New FBI Operations Manual Increases Surveillance 189
betterunixthanunix writes "The New York Times is reporting that the new FBI operations manual suggests a broad increase in surveillance. Denoted the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the manual officially lowers the bar of acceptability when it comes to engaging in surveillance activities, including allowing agents to perform such surveillance on people who are not suspected terrorists without opening an inquiry or officially recording their actions. The new manual also relaxes rules on administering lie detector tests, searching through a person's trash, and the use of teams to follow targeted individuals. It should be noted that these guidelines still fall within the general limits put in place by the attorney general."
wow (Score:5, Funny)
0 comments, because they're watching
Other ways to deal with universal surveillance (Score:3)
There are other ways to deal with universal surveillance. I mention some here: :-) "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html [pdfernhout.net]
"And our second biggest advantage is that our communications are monitored, which provides a channel by which we can turn enemies into friends.
Well well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. By limiting themselves unnecessarily and not investigating things fully they were wasting taxpayer dollars that were budgeted to do investigations fully.
Ugh, polygraphs (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the federal government so in love with polygraph machines given the scientific community's near-complete dismissal of polygraphs as valid [wikipedia.org]?
(The cynical side of me says it's because they give superiors and judges a reason to pass their opinion as judgement on someone without any real evidence...)
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Interesting)
It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only perps. I'm scared shitless of it too, and I (probably) didn't even do it. I'm scared because I know that this thing is pretty much doing something akin to crystal ball reading and it could easily find me "guilty", no matter whether I am or not.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't submit to it. Say you know they're innaccurate and inadmissable. Or better, have your lawyer say it. Make them prove your guilt themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL, if you let the prosecutor use your refusal to submit to unreliable technology against you in court, instead of using his reliance on it against him, then you might as well plead guilty to things you didn't do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.
relevant [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So the machine can really only tell if you're lying or crazy.
It does a piss-poor job of determining the former..
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Interesting)
They love it because of the placebo effect. If the perp thinks that the voodoo magic polygraph machine can actually tell if they're lying, it has some effect on investigations I suppose.
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Says even more about the citizens who elect them, or though inaction, allow them to be elected.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a permanent resident of the US and a Canadian citizen, and thus can't vote in elections in either country (since you have to be both a citizen and maintaining a physical residence within their borders to vote in either country's elections). I'll absolutely resume my civic duty as soon as I can become a US citizen, which is in a little less than two years.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight, they could have voted for Kodos.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but giving up and surrendering just means that usually the nastiest of the bunch will win.
At least with voting, you end up having a lesser evil in office. Take Satan vs. Cthulhu. Satan corrupts, but at least stuff is left standing for a bit. Cthulhu will just slurp you up, body/mind/soul up wholesale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far and mostly. But we can still speak freely, we can still vote (and there have been some victories against the hackable, no-paper-trail machines), and jury nullification is still legal. They can still work if enough people work hard enough, and it's a hell of a lot better than a shooting war. Go visit Syria if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mind clarifying? With examples, please.
Oh, say, waterboarding, tasers, dogs, foreign countries. We just don't tell people about it, and in the press release say the prisoner cooperated.
Those techniques have been perfected for decades, and our PR department is great at cover stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not very good at getting accurate information. Confessions, sure. The Spanish Inquisition knew that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that they're not admissible in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is based on a flawed premise. The situation you describe should never exist. If you are guilty talking to the police can never help.
Once the police ask to talk to you both you and the police become impotent. You're in lawyer land at that point. Shut the fuck up and let them do the talking.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you are guilty talking to the police can never help."
That's only half the story. If you are innocent, talking to the police can never help. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is based on a flawed premise. The situation you describe should never exist. If you are guilty talking to the police can never help.
Says an educated person. Uneducated people often think that they can talk their way out of the police station, and routinely say things to the police that wind up hurting them at trial. Worse still, it is often the case that innocent people wind up hurting their legal case by trying to explain to the police that they are innocent.
The nature of our legal system is slanted against uneducated people.
polygraphs have no downside for prosecutors (Score:2)
Another source of anti-polygraph info [antipolygraph.org]. 60 Minutes did an anecdotally interesting test [antipolygraph.org]. In addition, let's look at this from a (politically motivated?) prosecutor's perspective. We can presume the prosecutor is politically motivated, not truth or justice inclined, because of the insistence on using a scientifically unreliable instrument [fas.org]. Say the accused is:
Re: (Score:2)
My friend applied for an FBI agent position. She excelled at all the various requirements (e.g. physical fitness test, background checks, etc.) only to fail the polygraph test twice. Why'd she fail? They repeatedly asked her if she had ever done drugs, such as marijuana. She never had done drugs, as several people she knew had gotten into various legal (and when using harder drugs, medical) trouble when using drugs, and so she had an emotional response when asked during the polygraph test.
Even though she pa
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a story I read somewhere, where the police didn't have a polygraph available. So they rigged up a headband with some wires, ran the wires into a photocopier and printed off copies of "HE'S LYING" in huge letters every time they thought he was. Probably and urban legend, but also probably about as effective as a 'real' polygraph is.
Re: (Score:2)
Urban legend, here on Snopes [snopes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Informative)
And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense
Assuming that you have been advised of your rights, police in the United States are allowed to lie or otherwise mislead you when you are being questioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is bullshit, really. Or at least if it's not a crime for the government to lie to the people, it should neither be a crime for people to lie to the government. What's good for the goose...
Re: (Score:2)
And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense,
If he knew he didn't do it, then there is no machine that can tell him he did. He knows. Even an idiot knows.
The only person caught with such a system is a dumbass criminal who knows he did it and doesn't know that a copy machine can't detect that he's lying.
I wouldn't spend a lot of time crying over someone like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now please tell me they don't detect that the way that I envision right now!
Re:Ugh, polygraphs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So nothing's really different. (Score:2)
So, nothing is really different about what they could do, within the law, they're just being told by their executives that they should do more, within the law.
I see why this should be controversial. It appears that their policy has been not to do everything they could.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO for a lot of these things at the legal extremes of what they could do, but didn't, the problem isn't that they weren't doing them, it's that they had the ability to do them in the first place.
The law shouldn't have large sections that are only used when you piss off a federal agent / judge.
Re: (Score:3)
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
As for the "piss off a federal agent" thing, that will always be a part of the paradigm, as long as we rely on human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes. The key is to rely on independent human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by federal agents.
If you read TFA you realize that 90% of this story is about how much infrastructure we have in place to ensure that the things cops ca
Re: (Score:3)
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
Absent any reasonable suspicion, no they shouldn't. Just having your name become known by the cops in the regular course of events isn't enough reason. Just like they shouldn't be able to "join" a church congregation looking for KKK members or anti-war groups with no history of violence.
Sanctioning that sort of thing is COINTELPRO shit, just not quite so organized.
Re: (Score:2)
COINTELPRO was legit, except where it incited crimes to occur in order to sway politics. The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was. Again, not a constitutional issue. Just one of management's understanding of whether cops should or shouldn't follow the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was.
Baloney. It was precisely because of COINTELPRO coming to light that those kinds of surveillance without just cause were explicitly forbidden to agents of the FBI. It took 9/11 hysteria to bring them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't say that. Says they don't have to start a paper trail. Any supervisor is still going to want to know the details of his employees' day.
Re: (Score:2)
within the law
It's never been proven that any of these searches (with the possible exception of dumpster diving) were legal without a warrant.
The searches being described here are the sort that many constitutional lawyers think would fail Fourth Amendment scrutiny because they involve the searching of a person . However, they've never been tested under the Fourth Amendment, because nobody can prove they were targeted for the search and thus any suits about this have been thrown out due to lack of standing.
Congress made s
Economy... (Score:2)
Trash? (Score:2)
More likely (Score:2)
The second casualty in (endless) war is the true Rule of Law.
No "firm reason" required! (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this line at the very end:
But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.
Is anyone else somewhat appalled that they don't need a "firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing" to waste time and money on an investigation? Add that to everything about this manual, and it kind of seems like the FBI is wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer money running around looking into random BS instead of focusing on serious issues. Even if we forget about the trampling of rights of innocent people here, and forget about them spending our money helping the MPAA/RIAA sue people, the mere fact that they are willing to investigate without a firm reason is bothersome from a "you-work-for-me-and-you're-wasting-time" perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest we all buy grow lights and grow some tomatoes / vegetables.
once they are growing well, we can all call the FBI on each other and drop some anonymous tips about locations.
If we have enough people growing, we can then calculate the estimated time spent / money spent on worthless investigations. Include some audio / video clips.
It like taking the digital honeypot idea, and using it against the cops to see where the inefficiencies / corruption is.
Re: (Score:2)
"Add that to everything about this manual, and it kind of seems like the FBI is wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer money running around looking into random BS instead of focusing on serious issues."
You have stumbled upon the actual goal of every true bureaucrat: to get their people paid to run around doing random BS!
That was not a joke! The more workers they can tie up doing useless stuff, the more workers they need to actually perform the job they are supposed to be doing. Which means a bigger department. Which means a bigger budget, and more personal power.
All bureaucracies desire to expand themselves. When checks on government become weak, this becomes the primary goal of the leader(s) of tha
Re: (Score:2)
Never trust the EPA with stewardship of anything in your environment. They don't give a rat's ass about your health or your environment. All they want to do is expand their power to regulate what you can do in it.
TFA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personal accountability? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read this story in the local paper (probably a NYT or AP version, likely shrunk) it made it sound like that many of these things they've already been doing but that they required "opening an official investigation" or something to that effect, which involved some oversight but a ton of bureaucracy and turning the wheels of process.
The net effect seemed to be that they could continue to do some of this stuff, except it would require less organizational oversight and more personal discretion.
THIS is the part I find shocking. I read a story recently about an IRS agent who makes a point of running plates on sports cars he sees on the streets and then checking to see if the people who own the car list enough income on their taxes to justify the ownership. If it seems fishy, he then does a criminal audit.
Even though the people may be cheating on their taxes, this strikes me as kind of rogue behavior that I'd hope the FBI would be restrained from.
Re:Personal accountability? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I'd love to see that sourced too!
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html [nytimes.com]
He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he'll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.
They are watching... (Score:2)
After facebook facial recognition technology comes to fruition, your behavior patterns will be analyzed and recorded, and you may be 're-programmed' to fit back in to society nicely. If you fail to comply with the surveillance overlords, you must be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' thanks you in advance for your coopera
Re: (Score:2)
After facebook facial recognition technology comes to fruition, your behavior patterns will be analyzed and recorded, and you may be 're-programmed' to fit back in to society nicely. If you fail to comply with the surveillance overlords, you must be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
Hohoho.. do you really think that facial recognition technology hasn't been there from the beginning?
This one really stood out to me (Score:2)
"The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary."
Ah, wow. Another example of potential bad guys getting more rights than victims/witnesses. Making something up here- "Oh, he was a victim of wire fraud. Let's go investigate HIM!" The whole article is scary (and I probably just make some list by saying that). We know that are rights have been eroding due to things like the Pat
Re: (Score:2)
I think Ben Frankin said it best: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What terrorists? One attack in a decade makes "such measures necessary"?
Israel, Northern Ireland and Spain are laughing. Ok, snickering, you don't laugh about the schoolyard bully, even if you learn that he's afraid alone in the dark. Home of the brave, my ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Then leave, or fight, or STFU. Who needs whiners?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. It's not the terrorists who won. It's the tyrants in government. The question is whether they can make it stick.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to join a tireless, irate minority that's actually, measurably turning the tide? We're gathering. We're winning. See my
Re: (Score:3)
Please detail for us in what ways the FSP is "actually, measurably turning the tide". Don't just say "read the site"; who has time to trawl through the whole site? Spell it out for us. Or stop making empty boasts.
My impression of the FSP is that it will never reach the 20,000-signature mark, and the fewer than 1,000 members that have moved (or were already there) have made some impact on local politics, perhaps a little at the state level, and none at all at the national level. I'd be delighted to hear I'm
Re:4th? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot more are listed over at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?253-New-Hampshire [ronpaulforums.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not bad. A dozen legisletors isn't very much out of 424, but it's enough to swing some close votes. I especially like the jury nullification bill; we should have those everywhere!
It does seem like the progress so far, however, is mostly with excessively intrusive but minor "nanny-state" measures such as seat belt laws or regulations, and not with more odious things such as abuses of government power or police power, or Constitutional violations. For example, does NH have a recognized right to videotape law
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is good news. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pointed out that the FSP's success is also in large part due to a lot of New Hampshire Republicans being really libertarians and not so much the crony capitalists of the national Republican Party. They aren't interested in funneling large sums of public cash into their campaign contributor's pockets like many Republicans are nationwide. They've generally stayed true to what the GOP advertises itself to be economically: small government and low taxes. They've generally steered clear of the relig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention it is too fucking cold up there for too much of the year.
Pick somewhere more temperate....and friendly (think more southern in direction).
Re: (Score:3)
That may be, but it has the large advantage of being an early presidential primary state. There isn't likely any other state where a 20,000 vote swing could have much if any influence on national politics.
FBI Gives Out New Powers Just After Patriot Act (Score:4)
Surprisingly, the FBI waited to give out these new powers to their agents until just _after_ the Congress approved renewal of the PATRIOT Act. Wouldn't want to risk losing a few votes by doing it beforehand, while they were whining about how they needed to keep all the power they had.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice defeatist attitude. Might as well just give up and move to Canada or Europe. We'll manage without you.
Re: (Score:2)
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It applies only if what the cops do is actually unreasonable.
Googling your name to see if you're a flamboyant crook isn't unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing those things in public, so yes.
Re: (Score:3)
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
It may not be common, but it does happen [findlaw.com]. There are two nuggets in this particular link. First, Alberto Gonzales claimed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus -- just that, IF you already have the right, it can't be denied to you. Anyone familiar with the Constitution will understand that Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution WRT habeas corpus is simply asinine. Second, in the linked article, Dean states that the Supreme Court has, in fact, rebuffed Gonzales' notion
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.. So?
Freedom slipping away fast (Score:2)
It's getting worse by the day ... http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/daniel-ellsberg-all-the-crimes-richard-nixon-committed-against-me-are-now-legal/ .. "Daniel Ellsberg: All the crimes Richard Nixon committed against me are now legal"
Re: (Score:2)
So they're late with the implementation, what else did you expect from government?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The simple idea behind it all is that there is no way in hell you could possibly heed ALL laws ALL the time. I'm fairly sure I broke a law today. Without even noticing. Why? Because I don't know all the laws, duh. And since more and more laws make less and less sense intuitively, you're prone to breaking the rules sooner or later.
Now, if you've already been watched, they already got something to nail you with. Needn't be much. Playing your music a little too loud at odd times, letting your dog shit where it
Re: (Score:2)
Not mine by choice, but none of this should come as a surprise to anyone that's been awake in class. Tax dollars have been used to purchase access to commercial databases for their data mining pleasure for years now. A complicit Supreme Court allows them to go onto private property to plant tracking devices on vehicles, ISP's and telco's roll over and provide whatever they ask (for a fee, of course), and the list goes on. The new handbook codifies everything they've already been doing, just to create a m
Re: (Score:2)
Here and there, under some circumstances and especially when citizens resist them, it's enough like a police state to be worrying. And they don't have to all be bad to cause a lot of problems. All it takes is for some of them to be bad and the rest to turn a blind eye to it, and for most citizens to be apathetic. Which they bloody well are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But what can we do about it? Vote for the Republican in 2012? Get the Democratic Party to nominate someone else?
My guess is he'll lose in 2012 because he's pissed off his base. Then we have four years to try to get a decent Democrat for 2016. Sure as hell no one in the GOP will fight the tide. And third parties are useless with the current voting system.