Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Firms Say FBI Wants Browsing History Without Warrant (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on from the it's-coming dept.

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.

3 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Why doesn't law enforcement get it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Incorrect assumption by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Obama admits they already do it without a warra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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