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.

Comments

Why doesn't law enforcement get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Why doesn't law enforcement get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Why doesn't law enforcement get it?

[johannesg]

So sharing with one particular third party for a technical purpose also implies consent for sharing with every other third party in the known universe, in particular law enforcement agencies? Does the simple fact that more than two parties are involved complete erase the right to privacy?

Gee, you can take this pretty far, can't you? "No, we were perfectly in our rights to spy on them, because there were three of them"...

Re:Why doesn't law enforcement get it?

[ShanghaiBill]

If they walk on to my property with the intent to look in my window, they better already have that warrant in hand otherwise none of what they see will be admissible in court.

Unless you don't know they were on your property, and they use parallel construction to fabricate a different chain of evidence.

DEA official: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

Re: Why doesn't law enforcement get it?

[whoever57]

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

Even if you accept that ruling, the data that is collected and handed over should be limited to IP addresses that I connect to. DNS names should not be included, since they are content, not metadata. If I am using Google nameservers, all the ISP should hand over was that I connected to 8.8.8.8 on port 53, then I connected to an IP address on port 80.

Incorrect assumption

[JustNiz]

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.

Get a f*&^ing warrant!

[Bugler412]

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?!?!

for the tech user

[nimbius]

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.

Obama admits they already do it without a warrant

[schwit1]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

"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.

Re:What I don't understand is...

[jafiwam]

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.

They don't have a problem getting warrants.

They want to not be observed to, or have any trace of, who and what they watch.

The goal is "Watching with NO RECORDS OF IT."

Re:Because society tacitly asks for it

[Bugler412]

RE: What would upset you more Arresting someone using evidence obtained illegally is definitely more heinous. Any system that encourages or allows law enforcers to break or bypass the law inherently reduces respect for and compliance with that institution and ultimately leads to more and greater crime, from both enforcers and criminals.