US Used Patriot Act To Gather Logs of Website Visitors (nytimes.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The government has interpreted a high-profile provision of the Patriot Act as empowering F.B.I. national security investigators to collect logs showing who has visited particular web pages, documents show. But the government stops short of using that law to collect the keywords people submit to internet search engines because it considers such terms to be content that requires a warrant to gather, according to letters produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The disclosures come at a time when Congress is struggling with new proposals to limit the law, known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The debate ran aground in the spring amid erratic messages from President Trump, but is expected to resume after President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. takes the oath of office in January.
In May, 59 senators voted to bar the use of Section 215 to collect internet search terms or web browsing activity, but negotiations broke down in the House. During that period, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and one of the sponsors of the proposal ban, wrote to the director of national intelligence seeking clarity about any such use. Six months later, the Trump administration finally replied -- initially, it turned out, in a misleading way. In a Nov. 6 letter to Mr. Wyden, John Ratcliffe, the intelligence director, wrote that Section 215 was not used to gather internet search terms, and that none of the 61 orders issued last year under that law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court involved collection of "web browsing" records. Mr. Wyden's office provided that letter to The New York Times, arguing that it meant Mr. Wyden's proposal in May -- which he sponsored with Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana -- could be enacted into law without any operational costs.
But The Times pressed Mr. Ratcliffe's office and the F.B.I. to clarify whether it was defining "web browsing" activity to encompass logging all visitors to a particular website, in addition to a particular person's browsing among different sites. The next day, the Justice Department sent a clarification to Mr. Ratcliffe's office, according to a follow-up letter he sent to Mr. Wyden on Nov. 25. In fact, "one of those 61 orders resulted in the production of information that could be characterized as information regarding browsing," Mr. Ratcliffe wrote in the second letter. Specifically, one order had approved collection of logs revealing which computers "in a specified foreign country" had visited "a single, identified U.S. web page." Mr. Ratcliffe expressed regret "that this additional information was not included in my earlier letter" to the senator, and suggested his staff might take further "corrective action." In a statement, Mr. Wyden said the letters raise "all kinds of new questions, including whether, in this particular case, the government has taken steps to avoid collecting Americans' web browsing information." "More generally," Mr. Wyden continued, "the D.N.I. has provided no guarantee that the government wouldn't use the Patriot Act to intentionally collect Americans' web browsing information in the future, which is why Congress must pass the warrant requirement that has already received support from a bipartisan majority in the Senate."
In May, 59 senators voted to bar the use of Section 215 to collect internet search terms or web browsing activity, but negotiations broke down in the House. During that period, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and one of the sponsors of the proposal ban, wrote to the director of national intelligence seeking clarity about any such use. Six months later, the Trump administration finally replied -- initially, it turned out, in a misleading way. In a Nov. 6 letter to Mr. Wyden, John Ratcliffe, the intelligence director, wrote that Section 215 was not used to gather internet search terms, and that none of the 61 orders issued last year under that law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court involved collection of "web browsing" records. Mr. Wyden's office provided that letter to The New York Times, arguing that it meant Mr. Wyden's proposal in May -- which he sponsored with Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana -- could be enacted into law without any operational costs.
But The Times pressed Mr. Ratcliffe's office and the F.B.I. to clarify whether it was defining "web browsing" activity to encompass logging all visitors to a particular website, in addition to a particular person's browsing among different sites. The next day, the Justice Department sent a clarification to Mr. Ratcliffe's office, according to a follow-up letter he sent to Mr. Wyden on Nov. 25. In fact, "one of those 61 orders resulted in the production of information that could be characterized as information regarding browsing," Mr. Ratcliffe wrote in the second letter. Specifically, one order had approved collection of logs revealing which computers "in a specified foreign country" had visited "a single, identified U.S. web page." Mr. Ratcliffe expressed regret "that this additional information was not included in my earlier letter" to the senator, and suggested his staff might take further "corrective action." In a statement, Mr. Wyden said the letters raise "all kinds of new questions, including whether, in this particular case, the government has taken steps to avoid collecting Americans' web browsing information." "More generally," Mr. Wyden continued, "the D.N.I. has provided no guarantee that the government wouldn't use the Patriot Act to intentionally collect Americans' web browsing information in the future, which is why Congress must pass the warrant requirement that has already received support from a bipartisan majority in the Senate."
They also used it against Occupy Wall Street (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
They also used it against a major political campaign, and then lied about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they push your buttons? Brainphishing! (Score:2)
Were you rushing for FP? Or going for a quick joke? Even if I had a Funny point to give, I doubt I could justify it for that quickie. Has a bit of Insight, but so brief...
My latest thinking along these lines involves the loss of freedom via brainphishing. (A portmanteau of "brainwashing" and "spearphishing".) I'm not saying that "they" can make anyone do anything, but I definitely think that the technology has reached the point where they can use massive amounts of personal information to find some of the p
oops wow I am glad you asked ;) But (Score:2)
Oh wait! I am a peasant not a politician, government employee or main stream media flake. Guess I am going to prison.
But hey! they let all the criminals go so there will be a lot of room for us rowdy political criminals giving the finger to the man over laws for us, but not for them..
This story brought to you by (Score:2)
your friendly overseas anonymous VPN provider.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
" It's a layer of indirection, sure. It is only going to slow them down for a bit, it won't stop them. "
Sure, but by then you'll use a different Starbucks.
Re: This story brought to you by (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Starbucks has video cameras. "They" know who you are."
LOL, you don't go inside, that's just morons.
"I'm amazed" (Score:3)
Said no one anywhere.
They are spies, they spy on people just to pass the time (and justify budgets). Foreigners are harder to spy on than local people, so they spy on local people more.
In the 50's and 60's they employed people to record all the letters sent to newspapers. This is the modern version. Everyone is guilty of something; there are no innocents (except themselves, of course, they're pure as the driven snow which is why the law doesn't need to apply to them).
Re: (Score:3)
They are spies, they spy on people just to pass the time (and justify budgets). Foreigners are harder to spy on than local people, so they spy on local people more.
This article is about the FBI, not the CIA or NSA.
It's all the US Gov. The distinctions are mainly for payroll purposes.
Re: (Score:1)
log out and fuck you
Fixed (Score:2)
"But the government stops short of using that law to collect the keywords people submit to internet search engines because it considers such terms to be content that requires complicated decryption"
my guess is that they're just snooping in on unencrypted dns traffic.
Re:You’ll recall... (Score:5, Insightful)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No politician is EVER going to repeal the Patriot Act. Once in power all they want to do is amend it to give them yet more power over the populace they were hired by. They'll talk about repealing it to keep people thinking they're looking out for our best interests, but anything that removes power from government agencies is never going to fly with our current politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
FALSE POSITIVES (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to know our president-elect was the original architect, and he originally introduced the patriot act legislation in 1994 after Oklahoma City.
The Oklahoma City bombing was in April, 1995.
The Patriot Act expired this year. (Score:1)
With No Checks and Balances, Of Course (Score:2)
What's the problem? Not being sent to China!!! (Score:2)
Why are people all upset? It's not like the information is gathered by TikTok and sent to China, over the Huawei backbone.
This is under the PATRIOT ACT, all Americans must applaud this action or be branded a traitor. What dastardly deeds are you trying to hide - should the G-man pay you a visit?