FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

https://gizmodo.com/fbi-surveillance-vendor-threatens-to-sue-tech-reporters-1840913576

by mindgam3 • 7 years ago

112 37 7 years ago

In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War.

We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.

ryanlol5• 7 years ago

Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately.

It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?

mschuster912• 7 years ago

The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of <long list>". Do I continue or do I drop the case?

The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence.

And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record.

Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.

saghm• 7 years ago

In the context of a lawyer of a threatening to sue to stifle a legitimate news story that their client wants suppressed, yes, that really seems like a problem.

int_19h• 7 years ago

ITAR has many absurdities to it. For example, many items that are imported into US, cannot be re-exported because of ITAR. This is especially amusing when the country of origin is China.

Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item.

The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.

DailyHN• 7 years ago

Time for the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

rahuldottech4• 7 years ago

Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.

uuhsuduuej22• 7 years ago

Calling Gizmodo a part of the news cycle is pretty generous. If the story was coming from somewhere mainstream like the AP, Reuters, or even CNN or Fox it'd likely stick around for a bit. Gizmodo is mostly niche articles for tech enthusiasts that like bite sized intrigue articles.

rahuldottech4• 7 years ago

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter.

Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people?

I'm sure there's no way that this can ever possibly be misused /s.

If agencies are using these for surveillance on specific targets then that's maybe okay, but as far as I'm aware, there is not much regulation regarding hidden cameras in public - at least, not in many parts of the world.

AdrianB1• 7 years ago

"But think of the children". This is an excuse that always work when the governments get even more in the lives of the citizens; with it you can ban anything, you can monitor, search, decrypt, forbid, etc.

JustSomeNobody• 7 years ago

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public.

Me either. I mean, once people get used to just having cameras on them all the time, they'll basically just ignore the camera and act however they want. No real need for hidden cameras, just have to be patient.

judge2020• 7 years ago

I mean, the issue with cameras on everyone is that they all require small batteries, meaning always recording with them isn't really practical. There is already early-stage research into long-range wireless charging https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 so maybe 15+ years in the future it would be practical to have always-recording devices.

cmdshiftf42• 7 years ago

Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras?

Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever.

All of it piped into communications networks we know they have untapped access to. All of it being stored and analyzed in places like the NSA's data warehouses, the output of which gets added to things like our XKeyscore profiles. Rise high enough on their undefined terms and they'll make extra effort to analyze your appearance in that network traffic.

Might sound dystopian but that's how it is. It's for our own good, don't you know?

bilbo0s• 7 years ago

That's the thing that perplexes me?

People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp fraudsters? Could be used pretty liberally in family courts? Once non technical people begin to realize the data is out there and family court accessible. But it's not like it's gonna be used to get you your next promotion. (Maybe to prevent you getting your next promotion, but that's another thing entirely.)

For me, it just sounds like a really good reason not to be buying cameras and microphones and slapping them up all over the place. When people come to your home, they should feel they can speak and act freely. Especially since they won't be able to do so in public much longer.

uuhsuduuej22• 7 years ago

I imagine perspective explains a lot of the behavior. San Diego's police department has been getting flack for streetlights with cameras in them for example, but San Diego's police department has also been having trouble hiring enough police officers. From the perspective of the PD the cameras probably /are/ for the people because the people are making the (currently) impossible demand that the police force be both effective and also configured in a way that has led to a staffing shortage. Not that I give the same benefit of the doubt to the FBI, but it seems like the Occam's Razor explanation for why LEO would do something that from the outside looks hostile.

saagarjha• 7 years ago

Law enforcement often does things that make their job easier. Said things just as often encroach upon our rights as citizens. We shouldn’t allow them to exist for that reason.

joncp• 7 years ago

I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter.

Perhaps we need to define a new right: the right to obscurity. There are places and times when you can't expect privacy but still should be able to expect that your location and actions won't be linked to your identity for all eternity.

mirimir• 7 years ago

It's not like they compromised SSG's website to get it. It was produced in response to at least two FOIA requests. So if anyone's culpable, it's arguably whoever produced it.

hvo• 7 years ago

Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.

catalogia• 7 years ago

There have been instances of religious/ethnic motivated vandalism before. I'd guess this is the target market.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism

cat199• 7 years ago

Funerals of 'bad guys' are a good way to learn about who is affiliated and has connections, and probably to also pick up on juicy gossip of one form or another

Thorrez• 7 years ago

They might bet a criminal will visit his parents' graves every so often.

hoistbypetard• 7 years ago

SLAPP normally means a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.

FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

Related Stories