Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Paid Geek Squad Repair Staff As Informants (zdnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the plot-twist dept.

According to newly released documents by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, federal agents would pay Geek Squad employees to flag illegal materials on devices sent in by customers for repairs. "The relationship goes back at least ten years, according to documents released as a result of the lawsuit [filed last year]," reports ZDNet. "The agency's Louisville division aim was to maintain a 'close liaison' with Geek Squad management to 'glean case initiations and to support the division's Computer Intrusion and Cyber Crime programs.'" From the report: According to the EFF's analysis of the documents, FBI agents would "show up, review the images or video and determine whether they believe they are illegal content" and seize the device so an additional analysis could be carried out at a local FBI field office. That's when, in some cases, agents would try to obtain a search warrant to justify the access. The EFF's lawsuit was filed in response to a report that a Geek Squad employee was used as an informant by the FBI in the prosecution of child pornography case. The documents show that the FBI would regularly use Geek Squad employees as confidential human sources -- the agency's term for informants -- by taking calls from employees when they found something suspect.

121 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean there is no such thing as "geek squad - client privilege"? I'm pretty sure you can expect to see me drunk on CNN tomorrow, talking about how I'm not going to comply with a grand jury subpoena in this witch hunt. In fact, I'm going to start drinking now so I'm ready. What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      i did best buys geek squad then i graduated, got my bsit. now own 25% of geek squad.

    2. Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      >i did best buys geek squad then i graduated You got ripped off.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
  2. I hate to say I told you so... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You love to say "I told you so..." ~ Georgia Lass, Dead Like Me

    Yeah, I kinda do, don't I? Anyone taking something like that to someplace like that and assumes their shit isn't being combed through either by someone looking for jackoff material, or worse, something to rat you out to the feds for, is a goddamned fucking moron. (Damn, what is up with my LANGUAGE lately, huh?!? Oh, shit... I have "SAILOR-MODE" set to "enabled".... That explains it. SHIT... I can't fucking disable it! What the fuck! I'm supposed to sing in my church's choir this Sunday! What the fuck am I going to DO?!?!) ^o^

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    1. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by Memnos · · Score: 1

      You can always fucking turn fucking SAILOR-MODE off if you just press the little fucking Angel key on your keyboard, the one with the Angel with the shit-eating grin as its symbol. Christ.

      And thanks for the perceptive observations as well. (Yes, I just pressed the key.)

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    2. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      You can always fucking turn fucking SAILOR-MODE off if you just press the little fucking Angel key on your keyboard, the one with the Angel with the shit-eating grin as its symbol. Christ.

      And thanks for the perceptive observations as well. (Yes, I just pressed the key.)

      I'm using an 82-key keyboard; there are no angels on it anywhere, I did a web-search, (I refuse to call it "googling,") to see what key-sequence would get me that, and it turns out it doesn't translate to anything I can reproduce on my keyboard. But I just so love the feel and clicking sound of the original IBM keyboard that I refuse to give it up, so you'll just have to fucking deal with it. I can make THESE though...

      ;-p

      Hope you like. Also, I'm not sure I really want to turn SAILOR-MODE off. There's a certain catharsis to be had screaming FUCK FUCKEDY MOTHERFUCKING FUCK!!! at the top of my lungs. I'll omit the details, for reasons that would only be obvious if I included the details... which I can't, though I can't explain why... so, sorry, can't. But if I did, I'm confident you'd agree, then say, "oh, and you probably should have kept those details to yourself," to which I'd reply, "I KNOW!" Hehehe...

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    3. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      Or simply don't have so much child porn.

      The problem with that logic is when the guy at FBI-Informant Squad gets paid each time he turns someone in. So even if your computer HAD none going IN, that doesn't mean it won't end up ACQUIRING some THERE, which they will then claim it HAD when you brought it in, and for which you'll suffer, and they'll pocket the cash. It's called corruption, and it stinks. Bit like getting pulled over by someone who needs to bust three more people before his shift ends, and then he tosses the bag of weed and the unregistered handgun with the serial numbers filed off into your trunk, then "finds" them there. Corruption is why you can BE innocent, and still get fucked. It's also why we "can't have nice things."

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  3. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So repair techs had a number for the FBI to call if they find kiddie porn on a computer. Are they just supposed to ignore it?
    What's the issue here?

    1. Re:And? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue is that to some people it looks like illegal search and seizure. It looks that way to them because Geek Squad employees were getting paid by law enforcement and law enforcement was writing up warrants after the fact. And argument could be made that because money was being exchanged for services, it's no longer a case of private citizens reporting illegal behavior to appropriate channels but an effective arm of law enforcement being paid to go fishing for evidence without going through a judge first.

      Does it hold water? Probably not. I'll add that in many cases, private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff. Teachers in both private and public schools, physicians at private practices, and the like are required to report child abuse and child pornography. I believe (and someone who knows better please correct me if I'm wrong) patient-doctor confidentiality is waived in case of child abuse or pornography as well.

    2. Re:And? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Presumably with the $50 incentive a Geek Squad informant would be searching for things that have nothing to do with the reason they were given access to the computer. The issue is stumbling across porn versus being paid a bounty for finding it.

    3. Re:And? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll add that in many cases, private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff. Teachers in both private and public schools, physicians at private practices, and the like are required to report child abuse and child pornography.

      I'm still waiting for the criminal indictments for the mandatory reporters at MSU for the women's gymnastics scandal. I believe that Michigan's mandatory reporting laws must cover people who had reason to suspect that something was not right with Larry Nassar.

      So far, I haven't read anything about the people who should have reported Nassar being indicted. Why not?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:And? by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The repair techs were being paid to actively search through the computers and report anything "suspicious".

      There is a difference between a plumber coming to fix your john and stumbling across a heap of porn magazines under the sink, and the same guy being paid to ruffle through all unlocked cabinets and drawers in your house while you're not looking.

      Not to mention that if they were being paid by incident, they would have an incentive to plant such material. That alone should scream "reasonable doubt" to any sensible juror.

    5. Re:And? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like the other guys said, it’s a 4th Amendment issue. The cops can’t just hire people to do their (otherwise illegal, constitutionally prohibited) searches for them. They should be trying to obey the Constitution and protect our rights, not trying to work around them.

      It’s up to the courts whether this sort of workaround is permissible. Courts have to make very clear rules.

      Unless Geek Squad is legally required to report what they find, and unless they disclose that they will be searching for contraband, it’s a clear breach of trust on Geek Squad's part. Some of Geek Squad's customers probably deserve to have their trust breached. But the FBI was paying Geek Squad, so Geek Squad had a direct, corrupt incentive to breach every customer's trust.

    6. Re:And? by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff"

      Please cite the specific federal law(s) you are referring to. "Private citizens", in general, are under no such obligation.

      And yes, these claims do "hold water", though you are likely to lose one way or another if you test them. Might doesn't make right.

    7. Re:And? by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another, possibly bigger, issue is that you've now given geek squad members incentive to plant evidence in exchange for cash.

      How do you prove chain of custody in these cases? How much do you trust that near minimum wage "tech" from best buy who now gets paid every time he "finds" something on a computer?

    8. Re:And? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Everyone who interacted with them. Every voluntary interaction between people has an inherent level of trust.

      Geek Squad betrayed their customers in a corrupt way by taking money in exchange for reporting on the results of searched computers. If they just stumble on some shit and report it because they feel they have a duty to protect children or something, that's different because it’s an act of conscience. Geek Squad sold their customers out for cash (cf. Judas).

    9. Re:And? by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Why are they using forensic tools to look for deleted files in the first place if NOT to look for anything that resembles incriminating evidence so they can get the 'informant' pay?

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    10. Re:And? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who knows. Jerry Sandusky brought down a whole lot of people at Penn State and the university president lost his job and got a misdemeanor conviction. Took a while for it all to percolate up to the top.

    11. Re:And? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      The requirements on teachers and physicians are usually state laws. You are probably correct that people who have no relationship with the federal government have no obligation to report crimes they witness to the FBI.

    12. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please cite the specific federal law(s) you are referring to. "Private citizens", in general, are under no such obligation.

      As you already know when you asked your weaselly question, there is no federal law for mandatory reporting of criminal actions, (except in specific industries, like banking, I think) However, virtually all states have mandatory reporting of child abuse required of specific professions like the ones GP mentioned. In 6 states computer technicians are required to notify law enforcement if they find cp - which is evidence of child abuse - on customer devices. The case mentioned in TFA concerned a California physician and California is one of the six states requiring computer techs to report cp if found.

    13. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy. Mens rea does not apply to possession of child pornography. Simply possessing it is a crime, whether you knew about it or not, whether someone planted the evidence or not. If the technician will testify that he found it on the computer owned by the defendant, then that person is going to jail for a long time and will be a sex offender for life even if that child pornography was not on his computer until he handed it to Geek Squad.

      This is what you get when Congress passes "think of the children" laws. Who is going to complain about tightening the screws on people who have child porn? Nobody - even if there is collateral legal damage.

    14. Re:And? by sit1963nz · · Score: 2

      And were they paid to install FBI backdoors too ? And Americans think they are better than China... maybe they are but each passing day the gap closes.

    15. Re:And? by green1 · · Score: 2

      The person would not be in possession of it until the computer is returned to them, which is unlikely to happen as the FBI take it for evidence.

      That said, proving your innocence is near impossible, and make no mistake, this is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. And even if you do manage to prove innocence, your life will still be ruined.

      But "think of the children" indeed.

    16. Re:And? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      It's still corrupt to do it for cash. And still a breach of trust. The written policy may help protect them from legal recourse.

    17. Re:And? by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Ostensibly to recover all the family photos, work docs, etc that got deleted accidentally.

    18. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a plumber coming to fix your john and stumbling across a heap of porn magazines under the sink,

      I saw this and went "Dude, how old are you? Who the hell has porn magazines anymore? And hidden underneath their sink?". Then I saw your low uid. I apologize.

    19. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hahaha no. If this were the case there would be no FBI in the appropriate department to investigate because they all would be in jail for possession. Along with them would be Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Drop Box, and any other cloud provider. Stop spreading FUD. All child porn laws in the US require proof that the defendant "knowingly viewed or possessed".

      State v Jensen, 173 P.3d 1046 (Ariz.App. 2008)
      Barton v State, 648 S.E.2d 660 (Ga.App. 2007)

      United States v Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997)
      "trial court erred in not instructing that the defendant must know that the hard drive and disks contained child pornography to be guilty of possession of pornography"

    20. Re: And? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      In Soviet America innocence is proof of guilt!

    21. Re:And? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      So repair techs had a number for the FBI to call if they find kiddie porn on a computer. Are they just supposed to ignore it?
      What's the issue here?

      Yes, they are supposed to ignore it. They are not supposed to look at anything on the devices they repair except technical stuff. No browsing into picture folders and especially not opening any files.

      Anything else is an invasion of privacy.

      You could say that anyone storing illegal stuff in plain sight on their computer is asking for it. Free encryption software has been around for ages.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    22. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It’s up to the courts whether this sort of workaround is permissible. Courts have to make very clear rules.

      If cops are an agent of the state because they accept cash for the task of engaging in law enforcement, then Geek Squad employees doing the same are doing the same. Yes, technically the courts have to specify it, just like literally every court case goes through the motions of that established fact. The notion that "courts have to make very clear rules" is pretty absurd, though. Courts don't make rules. Legislatures do. Legislatures have made it very clear that "the government" can't engage in unreasonable search and seizure. There's nothing reasonable in paying for every computer that comes into a repair shop to be searched because most computers aren't involved in a crime*.

      Unless Geek Squad is legally required to report what they find, and unless they disclose that they will be searching for contraband, it’s a clear breach of trust on Geek Squad's part.

      To me, it's still very questionable if mandatory reporting laws are legal. Those who are accessories or conspire to a commit a crime, I can understand why they should be held liable for them. But requiring that individuals be on the look out for crimes, even if it's a limited subset of people, still speaks of turning those people into unpaid agents of the government. Part of being a cop is deciding if a crime warrants arrest (and hence punishment) and prosecutors are generally granted leeway as well--although obviously sufficiently egregious abusive of this authority can be punished. To mandate it, though, actually makes individuals not official part of government at an even worse position because they inherently have to overreport or be committing a crime. So, even in the most generous interpretation and intent of the law, it makes a morally and legally considerate person worse off than without the law because it inherently presents people to one government (the Federal government) where another government (the State government) finds an activity perfectly legal--marijuana use comes to mind. If that isn't inherently oppressive, I don't know what is.

      But, yea, this is obvious a breach of trust on Geek Squad's part. Having said that, given that there are mandatory reporting laws, the desire to overreport to CYOA, and generally the differing morality of people, I would never turn over a computer to Geek Squad or the like without removing any storage**. Regardless of my general mistrust, that should not be used as a justification for Geek Squad's actions.

      * There's a probably valid discussion here about the over illegalization of things that it's almost a given you're violating some crime, but the purposes of this discussion we're going to presume that in a meaningful way and in a sense that's not merely a fishing expedition to try to incriminate everyone, that most computers aren't being used for the things Geek Squad was requested to look for. So, the "unreasonable" standard holds.

      ** Excluding internal flash/NAND/NOR for BIOS or the like. For an Android device? Unless I was actually able to be present during their entire diagnostic process and witness at all times to their access, i wouldn't hand it over without externally flashing the whole internal flash. Or I'd just smash the thing and junk it because the risk is too high*** and the cost of devices is so low.

      *** Got some ROMs dumped by you from your legitimate NES collection? You can still be sued (and win) and be fucked over much more than even a top of the line $1000 device.

    23. Re:And? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Not nice, the lack of such a legal mandate.
      In places you can be charged with complicity if you knowingly allow a criminal act without reporting.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    24. Re:And? by Teun · · Score: 1

      +1 interesting.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    25. Re:And? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I think that is a very valid argument and the subject of trust runs through the whole surveillance state issue.

    26. Re:And? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Eons ago, when I was young, people had to take pictures on "film" that they had to take in to a drugstore for "developing." Employees at these places were under similar orders to watch for child porn in the pictures they processed. Some spotty high schooler at Walgreens therefore had an actionable first opinion on whether or not those snapshots of your one-year-old in the bathtub constituted child porn. People would occasionally get hauled in for embarrassing interview sessions before being able to clear their names.

      When it comes to computer files, that's just one obvious line of inquiry. What if Geek Squad Guy sees he thinks is a double sets of tax files, or "hacker scripts" or a menu from a marijuana store in the legalized next state over?

    27. Re:And? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Laws do require people to report stuff when they find it in the course of their normal activities, but that's quite different from giving people a monetary incentive to search through private property looking for evidence of a crime. It would be like paying a doctor to do unnecessary and covert drugs tests just so that they can report users to the cops.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:And? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK when this has happened they generally rely on being able to show that the evidence could not reasonably have been planted due to thinks like date stamps, extended browsing history over several months or years, and corroborated with other devices found at the owner's house. In the UK they can also ask your ISP for the logs they are legally required to keep tracking which domains connect to.

      People have argued successfully in the past that things like images in the browser cache may never have appeared on screen or been requested by the user, and that single images or files are not enough evidence on their own. Of course, by that point their spouse has left them, they lost their job and even their family thinks they are paedo, and they sold their house to pay for their defence, and it's taken 3 years from the point of arrest...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:And? by Robert+Goatse · · Score: 1

      The image was in unallocated disk space so it would presumably take "expensive and sophisticated" file carving tools to retrieve it. I could see if the image was visible upon casual browsing, but it appears that the Geek Squad/FBI went way over in locating these files and issuing warrants after the fact.

    30. Re:And? by Passman · · Score: 1

      Easy. Mens rea does not apply to possession of child pornography. Simply possessing it is a crime, whether you knew about it or not, whether someone planted the evidence or not. If the technician will testify that he found it on the computer owned by the defendant, then that person is going to jail for a long time and will be a sex offender for life even if that child pornography was not on his computer until he handed it to Geek Squad.

      This is what you get when Congress passes "think of the children" laws. Who is going to complain about tightening the screws on people who have child porn? Nobody - even if there is collateral legal damage.

      And how in the FUCK do you define this scenario as "easy" for the accused? If simply possessing child porn is a crime, then it is EASY to plant shit like that on someone's computer and fuck their life over. Even trying to prove your innocence would be VERY costly.

      Idiot.

      Considering this, I'm actually rather surprised that some purveyor or consumer of kiddie porn hasn't preemptively hired a bot net or two already to spread kiddie porn far and wide.

      --
      Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
    31. Re:And? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Of course, by that point their spouse has left them, they lost their job and even their family thinks they are paedo, and they sold their house to pay for their defence, and it's taken 3 years from the point of arrest...

      Not to mention that nobody will ever hire them again, people whisper and cross the street when they walk by, many businesses refuse to serve them, etc.

      And that of course is the real problem with the whole system. No matter how innocent you are, your life will be ruined anyway. It's really guilty until proven guilty. And the worst part about it is, that it doesn't even take that much to frame someone for this. If you really don't like someone, it's a surefire way to ruin their life (now there is a risk that it could backfire and ruin both of your lives, but it's at least guaranteed to ruin theirs, and some people will consider that worth the bargain.)

    32. Re:And? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      At least we have the right to be forgotten now. It's possible to recover something of your life by preventing employers from finding that information when they google your name.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:And? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      The problem is if it's your personal computer, to which only you have access, you're not going to be able to provide a good case that you didn't know unless it's something like a few thumbnails in deleted browser cache files. You can't just say "uh well I didn't know there were 5,000 pics sorted by age and sex act on my desktop, prove I did!". No, the presumption is you knew and it's a high barrier to prove otherwise. Internet providers forward all reports of CP to law enforcement; odds are you didn't do that (definitely not when it's planted), so you can't claim that exemption. Not to mention, making the argument you didn't know requires rejecting all plea offers, trading a certain 3-5 years or so for a chance at maybe convincing a bunch of people to get past their pedo-hysteria and find you not guilty, and if you fail, it will be 15+ years.
      Before making 'but technically' comments like that, maybe look into how these type of cases actually play out in our legal system for 99% of defendants.

    34. Re:And? by Mr3vil · · Score: 1

      Given Geek Squad's past history of technicians scouring drives for customer nude photos... it doesn't surprise me that there might still be a bit of that culture lingering and techs going well beyond the purview of what is necessary to retrieve data. I never did that when I was doing data retrievals freelance. I just cared about finding as many files as I could even with un-delete utilities. The only thing that would give me reason to call Law Enforcement would be file names and directories at which point I stop what I'm doing and leave it to LEOs to handle.

    35. Re:And? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Either that, or you're copying files off the hard drive before wiping the OS... and you see some questionable filenames flash across the file copy dialog.

      A long time ago, I worked at a place where an idiot got fired for something similar after running a file copy while on a Remote Assistance session with the help desk.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    36. Re:And? by kaatochacha · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work in education. We signed a statement, as part of our training, that holds us legally liable to report child abuse, child pornography, etc. we can be sued/fired if it occurs, we knew about it, and didn't report it. It's a California State Law, however, not federal
      I think the point is, there are people outside law enforcement who are required to report certain things. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/a...

    37. Re:And? by green1 · · Score: 1

      a) only some countries have that right
      b) I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't 100% effective.

    38. Re:And? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      if it's your personal computer, to which only you have access, you're not going to be able to provide a good case that you didn't know unless it's something like a few thumbnails in deleted browser cache files.

      What if, hypothetically speaking, the computer's been in someone else's physical possession for a few days? Perhaps at a repair shop or something?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. I could have sworn.... by diesel66 · · Score: 2

    I could have sworn that I read about this at least 5 years ago, maybe more. Isn't this rather old news?

    --



    eleven plus two / twelve plus one
    1. Re:I could have sworn.... by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn that I read about this at least 5 years ago, maybe more. Isn't this rather old news?

      Many people's memory doesn't stretch back for more than 2 weeks. A refresher course in privacy rights and Constitution issues, for them, is never too soon.

    2. Re:I could have sworn.... by john+of+sparta · · Score: 1

      you are correct, sir. well played.

    3. Re:I could have sworn.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/03/12/0358242/how-the-fbi-used-geek-squad-to-increase-secret-public-surveillance

      Pretty sure this has come up multiple times....

    4. Re:I could have sworn.... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This case relates purely to proper process of law. A computer touched by a Geek Squad member can only produce on thing, tainted evidence and nothing more. Straight up tainted by leaving the persons individual control and now be controlled by someone who for reward and not as a court appointed officer, breaks the law by looking at material they by law are not allowed to and then well, who knows what else they do, they are getting a financial reward, so placing evidence is a reasonable expectation. You do not look for anything related to computer maintenance by looking at the contents of data files, you run a scan using software.

      So interesting, the Fucking Bloody Idiots actually where accessories after the fact and the evidence they received was evidence of computer crime by Geek Squad which they failed to prosecute or inform the victims and for which they are most emphatically criminally are liable, interesting. This should actually require in US terms, a congressional investigation because it is a major crime, the mass tainted and corruption of evidence and the hiding of crimes, to enhance the careers of select corrupt FBI agents.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:I could have sworn.... by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Agreed. And the previous posting had more information.

    6. Re:I could have sworn.... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      "FBI asks computer shops to help fight cybercrime" (Feb 5, 2004)
      http://the.honoluluadvertiser....
      Over the years different news about computer repair shops did show a pattern.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:I could have sworn.... by ichthus · · Score: 1

      It was on Slashdot a year ago, almost to the day.

      --
      sig: sauer
    8. Re:I could have sworn.... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Basically you're saying these perverts don't read /. else they would have been smarter.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    9. Re:I could have sworn.... by Mr3vil · · Score: 1

      Seriously, exactly what you said. I'm sick and tired of being accused of defending pedophiles when I raise constitutional objections to certain Law Enforcement actions. I want criminals brought to justice, not released because of a technicality, or law enforcement got lazy and couldn't follow the law. I also want my rights protected. The desire to effectively prosecute criminals and protect constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive. P.S. In more polite company I sometimes refer to the FBI as the Feckless Bunch of Idiots.

  5. Paid Informant by tomhath · · Score: 1

    How is this different from any other information provided by a paid informant? Or are they arguing that all paid informants are illegal? What about unpaid?

    1. Re:Paid Informant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is this different from any other information provided by a paid informant? Or are they arguing that all paid informants are illegal? What about unpaid?

      they are subverting the search warrant process because agents of the police are conducting illegal and unwarranted searches and then the cops invent a phony excuse for a search warrant

      and NO they are not arguing that all paid informants are illegal, they are saying that evidence must be gathered according to the law

    2. Re:Paid Informant by alexo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question is about the methods that information was obtained by.

      If a police officer is not allowed to search your hard drive without at least a probable cause (and possibly a warrant), then they should not be allowed to pay somebody to do it for them.

    3. Re:Paid Informant by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      If the FBI paid informants to get access to evidence and did not disclose this to a defendant it is a violation of due process.

      At the very least they created a set of incentives for evidence to be planted and have not disclosed it willingly.

    4. Re:Paid Informant by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Paying an informant for repeating what they overhear is fine, you have no 4th amendment right to expect privacy there. Paying an informant to search your house to look for evidence, seems iffy. If paying the informant makes them an agent of the state as opposed to a private citizen, it violates the 4th amendment.

      To sum up, think of a paid informant as the equivalent of an undercover police officer. They can gather a lot of information, but they also have rules on what they can gather. Or, if that's not the status quo, that seems to be what the EFF is arguing. Not sure which, IANAL.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. Surprise by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    I could see how some detestable people would try to Cathy Newman the argument into, "so you're saying that you want to protect criminals?" There also was no economic motivation to Best Buy for them to protect client privacy from the government. Why would anyone assume that they would act any different?

  7. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?

    What kind of wings? Regular wings, or buffalo wings?

    The correct answer, of course, is always Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor, DAMN! but it pays to be specific, you might want Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor with a Lemon Twist, DAMN! for buffalo wings.

  8. dupe by swell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We did this last year it seems:
    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
    and
    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
    But hey, it's still interesting

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:dupe by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

      Came to say this. Does the outrage machine need a fill-up or something?

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  9. Way ahead of them by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And that, my friends, is why I've never brought my kitty-porn-laden computers into Geek Squad for service! Well, that, and the fact that they know a lot less about computers than I do!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Way ahead of them by alexo · · Score: 1

      And that, my friends, is why I've never brought my kitty-porn-laden computers into Geek Squad for service! Well, that, and the fact that they know a lot less about computers than I do!

      Arguably, they know less about computers than your grandma does. Possibly even less than your cat.

    2. Re:Way ahead of them by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      They don't have to know much about computers to realize if they give their computer to someone who isn't 'a friend' then there is a good chance they could be done tomorrow. Any how it is probably mostly kiddie porn any way so it's a good thing.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Way ahead of them by tquasar · · Score: 1

      My son built his first computer when he was 15 years old (young). Then he built the one I use today. A tower of power.

    4. Re:Way ahead of them by fafalone · · Score: 1

      The problem here is when you bring your non-kiddy-porn-laden computer in, and the minimum wage tech knows he can double his weekly paycheck if he just happens to stumble upon your definitely-already-existed cache of CP, which the FBI has actively encouraged him to look for in violation of the service agreement (unless you're specifically requesting a service that involves them looking at your pictures).

    5. Re:Way ahead of them by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      And that, my friends, is why I've never brought my kitty-porn-laden computers into Geek Squad for service! Well, that, and the fact that they know a lot less about computers than I do!

      Please, won't someone think of the kittens?

    6. Re:Way ahead of them by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What can i say... my cat is a perv! (Although how he manages to work the keyboard is beyond me.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    What kind of wings? Regular wings, or buffalo wings?

    If you have to ask, then you're part of the problem.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Hm by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I don't get why people would send their PC to Geeksquad if it had stuff on it that the FBI would be interested in.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Hm by green1 · · Score: 1

      Was the material there before, or after it got to Geeksquad? Those guys aren't paid much, and if the FBI wants to top up their paycheque I wouldn't be surprised if the occasional file slipped on to a customer's computer....

    2. Re:Hm by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I don't get why people would send their PC to Geeksquad if it had stuff on it that the FBI would be interested in.

      Maybe you should go out and meet the full breadth of people, like drop-outs who can barely hold a minimum wage job or live on welfare. They probably don't even understand the danger and even if they did they're incapable of fixing the computer themselves and can't afford to throw it away. That is if they even knew they were breaking the law and still remember doing it. You'd be surprised how many have only barely managed to learn some vocational skills while everything else is a blur.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Hm by gravewax · · Score: 1

      never underestimate the stupidity of people. I work with security teams at various organisations and on a daily basis they are pulling people up on security breaches for browsing porn or other material at work and regularly some are referred to police. Yet despite the education, the warnings, the contract they sign, hell the bloody login screen explicitly tells them everything is monitored and logged they continue to get caught. Some people are beyond help.

  12. A Best Buy For The FBI by Humbubba · · Score: 1
    We knew Geek Squad is a sleazy business. Regularly selling out their customers to the FBI is the cherry on top.

    https://consumerist.com/2011/06/10/9-confessions-of-a-former-geek-squad-geek/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Squad#Controversy

    https://geek-squad.pissedconsumer.com/review.html

    https://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/computer-repair/geek-squad-in-quakertown-pa-160210889/reviews-and-complaints

    https://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/best_buy_geek_squad.html

  13. Geek Squad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A guy I work with applied there. They forgot to have him sign a NDS and asked him if he would be willing to place viruses on people computers that didn't have any, before they picked them up.
    He said absolutely not, and then they tried to get him to sign the NDS. They tried to prevent him from leaving when he refused. They kept him there over an hour refusing to let him leave.
    He threatened to call the police and have the manager arrested for imprisonment.
    So beware of Geek Squad, your computer is probably safer with someone else.

  14. Goes with the territory. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    If you have stuff on your computer you don't want to share with the repair guys, then encrypt it or delete it, because there is nothing else going to stop them from seeing it.
     
    One of my university buddies worked at a repair job; not Geek Squad, but the local mega-computer-store equivalent. He worked a lot of nights and weekends and often had the repair shop to himself. Any time a machine came in for repair he would run a boot CD with a script to hoover up any and all .jpg and video files and copy them to an external hard drive. In two summers and a year of weekends, he amassed the most amazing amateur porn collection you could imagine. He said about every 3rd machine had a secret stash of porn, mostly boring stuff from the net, which he didn't bother with, but about 1 in 10 had homemade pics or videos which he kept.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Goes with the territory. by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      One of my university buddies worked at a repair job

      Yeah, right. It was you, wasn't it, you sick bastard?

    2. Re:Goes with the territory. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      I wish. My summer jobs involved things like sliding sheets of plywood into a dryer. One every 7 seconds, for 8 hours a day. (Not saying I ain't a sick bastard, every now and then).

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    3. Re:Goes with the territory. by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

      Your friend should be charged with computer crimes, preferably one per picture and rot in a cell for a very very long time. This is a gross abuse of trust, which is why I blame the techs for this incident, not the FBI... it's no secret the FBI will 'work with' criminals to catch other criminals. So I don't really blame them, they just saw some low hanging fruit and pounced. The techs who root around customers computers are the dirty ones who make us all look bad and untruthworthy.

      We need HIPAA laws regarding comptuer/smartphone repair shops.

  15. 3 Letter Agencies have to justify their budgets by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Not enough terrorists running around so busting guys looking at cp is a cheap and easy way to justify their multibillion dollar budgets.

    1. Re:3 Letter Agencies have to justify their budgets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not enough terrorists running around so busting guys looking at cp is a cheap and easy way to justify their multibillion dollar budgets.

      Using a 3rd party to manufacture evidence makes that budget justifying work even easier...

  16. Morons by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    If you have a computer, that you take in for repair that has ILLEGAL CONTENT...then you DESERVE to be caught dumbass!

    1. Re:Morons by jetkust · · Score: 1

      Even if you didn't put it there and had no idea it existed?

  17. Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government can't search your stuff without a warrant.
    "The government" meaning, of course, people working for the government. It's unconstitutional for people working for the government, or on the government's behalf, to randomly search through your stuff.

    Digging through YOUR stuff. They didn't find the CP by searching computers marked "this computer contains CP", they looked through everybody's pictures hoping to find something good, either CP or something that they enjoyed seeing.

    Because the FBI was PAYING them, they are working on the government's behalf. The Fourth Amendment applies when the government pays people to do searches for them.

    1. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, by handing your computer over you're consenting to have it REPAIRED, not combed through. If you call out a plumber to fix your kitchen sink you don't consent to having him rifle through your underwear drawer in your bedroom, even if you haven't locked the bedroom door while he's in your house.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by Falconnan · · Score: 2

      It is not consent to look through anything not required for the repair. Automated tools don't generally reveal media contents. Also, as a previous poster noted, chain of custody is really hard to prove here, and there's a financial incentive to "find" something, and as paid government agents (which in this case they were) specific consent to a legal search, or a warrant, is needed. It's a bad precedent to find any other way, even if the truth is probable guilt. That the FBI would get a warrant after the fact shows bad faith on the part of that office, too. Even if their desire to catch bad people was sincere, they played this quite poorly.

    3. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by sabbede · · Score: 1
      It's not a sign of bad faith, it's a necessity. The FBI gets a call that there is kiddie porn on someone's computer, they get a warrant to search it. They find it and pay the informant a reward.

      It's not a new program or even a new idea. It's been done since before computers were invented and is entirely constitutional.

    4. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      I've never used Geek Squad. Is there something you have to sign when you get your equipment repaired? There very well may be a consent clause in there. Since I'm not a GS customer and I'm also not a lawyer, I don't know, but most agreements these days seem to basically say that you waive all of your legal and human rights.

    5. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Somebody elsewhere in the comments said the contract allows them to search through the drive for anything relevant technically to solving the issue.

      It would be hard to argue that searching for *.jpg, or browsing C:\PRIVATE\WORK STUFF\STAY OUT\REALLY\NUDE PICS\ was technically relevant.

    6. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by Calydor · · Score: 1

      But it is. It's in the house.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    7. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      By handing your computer over to Geek Squad you are consenting to a search.

      First of all, you are consenting to have your computer repaired, not to have its contents searched and reviewed. There are privacy issues with technicians accessing user files at all---unless specifically requested as part of the service, of course. E.g., when the customer says, "make sure Outlook has all my mails in it when you're done", then it's OK. Otherwise, no.

      Second, if Geek Squad is getting paid for looking through the drives and reporting to the FBI, they may be acting as agents of the government. This is a legal distinction that the courts will have to decide, and it may get some people out of prison time. There is a difference between "informant" and "agent", including the applicability of the 4th Amendment.

      This is the kind of news I hate. The kind where you read it, and you realize everybody involved is being an asshole.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    8. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      That presumes that the informant was not asked ahead to do the things. By all means, yes please report these guys. But the specific arrangement of acting as a government agent and gaining access to a computer without a warrant is the question. A private citizen finding and reporting in due course of their day is a different thing, as is an authorized investigation of an individual ahead of time. The rules get pretty dicey in this range, but any agent acting on behalf of the government is similarly limited (fine details likely do change the outcomes) in what they can and cannot do. While not a lawyer, I do seem to recall cases like this hitting the SCOTUS a few times. Splitting hairs is a thing on this level.

    9. Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Yup, and the Court has approved the practice. It's simply a reward paid to an citizen for providing evidence of a crime. A Best Buy employee isn't an agent of the FBI just because they get a reward, they would have to be directed to search a specific person's computer for evidence to be considered an agent of the government.

  18. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every time I think I've clicked a story that no terminal TDS-sufferer could possibly twist into a Trump rant, I'm proven wrong.

    If only we could harness this energy and put it to use for the betterment of the world.

  19. Re:Isn't This Old News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You were told to ignore everything but kiddie porn because kiddie porn is a criminal offense whereas your example of a Tomb.Raider crack was ultimately a copyright violation. No matter how much effort the content industry puts into framing 'piracy' in terms of bits and bytes as an actual crime, the law says otherwise.

    The argument against the idea that stupid people deserve everything they get is that it isn't a crime to be stupid.

    Another argument is that 10 free yet guilty people is better than on innocent person in jail - what if you were that innocent person in jail?

    A third argument is that regardless if one agrees or not, the Bill of Rights is actually the law of the land. If the Constitution needs changing, there are specific procedures for doing just that. Until those procedures are followed and the Constitution is actually amended, the law is, regardless of various personal moral or ethical opinions, is the law.

  20. 2016 called by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    They want their headline back.

    yeah, I know: "but it's important and bears repeating herp derp"

    Fuck off; it's outrage porn. The same FBI that you're hating on with this headline you defend as a pillar of democracy when Trump shits on them. We're literally living in 1984. The only actual solution is to de-fund them and you're constitutionally incapable is even considering such blasphemy, so just live in it; you have the government you deserve.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:2016 called by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      The same FBI that you're hating on with this headline you defend as a pillar of democracy when Trump shits on them.

      Me personally? I don't blame the FBI, they're just doing their job. I blame the technicians. They're the one who's BREAKING laws by searching people's computers without any due process of law, or respect for privacy. Go after them. And go after them hard, they're the one who'll be hurt the most by litigation. FBI will just shrug, and this behavior will continue. I swear, you lock up a couple technicians and make a lot of noise about it happening, no technician will ever do this again, for any amount of money.

  21. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    No... It's vodka, not honey:)
    Thanks for letting me vent!
    Cheers

    Now... To find me a pussy to grab!

  22. Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, it was shameful the way we rioted in the streets when Obama was elected and beat up homeless people because the supported him.

  23. chain of evidence issues by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    chain of evidence issues would really mess this up + in court best buy would have to say how there network is setup give out there inside procedures without any of the top secret BS also need to talk about the overseas remote support

  24. Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Oh look - the Soros troll is also a police state apologist. What a surprise!

    You'll be OK, buddy. It gets better.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "What kind of wings? Regular wings, or buffalo wings?"

    Special order. Only right wings.

  26. Re:How many of them were RUSSIANS!!!!!?!?!?! by Teun · · Score: 1

    One thing is pretty sure they are not billionaires with huge egos and dubious hair.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  27. No wings for me thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The left wings are too bitter. And the right wings are too stupid.

  28. Greed and violation of trust by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    As the title infers, this is a gross display of greed and violation of trust a computer repair technician should have with their clients.

    This is that happens when you industrialize computer repair. Not a good idea. And SHAME on any technician who sells dirt on customers to the FBI. You should disbarred from computer repair. I do some repair work myself and privacy is a huge thing to me. Believe it or not, I do not root around people computers looking for dirty pictures or anything else for that matter. I just fix what needs fixing and give it back, unviolated other than what was necessary to make repairs.

    Those employees of Geek Squad that did this, you are dirt. I hope you lose your job and I hope your company fails. This so wrong on so many levels. And it's a violation of law, too, as many others have already pointed out in other threads. But the shame and scummy-label needs to be branded to these people's foreheads.

    Someone suggested you shouldn't take your computer to a repair outfit if its broken. That is broken. You should take it, and you should be assured your privacy will be guarded with the utmost discretion. We need HIPAA laws enacted for computer/smartphone repair outfits. This behavior needs to stop immediately, and those found continuing to sell "evidence" to the FBI need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of existing laws.

    1. Re:Greed and violation of trust by imidan · · Score: 1

      Even in the case of activities covered under HIPAA, doctors and other medical people have a duty to report suspicions about things like sexual abuse. I don't have a big problem with Geek Squad turning in pedos if they happen to find kiddie porn.

      However, I did computer repair work for many years, and I have never systematically searched a client's computer for porn or whatever. I have found it inadvertently--for example, one guy had a virus delete everything on his hard disk, and as I was going through and recovering his data files, I couldn't help but notice the dirty emails he was sending to his mistress. But I just did the work and gave the computer back. That guy's shit was none of my business.

  29. There's creepy, and industrial strength creepy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who finds this story several orders of magnitude creepier than yesterday's revelation that some ad-supported movie ticket app tracks the user's trip to and from the theater?

  30. Fuck both of them by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Fuck the FBI and Fuck Best Buy

  31. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by CSMoran · · Score: 1

    What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?

    Diethyl ether. Pace yourself.

    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  32. Not really news by crypticedge · · Score: 1

    This was well known about 10 years ago when Best Buy admitted as much right after a few high profile child porn arrests that stemmed from it.

    Pretty much every IT professional will report you if you send them a computer to work on that's filled with child porn or snuff porn.

  33. Old News by CIStud · · Score: 1

    This is old news

  34. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Does this mean there is no such thing as "geek squad - client privilege"? I'm pretty sure you can expect to see me drunk on CNN tomorrow, talking about how I'm not going to comply with a grand jury subpoena in this witch hunt. In fact, I'm going to start drinking now so I'm ready. What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?

    Thunderbird/Thunderboyd.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  35. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by budgenator · · Score: 1

    What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?

    Tequila. don't ask how I know!
     

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  36. Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    We ARE putting to the betterment of the world
    By moving the VRWC into defense mode, we are demonstrating the ignorance of the fake news (Faux Noise) machine!

  37. Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Nope. Not one single LIBERAL riot when tRump stole the election despite 2.86 million MORE votes for sanity.

  38. o_Oa by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    you got to be kinda dumb to trust geeksquad after all these years of stories. but it takes a special kind of dumb to be a child pornographer AND trust geeksquad.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion