FBI Admits It Bought US Location Data (wired.com) 35
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged for the first time that it purchased US location data rather than obtaining a warrant. Wired reports: While the practice of buying people's location data has grown increasingly common since the US Supreme Court reined in the government's ability to warrantlessly track Americans' phones nearly five years ago, the FBI had not previously revealed ever making such purchases. The disclosure came [Wednesday] during a US Senate hearing on global threats attended by five of the nation's intelligence chiefs.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, put the question of the bureau's use of commercial data to its director, Christopher Wray: "Does the FBI purchase US phone-geolocation information?" Wray said his agency was not currently doing so, but he acknowledged that it had in the past. He also limited his response to data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes. To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising," Wray said. "I understand that we previously -- as in the past -- purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project. But that's not been active for some time." He added that the bureau now relies on a "court-authorized process" to obtain location data from companies."
It's not immediately clear whether Wray was referring to a warrant -- that is, an order signed by a judge who is reasonably convinced that a crime has occurred -- or another legal device. Nor did Wray indicate what motivated the FBI to end the practice. In its landmark Carpenter v. United States decision, the Supreme Court held that government agencies accessing historical location data without a warrant were violating the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches. But the ruling was narrowly construed. Privacy advocates say the decision left open a glaring loophole that allows the government to simply purchase whatever it cannot otherwise legally obtain. [...] Asked during the Senate hearing whether the FBI would pick up the practice of purchasing location data again, Wray replied: "We have no plans to change that, at the current time."
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, put the question of the bureau's use of commercial data to its director, Christopher Wray: "Does the FBI purchase US phone-geolocation information?" Wray said his agency was not currently doing so, but he acknowledged that it had in the past. He also limited his response to data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes. To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising," Wray said. "I understand that we previously -- as in the past -- purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project. But that's not been active for some time." He added that the bureau now relies on a "court-authorized process" to obtain location data from companies."
It's not immediately clear whether Wray was referring to a warrant -- that is, an order signed by a judge who is reasonably convinced that a crime has occurred -- or another legal device. Nor did Wray indicate what motivated the FBI to end the practice. In its landmark Carpenter v. United States decision, the Supreme Court held that government agencies accessing historical location data without a warrant were violating the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches. But the ruling was narrowly construed. Privacy advocates say the decision left open a glaring loophole that allows the government to simply purchase whatever it cannot otherwise legally obtain. [...] Asked during the Senate hearing whether the FBI would pick up the practice of purchasing location data again, Wray replied: "We have no plans to change that, at the current time."
Two Sets Of Rules (Score:3)
Glad to see nothing has changed in all these decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Reelection rates still remain at over 95%.
In 2022, 55 Congresscritters out of 470 seats up for election decided not to run, mostly because they knew they would lose, and 28 incumbents ran but lost. That was 17% not re-elected.
In 2020, 40 Congresscritters out of 470 seats up for election decided not to run, and another 26 lost their elections: 14% turnover rate. In 2018, 55 did not run for re-election and 39 lost elections: 20% turnover rate.
Fact check: Pants on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 94%, 94.5%, 91.7%. Not 95% but not grossly so.
Fact check: Pants on fire.
At most somewhat warm. GP has overestimated, but by far less than you did.
And the exact number doesn't change the conclusion anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-election means re-election. Do you also think that Donald Trump won his re-election, for the right definition of re-election?
Laughable (Score:2)
Anyone who believes a word that comes out of the mouth of that bucket of eels is delusional.
DOJ and FBI (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The street thugs the elites use to keep the down belows in line.
The entire DOJ and FBI... um, would you like to see an org chart? Not even the most nonsensical thing you said, it's just ugh.... why.
Re: (Score:1)
No, just enough of them.
As long as it's easy (Score:5, Informative)
for location data to be collected and collated and sold, this kind of thing is bound to happen. I'm not writing this to minimize the F.B.I.'s unethical and illegal practice to get around warrants. I writing this to point out that there are other agencies and groups that could be willing to do a lot worse with this kind of data. It'd be great if data brokers could be put of out business. And also if the whole practice of data collection for the sake of data collection would stop.
Third-party doctrine in action. (Score:2)
Why is anyone surprised by this? Law enforcement in the US has long held the belief that they don't need a warrant if the information about you is held by a third party. It's not surprising at all that the free market found a way to earn a few bucks to speed up a process that was going to happen anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, if I'm a business I'm going to be happier with the FBI paying me for data as opposed to making me give it to them at my own expense as with a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
From Wray's response it sounds like they're connected into companies back end or tapped along the way, no need to buy anything. Section 703? Articles from long ago indicate the FBI receives everything the NSA does from their military spy aparatus (massive utah data center), and does not have any restrictions on its use
copied from https://theintercept.com/2017/... [theintercept.com]
---
In her first appearance representing the American public before the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2015, Amy Jeffress arg
Re: (Score:2)
And how is this (legally) different ... (Score:2)
Why is anyone surprised by this? Law enforcement in the US has long held the belief that they don't need a warrant if the information about you is held by a third party.
Exactly.
While I'm as unhappy with their use of such services as the rest of us, I do wonder: How is the FBI buying and using this information any different from buying (or otherwise obtaining) a phone directory and looking it up? Or consulting public records ditto?
Seems to me the place to look into would be how these services get the infor
This is funny (Score:2, Informative)
its funny because people get so up in arms about the goverment agencies buying the same data that any advertiser, megacorp, late night tv show host, or stalker could buy.
the fact that this data is sold as a commodity should be the outrage everything after that is just incidental
Re: (Score:1)
There is a difference - government has power to destroy our lives.
I agree on the fact that commercial data even EXISTING beyond the lifetime of a transaction is an unacceptable privacy risk.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone has the power to destroy someones life. Particularly in America.
Re: (Score:1)
FBI obviously has more data coming in than buying what is commercially available. They have attorney client communications, in high profile cases.
They do what they want, regardless of legality, precedent, or constitutionality.
https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
"Agents’ access to and review of the attorney-client communications of a defendant in this case which concerned trial strategy."
Wow, so many weasel words (Score:2)
If the data is on the open market... (Score:1)
Re: If the data is on the open market... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
then why can't the government purchase it? The users agreed to the use of the open data when they bought the phone or downloaded the application.
Because there are zero app developers who can freeze my bank accounts, put me on a no-fly-list, or arrest me.
A better reason is because context matters. If the FBI were buying location data for some sort of aggregate data mining, that's...what you're talking about. What happened is that the government purchased data because they were unable to get a warrant from a judge. If a judge says "you don't have probable cause to collect this data", that should be the end of it.
Instead, when the judge said 'no', the
Modded down. (Score:1)
They did it to spy on me, and then they paid some sock puppeteers to mod me down for saying it was happening.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you noticed a difference in the behaviour of slashdot's commented section today? and the general content?
Coincidental with the recent bill passage?
I can actually read comments by other people, and it's not just full of very suspect posts.
Maybe the FBI will use this to investigate Mules (Score:1)
Ballot mules stuffing boxes with harvested ballots could be found if they looked for phones that visited activist orgainizations and then more than two or three ballot boxes. The FBI should look into this use for the location data it purchased.
Also I want the following: A VOIp/Text recieving doohickey that will forward me calls and texts to a burner number of my choice, so I can roll with a phone I bought wearing a branch covidian mask with cash and all calls appear to go to my landline at home.
For anyone who doesn't get why it's a big deal (Score:3)
As for why that's bad, well, see here [youtube.com]. TL;DW cops will lock you in a room for 16 hours berating and borderline torturing you while recording everything you say on the off chance that you'll either confess during exhaustion or say something they can use to convict you.
Cops aren't there to protect & serve, they're there to get arrests that lead to convictions.
Re: For anyone who doesn't get why it's a big deal (Score:3)
One thing I don't get: what about burden of proof? Doesn't the FBI have to establish the accuracy of the data they buy beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, I could start making shit up and sell it as "location data".
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I don't get: what about burden of proof? Doesn't the FBI have to establish the accuracy of the data they buy beyond a reasonable doubt?
To get a conviction? Maybe. To get a warrant, and/or drag you in for questioning and potentially fuck up your life with charges, making you miss work, etc? Nope.
UnConstitutional (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)