental Constitutional right to buy a guy to defend yourself from criminals and tyranny JUST LIKE what Obama is trying to do.
You can't enforce a law that no-one is allowed to know about - that's batshit bonkers.
If there's a secret list somewhere noting all the things I'm not allowed to know "but I can't know about it" then how can I be expected to follow the law? How can I know I'm following the law? The no-fly list is punitive in different ways to a prison cell, you're telling me I'm too dangerous to fly because I might know something they don't like. In the modern business world that's basically a death sentence.
On the other hand they really want to know absolutely *everything* about you - heck, they'll even violate law and constitution to get it.
Which is maybe a little ironic. I can't know the law and they do, but they just don't give two shits about it.
FBI = Freely Being Intrusive
FBI = Freedom Bites Incognito
Why haven't malware writers got on this yet? Soon everyone's browser history will include ISIL websites!
about terrorism?
Really?
Wasn't it ALWAYS about keeping tabs on dissenters who might have actual plans to win elections and coordinate?
Go ahead, let yourself dream of the ultimate 1984 scenario, then tell me what is missing
Dicknose would have LOVED Gitmo
You can't enforce a law that no-one is allowed to know about - that's batshit bonkers.
If there's a secret list somewhere noting all the things I'm not allowed to know "but I can't know about it" then how can I be expected to follow the law?
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
Boy, for all the Slashdotters that froth at the mouth whenever Atlas Shrugged is even mentioned, it sure seems to be prophetic regarding what is occurring in the US. At this rate I wonder how long it will be before a "Directive 10-289" is enacted? My guess is it will be right after the start of the impending collapse of the US economy and currency that is, at this point, pretty much inevitable.
I'd also be willing to bet that even after it all plays out pretty much as AS predicts, the same people will still froth at the mouth and maintain that the principles illustrated in AS are tinfoil-hat fantasies and lies despite any and all proof to the contrary.
I'm sure this will be met with attacks on the messenger, both myself and Ayn Rand. Good old "kill the messenger" which is ridiculed when politicians/government or corporations do it will be accepted without the batting of an eyelash.
Or a single critical thought.
Which is a large part of the reasons why the US and the citizens are in the position they're in.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
For a textbook world. But in the world we live in, things are never so clear cut. Ask a small business owner whose store was broken into whether they received justice when the perpetrator was allowed to walk after the evidence used to convict him was illegally obtained (pg. 3). Ask a woman if she receives justice when the man who rapes her is allowed to walk because illegally obtained evidence is suppressed from trial. As the previously quoted article from "The Atlantic" says, "It is highly important that we protect the constitutional rights of criminals. But it appears that we sometimes forget that the Constitution was meant to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens as well."
How ignorant to expect to be able to collect "time spent on a site". Accessing a web page completes in under a second. You can view that page for 10 seconds or two hours, but the web server cannot determine how long.
Tech companies and privacy advocates are warning against new legislation that would give the FBI the ability to access "electronic communication transactional records" (ECTRs) without a warrant in spy and terrorism cases.
They already look at your accounts at will. They always have, they just don't tell you. Do you think they "just now" brainstormed this idea? Or are they pretending they never did before?
Lying pieces of shit.
Because 'war on terror' beats 'free speech', it seems. Presumably, in a house with multiple adults and teens, the account holder will be oppressed by the government, probably leaving the radicalized believer to fly overseas.
One almost begs for a script kiddie to visit ISIL sites using the spoofed IP address of every house in the USA.
So no-rail lists and VIPR squads terrorizing private cars, aren't an option?
Boy, for all the Slashdotters that froth at the mouth whenever Atlas Shrugged is even mentioned, it sure seems to be prophetic regarding what is occurring in the US
Except it isn't. The prophecy of Altas Shrugged isn't just a rising government, but that the heroes - that is, people against all that government - will catch on and resist, and the heroes will even prevail as they ditch the old rotting society, "go Galt" and rebuild a newer better society.
That has already been tried and failed. The Boomers saw how bad their system was and tried to change it (they were young when Atlas Shrugged came out after all). Some became hippies and rejected the system completely. Some tried to protest and reform the system from within. Both approaches failed. The hippies burned out, while the reformers became the establishment. A few idealists got shot at Kent State and that scared the rest of them to behave. Withdrawing from Vietnam also meant a lot of single-issue Boomers stopped protesting and became part of the system.
Government continued to grow, and the subsequent generations did even less to stop it. Gen X are the detached generation who really didn't give a damn about leaving or fixing the system. Some became yuppies and cogs to the system. Others simply went on welfare. A few others turn to drugs and crime (since the war on drugs made illegal drug trafficking profitable). Their kids - millenials - one upped Gen X's apathy to outright pushing for more government via modern social justice movements and feeling the Bern.
At this point you might say "but what about Trump and his supporters"? I would say "what about them?" Trump is outside of Rand's predictions, if not a counterexample to Rand's fantasy. In Rand's fantasy, success comes to those who stick to what is objectively true and good. In reality, Trump is succeeding by saying whatever people want to hear to get votes, and it's working.
In short, Rand thinks the free individuals and rationality will win. In reality, free individuals have lost long ago, and people remain irrational creatures easily manipulated through their emotions.
I'm sure this will be met with attacks on the messenger, both myself and Ayn Rand.
The irony here is that this attitude makes you no different than the people you ridicule. They too love to pre-emptively dismiss any sort of disagreement as being "attacks" ("rape apologist" "right wing nutjob" "watches too much Fox News" etc), giving them an excuse to not defend their position or think critically about other people's positions.