FBI Admits More Privacy Violations

kwietman writes "The FBI admitted that in 2006, for the fourth straight year, they improperly accessed phone and internet records of U.S. citizens. Director Robert Mueller testified that the abuses occurred prior to sweeping reforms enacted in 2007, and actually blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested. In another unsurprising development, the FBI also underreported the number of security letters - used to authorize wiretaps and to subpoena internet and telecom records - by over 4,600. The use of these letters to identify potential terrorists has, according to the government audit, increased dramatically since the implementation of the Patriot Act. Over 1,000 of these security letters were found to be improper in 2005, and similar numbers were expected for 2006 and 2007."

Right.

blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested

Or it could be the requests were sufficiently vague that the telcos thought they were submitting the right amount of information.

Re:Right.

Or it could be the requests were sufficiently vague that the telcos thought they were submitting the right amount of information.

It's one thing to be worried about the Feds doing what they do. What has me worried is that so much (all) of our private information is accessible by telcos, many of which are owned by foreign interests. Whose country is it anyway?

Re:Right.

I know! Think about it. The phone company has YOUR phone number! What are they going to do with that...?

Re:Telecoms guilty of malpractice

If the telecom companies gave up information -- the minimum necessary that they were required to hand over in order to comply with the law, that could be an justification for immunity.


You start by stating that the telcos should not be granted unlimited immunity for breaking the law. Then in your next statement you basically say, "Unless they only broke it a little bit," and even then only if the government pays its phone bill.

No. Not just no, but hell no. Maybe you're okay with giving up a little of your freedom to the most corrupt administration in history for a little bit of security. I couldn't get enough warm and fuzzy out of that arrangement to allow me to sleep at night. George Bush can stick telco immunity ("if we don't give them a pass, they won't be so willing to break the law next time") right up his ass. I want the FBI out of my business unless they have probably cause and a warrant. Period, end of story.

Without outrage...

The Feds will never care, the White House will never care as it seems most people in the U.S. don't care about this issue. Without outrage we'll never see an improvement. "Catching" bad guys is what they think they're doing and no adjustment will be made from within. Sadly, it will most likely never become a major issue, though it most certainly should.

Re:Without outrage...

Catching" bad guys is what they think they're doing and no adjustment will be made from within.

Makes you wonder how they are doing catching "bad" guys when they can barely monitor themselves. Time to face up to it, we are living in a Kafkaesque nation.

Re:Without outrage...

Why don't we ever see comments like yours in the cuba "sneakernet" article ...yada yada...

Geez I dunno, maybe because I don't live in Cuba, North Korea, Egypt? Maybe because I have no expectations of civil liberties in those countries? Maybe because none of those governments have been telling me my entire life that I live in a nation of laws, have constitutional rights and so forth? Maybe because I spend so much time worrying about my own country and douche bags like you fucking up that I don't have sufficient energy to work myself into a lather about countries I have absolutely no control over?

One wonders ... actually I don't. You just only pick on guys that are guaranteed never to say anything back or hurt you. You are a coward, "making a stand" without risk.

I don't know what "One" wonders but I wonder what the hell you are talking about. Oh, maybe I do. You aren't responding to me at all, are you? You're just reacting to the hate track that never stops playing in your head, bravely fighting whatever fraudulent demon Hannity or Rush stuffed into your tiny brain this afternoon.

What you're doing is not brave, it's not revolutionary, and it's not even moral at all. It's cowardice.

Again, this doesn't make sense. It's just phrases thrown together. Repeat them loud and often enough and they sometime elicit emotion reactions but that doesn't make them any less intellectually vapid.

Re:Without outrage...

I suppose you're doing lots about all the problems you listed. How is it cowardice to communicate dissatisfaction with people you're more likely to influence than list off a multitude of global crimes against humanity that we can't effect? Whats immoral about criticism, exactly? Are you a coward for not being in Egypt right now? The only thing I know is that its pretty pathetic to want to defend the most powerful government in the world. I'm sure we agree that America is responsible for great things. We just disagree in two key areas:

1) taking issue with behaviour withing our own government than we deem as being incongruent with the basis of western democracy is not a bad thing
2) the fact that I'm not out there fighting these terrible conditions doesn't mean I should be able to attack you for being in the same safe position

If human rights issues bother you so much, go out and do something about them. Picking on somebody who chooses to criticize their own government when they feel it is right to do so is myopic. I swear, people who are convinced that they live in some impenetrable palace of awesomeness are so fucking stupid. If you really think the US is the sole provider of the peace and rational thinking, I've got hundreds of millions of people living in other first world nations who are wondering why you're so recalcitrant to criticize your own government. Its a very important function of democracy, as practiced by way more places than the US.

So stop playing "He started it." If you take issue with the mistreatment of human beings, do something about it, but don't act like just because its pretty minimized in your country that its not worth discussing.

Re:Without outrage...

Why not have a monetary penalty awarded to the victim from the budget of the agency?

Like $1000 per incorrectly tapped phone call? (Not per tap, but per call that occurred while that tap was in place.)

"for the fourth straight year"

Of course the feds don't care -- look, they feel free to even admit that they are abusing the powers granted to them, that they aren't even bothering to follow the already extremely permissive laws that guide them. It's been going on for years -- ever since the first report after the enactment of the USAPATRIOT Act -- and still they aren't called on it.

No, for some reason not enough people care. Firstly I blame the media -- just like the previous reports, and even the NSA wiretapping scandal, this will show up in the news for a little while then quietly vanish. Secondly I blame people who even when presented with facts by the media just blindly assume that it's all done to catch terrorists and they don't care. They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?

Even Congress -- now Democrat controlled -- doesn't do much but feign shock and dismay that the powers they granted without even reading what they were are being abused.

Some people care, but it just doesn't seem to be enough.

Re:"for the fourth straight year"

They're told the their privacy is being abused, and they mentally convert this into their privacy not being abused, only terrorists and since when do terrorists deserve privacy?

That's a huge problem right there. Those are the same people who say "I have nothing to hide," but when you ask for all their bank statements and keys to their doors and video cameras in their house... (just keep suggesting more stuff until...) they balk.

And maybe some of the perception is that the government is this magical entity, not made up of people who are your neighbors, or that jerk that cut you off this morning, etc.

All of a sudden, those same people want their privacy. Amazing isn't it?

Re:"for the fourth straight year"

No, for some reason not enough people care. Firstly I blame the media

Oh yeah. It's the media. Why I was just watching something on that...

erm... hang on... Britney just shaved something again...

Catching bad guys

I once attended a lecture by a prominent local individual in L.A. who was known for speaking out against the LAPD's blanket harassment (and assaults) of people living in the poorer areas.

He said the prevailing attitude seemed to be "Catch the Bad Guy." At first, this doesn't sound like it conflicts with the LAPD's motto: "To Protect and Serve." But, he explained, there's a huge difference when you think about it: "Catch the Bad Guy" implies treating everyone in a poor fashion just to maybe catch a bad guy. "To Protect and Serve" implies that everyone is innocent, and explicitly that the police must protect everyone and serve the communities in a good fashion as a priority, rather than suspect everyone and treat them badly.

That was almost 20 years ago. The LAPD's CRASH (anti-gang) unit has since been disbanded due to multiple court rulings of unconstitutionality (the LAPD suspected pretty much every minority) and civil liability case rulings/settlements (the LAPD busted more innocent heads than gang members). The attitude is still a problem, and I've seen it with many other police officers in different cities, BUT I'm not saying it's a majority... just a very annoying minority.

The main point here: "Catch the Bad Guy" is an easy trap to fall into, and many may not even realize they're acting this way, or simply don't see the distinction.

The court system is slow, tedious, and money draining -- same as the legislative system. However, we're not seeing our own citizens shot at by itchy-fingered National Guardsmen anymore. I have to remain optimistic, at least about large-scale shifts of thinking...

They don't care about your outrage

Have you ever read a forum dominated by police who think that their violations of the law are justified in the line of duty? They think you ought to be grateful for them, as though you are some mewling little animal incapable of living in relative safety without them. These people aren't your congressman. They could give a shit less what you think. They think that you owe them a debt of gratitude for keeping you alive and free that's ten times higher than anything anyone in the military would feel.

I'm not a U.S. citizen....

so I'm not as intimately involved as many of you are. However, there seems to be a lot of 'accidental' - and otherwise - breaches occurring with regard to citizen's rights, but not a lot being done about it. By this, I mean - is punishment commensurate with the crime (and this is a crime) meted out to the perpetrators in cases such as this? I see a lot of articles talking about the breaches, but very few about justice being delivered with regard to those responsible.

Grim Outlook

Perhaps I am a cynic, but it seems to me that this is merely to be expected.

Stazi couldn't keep constant surveillance over all of the citizens of East Germany because the technology did not exist to obtain, process, store, and organize this data. Yet they tried, and got fairly close to being able to track anyone who even remotely questioned the regime.

Now we're getting close to the point where total surveillance of the citizenry is actually feasible. To expect that bureaucracy will go ahead with such a project is awfully optimistic. The goal of any political system is the preservation of status quo, and total surveillance is a very important step to ensure that no perturbations to the system can result from any member of the population that chooses to think for themselves.

Whether or not we're willing to tolerate this, is the question, because there is no doubt in my mind that it will happen.

Perhaps we should start with re-examining the concept of privacy, and decide precisely the level of privacy we're comfortable with.

Re:Grim Outlook

A re-examination of the Constitution would be a fine laxative for the Fed.
While the document contained glaring flaws like the 3/5 Compromise [wikipedia.org], the Bill of Rights, if followed, would actually support protection of individuals from states and states from the Fed.
Just have to have a reasonable transition plan to ease the country out of the velvet handcuffs of entitlements.
Some of the presidential candidates are out to worsen the problem. Watch out for them.

Much too late

It is too late to start using the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land again. If we followed the Constitution exactly as it is written we would have to get rid of things like the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and many other government programs and agencies that people don't want to see taken away. After years of ignoring it, the Constitution has lost its power.

Re:Grim Outlook

See the big problem here is.... oh wait gotta go, American Idol is on!!!!

Immunity my ass

" . . . blamed the breaches in part on the telecommunications companies, who submitted more information than was requested . . ."

Who needs abusive government bureaucracies to abuse our rights when corporations can do the job even better?

It's time to drag the paranoid, power-hungry trolls responsible for these outrages out into the sunlight for a little disinfecting.

Issue the subpoenas, investigate these abuses, and, yes, impeach the president. Even if he wasn't responsible for this debacle, then he's derelict in his duties to uphold the constitution.

No, stop, please don't give us that much data!

I probably shouldn't post this, but I was at the meeting. Here's how it went down.

FBI: Hello, AT&T, can we have the phone records for 123-555-6789? As you can see here, we have a warrant here to tap that number, because it belongs to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, it says so right on the caller ID!
AT&T: Why, certainly! And while we're at it, here are the records for several hundred thousand Americans who are completely or only tangentially related. We hope this helps!
FBI: No, please, stop! We don't want that data!
AT&T: Don't be so modest. Here's a few hundred thousand more!
FBI: Please! Stop! Don't! You're offending the very values upon which J. Edgar Hoover built this place!

That's exactly how it happened.

I'm the optimist

The fact that this information can be found via audits and released publicly signals that our system of government is working pretty well. An effective executive branch (one that can actually protect the innocent) requires some power to operate; that power will be mishandled because the people wielding it are human, meaning they are lazy, incompetent, unfocused. In some cases they may be malicious, but this is a worry for anyone wielding any power anywhere, from prosecutors to defense lawyers to legislators to judges to policemen to presidents.

Re:I'm the optimist

And the fallibility of humans is precisely why we are supposed to have checks and balances in our government, and illustrates why the current situation is unacceptable. It's a lot less likely that someone is improperly targeted with a wiretap if the judicial branch has to review the facts and approve it. If the executive branch is acting properly, what does it have to hide from judicial review?

There are two main problems

Firstly, politicians tackle complex, real-world issues with overly simplistic solutions. Often these 'solutions' are the result of 'think of the children' or 'homeland security' knee-jerk reactions to challenging geopolitical events. Pollies seem to regard the value of the solution is in being seen to react rather than being seen to react appropriately. The overly simplistic solution is usually broad, poorly bounded legislation. Any boundaries that are imposed are often badly defined from a legal perspective, or worse deliberately vague as a result of the need for a simple and broad solution to the complex problem. Politicians frequently then fall back on the mantra that new powers or laws will be used infrequently and only in special, unique or exceptional instances. [guardian.co.uk]

This leads to the second problem. The agencies responsible implementing the legislation or using the new powers are not bound by the politicians admonitions about their use. In fact, quite the opposite it true- their very nature and mission encourages them to take the full advantage of whatever powers, rules or procedural changes are implemented in the framework of legislation and common law under which they operate. The only way they can determine the true boundaries of their new powers or a new law is by a process of trial and error, generally involving court cases and other legal mechanisms.

Which is all fine and is the way that laws have been passed and refined by courts for a considerable period of time (if disasterous if you are the individual caught up in a grey area). However it becomes rather more slippery when the implementation of the legislation in question is subject to national security constraints, secret courts, exceptions for back-filling of paperwork and other get-out clauses.

Whilst I might object strenously to the notion that the FBI should be able to tap into my conversations without a warrant or that the UK govt. might like to lock me up for 42 days without charge on spurious 'security' related charges, my most strenuous objections are to the lack of transparency and oversight by independent judiciary in open court or similarly ungagged proceedings.

Re:Sorry for being a broken record

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because his foreign policy and privacy stances are dead on doesn't mean he's not a kook in other areas. For example, all the others!

And actually his stance on privacy is just a symptom of having a government that doesn't actually work. It's easy to have a government that does no wrong when it doesn't do ANYTHING. A real visionary would find a way to have a functional, utilitarian government AND protect privacy, civil rights, and promote a peaceful non-interventionist foreign policy; and for that I am sorry his voice is marginalized, he has a lot of good things to say on those issues.