FBI Paid Geek Squad Repair Staff As Informants (zdnet.com) 205
According to newly released documents by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, federal agents would pay Geek Squad employees to flag illegal materials on devices sent in by customers for repairs. "The relationship goes back at least ten years, according to documents released as a result of the lawsuit [filed last year]," reports ZDNet. "The agency's Louisville division aim was to maintain a 'close liaison' with Geek Squad management to 'glean case initiations and to support the division's Computer Intrusion and Cyber Crime programs.'" From the report: According to the EFF's analysis of the documents, FBI agents would "show up, review the images or video and determine whether they believe they are illegal content" and seize the device so an additional analysis could be carried out at a local FBI field office. That's when, in some cases, agents would try to obtain a search warrant to justify the access. The EFF's lawsuit was filed in response to a report that a Geek Squad employee was used as an informant by the FBI in the prosecution of child pornography case. The documents show that the FBI would regularly use Geek Squad employees as confidential human sources -- the agency's term for informants -- by taking calls from employees when they found something suspect.
No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean there is no such thing as "geek squad - client privilege"? I'm pretty sure you can expect to see me drunk on CNN tomorrow, talking about how I'm not going to comply with a grand jury subpoena in this witch hunt. In fact, I'm going to start drinking now so I'm ready. What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?
What kind of wings? Regular wings, or buffalo wings?
The correct answer, of course, is always Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor, DAMN! but it pays to be specific, you might want Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor with a Lemon Twist, DAMN! for buffalo wings.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have to ask, then you're part of the problem.
Re:No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. (Score:4, Funny)
"What kind of wings? Regular wings, or buffalo wings?"
Special order. Only right wings.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?
Diethyl ether. Pace yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean there is no such thing as "geek squad - client privilege"? I'm pretty sure you can expect to see me drunk on CNN tomorrow, talking about how I'm not going to comply with a grand jury subpoena in this witch hunt. In fact, I'm going to start drinking now so I'm ready. What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?
Thunderbird/Thunderboyd.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of liquor goes best with antidepressants and chicken wings?
Tequila. don't ask how I know!
Re: (Score:2)
No... It's vodka, not honey:)
Thanks for letting me vent!
Cheers
Now... To find me a pussy to grab!
Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, it was shameful the way we rioted in the streets when Obama was elected and beat up homeless people because the supported him.
Re: No chaos. No chaos. You're the chaos. (Score:2)
chain of evidence issues (Score:3)
chain of evidence issues would really mess this up + in court best buy would have to say how there network is setup give out there inside procedures without any of the top secret BS also need to talk about the overseas remote support
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be OK, buddy. It gets better.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always fucking turn fucking SAILOR-MODE off if you just press the little fucking Angel key on your keyboard, the one with the Angel with the shit-eating grin as its symbol. Christ.
And thanks for the perceptive observations as well. (Yes, I just pressed the key.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could have sworn.... (Score:2)
I could have sworn that I read about this at least 5 years ago, maybe more. Isn't this rather old news?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This case relates purely to proper process of law. A computer touched by a Geek Squad member can only produce on thing, tainted evidence and nothing more. Straight up tainted by leaving the persons individual control and now be controlled by someone who for reward and not as a court appointed officer, breaks the law by looking at material they by law are not allowed to and then well, who knows what else they do, they are getting a financial reward, so placing evidence is a reasonable expectation. You do not
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And the previous posting had more information.
Re: (Score:2)
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.... [honoluluadvertiser.com]
Over the years different news about computer repair shops did show a pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
It was on Slashdot [slashdot.org] a year ago, almost to the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid Informant (Score:2)
Re:Paid Informant (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is about the methods that information was obtained by.
If a police officer is not allowed to search your hard drive without at least a probable cause (and possibly a warrant), then they should not be allowed to pay somebody to do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
If the FBI paid informants to get access to evidence and did not disclose this to a defendant it is a violation of due process.
At the very least they created a set of incentives for evidence to be planted and have not disclosed it willingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying an informant for repeating what they overhear is fine, you have no 4th amendment right to expect privacy there. Paying an informant to search your house to look for evidence, seems iffy. If paying the informant makes them an agent of the state as opposed to a private citizen, it violates the 4th amendment.
To sum up, think of a paid informant as the equivalent of an undercover police officer. They can gather a lot of information, but they also have rules on what they can gather. Or, if that's not t
Re: (Score:2)
dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
We did this last year it seems:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
and
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
But hey, it's still interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say this. Does the outrage machine need a fill-up or something?
Way ahead of them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And that, my friends, is why I've never brought my kitty-porn-laden computers into Geek Squad for service! Well, that, and the fact that they know a lot less about computers than I do!
Arguably, they know less about computers than your grandma does. Possibly even less than your cat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that, my friends, is why I've never brought my kitty-porn-laden computers into Geek Squad for service! Well, that, and the fact that they know a lot less about computers than I do!
Please, won't someone think of the kittens?
Re: (Score:2)
Hm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was the material there before, or after it got to Geeksquad? Those guys aren't paid much, and if the FBI wants to top up their paycheque I wouldn't be surprised if the occasional file slipped on to a customer's computer....
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why people would send their PC to Geeksquad if it had stuff on it that the FBI would be interested in.
Maybe you should go out and meet the full breadth of people, like drop-outs who can barely hold a minimum wage job or live on welfare. They probably don't even understand the danger and even if they did they're incapable of fixing the computer themselves and can't afford to throw it away. That is if they even knew they were breaking the law and still remember doing it. You'd be surprised how many have only barely managed to learn some vocational skills while everything else is a blur.
Re: (Score:2)
A Best Buy For The FBI (Score:2)
https://consumerist.com/2011/06/10/9-confessions-of-a-former-geek-squad-geek/ [consumerist.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Squad#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
https://geek-squad.pissedconsumer.com/review.html [pissedconsumer.com]
https://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/computer-repair/geek-squad-in-quakertown-pa-160210889/reviews-and-complaints [bbb.org]
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/best_buy_geek_squad.html [consumeraffairs.com]
Goes with the territory. (Score:2)
If you have stuff on your computer you don't want to share with the repair guys, then encrypt it or delete it, because there is nothing else going to stop them from seeing it.
.jpg and video files and copy th
One of my university buddies worked at a repair job; not Geek Squad, but the local mega-computer-store equivalent. He worked a lot of nights and weekends and often had the repair shop to himself. Any time a machine came in for repair he would run a boot CD with a script to hoover up any and all
Re: (Score:2)
One of my university buddies worked at a repair job
Yeah, right. It was you, wasn't it, you sick bastard?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish. My summer jobs involved things like sliding sheets of plywood into a dryer. One every 7 seconds, for 8 hours a day. (Not saying I ain't a sick bastard, every now and then).
Re: (Score:3)
Your friend should be charged with computer crimes, preferably one per picture and rot in a cell for a very very long time. This is a gross abuse of trust, which is why I blame the techs for this incident, not the FBI... it's no secret the FBI will 'work with' criminals to catch other criminals. So I don't really blame them, they just saw some low hanging fruit and pounced. The techs who root around customers computers are the dirty ones who make us all look bad and untruthworthy.
We need HIPAA laws regar
Morons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2016 called (Score:2)
They want their headline back.
yeah, I know: "but it's important and bears repeating herp derp"
Fuck off; it's outrage porn. The same FBI that you're hating on with this headline you defend as a pillar of democracy when Trump shits on them. We're literally living in 1984. The only actual solution is to de-fund them and you're constitutionally incapable is even considering such blasphemy, so just live in it; you have the government you deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
The same FBI that you're hating on with this headline you defend as a pillar of democracy when Trump shits on them.
Me personally? I don't blame the FBI, they're just doing their job. I blame the technicians. They're the one who's BREAKING laws by searching people's computers without any due process of law, or respect for privacy. Go after them. And go after them hard, they're the one who'll be hurt the most by litigation. FBI will just shrug, and this behavior will continue. I swear, you lock up a couple technicians and make a lot of noise about it happening, no technician will ever do this again, for any amount
Greed and violation of trust (Score:2)
As the title infers, this is a gross display of greed and violation of trust a computer repair technician should have with their clients.
This is that happens when you industrialize computer repair. Not a good idea. And SHAME on any technician who sells dirt on customers to the FBI. You should disbarred from computer repair. I do some repair work myself and privacy is a huge thing to me. Believe it or not, I do not root around people computers looking for dirty pictures or anything else for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the case of activities covered under HIPAA, doctors and other medical people have a duty to report suspicions about things like sexual abuse. I don't have a big problem with Geek Squad turning in pedos if they happen to find kiddie porn.
However, I did computer repair work for many years, and I have never systematically searched a client's computer for porn or whatever. I have found it inadvertently--for example, one guy had a virus delete everything on his hard disk, and as I was going through and r
There's creepy, and industrial strength creepy (Score:2)
Am I the only one who finds this story several orders of magnitude creepier than yesterday's revelation that some ad-supported movie ticket app tracks the user's trip to and from the theater?
Fuck both of them (Score:2)
Not really news (Score:2)
This was well known about 10 years ago when Best Buy admitted as much right after a few high profile child porn arrests that stemmed from it.
Pretty much every IT professional will report you if you send them a computer to work on that's filled with child porn or snuff porn.
Old News (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Does it hold water? Probably not. I'll add that in many cases, private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff. Teachers in both private and public schools, physicians at private practices, and the like are required to report child abuse and child pornography. I believe (and someone who knows better please correct me if I'm wrong) patient-doctor confidentiality is waived in case of child abuse or pornography as well.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still waiting for the criminal indictments for the mandatory reporters at MSU for the women's gymnastics scandal. I believe that Michigan's mandatory reporting laws must cover people who had reason to suspect that something was not right with Larry Nassar.
So far, I haven't read anything about the people who should have reported Nassar being indicted. Why not?
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
"private citizens are required by law to report some of this stuff"
Please cite the specific federal law(s) you are referring to. "Private citizens", in general, are under no such obligation.
And yes, these claims do "hold water", though you are likely to lose one way or another if you test them. Might doesn't make right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
I work in education. We signed a statement, as part of our training, that holds us legally liable to report child abuse, child pornography, etc. we can be sued/fired if it occurs, we knew about it, and didn't report it. It's a California State Law, however, not federal
I think the point is, there are people outside law enforcement who are required to report certain things. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/a... [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
In places you can be charged with complicity if you knowingly allow a criminal act without reporting.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another, possibly bigger, issue is that you've now given geek squad members incentive to plant evidence in exchange for cash.
How do you prove chain of custody in these cases? How much do you trust that near minimum wage "tech" from best buy who now gets paid every time he "finds" something on a computer?
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy. Mens rea [wikipedia.org] does not apply to possession of child pornography. Simply possessing it is a crime, whether you knew about it or not, whether someone planted the evidence or not. If the technician will testify that he found it on the computer owned by the defendant, then that person is going to jail for a long time and will be a sex offender for life even if that child pornography was not on his computer until he handed it to Geek Squad.
This is what you get when Congress passes "think of the children" laws. Who is going to complain about tightening the screws on people who have child porn? Nobody - even if there is collateral legal damage.
Re: (Score:3)
The person would not be in possession of it until the computer is returned to them, which is unlikely to happen as the FBI take it for evidence.
That said, proving your innocence is near impossible, and make no mistake, this is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. And even if you do manage to prove innocence, your life will still be ruined.
But "think of the children" indeed.
Re: And? (Score:2)
In Soviet America innocence is proof of guilt!
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Hahaha no. If this were the case there would be no FBI in the appropriate department to investigate because they all would be in jail for possession. Along with them would be Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Drop Box, and any other cloud provider. Stop spreading FUD. All child porn laws in the US require proof that the defendant "knowingly viewed or possessed".
State v Jensen, 173 P.3d 1046 (Ariz.App. 2008)
Barton v State, 648 S.E.2d 660 (Ga.App. 2007)
United States v Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997)
"trial court erred in not instructing that the defendant must know that the hard drive and disks contained child pornography to be guilty of possession of pornography"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if, hypothetically speaking, the computer's been in someone else's physical possession for a few days? Perhaps at a repair shop or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Mens rea [wikipedia.org] does not apply to possession of child pornography. Simply possessing it is a crime, whether you knew about it or not, whether someone planted the evidence or not. If the technician will testify that he found it on the computer owned by the defendant, then that person is going to jail for a long time and will be a sex offender for life even if that child pornography was not on his computer until he handed it to Geek Squad.
This is what you get when Congress passes "think of the children" laws. Who is going to complain about tightening the screws on people who have child porn? Nobody - even if there is collateral legal damage.
And how in the FUCK do you define this scenario as "easy" for the accused? If simply possessing child porn is a crime, then it is EASY to plant shit like that on someone's computer and fuck their life over. Even trying to prove your innocence would be VERY costly.
Idiot.
Considering this, I'm actually rather surprised that some purveyor or consumer of kiddie porn hasn't preemptively hired a bot net or two already to spread kiddie porn far and wide.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK when this has happened they generally rely on being able to show that the evidence could not reasonably have been planted due to thinks like date stamps, extended browsing history over several months or years, and corroborated with other devices found at the owner's house. In the UK they can also ask your ISP for the logs they are legally required to keep tracking which domains connect to.
People have argued successfully in the past that things like images in the browser cache may never have appear
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, by that point their spouse has left them, they lost their job and even their family thinks they are paedo, and they sold their house to pay for their defence, and it's taken 3 years from the point of arrest...
Not to mention that nobody will ever hire them again, people whisper and cross the street when they walk by, many businesses refuse to serve them, etc.
And that of course is the real problem with the whole system. No matter how innocent you are, your life will be ruined anyway. It's really guilty until proven guilty. And the worst part about it is, that it doesn't even take that much to frame someone for this. If you really don't like someone, it's a surefire way to ruin their life (now there is a risk that
Re: (Score:2)
At least we have the right to be forgotten now. It's possible to recover something of your life by preventing employers from finding that information when they google your name.
Re: (Score:2)
a) only some countries have that right
b) I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't 100% effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws do require people to report stuff when they find it in the course of their normal activities, but that's quite different from giving people a monetary incentive to search through private property looking for evidence of a crime. It would be like paying a doctor to do unnecessary and covert drugs tests just so that they can report users to the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or you're copying files off the hard drive before wiping the OS... and you see some questionable filenames flash across the file copy dialog.
A long time ago, I worked at a place where an idiot got fired for something similar after running a file copy while on a Remote Assistance session with the help desk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
The repair techs were being paid to actively search through the computers and report anything "suspicious".
There is a difference between a plumber coming to fix your john and stumbling across a heap of porn magazines under the sink, and the same guy being paid to ruffle through all unlocked cabinets and drawers in your house while you're not looking.
Not to mention that if they were being paid by incident, they would have an incentive to plant such material. That alone should scream "reasonable doubt" to any sensible juror.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the other guys said, it’s a 4th Amendment issue. The cops can’t just hire people to do their (otherwise illegal, constitutionally prohibited) searches for them. They should be trying to obey the Constitution and protect our rights, not trying to work around them.
It’s up to the courts whether this sort of workaround is permissible. Courts have to make very clear rules.
Unless Geek Squad is legally required to report what they find, and unless they disclose that they will be searching for contraband, it’s a clear breach of trust on Geek Squad's part. Some of Geek Squad's customers probably deserve to have their trust breached. But the FBI was paying Geek Squad, so Geek Squad had a direct, corrupt incentive to breach every customer's trust.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone who interacted with them. Every voluntary interaction between people has an inherent level of trust.
Geek Squad betrayed their customers in a corrupt way by taking money in exchange for reporting on the results of searched computers. If they just stumble on some shit and report it because they feel they have a duty to protect children or something, that's different because it’s an act of conscience. Geek Squad sold their customers out for cash (cf. Judas).
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is a very valid argument and the subject of trust runs through the whole surveillance state issue.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still corrupt to do it for cash. And still a breach of trust. The written policy may help protect them from legal recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So repair techs had a number for the FBI to call if they find kiddie porn on a computer. Are they just supposed to ignore it?
What's the issue here?
Yes, they are supposed to ignore it. They are not supposed to look at anything on the devices they repair except technical stuff. No browsing into picture folders and especially not opening any files.
Anything else is an invasion of privacy.
You could say that anyone storing illegal stuff in plain sight on their computer is asking for it. Free encryption software has been around for ages.
Re: (Score:3)
Eons ago, when I was young, people had to take pictures on "film" that they had to take in to a drugstore for "developing." Employees at these places were under similar orders to watch for child porn in the pictures they processed. Some spotty high schooler at Walgreens therefore had an actionable first opinion on whether or not those snapshots of your one-year-old in the bathtub constituted child porn. People would occasionally get hauled in for embarrassing interview sessions before being able to clear th
Agents of the govt doing search without warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can't search your stuff without a warrant.
"The government" meaning, of course, people working for the government. It's unconstitutional for people working for the government, or on the government's behalf, to randomly search through your stuff.
Digging through YOUR stuff. They didn't find the CP by searching computers marked "this computer contains CP", they looked through everybody's pictures hoping to find something good, either CP or something that they enjoyed seeing.
Because the FBI was PAYING them, they are working on the government's behalf. The Fourth Amendment applies when the government pays people to do searches for them.
Re:Agents of the govt doing search without warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
No, by handing your computer over you're consenting to have it REPAIRED, not combed through. If you call out a plumber to fix your kitchen sink you don't consent to having him rifle through your underwear drawer in your bedroom, even if you haven't locked the bedroom door while he's in your house.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody elsewhere in the comments said the contract allows them to search through the drive for anything relevant technically to solving the issue.
It would be hard to argue that searching for *.jpg, or browsing C:\PRIVATE\WORK STUFF\STAY OUT\REALLY\NUDE PICS\ was technically relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is. It's in the house.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a new program or even a new idea. It's been done since before computers were invented and is entirely constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By handing your computer over to Geek Squad you are consenting to a search.
First of all, you are consenting to have your computer repaired, not to have its contents searched and reviewed. There are privacy issues with technicians accessing user files at all---unless specifically requested as part of the service, of course. E.g., when the customer says, "make sure Outlook has all my mails in it when you're done", then it's OK. Otherwise, no.
Second, if Geek Squad is getting paid for looking through the drives and reporting to the FBI, they may be acting as agents of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)