FBI Admits It Uses Stingrays, Zero-Day Exploits (arstechnica.com) 79
An anonymous reader writes: Amy Hess, the head of the FBI's science and technology division has admitted that the FBI sometimes exploits zero-day vulnerabilities and uses stingrays to catch bad guys. Ars reports: "The admission came in a profile published Tuesday of Amy Hess, the FBI's executive assistant director for science and technology who oversees the bureau's Operational Technology Division. Besides touching on the use of zero-days—that is, attack code that exploits vulnerabilities that remain unpatched, and in most cases are unknown by the company or organization that designs the product—Tuesday's Washington Post article also makes passing mention of another hot-button controversy: the FBI's use of stingrays."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: oh wow really (Score:5, Insightful)
' there's a degree of aceptableness. '
Um, domestic use without a warrant is in no fucking way acceptable. It's a fucking crime and deserves as diligent a prosecution as they make. Licensed, authorized professionals need to be held to a higher standard or suffer stricker punishments. For shit sakes, how hard would it be to have a judge bless it, less they're just fishing.
Before calling "black-ass" best make sure your's is clean.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. That would be "following the rules". Just like it has been decided that it is better that some criminals get away with their crimes by shredding their documents in the safety of their home, rather than giving the police the right to barge into any house they want to and search for something illegal.
What's obnoxious is that the Justice dept has the idea that there is no legal rules for using a Stingray or the zero-days. That the only thing they have that can cover it's use is a "policy". Basicall
Re: oh wow really (Score:2)
If I had mod points, they would be yours. Nailed it.
Re: Yes really! (Score:1)
Your implication being that the next pres will uphold their campaign promises? Haha hahahahaha!
Re: (Score:1)
Your implication being that the next pres will uphold their campaign promises? Haha hahahahaha!
Your implication that Obama isn't WORSE than everyone that's come before? Haha hahahahaha!
Did you like your doctor?
Did you like your insurance plan?
How about that red line Syria? And how ISIS is the "JV"?
Isn't it great how we NOW have to send troops back into Iraq and now even Syria?
Gitmo closed yet?
Patriot Act repealed?
Just like The Spanish Inquisition... (Score:2)
I guess they figure the ends justify the means.
I presume they get warrants for this. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure they get the proper warrants and everything for doing this. After all, these things should be considered wiretaps.
I'm sure the FBI would never violate anyone's civil rights. *bleeding sarcasm intended*
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere they don't need warrants to use Stingray only a judge to sign something (not the same thing, I forget what it was called) which was far easier/quicker to get and of course with Stingray they're watching everyone who it forces to connect not just the "bad guys" - but that was for the local cops.
I'm sure with the feds you're right, they'll do whatever the fuck they want just like the NSA/CIA etc since there is 0 oversight and they can lie to congress with impunity.
Innocent unt
Re:I presume they get warrants for this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they get the proper warrants and everything for doing this. After all, these things should be considered wiretaps.
I'm sure the FBI would never violate anyone's civil rights. *bleeding sarcasm intended*
A head of a Federal organization just stood up and admitted they use a wiretap device illegally with a what-the-fuck-are-YOU-gonna-do-about-it-civilian attitude.
And we'll dismiss just how powerless We the People are by bringing out half-hearted humor and sarcasm about it, as if that's the correct response instead of asking for their dismissal and calling for a full investigation.
Not trying to compare tragedies, but a a black minor is gunned down in Chicago by police, and they're even calling for the mayors resignation. They already have the Police Superintendents, so don't tell me citizens can't get results. We can, when we want it bad enough.
We're not going to get our Rights back by using sarcasm.
Re: (Score:1)
You've accomplished nothing with a resignation, unless the person who fills the void is actually working towards your goals. Otherwise this is exactly the point of politicians - you've bought into the lie that one of them is better than another.
Re:I presume they get warrants for this. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've accomplished nothing with a resignation, unless the person who fills the void is actually working towards your goals.
Wrong. This establishes precedent. If a young police officer, politician, or other elected leader just starting his or her career now understands that the threat of losing their job or entire career is now fucking real, they might think twice about their actions while in office.
Otherwise this is exactly the point of politicians - you've bought into the lie that one of them is better than another.
While this is true, I stand on my first point. Much like a Chicago police officer recently being charged with murder, this establishes precedent, and helps drive the point that law enforcement and our elected leaders are not untouchable, and can lose their jobs or careers like anyone else when they break the law.
And we need that precedent more than ever.
Re: (Score:1)
You've accomplished nothing with a resignation, unless the person who fills the void is actually working towards your goals.
Wrong. This establishes precedent. If a young police officer, politician, or other elected leader just starting his or her career now understands that the threat of losing their job or entire career is now fucking real, they might think twice about their actions while in office.
Otherwise this is exactly the point of politicians - you've bought into the lie that one of them is better than another.
While this is true, I stand on my first point. Much like a Chicago police officer recently being charged with murder, this establishes precedent, and helps drive the point that law enforcement and our elected leaders are not untouchable, and can lose their jobs or careers like anyone else when they break the law.
And we need that precedent more than ever.
No it doesn't. It only means the next time someone screws up again then then the acting mayor resigns. It's a viscous circle which holds no one accountable. They get paid after resigning as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Stingray is not a wiretap device. It locates cell signals. It's also used with a court order signed by a judge, therefore it is not illegal.
Oh is that all? Well, I guess thousands of people just got this all wrong then. All blown up and full of hype. And no corruption exists in law enforcement or government. No one would ever abuse the capability of these devices. After all, I'm certain the reason Federal agencies and local police departments are refusing to even acknowledge they run the damn things is because it just "locates" cell signals, right?
Now for a dose of reality, since your comment reads like a Harris sales brochure. A "Stingra
to catch bad guys? (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes they are guilty. Whole reason for the Bill of Rights is to stop the state from going on fishing expeditions through the drawers of the state's critics (remember Thomas Drake?) or people on the wrong side of powerful business interests (remember Citizens United?) So once you drop the presumption of guilt from OP's byline, it takes on a whole new meaning:
"Amy Hess, the head of the FBI's science and technology division has admitted that the FBI sometimes exploits zero-day vulnerabilities and uses stingrays to spy on citizens who may not have done anything wrong, because "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him""
Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the issue is quite so simple here. Certainly all lives matter and only the most egregious racists would argue otherwise. The reason that we have a black lives matter movement right now is because of a perception (real or imagined, but I certainly see the validity) that black lives aren't being given the same value in our society as other lives. The hope is to draw attention to that disparity.
The issue with that is that there is the appearance that not even blacks care about black lives. Where were all the protests and outcry when this [go.com] happened? Or this [huffingtonpost.com]? There is a saying that goes "practice what you preach". Why should people care about your lives when you don't even give the appearance of caring about your own life? How can "black lives matter" if Tyshawn Lee's father would rather stick to his gang culture than give the police information that might help them catch the people that executed his son? How can they matter when black kids are killing each other everyday and not only is it condoned but often celebrated by their own community? Just as people won't respect you until you respect yourself, people won't put value on your life until you do.
Re: (Score:3)
So the misdeeds of the few condemn the entire race?
I don't suppose an Italian with mob ties ever refused to cooperate with a police investigation: that would be unthinkable. And proof that Italians don't put the same value on life.
Re: (Score:2)
So the misdeeds of the few condemn the entire race?
I don't suppose an Italian with mob ties ever refused to cooperate with a police investigation: that would be unthinkable. And proof that Italians don't put the same value on life.
No, I'm simply stating that right now the Black Lives Matter movement is hypocritical. Why do black lives only matter when they are confronting police? People shut down major interstates at rush hour to protest a cop killing a black person, but no one bats an eye when a black kid kills another black kid just because he lives on a different street. Is it a bad thing that so many black people are getting killed by cops? Yes. But it is even worse that many times more black people are being killed by other
Re: (Score:2)
That's not hypocrisy at all. The Police are societally-empowered. Random black kid is not.
But it is even worse that many times more black people are being killed by other black people.
There's several problems with this statement:
1. The idea that you can't solve one problem because another problem exists. That's BS, if cops are killing black people disproportionately then it should be addressed immediately. 2. A grouping fallacy. You can always cut this up. If you try to solve the Crips vs. the Bloods, do you call it hypocritical because most murdered black people aren't involved with or killed by either gang? I literally can't see the point in comparing police killing black people to black people killing black people. If a story came out that cops were summarily executing 80 year olds, regardless of race, would you argue that we have to solve cancer first? It's a completely bizarre comparison point. Let's try to have neither thing. 3. Your grouping used absolute numbers in comparing groups of vastly different sizes. If a town of 1000 has a serial killer who has killed 10 this year, is that ignorable because the city of 2000000 has had 100 murders (which is about average for a city that size in the US)? 4. It assumes that efforts to solve one won't help the other. If police are disproportionately likely to harm you when you're innocent, are you as likely to call them to help you out when some gang member is hanging outside your door with a gun trying to extort you? 5. The assumption that these have equal weight. Yes, every life matters, so in that sense you can argue that all these murders are of equal importance. But on the other hand, we hire police and need to hold them to the highest standard.
What they are doing is like trying to shut down KFC to fight the epidemic of overweight kids. Sure, it'll help in the short term, but it won't really fix the underlying problem that kids eat too much HFCS and don't get enough exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a good thing that it's hypocritical.
Certainly most people killed by cops are non-black and non-black communities weren't outraged about it until BLM started up.
Getting non-black communities mad about the hypocrisy seems to help keep the anger in general at the cops over shootings alive.
First I'll start off by saying that it is pretty clear that cops are killing (justified or not) too many people.
The U.K. goes years (sometimes) without cops even firing guns, let alone killing people, so we're o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What the opponents of parallel construction seem to be arguing is that anything that results from anonymous tips is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissible until proven otherwise.
Not really. Courts have ruled that evidence gathered in violation of Constitutional protections is fruit of the poisoned tree. Acting on tips is a gray area and resulting evidence may or may not have been collected illegally. That's an issue for the court to decide on a case by case basis. But parallel construction is essentially lying to the court. It impedes the judiciaries ability to properly vet the evidence collected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming an ideal scenario for your argument. Suppose that police were to illegally search someone's home, covering it up, and get a similar tip. You've just rewarded the police for an illegal search. Same thing, except that the police are more intrusive. Then they decide to search your house, because, hey, it worked before.
The idea behind "fruit of the poisoned tree" is to discourage police and other law enforcement officers from breaking the law, since other methods of restraining them (lik
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your example is that it is one of revealing related crimes being committed by people that law enforcement already has probable cause to watch. In reality, Stingrays pick up everything in an area. The vary rare major crime, plus a lot of minor stuff, like buying pot, untaxed booze and cigarettes from the reservation, etc. And for every Taliban finance deal, they uncover hundreds of minor incidents. And pretty soon, law enforcement figures that it makes more sense chasing the little stuff and
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but by allowing parallel construction, we are granting the FBI an unlimited bypass the constitution free card. The reason we throw out tainted evidence is to remove law enforcement's incentive to violate the rights of everyone in order to catch a few people they THINK might be guilty.
Consider, if we don't make tainted evidence useless, even where parallel construction is used, the police form two administratively separate divisions. One that ignores the constitution entirely and acts much like the Sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't mind if we put cameras in your bed and bathroom as long as we pinkie swear we'll never use the video in court?
Your rights are violated the instant the cameras go in, even if you are never prosecuted for anything at all (because polishing your knob isn't a crime). Had parallel construction not been an option, there would be no incentive to illegally install the cameras (since it couldn't lead to any useful objective for law enforcement).
If the cops keep 24/7 tabs on you using stingray, your righ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the first evidence was obtained legally, then it isn't parallel construction at all. All they have to do is lay it out in court. Contrary to that, often even the prosecutor isn't told (and many prosecutors are getting steamed about that too).
But note, when anyone takes the stand, they are required to swear to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth. If the tip-off came from stingray, they MUST say so or they have not told the whole truth, that is, they have perjured themselves. They ro
Re: (Score:1)
What parallel construction does is use inadmissible information to find the admissible information.
Posting as AC because I work for a federal law enforcement agency and have first-hand knowledge of what parallel construction actually is, and isn't.
Parallel construction is actually a method of protecting a source of information that a LE agency doesn't want to be compromised, like a confidential informant (CI). It's easiest to explain with an example. Let's say a CI tells the police about a previously unknown criminal operating in the area and gives his name and cell phone #. The CI also says that this n
Re: (Score:2)
If you're trying to tell me that any law enforcement function isn't misused, you're wasting your time.
You may be an upstanding LEO who'd never do anything particularly wrong. Not all of them are. The job attracts people who like abusing power.
Wiretapping requires a warrant. If you're tapping the guy's phone without a warrant, you're breaking the law and invading someone's privacy. Being confident that a person is criminal scum is neither grounds for a warrant nor grounds to do illegal surveillance.
Actual WP article (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for telling us (Score:3)
Thanks for telling us what we already knew.
Seriously, this is somewhat interesting but hardly qualifies as "news".
The only news in this admission is that they're admitting to doing it, not that they're doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That tells us a lot though. It tells us that they ACTUALLY believe they're above the law and that nobody can say otherwise.
Crikey! (Score:2)
-- Steve Irwin (RIP)
Zero days... (Score:2)