FBI's Use of Surveillance Database Violated Americans' Privacy Rights: Court (thehill.com) 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Some of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's electronic surveillance activities violated the constitutional privacy rights of Americans swept up in a controversial foreign intelligence program (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), a secretive surveillance court has ruled. The ruling deals a rare rebuke to U.S. spying activities that have generally withstood legal challenge or review. The intelligence community disclosed Tuesday that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court last year found that the FBI's pursuit of data about Americans ensnared in a warrantless internet-surveillance program intended to target foreign suspects may have violated the law authorizing the program, as well as the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
The court concluded that the FBI had been improperly searching a database of raw intelligence for information on Americans -- raising concerns about oversight of the program, which as a spy program operates in near total secrecy. The court ruling identifies tens of thousands of improper searches of raw intelligence databases by the bureau in 2017 and 2018 that it deemed improper in part because they involved data related to tens of thousands of emails or telephone numbers -- in one case, suggesting that the FBI was using the intelligence information to vet its personnel and cooperating sources. Federal law requires that the database only be searched by the FBI as part of seeking evidence of a crime or for foreign intelligence information. In other cases, the court ruling reveals improper use of the database by individuals. In one case, an FBI contractor ran a query of an intelligence database -- searching information on himself, other FBI personnel and his relatives, the court revealed. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said that the Trump administration failed to persuasively argue that the bureau would not be able to properly tackle national security threats if the program was altered to better protect citizen privacy.
The court concluded that the FBI had been improperly searching a database of raw intelligence for information on Americans -- raising concerns about oversight of the program, which as a spy program operates in near total secrecy. The court ruling identifies tens of thousands of improper searches of raw intelligence databases by the bureau in 2017 and 2018 that it deemed improper in part because they involved data related to tens of thousands of emails or telephone numbers -- in one case, suggesting that the FBI was using the intelligence information to vet its personnel and cooperating sources. Federal law requires that the database only be searched by the FBI as part of seeking evidence of a crime or for foreign intelligence information. In other cases, the court ruling reveals improper use of the database by individuals. In one case, an FBI contractor ran a query of an intelligence database -- searching information on himself, other FBI personnel and his relatives, the court revealed. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said that the Trump administration failed to persuasively argue that the bureau would not be able to properly tackle national security threats if the program was altered to better protect citizen privacy.
The word that is where it shouldn't be: Court. (Score:2)
Maybe it's because I'm not a native, but this strikes me as a horrible abuse of the English language ...
Re: (Score:1)
It makes sense - if court is the name of one of "Americans' Privacy Rights". It also makes a sense in a different lens: "lol /. editing."
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that spares me from having to drill down into is welcome XD
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, for now at least we can still voice our scathing disapproval.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if they did? Nobody is going to get punished for this and it's going to get worse over time.
And of course all that data will be disposed of and the collection routines modified not to collect such information in future. Pinky swear.
Might start a firestorm... of hate... (Score:2, Informative)
But this is one of the central abuses of the fake Trump Russia conspiracy.
https://theconservativetreehou... [theconserv...ehouse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, this in no way has an impact on the ability of intelligence services to investigate foreign connections.
Secondly, the investigation of President Trump did not use employ the program in question.
Thirdly, which of the 400 page Mueller report is "fake"?
When Trump leaves office, he will be charged with the crimes he's committed to get elected and attempted to get re-elected. There are conspiracy theories that get thrown around about political opponents (which lead to nothing) but these cases were buil
Re: Might start a firestorm... of hate... (Score:1)
'which of the 400 page Mueller report is "fake"?'
Pages 1-400?
Re: (Score:2)
Not the physical paper .. the premise.
secrets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, this whole thing is becoming increasingly antithetical to "secret," so one does begin to wonder what the fuck the actual point was supposed to be...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: secrets (Score:2)
Didn't you hear? The Constitution was repealed back in 2001.
Re: (Score:1)
The emails you're sending are not military secrets. If the authorities suspect they are, let them make a case for a warrant.
Or secrets about where the government keeps its most vulnerable, special assets.
Individuals and private individuals do this too.
You think they care? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the fucked are fucked, the fuckers are fine (Score:3)
Wake me up when something changes.
So... it's the same as it's been for over a decade (Score:5, Insightful)
The once where it came out traffic was being monitored?
What about when it was revealed they were routing domestic calls through Canada so they could be considered 'international' and thus lose Constitutional protections against spying?
Remember how many years ago that was? Through both parties having control? This is a problem with political power at the top, not a specific party thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how many years ago that was? Through both parties having control? This is a problem with political power at the top, not a specific party thing.
This is most certainly true, but it's also true that the party currently in power receives the blame. It was a major fault of Obama's. He allowed military and intelligence leader's to convince him that these measures were necessary—much like Trump is doing now (and Johnson did with the Vietnam War).
Just because it has been a persistent problem in the executive branch regardless of who's in charge doesn't mean we should become complacent about it. It leads to a sort of whataboutism that allows both par
Re: (Score:2)