Wiretap Requests From Federal and State Authorities Fell 14% In 2011 64
coondoggie writes "Federal and state court orders approving the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications dropped 14% in 2011, compared to the number reported in 2010. According to a report issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts a total of 2,732 wiretap applications were authorized in 2011 by federal and state courts, with 792 applications by federal authorities and 1,940 applications by 25 states that provide reports. The reduction in wiretaps resulted primarily from a drop in applications for intercepts in narcotics offenses, the report noted."
This doesn't mean the amount of wiretaps have drop (Score:5, Insightful)
Only that the ones done legally have dropped. I'm sure the total amount of wiretapping has gone up.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, only the ones done legally, and that the Office learns about, have dropped.
[Citation needed] (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the sort of accusation that requires proof.
Re:[Citation needed] (Score:5, Informative)
really? How much proof do you need?
http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/#stats [epic.org]
NSL's are almost never even constitutional, so "not legal" wiretaps. Yet they're on an order of magnitude higher. 2700 wiretaps vs 8500 before the patriot act and 140k after the patriot act?
They shifted from legal methods (harder to obtain) to sanctioned but clearly illegal methods (simple to obtain, no judicial oversight, no perjury or accountability).
Re:[Citation needed] (Score:4, Insightful)
clarification: 8500/140k NSL's which can include wiretaps, 2700 NSL's before - but we're talking about 2700 *wiretaps* at the moment. That shows that the gov't has clearly moved in favor of NSL's.
Re:[Citation needed] (Score:5, Informative)
NSL's are requests for information, not wiretaps.
Re: (Score:2)
That sure is a fine line there, isn't it.
Re:[Citation needed] (Score:4, Informative)
* FISA wiretaps peaked in 2007 at ~2400. The past few years have averaged ~1600, an increase of ~75% since before the WTC attack.
* NSLs =/= wiretaps. From the site you linked:
* You're comparing the number of NSLs in a single year to the number of NSLs in three years put together.
* Those three years are 2003-2005. According to more recent information: [go.com]
The new Justice Department letter dated April 30, 2012 also notes that the FBI issued 16,511 National Security Letters (NSL) to obtain certain records and information in investigations. The letter asserts that the requests were for investigations relating to 7,201 different US persons. The number of National Security Letters declined dramatically from 2010 when the FBI had sought 24,287 NSLs.
You might want to adjust that tinfoil hat; it seems to be cutting off circulation to your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo, its all in how you want to twist the numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The NSA can legally wiretap anyone without a warrant as long as they make up a reasonable story for why they were wiretapping that person (they have Al Quida on speeddial! [because we planted it there]), and then share it with the FBI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
CarrierIQ and the like have made taps obsolete. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why muck around with asking for permission when the phone companies are more than happy to preinstall malware for you and be very cooperative as long as you don't mess with their business?
Of course authorization requests are dropping (Score:1)
Why would you go through the work of getting authorization when you can just call the person a "terrorist" and tap their phones without a warrant?
Except you can't do that (Score:5, Informative)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 clearly specifies that an properly adjudicated, individualized warrant from a court is required to collect, process, analyze, store, or disseminate the content of the communications of a US Person. While it seems to be common belief that you can just "call someone a terrorist and tap their phones," this is in fact false.
If you think the government will just ignore the law and do whatever it wants anyway, then any discussion of the law is moot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think the government will just ignore the law and do whatever it wants anyway, then any discussion of the law is moot.
Except that we aren't talking about what's legal, we're talking about the actions that law enforcement are taking. If they are ignoring the law then it is entirely relevant to the point of conversation about how many wiretappings are actually taking place.
Re:Except you can't do that (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think the government will just ignore the law and do whatever it wants anyway, then any discussion of the law is moot.
Actually, that is when it is most important to discuss the law; to document the non-compliance as a part of the cultural record and to bring it to raise it as an issue to those in government who are supposed to act as the correcting force.
It is the natural course of governments to seek to do what they think is in the best interests of the citizenry. It is also the nature of the people who embody government to realize that they could do more good for the people if they were uninhibited by law. Finally, it is the nature of government on our scale to have some secrets in order to operate effectively.
Given that humans are fallible and subject to distorted perception, it is the nature of such a system for abuses to occur. Each time such an abuse occurs, it either leads to correction or reinforcement of the behavior. Correction if they are punished, reinforcement if they are not.
In the United States, The People are the ultimate sovereigns. We are the ones who have to ensure that the government acts in the interest of the nation. We do that by correcting the government when its internal mechanisms fail to do the job. When the government ignores the law and its internal mechanisms fail to correct it, it is our most important patriotic duty to discuss it, to vote them out if they do not listen, to formally demand redress if we elect those who promise correction and they fail to do so, and to remove them by force if they deny the authority of petition for redress. Each subsequent step is significantly more costly than the one before. The least costly one is discussion.
Discussing lawlessness in government is not frivolous. On the contrary, discussion is the first and least costly means to avoiding the bloody mess of revolution. Denial of such lawlessness or inhibiting the discussion thereof is a path to escalation.
Except that they did (Score:1)
Hmmm, must not have heard yet about the Obamacare ruling this past week...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And law enforcement says, "Who cares?"
Any discussion of the law is moot.
Come on, a show of hands: Who believes that surveillance of communications has gone d
Re: (Score:1)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 clearly specifies that an properly adjudicated, individualized warrant from a court is required to collect, process, analyze, store, or disseminate the content of the communications of a US Person.
Except for those 7 days when they don't need a warrant.
If you think the government will just ignore the law and do whatever it wants anyway, then any discussion of the law is moot.
You mean like that time they were spying on everyone, got caught, [eff.org] then passed FISA to make it all OK and prevent anyone from suing them?
Seriously.. just read it. [wikipedia.org]
correction (Score:1)
Admitted wiretaps have dropped.
But not the other kind [wired.com]
Thank you, Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
The cynical side in me says: Thanks to the Internet, everyone (not just law enforcement) now has wiretap capabilities far far beyond what they could do just 10-20 years ago. ANYONE can now track anything beyond their wildest dreams. Wiretaps are going the way of brick-and-mortar store, print shops, and rotary dial telephones.
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they do it less, or stop asking for permission?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Did they do it less, or stop asking for permission?
Also consider the additive nature of some orders and requests.
1000 new taps last year.
1000 new taps this year.
=======
2000 total taps.
Duration is an important metric in this discussion.
Soon (Score:2)
They only need to ask for one wiretap that covers everyone (well, a "different" 99%, but...)
Shouldn't it be the other kinds going down? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the whole point of wiretapping was to catch dangerous criminals like drug lords. With this 14% reduction, does that mean they are abandoning crime as an excuse and just wiretapping run-of-the-mill citizens now?
Before the NSA data center opens?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I believe asymetric encryption is broken. The NSA has the ability to factor very large semi primes. This would render PGP, RSA, etc vulnerable.Adittionally PRNG don't start with an entirly random seed. Side channel attacks likely makes nearly all encryption over the wire less useful.
Logical conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
And when they've finished tapping everyone, the requests for new taps will drop to nearly zero!
85% drugs, 15% everything else (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is because (Score:2)
60% of all wiretaps are in NJ, NY and california (Score:3)
Wiretap applications in California, New York, and New Jersey accounted for 62% of all applications approved by state judges.
seriously what the fuck is wrong with these three states keep on re-appearing on lists as "most unfree fascist shitholes" from various sources time and time again
Re: (Score:2)
Well being the dictator of cornfields isn't much fun.
"Wiretap requests" (Score:5, Interesting)
Not YRO (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of "rights" is not the same everywhere.
I don't know about that one. The magical rights fairy is pretty consistent.
Re: (Score:1)