The FBI Team Sent to ‘Exploit’ Protesters’ Phones in Portland

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/10/08/the-fbi-team-sent-to-exploit-protesters-phones-in-portland/

by panic • 6 years ago

182 111 6 years ago

I encourage all to look at the DNS hosting records for fbi.gov. They are bizarre. There is a big identity question with who the FBI is right now. I'm not confident any unit or person is from the FBI until I see strong evidence / identification they bring with them.

A good example is how more and more subdomains keep slipping behind CloudFlare. Those could be hosted anywhere.

Another example, which I spoke to the FBI Los Angeles office this morning about, is Infragard Los Angeles. They literally have subdomains hosted in mainland China. What is going on here? [1]

[1] https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/

Der_Einzige• 6 years ago

Looks like the glowies and spooks are already out and doing damage control based on the color of your post. :(

chance_state• 6 years ago

Yes, it's well known that the FBI deploys teams of agents to downvote comments on posts on HN.

It's definitely not that most people think this kind of talk is insane. Definitely not that. It's the FBI.

themodelplumber• 6 years ago

I DV'd after reading the first three sentences. DNS records are not ample evidence that a government organization's identity is in question. I can think of a lot of reasons why the records would be so diverse.

So to me this is not only illogical, irrational, and invalid on its face, but it's also muddying already-muddy waters while failing to meet that qualitative standard. By all means update us again when there's more credible evidence.

ineedasername• 6 years ago

Jumping from DNS records to massive efforts to undermine/impersonate/subvert parts of the FBI is quite a leap.

I'm sure the OP's LA FBI contact appreciated the laugh they had when their local Dwight Schrute called them to complain about the web hosting of the "private" part of a public-private partnership.

malwarebytess• 6 years ago

Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger.

It seems like a clear cut abuse of power. These aren't exigent circumstances, they're protests, and besides that it's not a federal problem. It seems like the 4th amendment doesn't have any power any more.

2bitencryption• 6 years ago

I feel like programmers/engineers/technical-minded people have an easier time being terrified at this kind of "exception" for "exigent circumtances". Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever.

or maybe I'm just projecting how I think.

roughly• 6 years ago

You'd think this would generalize, but ask anyone who does security or has more than 10 minutes of social science education about programmers' general ability to ignore side effects and unintentional consequences...

gruez• 6 years ago

Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever.

If you think about it, rules themselves provide no guarantee whatsoever. They're only as strong as the institutions (aka. people) enforcing them. Some text in a book somewhere provides zero guarantee that some cop isn't going to assault you for talking back at him, or some general isn't going to turn the country into a dictatorship.

jrumbut• 6 years ago

Yeah, I often thing that way too, and I think this mindset in programming (and also financial engineering) of taking any little gap and maximally exploiting it is very hard to deal with legislatively.

It's hard enough to make a web form secure, trying to do the same with emergency response legislation, when the nature of emergencies is that they often take unforeseeable forms, is an intractable problem.

I've been beating this drum quite a bit lately and I understand this feels impossible from where we are, it feels impossible to me too, but the problem we really have to solve is figuring out a way to trust and be trustworthy when given certain responsibilities. Not just for emergency powers, for everything.

We don't have the technology to eliminate the need for trust, not even close. We have to work on constraining the threat model a little bit.

bladegash15• 6 years ago

This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Executive Order 12333 grants authority to the FBI (among others, with few exceptions), specifically as it relates to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence (EO 12333 1.7(g)(1)).

I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from. EO 12333 specifically states, "Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical searches, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director." It then goes on to infer the FBI is the only one who can conduct unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance on United States persons, except in specific circumstances.

In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations into the previously mentioned activities; and they are the only ones able to do so except in specific circumstances. Lastly, the protests in Portland would not be considered as part of literally any of the FBI's authorities in EO 12333, it would be from their authorities related to conduct of criminal investigations, which would require a warrant or consent to a search.

I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing.

animationwill• 6 years ago

> This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
> I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing.

I'm starting to suspect that half of articles today are purposeful misinformation that fits a narrative, while the other half is lazy reporting and might even rely on the misinformation as a source, just perpetuating it.

I've never read NYbooks.com before, but is a book reviewer really going to give me accurate insight into legal interpretation? Nope...

boomboomsubban6• 6 years ago

I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from
EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations

You don't understand why they're saying they can do exactly what you say they can do.

The only hiccup you've introduced is that you don't think the Portland protests would count as foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, but they would only need a very weak link to some foreign agent to allow wide scale surveillance. Hell, a Canadian protester would fulfill the criteria.

onedognight• 6 years ago

There is evidence of foreign nationals fomenting violence at recent protests[0]. I would hope FBI is investigating.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/idaho-family-portlan...

phobosanomaly12• 6 years ago

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what I read is:

"...unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director"

So you need to get:

1. A department head to come up with a procedure for carrying out the unconsented physical searches.

2. AG Barr to sign off on it.

That sounds like something you could do in, like, 20 minutes if you knew the right phone numbers to dial.

jlgaddis2• 6 years ago

Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques ... unless ...

Perhaps "such techniques" were "... in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director"?

I would not be surprised -- at all -- to learn that AG Barr (after consulting with DIRFBI Wray) approved "such techniques".

raxxorrax3• 6 years ago

Suggest they are influenced by Russia and all these nice rules fly out of the window. The journalist is correct on this.

antman• 6 years ago

I think you just gave me an answer to a question I had, why Russians are mentioned in everything remotely discomforting in internal US politics. I am not saying Russians are not trying but their destabilizing cspabilities are way lower than the FBI's.

jb775• 6 years ago

Insert "Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protest" CNN screenshot here

raxxorrax3• 6 years ago

National security is used around the world to undermine basic laws and constitutions. This trend has to stop. Best start would be yesterday. Sensible constitutions have protection of privacy for a reason. Now we have old and slow people in power that sell it for a bit of profit.

GordonS• 6 years ago

Yes, this is one of the areas where western democracies have gone completely off the rails.

But how can it stop? It doesn't seem to matter how moderate and liberal the head of government appears to be, they condone this awful behaviour with the magical incantation: "national security".

Governments and the media are adept at spreading FUD by controlling negative messaging around terrorism, organised crime, communinism, the Chinese, the Russians, or whoever the boogeyman de jour is. A huge segment of the populace is is so scared they convinced that they can trust the government and the security services.

I just don't see how this can end.

stjohnswarts2• 6 years ago

I completely agree agree with you on the 4th, it has become persona non grata to both parties. Republicans and Democrats are beginning to see the Bill of Rights as more "suggestions" than the actual foundation of our system of laws. I don't even think they consider it a "living Constitution" anymore and just consider it fodder for election speeches. Do not blame only Republicans for this, the Dems own it as well. Obama kept up mass surveillance and the unPatriotic Act as well as did Bush. They're all complicit. Sure Dems have a better record on progressive social issues, and some Constitutional "features" but so do Republicans with gun rights and religious rights. However both are ignore fundamental aspects of it that don't fit their narrative.

bladegash15• 6 years ago

This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of the context in the e-mail makes it appear far worse than what seems to have taken place.

The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.

Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...".

There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do".

The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials.

Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

jtxx• 6 years ago

I do think most people protesting are of the sentiment you note in your last paragraph

B4CKlash• 6 years ago

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

gowld• 6 years ago

Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.

No, the individual did not. This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.

bigbubba2• 6 years ago

It does seem quite... incredible.. that such a person in such a circumstance would consent to a search. Can the government prove they had consent, or is this just their claim?

trhway3• 6 years ago

The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative.

irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones?

https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fl...

"The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."

bladegash15• 6 years ago

Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. This journalist just decided to take the worst possible interpretation of the e-mail and state it as fact.

You may not like the FBI, but to assume that they are malevolent actors or are intent on trampling on people's rights disingenuous and unhelpful. I'm all for bringing government misconduct to light, but this article is trying to make legal conduct seem illegal by distorting facts and selectively quoting information to fit a preconceived narrative.

philwelch2• 6 years ago

The FBI defines “domestic terrorism” as follows:

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here:

...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly”

So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist.

Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.

bladegash15• 6 years ago

Agreed, 100%. The challenge with using the criminal statues related to "domestic terrorism" (and even "foreign terrorism") has to do with intent. Because there is a legal element requiring behavior that is in furtherance of "ideological goals", there is a pretty high bar to meet from a legal perspective.

This individual's criminal defense could easily argue the individual had no stated ideological goal they were promoting (unless there is specific evidence to suggest otherwise, such as leaving a manifesto explaining rationale). It's much easier to demonstrate probable cause and/or prosecute via other criminal statues.

jokethrowaway2• 6 years ago

As a non american, looking at the amount of video clips from violent protests or people undercover in Antifa (Crowder, Project Veritas), I'm surprised there are still doubts: it's a terrorist organisation by definition.

maerF0x0• 6 years ago

consented to his phone being searched.

He consented to it being searched once, not permanently exploited without his knowledge.

lawnchair_larry4• 6 years ago

That’s what exploited means in this context. It’s not a permanent backdoor. It’s fed speak for “accessed.”

bdowling• 6 years ago

not permanently exploited without his knowledge.

You may be thinking of the narrow use of exploit in relation to computer device exploits, which may or may not grant permanent access.

In general, to exploit something means simply to take advantage of or utilize it. For example, to exploit natural resources or to exploit a weakness in the other team's defense.

phobosanomaly12• 6 years ago

I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right.

I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law.

I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite

refurb2• 6 years ago

Big distinction there provided by the National Firearms Act. Pipe bombs are classified as "destructive devices" and would require submission of Form 1 to the ATF, along with fingerprints, etc and a $200 tax stamp.

And that's just federal law. State law may have other restrictions.

So bringing a legal rifle to a protest might be legitimate (though not exactly prudent), but possessing an unregistered pipe bomb will get you prison time even if you don't bring it to a protest.

Tannerite is exempt as it's a binary explosive which apparently has special rules.

newacct583• 6 years ago

carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly

All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion.

Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?

refurb2• 6 years ago

There are very different laws for firearms and what the ATF calls a destructive device (which include pipe bombs).

Ignoring the protest entirely, you will do jail time if the ATF catches you with an unregistered destructive device.

jokethrowaway2• 6 years ago

You can use a rifle to defend yourself (which is how Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't murdered by the angry mob), you can't use a destructive device to defend yourself, just to cause destruction.

pnw_hazor2• 6 years ago

There are often more restrictive laws against weapons that are not firearms because the 2nd amendment has been held to concern firearms, not weapons in general.

E.g., in Seattle any fixed blade is illegal to carry. Even chefs have to take special precaution if they want to carry their knives to and from work. Same for hunters/fishermen (fillet knives) heading to or from the wild.

In Oregon (and probably most states), it is illegal conceal most knives, except pocket knives.

Often, the same laws restricting knives cover brass knuckles, clubs, etc.

"any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor" https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.240

pjc50• 6 years ago

One of those "I wish you could tie a news event to follow ups" moments: does the alleged pipe bomb ever appear in court as evidence? What happened to the arrestee?

The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.

bluescrn• 6 years ago

It’s worth remembering that some of these powerful green ‘laser pointers’ you can buy online can cause permanent eye damage or blindness in a fraction of a second. Sometimes even diffuse reflections of the beam can be hazardous. They’re a real danger to the genuinely peaceful protestors as well as the police that they’ve been aimed at.

If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.

pnw_hazor2• 6 years ago

Sounds like a generic search subsequent to arrest.

Well within the law and normal.

doggydogs94• 6 years ago

If you were arrested in Portland and the authorities had custody of your phone for any period of time, assume that anything “interesting” on your phone is in their database. What’s interesting ... contacts, text messages, pictures/videos, email, ... everything.

waheoo2• 6 years ago

Don't criminals usually use burners? Or is that just the smart ones?

BEEdwards• 6 years ago

you know they literally snatched innocent people off the street right? calling them criminals isn't just a stretch it's propaganda.

koheripbal3• 6 years ago

...and then what? Do they have a massive database of phone images that they can search enmasse?

I've heard stories of DHS taking phones to make copies of them - so it seems like they have a process of taking phone images, and possibly scanning them on the spot.

...but then do they catalogue all these phone images somewhere and are they searched regularly?

snypher2• 6 years ago

Palantir.

ecommerceguy• 6 years ago

It sure seems like both sides politically really hate the FBI. I ask, when are they going to be evaluated? We should be rethinking the Intelligence Community in America, it has failed us. JFK knew this all too well.

engineer_222• 6 years ago

The FBI's job is to investigate crimes "in the United States". So far as protesters were engaged in crimes worthy of arrest the FBI is within it's pervue.

That said: if arrests were made outside of criminal investigation we would hope the data collected was not retained.

Understood that the portland protests are a politically sensitive topic... But the fact the FBI was using all of its capabilities in a situation that seems to have the hallmarks of one interesting to federal prosecutors is not surprising (to me).

Hope the downvoters can see my point.......

koheripbal3• 6 years ago

I'm not sure I'd call someone with a pipe bomb a "protestor".

Using a bomb for political purposes... that's terrorism, not protesting.

LatteLazy3• 6 years ago

I think you are wrong in general, though I am not an American and won't pretend I know about the US protests in portland or elsewhere...

Why do I think you're wrong?

The purvue of the FBI needs to be a lot more specific than any crime in the US. We've seen more than enough times that such a wide purvue leaves them ripe for abuse (look up their treatment of MLK).

The only practical way for this to happen is for the FBI to actively justify their decisions on what and who to investigate. "Why are these people being investigated?" is a very fair question to ask and one the FBI should happily answer.

The only alternative to this is that whoever is in charge (POTUS) gets to decide with no oversight, no checks or balances, and no accountability.

We've had that in the past. It didn't end well.

Respectfully "it's their job to do this" is a really bad defense, it's the opening line to basically every abuse of power and likely will be part of the defense for all future ones.

If the FBI have a good reason to spend time on this, they can tell us and I'll happily support it. If they don't, they need to stop. But either way, they should not get a blank cheque to use a huge budget and enhanced police powers without having to answer to "we the people".

This should be an apolitical position, whether you're right or left, extreme or centrist.

engineer_222• 6 years ago

In America you're allowed to think I'm wrong.

But you need a permit to protest.

Riotous action is not permissible. Enter the FBI.

8bitsrule• 6 years ago

I guess that if you've got a lot of toys to use against terrorists, and there are no terrorists on the radar, you go out and see if you can find some. Or invent some.

And if the other countries won't let you in to play...

koheripbal3• 6 years ago

The subject of the investigation was carrying a pipe bomb to a political rally.

I'm not sure it doesn't fit the definition of terrorist.

LatteLazy3• 6 years ago

Now watch as scores of protestors are suddenly arrested for failing to declare gift certificates from their grandmother's on their taxes a decade ago...

The FBI Team Sent to ‘Exploit’ Protesters’ Phones in Portland

Related Stories