Slashdot Mirror
How The FBI Used Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance (ocweekly.com)
In 2011 a gynecology doctor took his computer for repairs at Best Buy's Geek Squad. But the repair technician was a paid FBI informant -- one of several working at Geek Squad -- and the doctor was ultimately charged with possessing child pornography, according to OC Weekly. An anonymous reader quotes their new report:
Recently unsealed records reveal a much more extensive secret relationship than previously known between the FBI and Best Buy's Geek Squad, including evidence the agency trained company technicians on law-enforcement operational tactics, shared lists of targeted citizens and, to covertly increase surveillance of the public, encouraged searches of computers even when unrelated to a customer's request for repairs. Assistant United States Attorney M. Anthony Brown last year labeled allegations of a hidden partnership as "wild speculation." But more than a dozen summaries of FBI memoranda filed inside Orange County's Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse this month in USA v. Mark Rettenmaier contradict the official line...
Other records show how [Geek Squad supervisor Justin] Meade's job gave him "excellent and frequent" access for "several years" to computers belonging to unwitting Best Buy customers, though agents considered him "underutilized" and wanted him "tasked" to search devices "on a more consistent basis"... evidence demonstrates company employees routinely snooped for the agency, contemplated "writing a software program" specifically to aid the FBI in rifling through its customers' computers without probable cause for any crime that had been committed, and were "under the direction and control of the FBI." The doctor's lawyer argues Best Buy became an unofficial wing of the FBI by offering $500 for every time they found evidence leading to criminal charges.
Other records show how [Geek Squad supervisor Justin] Meade's job gave him "excellent and frequent" access for "several years" to computers belonging to unwitting Best Buy customers, though agents considered him "underutilized" and wanted him "tasked" to search devices "on a more consistent basis"... evidence demonstrates company employees routinely snooped for the agency, contemplated "writing a software program" specifically to aid the FBI in rifling through its customers' computers without probable cause for any crime that had been committed, and were "under the direction and control of the FBI." The doctor's lawyer argues Best Buy became an unofficial wing of the FBI by offering $500 for every time they found evidence leading to criminal charges.
I find these prosecutions rather disturbing, as they amount to victimless thought crime.
Yes, there is a child victim, and the story is terrible, but there is no causal connection, and no need to demonstrate one. The child is the victim of a very different crime, by a different person, possibly long ago. In other cases, there may not even be a single child who has suffered, ever. And that makes no difference to the law.
Whats the point of treating it as a criminal problem? It makes about as much sens as the war on drugs.
What does all this achieve? Is there the slightest bit of evidence that our children are any safer for all these destroyed lives from the War on Porn ?
And if it helps you consider the question more objectively, the images themselves were not particularly shocking. Nothing compared to the sex and violence on an average night's TV.
Agent Tracey Riley admitted to U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney the so-called "Jenny" image found by a Best Buy Geek Squad technician, who doubled as a paid agency informant, "wasn't child pornography by itself."
Riley tried to recover by explaining that the picture, which contains no sex or genital angles, originated from a "well-known" child-pornography video.
If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?
I see you didn't read the summary. They are paying people $500 to plant child porn on your computer.
Because those geek-squad FBI moles were trained by the FBI and could be considered a direct part of the operation.
If so the evidence could be obtained illegally.
And this is different than narcotic informats - except the geek-squad-moles are considered criminals ;)
Which is the same problem with saying that it's only censorship if the government does it, not if private companies do it.
The end-run around the Constitution can be summed up in one terrifying word: Outsourcing.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
This crap has to be illegal.
It's like giving a plumber access to your house to fix a plumbing problem, but then he also goes through the underwear drawer in your little girls bedroom as well as through all of your mail on your desk etc etc. I cannot believe that would be considered legal and I can't believe that what Best Buy is doing should be either..
The problem with "Innocent people have nothing to hide" is that it isn't you who will determine what's "innocent".
I have shit to hide. Legal or illegal that is NOT any of your's or anyone else's concern.
You want to check, get probably cause, a warrant, and have judicial oversight. Just because they are lazy doesn't give them the right to invade innocent people's privacy.
I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.
In addition, when there is money to be made and you've been told X is a target an unscrupulous person might "find" the desired evidence to collect a reward.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I'm actually a little surprised that ransomware hasn't started dumping illegal images in victim's hard drives, just to discourage them from taking the machine to be fixed.
Why? The computer tech will tell them that the machine can't be "fixed", all the important data is encrypted. And I would think most users understand that if you do pay the ransom the data has to be rescued and the computer fixed so it doesn't happen again which many people will need help to. The ransomware only wins if you pay the ransom, if it's threatening to destroy your life many people will take a hammer to it and put it in the nearest dumpster, regardless of the lost data. And if you do pay the ransom but can't take your machine to the shop because you fear the kiddie porn is still there you'll need a new machine to transfer the data to instead of a data backup / wipe / reinstall / data restore, which will discourage many to no benefit for the ransomware author.
Let's try a delta analysis, forget all those who'd always pay or never pay anyway. The only situation where the ransomware maker is better off is if you wouldn't pay the ransom if you could take it to the shop for a wipe/reinstall, which is the only thing they could do - but you would pay the ransom to rescue the data yourself. But if you're capable of doing that, why would you take it to the shop in the first place? It means you're more than capable of doing a wipe/reinstall yourself. So my business analysis is that this would bring in exactly zero new business and cause them to lose a lot of the business they have. They could of course do it to be bigger asshats and cause people to lose more data, money or end up in jail but it wouldn't make any business sense at all.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The problem with child porn possession is that it is what's known as a "strict liability offense." Mere existence can be used to assert possession and therefore guilt and you must literally be able to prove your innocence. If you find child porn on a customer's computer and report it, you're getting yourself pulled into a likely multi-year court case in which you'll be a star witness and the defense will possibly suggest that you placed the porn for some reason. Now think about what happens if this argument sticks: instead of the porn being a thing on the computer that you reported on sight, YOU become the target of investigation and possible felony prosecution. It's also a mandatory reporting crime, so it is discovered that you did not report it in a timely fashion, you'll be charged with a crime. You could even be investigated and have your property seized just because you could potentially have copied it for yourself. Doesn't matter if you did, only that you could have.
It is probably a crime legal to do this, but the best answer to this is to wipe the hard drive with 'dd' in Linux and say that some sort of virus nuked the customer's data. If the customer has a problem with that, ask them what they had on there and if they had anything illegal. The problem will solve itself. Illegal or not, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to prosecute. Problem solved. Fortunately I haven't ever been in that situation and haven't had to deal with it.
Sticking to your moral beliefs for a victimless crime (yes, possessing photos is a victimless crime) is never EVER worth getting yourself dragged into the legal system. The system doesn't give a fuck. It will chew you up and spit you out a broken man to live a life of social exile. You are low-grade meat to the legal machine.
It's super fucking retarded that you can go to prison for decades just by having a photograph. You don't have to fuck a kid in the ass, you don't have to even take the photo of the kid getting fucked in the ass, you just have to knowingly have the photograph in your possession and you're instant evil. Japan was doing it right: possession wasn't a crime, lolicon drawings weren't a crime, kiddie rapists could masturbate to it instead of seeking out real kids to pound on, but the USA pushed 'em into making possession illegal in 2014/2015. Guess what? The rates of child abuse in Japan exploded in 2016. It could just be coincidental, but I doubt it.