Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

5 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.
  2. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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"