Slashdot Log In
'Full-Pipe' FBI Internet Monitoring Questionably Legal
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:55 AM
from the frag-em-all-sort-em-out-later dept.
from the frag-em-all-sort-em-out-later dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more to me like a roadblock every time there's a little crime.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 w
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: (Score:2)
Unlawful, most likely. Unprincipled, absolutely. Unconstitutional, no.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Informative)
People, we really need to go back to teaching Government and Civics in high school. There are some people here who have been left behind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. 4th Amendment to the Constitution. I need to re-read my copy again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We all need to have a look at it from time to time.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Interesting)
particularly describing the place to be searched
They have done that. They know the problem is with in this range of IPs, however they can not narow it down because the ISP can not help them with it.
and the persons or things to be seized
This is where it is sorta tricky. This part has been interpereted to say that anytihng found durign a reasonable execution (aka, no searchign in pill bottles for stollen TVs) of a warrent is admissable.
So if they only need to be checking web pages visited, and they start sniffing P2P traffic, that should be inadmissable, however if they fidn something durring a reasonable execution of the warrent, then it would be.
Note, I am not sayign I am for or against this as I honestly don't have enoguh information on it. I lean away from it as it DOES look like it is way to much of an invassion of privacy, but I can't say 100%.
The big deal for me is how the heck could an ISP NOT be able to tell you what IP you need to look at?
If you have the name/house/whatever the ISP should easily be able to pull up what IP(s) that person/place currently has assigned to them.
If you are working back from an IP you found doing something illegal, then the ISP should know who that IP was assigned to at the given time, and give you the current IP (assuming non-static).
I don't really like the ISPs trackign what we are doing and when, but I know they are, so why would this 'full pipe' warrent ever show up?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does not actualy violate the constitution. The constitution just says that a warrent must be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bill of Rights Toilet Paper with all 10 printed on each sheet. I bet I would....clean up
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not. It's called the plain view exception and has been found to be completely constitutional. I refer you to this page [cybercrime.gov] from the Justice Department (ok, no snickers) which references Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
The relevant part is as follows:
How this exception would apply in the current situation will be up for debate but the exception of an officer finding evidence of another crime, while executing a search warrant for a different crime, is fully constitutional. For a further reading of just this subject, see Danny Weitzner's comments [w3.org] with a much more detailed discussion of the plain view exception.
What, you expect the cops to ignore the dead body missing its arms lying in the back room because they were only looking for the stash of cocaine in the house?
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In the first case the person is doing something wrong and in the second case they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
"
Considering how easy it would be to plug a cordless phone into your neighbors house, or just
Re: (Score:2)
While driving on a public highway, you come up to a checkpoint where they are looking for an escaped felon. You do not consent t
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2, Interesting)
At the most basic level the physical connection could be intercepted.
Thus they are not making a reasonable effort to minimize the scope of the tapping and
Re: (Score:2)
Then "envision" a small ISP without the resources needed to setup the requisite surveillance connected to a larger ISP which can lets the feds sniff
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they shouldn't run an ISP on windows then.
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2)
Yes, because obviously if I'm having a discussion about the latest terrorist attack and because the feds only pick up parts of the conversation about bombs and killing people due to their "grab everything, data mine for anyth
Re: (Score:2)
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 privac
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2)
One concern is how long do they retain this information, and how much of the "full pipe" do they save? If they isolate the information they are looking for, and then discard the rest, then that is fine. I can even see an argument for keeping additional
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: (Score:2)
Furthermore, they cannot use evidence gathered in the inadmissible investigation as j
Stop! Analogy police! (Score:2)
But that's not a good analogy. First, let go of the notion of the police not kn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fair enough -- as long as they follow the rules (Score:2)
depends.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ummm...aren't they already? (Score:2)
They have minimized the amount of data required to collect to preform their surveillance by limiting the block of IPs.
Someone help me understand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Someone help me understand (Score:4, Informative)
The downside is that it's somewhat difficult to tie an IP down to a specific MAC address. Most times the best you can do is find the block (or blocks) of IP's assigned to a given area. For example: let's say that the FBI has a hostname, but no IP. The hostname will often have the region or township name in it. If the FBI provides that to the ISP, the ISP will be able to say "That area uses these IP blocks." and then the FBI would have to monitor ALL those blocks to try and separate the suspect's individual IP from all the other innocent people's IPs.
The really tricky part is where the Subpoena comes in. If it's really general IE: it allows them to monitor for "suspicious activity", then it could be used as a virtual dragnet, pulling in lots of people unrelated to the original investigation. However, Judges understand this and will usually issue a very specific subpoena so that they can avoid such a "dragnet" situation.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How long till they want to regulate wireless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's check the Documentation... (4th Amendment) (Score:4, Informative)
Well, since sniffing the whole pipe on it's face violates:
"Particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
I would say, that once again, the FBI is overstepping it's lawfully delegated powers.
In other news, the sky is blue...
Re:Let's check the Documentation... (4th Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
"Particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
How does it violate it?
What to be searched is described: All of the class C that the suspect can get a DHCP address from.
The person is explicitly identified, even though often John-Doe'd because the identity isn't yet known.
The things to be siezed are explicitly listed: All packets from John Doe.
It fits the definition under the Constitution as you listed. What the issues are are irrelevant to that part. The FBI is required to not get more than they must. If there is a practical way to get just the person they are looking for's packets, then they are breaking the law. If there isn't a technically available solution, then they are within the law.
Of course, you can also debate whether John Doe warrants/subpoenas are legal, but that too seems to be a separate issue from what you brought up.
What if "full pipe" was instead "apartment complex (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What if "full pipe" was instead "apartment comp (Score:2)
Sure they can. It's the job of the Supreme court to overthrow such laws, once made. And it will only get to the Supreme Court if someone brings it there, and
Tradition (Score:2)
John Doe Warrants? (Score:2)
In a situation where FBI has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, they should still have to present their evidence to a judge and get a warrant.
If they don't know who is committing the cri
Distinguishing public vs private (Score:5, Interesting)
The value behind the words is pretty clear, or at least it is when you look at the words in terms of 18th century technology. In the big room, things are public. You can't assert privacy in the town square. But separate from that, are our personal domains that no one else should be able to enter without our permission; a man is king of his castle. If you're there without permission, you're trespassing. And the 4th Amendment says that government is a special case, that it can enter your space without your consent without it being trespassing, but this requires court oversight. Without that check in place, it is trespassing.
In 1789, it was really easy to tell the difference between public and private, only requiring basic common sense.
You don't even have to be an intelligent human to understand this. Even some really dumb animals know how to enforce ownership of their turf. It's that basic and easy.
When phone networks came, it got kind of blurry. I guess Congress and the Courts have made up their mind about that, generally taking our side (i.e. requiring warrants for wiretapping) but the reality isn't all that clear. No matter how you look at it, those phone wires are not just in your house and the house of the person you're talking to. The wires are in public. When we demand privacy on wires that pass through public, radio signals that go everywhere, etc, we're doing something very artificial. That doesn't mean it's wrong or an unreasonable demand; really, it's ok to assert our will over nature. But going beyond Natural Law isn't as easy as it looks, and the issues can explode with complexity.
When you get to the Internet, it's even harder. Anyone who knows anything about the Internet, knows that you really don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We desire privacy? Well, of course! But having an "expectation" is foolishly unrealistic. There are too many people who have access to your plaintext. You don't even know who they are! How can you expect respect and accountability from someone you can't even identify, doesn't have any sort of business relationship with you, etc? It's naive.
Contrast that to the situation of someone looking at papers on your desk at home. Nobody gets into your home without your knowledge or permission, so if someone even has the ability to violate the security of your effects and papers, it's because either you granted permission for them to be there, or because they're trespassing. Well, when you send a packet of plaintext out onto the Internet with blind faith that the routing protocols will somehow get the packet to its destination, you're granting permission for someone (you don't even know who) to at least have enough access to the packet to be able to get the job done. You might say you didn't grant permission for them to read your love letter, but you sure as hell did grant them just about everything short of that -- you very explicitly give them the opportunity. This is very unlike the situation with a love letter sitting on your desk at home.
Everyone knows this, and they've known this for a very long time (thus anyone who uses the words "Bush Administration" in this discussion shouldn't be taken seriously). Tech-heads made up their minds decades ago: you can't expect privacy, unless you take matters into your own hands, by encrypting. If you don't listen to tech-heads on this, you're a fool.
We don't have a reaso
Re: (Score:2)
Civil disobedience? Political activity such as information relating to organized demonstrations that run counter to
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.