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."
Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be said enough: Encrypt everything.
Thank the PATRIOT Act (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not above the law -- they are following PATRIOT Act that is still in place. This wonderful piece of legislature allows FBI to ask for records while placing a gag order on the source, i.e. whoever is going to give you up will not be allowed to tell you that your records are going to be send to law enforcement agencies.
Want change? Ask Obama to finally become the president of the U.S.
In the USA... (Score:1, Insightful)
there is no need for the government to hack corporations. They cooperate.
This allows us to feel indignant when it happens in other countries.
"LAW ENFORCEMENT" (Score:3, Insightful)
Break the law, go to jail!
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever I tell someone I actuall do that they always start to wonder what I have to hide, they'll be uploading new pictures of last weekends night out on their community profile which isn't set to private a few hours later..
My reason for doing it is simple though, it's none of their damn business. Isn't that enough?
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. (Score:1, Insightful)
Or how about we hold the government to their obligation to work within the law?
Category name change (Score:5, Insightful)
I propose that yro be renamed wro - What Rights Online?
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
There's also the tried & true drug dealer method....pre paid cells
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't mind living surveillance state half as much as I do, if only the government were honest with its citizens about it.
You mean like in 1984, where the government was quite explicitly and openly spying on everyone, and sometimes the spook spying on you would speak directly to you if you weren't being a good enough citizen? Yeah that'd be sooo much better.
The coverup isn't good... but no, it's the crime.
Re:Democrats, as usual! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's for the public safety, you do realize that trumps all laws?
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.
Justice continues to escape US Citizens. Current leadership and administrations said they would care, but ultimately have shown complacency and tolerance for injustice. When are we to believe them to be any different? Actions speak louder than words, and the last year of inaction speaks loud and clear as to who we're really dealing with.
Re:Yet it is amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
government agents are legally allowed to ask for the teleco's co operation, and the teleco can refuse or provide the info. IF the teleco refuses and the FBI wishs to pursue it and FORCE them to comply, THEN it requires a court order.
people, why is this concept so hard to grasp? every communications contract i've ever seen states clearly they will assist law enforcement, and makes zero promise to protect you from investigation.
Re:Oblig. IP jokes. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you're confusing, or allowing others to confuse, real hunches with cover ups.
I've had hunches. Probably everyone has. You just KNOW something to be true, but you can't explain rationally how or why it is true. There's nothing illegal or wrong with a hunch - it's just not admissable as evidence. It DOES make a decent reason to investigate something, but it doesn't validate a warrant.
So - you get your hunch, you investigate as far as you can, and if you find evidence supporting the hunch that convinces a judge, then you get your warrant.
Let's not confuse this with a bad cop who breaks both of a man's knees to get a confession, then calls it a "hunch".
How is this report "damning"?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe it is a "damning" report when I see the FBI Director forced to "retire" over this. Not bloody likely.
Yeah, I know this kind of shit probably went on pre-9/11. It was likely kept a bit more secret then. I just have a problem with the whole "yeah, so what if I did...What the fuck are YOU gonna do about it?" mentality they seem to take today with it, that's all. They don't operate along side, around, or even above the law. They just don't give a fuck anymore because everyone was issued a master key labeled "anti-terrorism". Why should I be worried about a terrorist attack when I'm too busy being attacked by my own Government?
I find it absurdly ironic that the "Justice" Department released this. Why do we have that Department again? They don't seem to be doing much these days to earn their name or the billions we pour into it.
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
"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. He can ask you at any time if he can search your vehicle. There is no reason to call a judge to get permission to ask. If he's going to call a judge, it's because you said NO and he's going to get a warrant.
I've denied permission to search my vehicle on three occasions,
And did the cop call a judge prior to asking you for permission on any of those three occasions? Of course not. There is no requirement for him to do so.
The moment you waver, and say something that might be construed as permission to search, you WILL BE searched.
Of course. And if you try to claim "he didn't ask a judge before asking me for permission" you'll be laughed ... I was going to write "out of court", but really "laughed into a jail cell".
If the telcos are giving the information to the FBI voluntarily, then there is no judge and no subpoena required. The Constitution protects you from involuntary acts (like searches of your car) but not from voluntary ones (like searches where you said "ok"). The FBI can ASK the telco for information anytime they want. The law does not prohibit this. Just like they can ask to search your car. They cannot DEMAND the information without a warrant. A "post-it note" doesn't require a judge's signature. A subpoena does.
Conclusions (Score:4, Insightful)
The obvious inferences, which aren't being expressed here so far, are:
1. Journalists are still important, in that they dig up this kind of information.
2. We all knew this would happen, after the relaxation of civil liberties laws.
3. There are probably worse things going on that we will never know about.
4. It's patriotic to insist that law enforcement personnel do what is right, and obey the law, and not look for ways to subvert it or bend the rules, because otherwise they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
It's human nature to take the easy way and do what is expedient, which is how it plays out in TV cop shows. But in the real world, these guys have to do what is right, for the sake of the light of liberty - which is incredibly fragile. They're supposed to be defenders of the Constitution, which is a very fragile idea about freedom. I hope the agencies involved see the big picture and understand what is really at stake, rather than get defensive and cynical about troublesome rules and regulations that "only make their work harder."
Re:Law enforcement thinks they're above the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, no no. Definitely not. I do like to use behaviors that resemble things from 1984 as warnings, though. I mean it'd be a real facepalm-worthy moment if one day we said "Welp, direct comparisons of todays government to that of 1984 are no longer hyperbolic" without seeing it coming. ;)
No my point was just unreasonable and unrestrained surveillance that is hidden vs in the open... The AC was saying they wouldn't mind if it wasn't hidden, and I was just pointing out that I don't think that actually helps much.