'Full-Pipe' FBI Internet Monitoring Questionably Legal 211
CNet is running a piece looking at what they refer to as a 'questionably legal' internet surveillance technique being employed by the FBI. In situations where isolating a specific IP address for a suspect is not possible, the FBI has taken to 'full-pipe' surveillance: all activity for a bank of IPs is recorded, and then data mining is used to attempt to isolate their target. The questionable legality of this situation results from a requirement that, under federal law, the FBI is required to use 'minimization'. The article describes it this way: "Federal law says that agents must 'minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception' and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations." Full-pipe surveillance would seem to abandon that principle in favor of getting to the target faster.
Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're doing something wrong, and they happen to catch you because they were looking for someone else -- then you shouldn't have been doing whatever it was you were doing.
That's fair.
What this means is that there are circumstances when ISPs cannot isolate IP addys or individuals, then it's ok to sniff the whole pipe. Why not? Why should the cops have to pussyfoot around BS red tape just to do their jobs?
Now if they do this when they had the opportunity to perform IP isolation calls properly -- then we have to apply a sober and proportionate response to that kind of human rights abuse. And that means we the people will have to have the particulars behind such cases when this method is employed, in full detail. Do you think we'll get it?
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:4, Insightful)
If they are UNABLE to isolate the IP addy, but they have a good idea which ISP it's coming from , then doing a "full pipe" exam would be the logical next step, and the smallest step they could take. This would fit into the "minimalize" concept. I don't see what the big deal is here.
Now, if they were doing "Full Pipe" exams without CAUSE (IE: just out fishing to see what they can catch) then I would have a problem with that. But with cause, this is perfectly legit and appropriate.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fair.
No, it isn't fair, it's unconstitutional. Any evidence gained in this way should not be admissible in court or be allowed to be used to gain further evidence. Saying "if you were doing something wrong, you deserved it" is the same as saying "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide." Both of these arguments are just dead wrong.
If the FBI has a tap on your neighbor's phone, they can't tap your phone and listen to your conversations too just because they happen to be in the neighborhood.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2, Insightful)
While I'm not inherently subject to these laws/conditions, living in the UK, I can't see that they're in any way fair or balanced. If it's not possible to isolate the IP traffic of one particular individual I can't see that it's fair to violate the privacy of everyone else that happens to be in that pipe. I seem to recall reading that law/criminal justice is based on the presumption of innocence (naive, perhaps, but it seems to be the predicate...I could be wrong, of course, given current developments).
Whether I'm doing anything illegal or otherwise I don't expect to be subject to surveillance simply because someone else in the pipe I share is suspected of doing something. If it's not possible to isolate the suspect from the crowd then surely the surveillance is too broad.
Plus, as an aside, until I'm able to see the means by which such monitoring is over-seen then I don't necessarily trust those with the relevant authority to act on my behalf to protect my privacy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're doing something wrong, and they happen to catch you because they were looking for someone else -- then you shouldn't have been doing whatever it was you were doing.
That's fair.
The rules don't change just because someone in your neighbourhood or netblock may have committed a crime that is being investigated by the FBI, and that is the danger here. Just because I'm not a criminal doesn't mean that I want authorities snooping through my garbage. I know we're already far down the slippery slope, but we need to hold on to whatever freedoms we have left.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. 4th Amendment to the Constitution. I need to re-read my copy again.
Re:Someone help me understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
We all need to have a look at it from time to time.
Re:I dont care (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how I think about that... about 230 years ago, folks living in a British colony that didn't have that sort of legal protection were willing to fight and die for the right to have it (it was the fourth thing on their list, actually). I'm guessing that there's probably something pretty upsetting about random, unwarranted searches and seizures that propelled them to feel so strongly about it. Of course, the way things are going, I won't have to guess much longer - it will be readily apparent to all of us pretty soon what it feels like to live in a world where the cops can kick in your door on a whim and take whatever they feel like taking.
Good luck getting rid of it (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's why: the FBI probably uses this technique, in some cases, to track down child porn. True, most cases these days are probably copyright infringement cases demanded by the industry, but given today's power-hungry government and legislators who think their primary mandate is to keep their office, all the FBI has to do is say that they use it to combat child porn and no one but the district court or higher will touch it - and that takes months or years.
You may ask why I say this. Wikipedia COPA, COPPA, CIPA, Communications Decency Act (the parts that the courts struck down). Claim you're protecting children and you can get away with anything. Now, I'm not saying these laws are a bad thing - they're well-intentioned, but badly thought out and the difficulties of doing what they demand on the Internet were not considered.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it's a drag for police to have to get a warrant when they know someone is doing something illegal in their house. I'm sure the FBI gets very frustrated when they have to provide a judge with affidavits of Probable Cause when they KNOW that the bad guys are using phones to do bad things, just so they can put up a wire tap.
And it's a hell of a lot more than just a little hassle when our own freedoms allow really really bad guys to plan and execute a terrorist attack where thousands are killed. But it may turn out that too, is the price of living in a free society, God help us.
I know that as I sit in my neighborhood coffee shop, someone with a bomb strapped to their body could walk in and blow me to bits. I watched as fellow Americans (and a lot of innocent non-Americans) lost their lives on September 11, more than 5 years ago.
But I refuse to live my life in fear. And I absolutely refuse to give up one single bit of my liberty to make it easier for law enforcement to do their jobs, or to make it more convenient for our government to govern, or even to ensure that I can walk down the street without the fear of something bad happening to me. That's how important liberty is to me - more important than my security.
I see fear making a lot of people willing to live less like Americans and more like the residents of a gated community or the inmates of a prison. I mean, it's not really that bad if officials have to ask us to show papers on the street - not if it makes us safer. And it's not really that bad if someone in the Federal Government has to read my mail without my permission. And it's not really all that bad if the FBI has to sniff my packets because someone, somewhere else on the internet is doing something wrong. After all if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry.
There a lot of people who have been convinced - we see them around here - that all those little freedoms just aren't worth having to be afraid. These people have wandered very far from the principles that made the US unique in the world and a beacon of freedom to those who live in safe places where they don't fear terrorists, or pornographers, or child molestors. Those people only have to fear their own government.
I'm not willing to trade, and I'm not willing to give up my freedom. I would really, honestly rather die a free man than live under tyranny. I don't blame those of you who have become so scared that you've convinced yourselves it's OK to be watched, because you're not doing anything wrong. But I absolutely pity you. It must be hell to be so afraid.
But that's just the kind of hairpin I am.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long till they want to regulate wireless (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps they'll just make us all digitally sign our packets using the RFID chips implanted in our armpits at birth...
Sounds radical, but it's not. You just plain cannot tell who or what generated any given packet on a network. There's no fingerprint, or carbon dating, or scent for the bloodhounds. A forged packet looks, sounds, tastes, smells, and feels exactly like any other.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
And when I mentioned suicide bombers in American cafe's it's only because that's the rhetoric that's spewed nightly by the right-wing media. See, if we don't make war in Iraq, the terrorists are going to come here, right?
Well, I don't believe it either. But you can't support the notion when Michael Savage says it but then deny it when I use it to make my point. The reason I'm not afraid of being bombed while I'm drinking my coffee is because "it's almost certainly not going to happen", and in fact, on the ranking of risk in my life, terrorism is rather way down the list.
This is why I'm trying to exhort those Americans who have been seemingly scared witless by the current Administration (remember "Orange Alert"?) and the captive media who serve the Administration. "Don't be afraid" I am trying to tell them. The threat is not worth the loss of what has made America such a special place.
And regarding what you call my "attempts and honorable and emotional rhetoric", I will not apologize for my honor or my emotion.
And if you think the only type of tyranny is where you get "treated as a slave, whipped and beaten", I suggest you pick up a good history of the 20th century.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced of this. The shackles & chains have been in place a long awhile. It will take significant effort (beyond democratic) to alter the way we are governed.
These were simply the allusions I developed from your diatribe. You sound like a history book, the kind adults force upon children when it's dangerous to endorse children's critical thinking. The US has never been a shining "beacon of freedom." Using terms like this give me significant pause to think about your grip on reality. We were the natural evolution of western thinking society. We have at certain times had good sense, other times had good leaders, and quite frankly gathered our fair share of good fortune. I'm glad there are people with the beliefs you have as a balancing act, but I wish these beliefs were presented within the framework we have to live in. That is within the scope of a democratic government, containing uncertainties, and entailing all the competing beliefs about life, liberty, and happiness.
I'm not a centrist, but I do strive to be objective. I don't think I/we have anything to gain sensationalizing things to the effect of black & white. sic, the snide remarks