Slashdot Mirror


FBI Authorized Informants To Break The Law 22,800 Times In 4 Years (dailydot.com)

blottsie quotes a report from the Daily Dot: Over a four-year period, the FBI authorized informants to break the law more than 22,800 times, according to newly reviewed documents. Official records obtained by the Daily Dot under the Freedom of Information Act show the Federal Bureau of Investigation gave informants permission at least 5,649 times in 2013 to engage in activity that would otherwise be considered a crime. In 2014, authorization was given 5,577 times, the records show. USA Today previously revealed confidential informants engaged in "otherwise illegal activity," as the bureau calls it, 5,658 times in 2011. The figure was at 5,939 the year before, according to documents acquired by the Huffington Post. In total, records obtained by reporters confirm the FBI authorized at least 22,823 crimes between 2011 and 2014. Unfortunately, many of those crimes can have serious and unintended consequences. One of the examples mentioned in the Daily Dot's report was of an FBI informant who "was responsible for facilitating the 2011 breach of Stratfor in one of the most high-profile cyberattacks of the last decade. While a handful of informants ultimately brought down the principal hacker responsible, the sting also caused Stratfor, an American intelligence firm, millions of dollars in damages and left and estimated 700,000 credit card holders vulnerable to fraud."

106 comments

  1. How does that work? by fsckinhippies · · Score: 5, Informative

    I authorize you to break the law. Are they above the law or refusing to enforce the law? Not much difference.

    1. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of the above. They are the law!

    2. Re:How does that work? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.

      The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.

    3. Re:How does that work? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is how it works in a police-state: Even if the police rapes, pillages and murders wholesale, they get at most an inquiry that finds they did nothing wrong. Actual "rule of law" says the law applies to everybody and the police are held to an even higher standard. These days, many of them are thugs with no accountability at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:How does that work? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

      No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.

      The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.

      For example, field agents signed off on 21,823 of the 22,823 crimes, which were for pizza delivery drivers to break traffic laws in DC in order to get pizza to the FBI building faster. Fortunately the traffic in DC is so messed up already that nobody noticed.

      The pizza drivers would call before delivery and give the code phrase "I inform you that this pizza is awesome," thereby becoming FBI informants who could be authorized to break the law.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    5. Re:How does that work? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would bet, victims of those crimes, who forced a constitutional challenge to those criminals activities could force some really severe penalties on the government. You might say you can, and write crap laws that say you can but legally can you really purposefully create victims of citizens, criminally fuck people over, to what, advance your career. Somehow that doesn't quite ring true as being legal, regardless of the anti-constitutional lies their lawyers and corrupt politicians spread.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet, victims of those crimes ...

      Most of these crimes don't have victims.

    7. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:

      While a handful of informants ultimately brought down the principal hacker responsible, the sting also caused Stratfor, an American intelligence firm, millions of dollars in damages and left an estimated 700,000 credit card holders vulnerable to fraud.

      and

      It remains unclear whether Desdunes was permitted to continue dealing drugs while providing the FBI information about his heroin supplier.

      Millions of damages and distributing heroin doesn't sound like victimless to me.
      But sure, that "most" really matters.
      "Most of my activities are completely legal so that murder I committed is statistically insignificant."

    8. Re: How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those authorizations were for rape or murder? I'm going to guess 0 because we don't live in a police state (yet).

    9. Re: How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They let whitey Bulger get away with about twenty murders. Does that count?

    10. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the above. They are the law!

      "Breaking the law"
      "Breaking the law"
      "Breaking the law"
      "Breaking the law"

            - Judas Priest

    11. Re:How does that work? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that that particular legal question has been asked many many many times and the legal standing is known. Informants and allowing crimes to pass un-punished in exchange for catching bigger crimes is hardly a new concept.

    12. Re: How does that work? by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 1

      They broke apart the Sicilian mafia in Boston and subsequently sanctioned one of the most notorious Boston crime bosses. *two thumbs up*

    13. Re: How does that work? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, if you look at how many policemen get away with "unauthorized" rape and murder, you may want to rethink that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "could force some really severe penalties on the government."

      I would bet you're wrong, Our "justice" system seems to turn a pretty blind eye (called "willful blindness" by prosecutors) towards "misconduct" (called "breaking the law" when your average person does it). The "Fast and Furious" fiasco is one of the more well known examples, that resulted in an actual death of a US border agent as well as over a hundred shootings/deaths in Mexico and still those responsible were PROMOTED! At this point I fear it would take an extremely egregious act for anyone in authority to get a meaningful sentence and actually stay in jail for it, like being caught on multiple angles of video outside a burning domestic abuse shelter full of women/children laughing maniacally with a cigar in your mouth, an empty can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other.

    15. Re:How does that work? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I would bet, victims of those crimes ...

      Most of these crimes don't have victims.

      I might ask, then why are they crimes.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    16. Re:How does that work? by erapert · · Score: 1

      I would bet, victims of those crimes, who forced a constitutional challenge to those criminals activities could force some really severe penalties on the government.

      Force?! Force the world's most powerful government/military to do something? I don't think you understand how power works.

      You might say you can, and write crap laws that say you can but legally can you really purposefully create victims of citizens, criminally fuck people over, to what, advance your career.

      Since they are currently and routinely doing precisely that then the answer to your question is "yes". And you can't do squat about it.

      Somehow that doesn't quite ring true as being legal, regardless of the anti-constitutional lies their lawyers and corrupt politicians spread.

      1. What makes you think that your opinion of legality is important or should be listened to?
      2. They both make and enforce the law. They decide what is legal. Not because it's fair, nor because you think it's right or fair. They get to do such things because they can. Because they have the guns and the troops.

      If situations like this piss you off then you need to go exercise your first and second amendment rights. Vote first. Have guns and ammo ready in case they corrupt the vote (like in "democratic" Cuba or any other tin-pot dictatorship) or in case a new Stalin or Mao takes power.

    17. Re: How does that work? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      According to Thomas Hobbes whose philosophy holds sway over political circles, as long as the FBI asked them to do it, it isn't actually a crime. As for why there are victimless crimes on the books. Hobbes blieves the State should have absolute authority and that the state needs to protect you from yourself and is permissive in the sense that guard rails permit you to stay on the road. His example used hedges.

    18. Re:How does that work? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement."

      By who exactly? It still sounds like selective enforcement to me. A federal prosecutor signing off on the commission of a crime would be making themselves an accomplice subject to prosecution. Prosecutors can choose which crimes to prosecute based on the probability of successful prosecution but are not themselves immune to the law and have no authority which allows them to encourage or participate in crime. There is no such executive power, from the president on down.

    19. Re:How does that work? by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      At this point I fear it would take an extremely egregious act for anyone in authority to get a meaningful sentence and actually stay in jail for it, like being caught on multiple angles of video outside a burning domestic abuse shelter full of women/children laughing maniacally with a cigar in your mouth, an empty can of gas in one hand and a lighter in the other.

      Something tells me that even then, because the footage wasn't officially police sanctioned video, he would be put on administrative leave with pay.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    20. Re: How does that work? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an upstanding member of the SS to me.

    21. Re:How does that work? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding, those videos would never see the light of day. Before the firefighters even arrived the surveillance camera footage all around the incident would have been confiscated and recording stopped until it was all over.
      There is literally nothing these bastards can do that will get them sent to prison.

    22. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All crimes have victims. Name me one that doesn't.

    23. Re: How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me how we don't live in a police state! They do what they want, when they want to!

    24. Re:How does that work? by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Jaywalking

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    25. Re:How does that work? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Law enforcement members are covered by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

      The supreme court has previously made this ruling: [o]ur decisions have recognized immunity defenses of two kinds. For officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of “absolute immunity.” The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, and of judges, in their judicial functions, now is well settled. Our decisions also have extended absolute immunity to certain officials of the Executive Branch. These include prosecutors and similar officials, executive officers engaged in adjudicative functions, and the President of the United States. For executive officials in general, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm. [W]e [have] acknowledged that high officials require greater protection than those with less complex discretionary responsibilities.

      As for your legislation sections 509,510,533, and 534 of title 28, United States Code, and Executive Order 12333 apply. They apply to domestic investigative activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and I have copied the relevant part of the guidelines below. Or I would have if it didn't say it was full of junk characters.

      Source - https://www.justice.gov/archiv... The relevant section is on page 33.

    26. Re:How does that work? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That covers immunity required to execute the function of their office. This falls outside the scope of that immunity. Further this does not convey the ability to transfer that immunity to others except in the sense that some officials would have the authority to appoint people to positions which would carry immunity such as the President.

      There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that would allow such, with the possible exception of a treaty. Without a grant of power and chain of authority from the Constitution U.S. codes and executive orders carry the legality of the funny pages.

    27. Re:How does that work? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the link that I gave you? It specifically covers the sanctioning of otherwise illegal activity and given that is part of their legislative function the qualified immunity would extend to those orders.

      Also the constitution hardly outlines all the powers that are available to the government. You may not like it but there is a huge load of case law which supports the practice and it is written into the acts outlining the FBI powers.

      Part 1.
      Otherwise illegal activity by an FBI agent or employee in an undercover operation relating to activity in violation of federal criminal law that does not concern a
      threat to the national security or foreign intelligence must be approved in conformity with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Federal Bureau of
      Investigation Undercover Operations. Approval of otherwise illegal activity in conformity with those guidelines is sufficient and satisfies any approval
      requirement that would otherwise apply under these Guidelines.

    28. Re:How does that work? by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

      I'd say having all those women and children laughing in the video would suggest that your antics are mere cheeky and endearing shenanigans and therefore not really worth prosecuting.

    29. Re:How does that work? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Also the constitution hardly outlines all the powers that are available to the government."

      That is EXACTLY what the Constitution does. If the people via the Constitution does not grant the power, the government does not have it. It even spells that out in the bill of rights, all powers not granted to the government by the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court will interpret the powers granted and it is rulings in that capacity which can allow government activity that may not be clear from the Constitution such as the one you had linked above. Sadly, the supreme has definitely ruled to create government authority far beyond anything ever intended by those writing the Constitution but at least the supreme is itself a Constitutional method, a loophole, but a method nontheless. Congress, the executive, and even the legislative exceed their actual authority all the time. There is no shortage of laws and executive agency statutes on the books that aren't legal at all.

      "Part 1.
      Otherwise illegal activity by an FBI agent or employee in an undercover operation relating to activity in violation of federal criminal law that does not concern a
      threat to the national security or foreign intelligence must be approved in conformity with the Attorney General's Guidelines on Federal Bureau of
      Investigation Undercover Operations. Approval of otherwise illegal activity in conformity with those guidelines is sufficient and satisfies any approval
      requirement that would otherwise apply under these Guidelines."

      That only becomes legal if there is Constitutional authority backing it. The President and Congress can write things down and pass/order them all day long, that doesn't actually make them legal. Constitutional authority makes them legal.

    30. Re: How does that work? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      All Authoritarians should automatically be caught up in every authoritarian law they pass. Perhaps that would make more rethink what laws they pass.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:How does that work? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you jaywalk in front of a car, they may have to slam on their brakes, or could swerve into a car to avoid you, and if they actually manage to hit and kill you, they could forever be psychologically damaged.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:How does that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consensual crimes such as gambling, drug use, and prostitution, in which the "victims" are willing participants.

    33. Re:How does that work? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I jaywalk, but not stupidly. I'm not going to risk my life on the chance that any particular driver is being alert. Therefore, my jaywalking is victimless. (Not that it's much of a crime, though. I think it's at most a petty misdemeanor, which doesn't qualify as a "crime" in this state.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:How does that work? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I think you are getting into the semantics of what is legal and what isn't there. I get it that you feel that the constitution should be the basis of all laws and powers of the government but it isn't and hasn't been for a long time. Laws and legislation are passed by the government because they have the power to pass them and enforce them, and while there is always the risk of civil uprising that is no different then if the rule causing an issue was written into the constitution.

      Most other countries don't have a constitution that has as many explicit clauses as the US one, and some, such as England, don't even have one. So a constitution per se is not inherently more legally binding than anything else simply because its a constitution.

    35. Re:How does that work? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Most other countries don't have a constitution that has as many explicit clauses as the US one, and some, such as England, don't even have one. So a constitution per se is not inherently more legally binding than anything else simply because its a constitution."

      Other countries have little bearing on the legal system of the United States. In the United States the people fought a rebellion to take power, that power is reserved to the people, a small grant of power was given by the people to establish a central government via the Constititution and to grant the power that state governments derive from (although only in a very token sense because colony/state representatives were the actual authors more so than the people they were supposed to represent). It is the founding document and only source of legal authority for the central government. The only exception is within the judicial where a framework was needed for interpreting law and for this the previously English population turned to "common law" largely based on the magna carta.

      The system has been heavily corrupted and the central government does many things beyond the scope of Constitutional authority, many of them with the blessing of blatantly incorrect rulings by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court can still toss these things out on the basis that they are not within Constitutional authority because that IS the highest law in this country. As for the teeth behind it, there is more than just civil uprising, the military of this nation is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

  2. Fuck Stratfor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reap what you sow.

  3. Were these actions necessary? by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did the FBI allow crimes to be committed simply to make their jobs easier, or because it was the lesser of two evils. I suspect that it's a bit of both. More FBI sanctioned crimes will occur. The trend isn't ending because of a report about it. In upcoming years, we may not be able to find out how much sanctioned crime occurred, as they are likely to redact just about everything to hide their combination of laziness and criminal complicity. It's really a sad state of affairs in the USA these days.

    1. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are right that it will be a combination of both. But if your aim is, for example, to bust a drug cartel then sticking every street dealer you find in prison will make that extremely difficult if not impossible.

      The real issues come about when law enforcement ends up working too closely with a particular person turning a blind eye to their activities to target others. James Bulger is a prime example of this.

    2. Re: Were these actions necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do as i say, not as i do.

    3. Re:Were these actions necessary? by gatfirls · · Score: 2

      I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the number is this large because they have dozens of informants in ongoing investigations engaging in illegal activities so it could be at any given time the FBI has 15 informants on a daily basis allowed to engage in illegal activity.

      Doesn't seem so outlandish in that context. They do investigate a lot of crimes that take a lot of investigative work do to the sophistication of the persons and or groups involved in the crimes.

    4. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      One thing I read posted the informant count at 15000

    5. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Capitalism. Capitalism is more important than "democracy"

    6. Re:Were these actions necessary? by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to read that. I can't imagine that would be active informants, maybe just people 'on the books' who have or may inform?

    7. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      https://www.rt.com/usa/fbi-cri...

      Describes them as informants on the payroll. I don't have a link to their source.

    8. Re:Were these actions necessary? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Its parallel construction to induce a crime that would have happened. To have the ability to be ready when an informant has set up a crime that gets "discovered" and can be seen as court ready from the origin of the very public, formal case.
      No issues around evidence that is tainted or flowed from gov/mil illegal action, all search warrants are ready, all interviews and comments got witness by two or more federal law enforcement officials.
      Methods, effortless and constant decryption, years of beacon tracking and mapping of friends, hardware computer access to get passwords, other agency help can stay hidden and a protected informant can be the court presentable origin of the case.
      Methods like ability to take over sites, forums, chat rooms, follow any onion routing back to an original ip can then be masked with a simple note to legal teams about an informant been the start of the case.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many years did Whitey Bulger live, committing crimes with essentially a free pass from his police handlers? 20 or more?

      Part of the problem is when this simply goes on for too long. Past a certain point and the criminals are exploiting the police, like a reverse undercover operation. "I have powerful friends who watch out for me and get me out of legal problems." If a criminal informant can say this then the police have a problem.

    10. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the number is this large because they have dozens of informants in ongoing investigations engaging in illegal activities so it could be at any given time the FBI has 15 informants on a daily basis allowed to engage in illegal activity.

      Doesn't seem so outlandish in that context.

      Even from a utilitarian perspective is sounds rather outlandish.
      If you take the number of crimes FBI actually prevents and subtract the number of crimes they could have prevented without their informants committing crimes, does that cover for the crimes the informants are committing?
      If they can't stop the criminal they are trying to catch that probably means that they either got jack shit on him or they think that if they wait a bit he will commit something worse so they can put him away for longer.
      In the first case the only known criminal is the one FBI allows committing crimes and in the latter case they just let crime go on in the hope that it gets worse.

      It's all nice and well if the purpose is to frame someone as hard as possible, but if the intent is to stop ongoing crimes to make the world safer it doesn't seem like they do much to help.

    11. Re:Were these actions necessary? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is more important than "democracy"

      Indeed. Capitalism without democracy is common. Democracy without capitalism is rare.

    12. Re:Were these actions necessary? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Would it? I wounder. I mean people deal drugs to make money, they do it because they think its a better opportunity than they have else where. If it was widely know that you will be caught, tried, and convicted for dealing and quickly maybe people would not do it.

      How long will the cartel last if they can't move product. In dependent of whether its a good thing or not we have eyes basically everywhere now. Combined with a little social media and telephone metadata analysis we could probably collar all but the least known smallest time dealers, pretty quickly.

      I am kinda forced to conclude the FBI/DEA does not really want to

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 2

      The people meant to protect us should be held to a higher standard (the FBI not the informants). The argument of a lesser of two evils should never be used. This is corruption pure and simple.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    14. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Look at how many people are serving time in the US for minor drug drug charges. I don't think those people went into it thinking they would get caught but evidence mounts up pretty quickly that people are caught and in large numbers.

      No a bigger issue is that for a lot of people the risk of prison isn't enough of a disincentive because their current situation is so utterly shit.

      Also you need to keep in mind that the FBI / DEA etc are finite in resources. They simply cannot have an officer on every corner.

    15. Re:Were these actions necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the majority of the crime really happen though? I know I've read a couple of articles about people who got busted for comparatively minor things after being approached by informers (handing over prescription drugs). They then got offered deals if they could hand over a few criminals themselves so would go out trying to persuade people to sell them drugs or something similar.

      The whole concept of the government giving tens of thousands of people authority to break the law with impunity is one I distrust. It should be justified by a clear and decisive need and I simply don't see it. In most of the rest of the western world this isn't common practice. They will instead delay arresting someone while they monitor them to find out who they interact with. It seems to work because plenty of countries doing it have comparable or better statistics on drug abuse, illegal weapons etc, and they're doing it without the seriously ethical dubious decision for government to encourage criminal behaviour!

  4. Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more we see cops shoot first (no point in questioning dead bodies), NSA, TSA, FBI, SEC, on and on- criminal behavior but it's OK for them. I guess we all have to get govt. jobs for our own safety and protection.

    1. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell law enforcement from the criminals. As a regular old boring middle aged white guy, I fear my own government more than any gang member or terrorist.

    2. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell law enforcement from the criminals.

      Unfortunate, but true. I personally don't care if it makes their job easier, a crime is a crime and the whole point of law enforcement is to stop that crime. If there are no consequences for some, there should be no consequences for all. Otherwise we could end up with the DEA smuggling drugs for the Sinaloa drug cartel, the ATF selling guns to violent criminals, or the FBI smuggling child porn.

    3. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a crime is a crime and the whole point of law enforcement is to stop that crime

      Philosophically I differ slightly. I think the point of law enforcement is to solve a crime, not necessarily stop it. The obsession with trying to prevent crimes before they occur is what's gotten us in our current predicament, with unconstitutional warrantless mass surveillance etc.

    4. Re:Migration of criminals by yzf750 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      p Otherwise we could end up with the DEA smuggling drugs for the Sinaloa drug cartel, the ATF selling guns to violent criminals, or the FBI smuggling child porn.

      Hmmm so Silk Road, Fast and Furious and Playpen.
      Who watches the watchers?

    5. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obsession with trying to prevent crimes before they occur is what's gotten us in our current predicament, with unconstitutional warrantless mass surveillance etc.

      I disagree with this. There are plenty of nations with an obsession to prevent crimes that doesn't have this problem.
      From my point of view the problem is the obsession to paint criminals as evil that causes the surveillance state.
      Once you have grouped people into good and evil it allows "good" people to stop "evil" people with any means necessary.

      In places where this obsession doesn't exist the preventive measurements are more focused on making sure people don't end up in a situation where they might resort to crime and once a criminal is caught the focus is on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
      Spending taxes on education is a lot cheaper and more efficient than having a police officer in every street corner, but since socialism is evil it is better to waste more taxes on law enforcement than to make sure that people don't become criminals to begin with.

      Sure, it might not satisfy some peoples thirst for blood, but that is mainly because they lack the capability of thinking in more than one step.
      One of my favorite examples would be Breivik. A lot of people (including himself) thought that he should have been shot on the spot.
      They don't realize that he went in with the assumption that he wouldn't get out alive and shooting him would just play into his hands of becoming a martyr.
      They also don't realize that goal of his sentence is to get him to a point where he regrets his crime. During that time the hard part will be to prevent him from committing suicide until he gets to the point where he wants to atone for his actions in a more constructive way.
      People who want to "be tough" on crime lacks the coldness needed to dispense a punishment of that magnitude for criminals that doesn't care if they live or die.

    6. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its the Postal Inspectors that produce child porn, since new shit works better to tempt pedos than old shit

    7. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The War on Drugs only exists so that the globalist elites can have more control over the drug supply and, therefore, more profit. Who do you think guards the Afghan poppy fields? That's right: the US military. It's a nice side benefit for them that it allows a convenient excuse to jail more non-criminal drug users, particularly brown ones.

      Slavery is not 100% illegal in the USA. The War on Drugs provides a convenient, legal source of slave labor. Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (emphasis mine):

      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    8. Re:Migration of criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm so Silk Road [usatoday.com]

      Not quite Silk Road, again that was the FBI. I was referring to the "deal" that the DEA had with the Sinaloa drug cartel between 2000 and 2012 where DEA agents actively aided them smuggling drugs into the US in exchange for information on rival gangs.

  5. Late to the party by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Where is the "SLASHDOT IS FBI" guy? I figured he'd be all over this story.

    Maybe he's thinking about going back to being the "cows say moo" guy.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Late to the party by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Where is the "SLASHDOT IS FBI" guy? I figured he'd be all over this story.

      He was killed by our Robotic Overlords.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:Late to the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the "SLASHDOT IS FBI" guy? I figured he'd be all over this story.

      Maybe he's thinking about going back to being the "cows say moo" guy.

      Fool. Cows say "APK"

  6. adding it all up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm estimating about 1800 of those were by normal criminals, and the other 21,000 were all Hillary.

    1. Re:adding it all up by reboot246 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are probably just being funny, but the FBI does have a habit of looking the other way when a person with money or power breaks the law. The sad part is that if Hillary becomes President, she will never have to pay for her crimes.

    2. Re:adding it all up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are probably just being funny, but the FBI does have a habit of looking the other way when a person with money or power breaks the law. The sad part is that if Hillary becomes President, she will never have to pay for her crimes.

      Gives quite an incentive to commit as many crimes as necessary to become president doesn't it?

    3. Re:adding it all up by haruchai · · Score: 1

      You are probably just being funny, but the FBI does have a habit of looking the other way when a person with money or power breaks the law. The sad part is that if Hillary becomes President, she will never have to pay for her crimes.

      That's only true if she dies in office. Hillary is widely disliked and the GOP can nurse a grudge. The only way they'll back off is if their own panties have plenty of stains.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:adding it all up by dbIII · · Score: 1

      but the FBI does have a habit of looking the other way when a person with money or power breaks the law

      An example that gets very frequently brought up on Slashdot is how Capone was taken down by the IRS. Most people do not understand that it was because the FBI was looking the other way.

  7. Geeze, that's more than 15 times a day by mark-t · · Score: 1

    The comparison of this number to assorted lude and crude innuendo and various "your mom" jokes is left as an exercise for the reader.

  8. TLDR; THEY LIVE (you bet your ass They do!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know where "he" is but i would recommend according to sources on the net to be on the look out for shape shifting aliens disguised as humans, who, like the hybrid humans+aliens, must consume human flesh to maintain their human appearance.

    human flesh is being found more and more in common food today,

    there exists a certain barrier in normal, everyday thought which hides the reality of these creatures and their hybrids along with the smell and taste of human flesh in common food as well as the scent of these creatures. they all smell the same. while the aliens and hybrids are safe within their homes, they prepare higher concentrates of human flesh in food because they can get away with it and unless you're in the right state of mind, you wouldn't smell the human flesh in the food. They use some type of masking agent so you normally can't smell the taint. They have been studying us for years upon years and much of what you hear coming from government/military experiments are just a preview of things to come.

    a certain modification to the mind can bring the typical human into a different frame of mind where these... "things" can be smelt/detected. there are other effects which follow, too, but the frame of mind of the individual would often be too flooded with different events occurring within and outside of the human mind/body.

    Never trust a mason or someone giving you food/drink out of the blue, even if you've known these people for your entire life. always buy food at random, never return to the same product more than # of dice rolls. Always buy food and drink in sealed containers. Look for typical "Illuminati/occult" symbols and don't purchase from these companies.

    Things are not what they appear to be on Earth, unless you are enabled to really see. Then you'll probably wish you never had. (like in The Matrix where the delicious fake steak is being consumed and a deal struck)

    1. Re:TLDR; THEY LIVE (you bet your ass They do!) by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Never trust a mason

      But always trust a mason jar.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: TLDR; THEY LIVE (you bet your ass They do!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually Mason, after John Landis Mason, a Tinsmith who invented the design.

  9. Cut out the middle man by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    As long as the FBI has the power to authorize people to break the law, why not just get them to murder every suspect? No investigation needs to last longer than a day.

    1. Re:Cut out the middle man by BringsApples · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your logic is sound. The reason that it's not really happening that way is because the FBI isn't interested in making the world a better place. They're interested in getting as much money as possible. And they're not doing it for any reason, other than the same reasons that the drug cartels do it. I'm talking to you, guy who invented Civil Forfeiture.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    2. Re:Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the cops have already discovered that once they start shooting suspects, in America, the people start shooting back. This is the purpose of the second amendment.

    3. Re:Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wait - you think murdering "suspects" would make the world a better place ? This from a community so up in arms over privacy violations because it's wrong, but apparently you don't give two fucks about any due process ?

    4. Re:Cut out the middle man by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      WOOOSH! I do care about due process, but due process doesn't exist in Civil Foreiture, or anywhere else that the feds feel that it shouldn't.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:Cut out the middle man by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US has so many "other" agencies operating domestically that nobody can keep up with all the mil, mil/gov, gov, private sector informants.
      Everyone is flooding the internet with bait and the FBI has to respond to it all only to discover its all from the US gov, mil as part of domestic missions to keep budgets and make great over time.
      Great for the growth and funding of each agency but the FBI then has to work out what is a crime or just another US agency creating a legend around some other mil/gov backed informants or some decade long deep cover effort. Thats expensive, risky and a massive duplication of effort. Everyone under watch needs 6-9 person teams, support, over time and has to be undetected in very invite only closed groups under investigation that are run like cults or other spy rings..
      If the group been watched for months turns out to be another US agency/US mil front, a friendly gov operating in the US with the total blessing of another part of the US gov, thats an epic waste of expert skill for months or years.
      Such other agencies used to operate internationally as that was their mission. Now the same work load and limited domestic funding that was once all the FBI's has to be shared with ever more bureaucrats, mil and other new intelligence teams, contractors, private academics, politically backed think tanks, ex mil now fronting private sector groups, well connected dual citizens offering front companies.
      The only way to get that budget back is to get good domestic press that political leaders can understand.
      If not other agencies will hold the keys to decryption, tracking, support services, intelligence gathering and keep running informants that totally clog up the FBI's own complex case load.
      Decades of experience is lost to well funded groups in the US mil/gov who never expected to have any role in the USA then get more of the domestic budgets.
      Long term the FBI seeks total encryption access without any difficult requests to other US agencies, bulk data collection domestically and internationally, voice prints for everyone entering the US, been in the US or talking about the US.
      The aim is to bring it all back to the FBI, spy hunting, crime, total decryption, international intrigue. Even local city and state task forces case loads are now expanding US wide without needing FBI level funding or even sharing details about operations in the same areas.
      The trust issue over informants, methods, funding, budget expanding good news in the press is getting very complex.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the FBI has the power to authorize people to break the law, why not just get them to murder every suspect? No investigation needs to last longer than a day.

      Because maybe there is a difference between letting you sell somebody a machine gun and actually firing it into a crowd.

    7. Re:Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just waiting for the first case where they figure out that every member of a criminal network was an informant or agent from another agency.
      The problem when law enforcement commits crimes is that there is no way to know if the crime would have existed if they didn't.
      A situation where law enforcement causing more crime than they solve is completely plausible.

    8. Re:Cut out the middle man by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC re "member of a criminal network was an informant or agent from another agency."
      That happened in East Germany a lot. So many people got an offer to turn and become informants that peace protest groups and church groups got filled with ever more informants.
      Add in a layer of more traditional police like undercover work and even soon smaller groups had a few informants mostly generating gossip on each other to induce the ability to get deeper into a network or find another nations help.
      It was hard work with limited databases and compartmentalized file access to totally map out who was really of interest and who was just improving their cover.
      The UK had the right idea to give total bulk domestic collection to one group, sneak and peak to one group, classic police work to other groups.
      Then everybody had some idea who was doing what and what their role was without city, state, federal and mil overlap and related budget issues.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there is no way to know if the crime would have existed if they didn't."

      The protection against this used to be called "entrapment", law enforcement inducing people to commit crimes instead of simply witnessing them (or later even participating to a limited degree) was supposed to be concrete grounds for tossing out the case, much like breaking into a home without a warrant is supposed to throw out all of the evidence collected therein. However as a legal concept it is basically dead in todays courts. "Paid Informants" can control nearly every aspect of the crime/plot with the suspects providing little if any input and somehow it still doesn't qualify. Sadly like most aspects of our current legal system it had been redefined so that the governments ability to go after citizens are as broad as possible (even growing plants on your own property effects "interstate commerce") but at the same time the citizens rights to challenge the government are as narrow as possible (somehow even if government lawyers "accidentally" fax you proof that you are being spied upon courts will still throw out your case because you shouldn't have ever gotten that proof because of "state secretes").

  10. Why not just plead ignorance of the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-says-ignorance-of-the-law-is-an-excuse-if-youre-a-cop-d8bdb99987f1#.e57rxa83d

    "... the state argued that the cops had made a “reasonable” mistake when they pulled over Heien for having one tail light, and thus were not precluded from using the evidence that came out of that stop. This assertion is controversial in and of itself. After all, police already have such vast leeway to make traffic stops that Fourth Amendment scholar Orin Kerr recently quipped, “if an officer can’t find a traffic violation to stop a car, he isn’t trying very hard.” Now police have to try even less hard."

  11. FBI Gonna FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big mistake the FBI's critics always make is that they assume it's purpose is law enforcement. In actuality, this is quite far from the truth. It was really set up to be J. Edgar Hoover's personal Bully Corps, initially enabled by FDR and then let out of control from there.

    The sooner we realize this as a country the sooner we can replace it with something that actually protects and upholds the Constitution.

  12. More about entrapment, less about informants by Chalnoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's perfectly reasonable for law enforcement to allow some informants to commit certain crimes while attempting to shut down a larger organization. Simply reporting the number of times that this happens says nothing one way or the other about whether the FBI is doing a good job at making use of this power.

    Personally, I'm much more worried about the times that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies engage in sting operations where they use such informants to urge people to commit legal activity and then arrest them for it. Some fraction of these informants may well be doing just this sort of thing, but the report of merely the number of informants doesn't say anything about that. Here is one example of such entrapment. Quoted from the above page:

    The judge criticized not only the defendants, but also what she viewed as the government's overzealous handling of the investigation. Referring to Cromitie, she said, "The essence of what occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own. It created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true." She added, "The government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was no nefarious plot to foil." She said the defendants were "not political or religious martyrs," but "thugs for hire, pure and simple."

    1. Re:More about entrapment, less about informants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's perfectly reasonable for law enforcement to allow some informants to commit certain crimes while attempting to shut down a larger organization.

      Perhaps, if that's what was happening. The reality is that law enforcement only "authorizes" the crimes that actually need to be committed in order to secure evidence. The rest of the heinous shit that the filthy fucking snitch does isn't authorized - just ignored.

      But hey, as long as we keep that conviction rate up, it's all good. Right, guys?

    2. Re:More about entrapment, less about informants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's perfectly reasonable for law enforcement to allow some informants to commit certain crimes while attempting to shut down a larger organization. Simply reporting the number of times that this happens says nothing one way or the other about whether the FBI is doing a good job at making use of this power.

      Personally, I'm much more worried about the times that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies engage in sting operations where they use such informants to urge people to commit legal activity and then arrest them for it. Some fraction of these informants may well be doing just this sort of thing, but the report of merely the number of informants doesn't say anything about that. Here is one example of such entrapment. Quoted from the above page:

      The judge criticized not only the defendants, but also what she viewed as the government's overzealous handling of the investigation. Referring to Cromitie, she said, "The essence of what occurred here is that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens from terrorism, came upon a man both bigoted and suggestible, one who was incapable of committing an act of terrorism on his own. It created acts of terrorism out of his fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then made those fantasies come true." She added, "The government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was no nefarious plot to foil." She said the defendants were "not political or religious martyrs," but "thugs for hire, pure and simple."

      Exactly, without the information regarding what laws were broken, I do not care. I do know that police have allowed informants to buy and use drugs, which they pretty much have to do. They also ignore some things like theft etc while going after the "big fish". Give me the information on what crimes were waved and I might care.

      I am also WAY more concerned about the covering up of illegal or against police policy behavior by cops via other cops that witness such behavior. Sure, maybe there is one bad cop in 100, but if the other 99 ignore or worse, backup, that bad cop....Just look at the difference between the police reports about that Chicago killing and the video. I never saw the kid pull or act like he was going to throw a knife.

  13. If no-ones going to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If no-ones going to jail then they haven't broken the law.

  14. necessary by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Hey, I wouldn't snitch to the feds unless they let me kill a few people. That's just how the world works.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  15. WTF FBI, LOL? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Parent has a good point. For one, the FBI technically doesn't have the right to authorize breaking the law. Isn't that the right of a federal prosecutor or the DoJ? The FBI, for all their fancy suits and cool sunglasses are just basically cops. A cop could ignore someone breaking the law, but they aren't really supposed to. The DA looks at the evidence collected by the police and decides if there are grounds for charges. (Actually it is probably more along the lines of if they are likely to succeed in getting a successful sentience or if they will get yelled at for not at least trying to charge someone for a high profile crime.) That is why a prosecutor offers a deal or plea bargain to witnesses for cooperation, and not the arresting officer.

    As I understand it, if the FBI is just looking the other way, they are very out of line. If they are running this by a federal prosecuter and/or a judge that is providing assistance and oversight, then this is probably a legit practice. Perhaps not very moral or prudent, though.

    /. readers who are lawyers cops, & prosecutors reading this, please jump in and correct my erroneous assumptions now...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re: WTF FBI, LOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. readers who are lawyers cops, & prosecutors reading this, please jump in and correct my erroneous assumptions now...

      How about ones who read the article?

    2. Re: WTF FBI, LOL? by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

      /. readers who are lawyers cops, & prosecutors reading this, please jump in and correct my erroneous assumptions now...

      How about ones who read the article?

      You must be new here.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    3. Re:WTF FBI, LOL? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      If they are reporting publicly that they do it, you can be pretty sure it's legal.

      The Attorney General wrote the rules, which are available online, as stated in the article.

      https://www.justice.gov/sites/...

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  16. You're wrong Badger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Undercover cops CAN lie, and apparently engage in illegal activity too. It's a good thing you have a good lawyer. Weird, selling meth is more socially acceptable than public masturbation.

  17. Stratfor is a bad example by zedaroca · · Score: 1

    By authorizing and inducing the hack of Stratfor we came to know about many things private companies and the government are doing (of course they are not going to answer for their crimes). They should encourage more people to commit crimes like invading and damaging companies like this.
    Of course the rest of the FBI's entrapment activities is just for the worst of your country (and of the world with the "war on terror").

    1. Re:Stratfor is a bad example by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That may be true but it's a bit disgusting how they opportunisticly stirred up so much hype and fear of crackers afterwards despite being involved themselves.
      If nothing else it's making the tinfoil types think that the only thing powerful enough to mess about with "the establishment" is the government itself.

  18. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The State can not and does not break the laws: it makes them. Therefore nothing the State ever does can be illegal. Period.

  19. FBI Cannot Authorize Breaking the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Executive Branch of government does not have the authority to command anyone to break the law. Laws are the sole dominion of Congress, and Laws that are enacted pursuant to the constitutional process must be enforced wholly and fully by the Executive. There is no provision in the constitution that authorizes the Executive Branch to ignore laws it does not like, nor to authorize civilians to do same.

  20. Can I give you a 5 score for Misleading? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I see what you did there. You conveniently forgot to point out that while the judge did indeed say what you quoted, that same judge also sentenced all 4 men to 25 years in prison anyway. The sentences were upheld on appeal 2-1 with all 3 judges rejecting the entrapment and government misconduct issues raised by defendants.

    1. Re:Can I give you a 5 score for Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? That's exactly what the GP was saying. The fact the judge sentenced them to prison time is proving the GP's point. It's a problem when the FBI uses this power to entrap people - thus causing them to be convicted of crimes they would not otherwise do, and being sentenced for crimes they would not otherwise do.

      GP isn't misleading at all. You just missed the point.

  21. Law enforcement system making up a good portion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of our country's criminals.

    When you combine this with police officers simply seizing money on the road (so much so that they steal more money in a year than all of our other thieves put together), and all the other corruption, the United States is descending into a state of chaos caused by unaccountable and lawless "law enforcement".

  22. "otherwise illegal activity" by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    What is the word "otherwise" there for? It simply is illegal activity.

  23. Thomas Hobbes by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    According to Thomas Hobbes, whose philosophy holds sway over political circles the FBI is the law and can injure no one.