FBI Obtains Phone Records With a Post-it Note 187
angry tapir writes "The FBI was so cavalier — and telecom companies so eager to help — that a verbal request or even one written on a Post-it note was enough for operators to hand over customer phone records, according to a damning report (PDF) released on Wednesday by the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General."
No website really promises privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Every privacy policy that I've read - and I read every one for every website I do business with - states that they will give information to law enforcement or to entities that enable them to do business or to enhance my customer experience and then some.
They also say that they can change the terms any time they want.
In other words, no website really promises to keep you or your data private in their policies.
Google is one of the biggest offenders, btw. They constantly change their shit.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, there's this [zfoneproject.com], which is probably the safest method for voice communication. There are software apps for Windows Mobile that encrypt voice connections. You could use an Android phone and Google Voice, provided Google doesn't crater immediately to post-it requests. You could use Skype with the same proviso.
Bottom line is, though, if you have something that you really, really don't want the government to know about it, don't use a phone (particularly and especially a regular cell phone) to communicate it.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:2, Informative)
there is nothing illegal about a service provider handing over their own data - which is exactly what this is. you don't own the phone records, the phone company does.
Breach of contract. They include a privacy policy in their TOS.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. (Score:2, Informative)
And that would explain why we have a constitutional amendment which provides for hunches. Wait, there is no such amendment you say, just some that prevent unreasonable search and seizure?
Whoosh
Trump phrases (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, I thought the trump card was "But think of the children!"
There's a whole suit of 'em:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:3, Informative)
"Do you really think that the cop who pulls you over for a traffic violation really needs to call a judge to get approval to ask you if he can search your vehicle? That's ridiculous."
In the US? Yes, he does.
NO, he does not.
Of course the cop doesn't need a permission from a judge to ask. The cop can always ask, but you don't have to agree to the search. In fact you are best off to explicitly state that you do not consent to a search. They can still do an involuntary search in some circumstances like probable cause, open view, etc.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/54988/know_when_police_can_search_your_vehicle.html?cat=17 [associatedcontent.com]
http://flexyourrights.org/faq/74 [flexyourrights.org]
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:1, Informative)
So, wanna try again? What contract do YOU have?
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneaboutyou.html
That's the contract I have. What you're reading in the Qwest contract is regarding what you do ONLINE, not relating to your phone call info, or as it is termed in the industry, your CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information).
So they can suck it, if they don't have a warrant or a legal OBLIGATION to give that info to the FBI, then they (the phone company) are not only liable as a company, but as a matter of fact the person who actually GIVES the info to them is PERSONALLY legally liable and can end up in jail with a big fine.
Disclaimer- I work for a phone company. Everybody who works here knows this. The FBI should too.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. (Score:3, Informative)
Now was this debacle the FBI's doing or the incumbent Telecoms doing. From what I understand the telecoms had managed under the Republicans to whack in some pretty hefty and highly profitable charges for handing over customer info, hundreds of times the cost of actually doing it. So on basically the flimsiest request they handed over data because once thousands or request were flowing through the books the revenue was outstanding.
Now of the FBI's side of things, an investigating needs to be carried out not so much for infringing the US constitution but, for wasting millions of dollars of tax payer dollars on pointless hunches and wild guesses. I guess sitting in a comfy chair in an air-conditioned office reading (well pretending to read) those pointless bits of paper was a lot better than going out in the field and carrying out an actual real investigation. Political appointees without suitable qualifications or experience, a sure recipe for fat profits and zero results (D.H.S.). I'm glad people's lives weren't dependent upon this, oh wait ;D.