Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Government Loses Bid To Force Facebook To Wiretap Messenger Calls (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the nice-try dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: U.S. government investigators have lost a case to force Facebook to wiretap calls made over its Messenger app. A joint federal and state law enforcement effort investigating the MS-13 gang had pushed a district court to hold the social networking giant in contempt of court for refusing to permit real-time listening in on voice calls. According to sources speaking to Reuters, the judge later ruled in Facebook's favor -- although, because the case remains under seal, it's not known for what reason. The case, filed in a Fresno, Calif. district court, centers on alleged gang members accused of murder and other crimes. The government had been pushing to prosecute 16 suspected gang members, but are said to have leaned on Facebook to obtain further evidence.

40 comments

  1. A reversal of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What, is "wiretap, but on a computer" any different than "wiretap on a physical phone line"?

    1. Re:A reversal of precedent by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      What, is "wiretap, but on a computer" any different than "wiretap on a physical phone line"?

      The difference is in the law. There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant, but there is no similar law covering software based messenging applications.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re: A reversal of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only different when they want it to be. It's like when they said email was searchable because it wasn't mail.

      Pretty messed up

    3. Re:A reversal of precedent by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Does the audio go through FB servers or do the FB servers just set up the call and the audio is P2P?

    4. Re:A reversal of precedent by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant

      The law is CALEA, and it requires Telecom companies when requested to technically Facilitate wiretapping communications flowing through the Telecom by providing lawful intercept access.

      If a messaging application provider such as Facebook is delivered a warrant for information, then they have to comply, BUT there's no law where Facebook can be ordered by a warrant to modify their systems to facilitate a wiretap ---- Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do: it would be totally legal for Facebook to have a non-wiretappable application and CALEA doesn't require them to modify it to help law enforcement.

    5. Re:A reversal of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.

      If Facebook convinced a judge that it was unreasonably difficult to provide a live tap of the conversations, that may explain why they won this court challenge.

    6. Re:A reversal of precedent by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.

      Not so! While it’s true that that’s normally the case, CALEA specifically precludes law enforcement from demanding changes. All they can do is demand that telecommunications services make use of their existing functionality.

      Wiretapping was already possible with POTS due to the way that switchboards operated, but Apple was able to push back with CALEA when the FBI demanded a backdoor after the San Bernardino shooting. Because Apple’s system was designed to prevent their own access to that data, the FBI was unable to compel Apple to make the desired changes, and the FBI dropped the case as soon as they saw that Apple intended to fight it in court since it would have set a precedent the FBI didn’t want.

    7. Re: A reversal of precedent by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "It's only different when they want it to be..."

      https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    8. Re:A reversal of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are halfway correct. The main fault in your argument is that the FBI didn't ask for help under the CALEA, they got a warrant under the All Writs Act, which predates the CALEA by about 200 years.

      The claims of Apple in the San Bernardino was that the request was unreasonable; that they were a third party (and thus not subject to the warrant); and that the FBI had to right to request the changes in the first place.

      Unfortunately, the case was dropped by the FBI as moot before any ruling was made - this means that there was NO precedent set, and the FBI can try again. In this case, we don't know why the judge ruled this way. So there may be a precedent... or not. It all depends on the judge.

      From a purely technical grounds, Apple in the San Bernardino case was wrong on almost every claim. They were easily capable of making the change requested (removing retry delays), their license agreement explicitly claims continued ownership of the software, and the history of the All Writs Act is pretty clear.

    9. Re: A reversal of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does "Title 2 but on a phone" differ from "Title 2 but on a computer network"?

    10. Re:A reversal of precedent by Mousit · · Score: 1

      ...Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do...

      Though speaking of Telecom, I'm particularly curious about a recent court ruling that decided VoIP was an "information service" not a phone service. Sort of curious if this means VoIP companies like Charter as mentioned in the linked article, or say Vonage, can now have their systems set up so as not to be able to "technically facilitate" a wiretap. I mean if Facebook isn't required to, and VoIP providers aren't providing Telecom anymore..

    11. Re:A reversal of precedent by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.

      If Facebook convinced a judge that it was unreasonably difficult to provide a live tap of the conversations, that may explain why they won this court challenge.

      A warrant by itself cannot require Facebook to do anything other than collect and turn over data. Absent some other statute, the All Writs Act might be used to force Facebook to change their systems but the government so far has not wanted to risk an adverse decision on that.

  2. Doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story can't really be about what they are saying it's about.

    What I really can't get over though is that gang members are using facebook messenger like it's a phone....probably via an app on their phone? This is the world we live in... God help us.

  3. WTF I love MS-13 now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah!! Fuck Blumpf!! Woohoo!!

  4. Zuck stands up for the undocumented immigrants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    MS-13 just come here for a better life!

  5. Reality check : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think Facebook is immune to government surveillance you are laughably naive.

    Parallel construction "chains of evidence" will be used and details of government surveillance will remain secret.

    MS-13 vs. the US Government ?

    The US government which has tapped undersea cables, which can see which brand of cigarette you're smoking from a satellite ? That's right, I said they can read the label on the cigarette, not the cigarette pack. The US government which can kill you using a drone controlled by a soldier sitting in a building halfway around the world from the location of the drone ? The US government which can destroy satellites using the X-37 which can loiter in space for months at a time ?

    Thanks for the laughs.

    1. Re:Reality check : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which can see which brand of cigarette you're smoking from a satellite ? That's right, I said they can read the label on the cigarette, not the cigarette pack.

      Overplayed your hand there. That's way past the diffraction limit.

    2. Re: Reality check : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook, Google, Apple all get paid Billions by three letter agencies to allow "wire tapping". These joke lawsuits are their latest trick to fool people into thinking their calls and chats aren't being monitored. Don't be a criminal, you'll get caught.

  6. fake news by astrofurter · · Score: 2

    OF COURSE everything you say on Faceboot Messenger is snooped. You have to be pretty credulous to believe otherwise.

  7. POTS has federal privacy laws, data does not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, the govt loves that data connections - cabled, wireless, cellular do not have the same protections as POTS phone calls which require a legal warrant to tap ... until now. Now that we've all learned to encrypt everything because we didn't have those privacy protections.

    BTW - email is like a postcard unless you encrypt the message outside the email program.

  8. Why courts, with national security letters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they care about any courts?
    There’s nothing stopping them from just waltzing in with some NSL, and tell them to do whatever the fuck any three-letter agency wants.
    I mean anyone who believes those agencies to be just your happy-clappy everything-is-fine best friends, is an utterly delusional black-eyer and anticonspiracy theorist beyond hope. The kind of nutjob that goes to party rallies to cheer with a big grin and sing a clappy song, brown-nosing everyone who asserts the remotest bit of dominance over him. The *pro*-establishment version of the bum on the street talking about flat earth and cubed time cubes.

  9. Yes! Cause national security letters don't exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the NSA leaks never happened. Three letter agencies are your best friends. No total surveillance of everything is happening. XKeyScore is imaginary. FiveEyes are your band of brothers. The camera is only for your safety. Believe in the democratic republican party. Sing a happy-clappy song about how all is well. Smile and cheer with that big banner, to support the carrot cause in front of you. You're not like the bum on the street corner. Your conspiracy theory is pro-establishment! That means it must be right, and you a not a nut! So you can sleep well, little baby, tonight, ... tomorrow, ... and the rest of what you call a life. Because all will be well.

  10. the US gov't loses against fb... by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

    the US is supposed...to be the most powerful on the planet...im glad i still own stock in fb...LOL

  11. So They Claim by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Facebook is somewhat less than respectable for privacy.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:So They Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't like the new encrypted mode?

  12. So it's safe to assume by bl968 · · Score: 1

    They probably actually have the cooperation of Facebook and did this whole case to make criminals think that it's safe to use facebook calls to communicate about their criminal enterprises :P

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
  13. Re: POOOOOOR WHITE NAZI FAGGOT BITCHES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telling that we cant discern a difference.

  14. Let's do, and say we didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's what you have here. Don't think for a second that they're not all up in your chats and messages.

  15. Fixed Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Activist Judge Protects Illegals in Braindead California

    You know God-Damned well that if this was a case against anyone but illegals, MS-13, or any other "protected" group, they'd have access to any information they wanted and the judge wouldn't say shit.

  16. Re:Net neutrality by Agripa · · Score: 1

    Now, choke your pride and thank Pai, because net neutrality, Obama style, brought CALEA to your ISP.

    ISPs have had to abide by CALEA and facilitate lawful intercept access since 2004; it has been a major pain for small ISPs. Bill Clinton signed CALEA into law in 1994.