FBI: If you knew what your phone company tells us, you'd probably sue

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fbi-if-we-told-you-you-might-sue-1

by trotsky • 15 years ago

395 72 15 years ago

aclu.org

forensic• 15 years ago

I wonder how much of this applies to Facebook.

GoodIntentions• 15 years ago

If the feds don't have root-level read access I would be shocked.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

Prepare to be shocked, but they don't. I mean, other than busting down the doors and taking the servers they need.

Remember that guide that was leaked a few weeks ago, detailing the procedure required for law enforcement agencies to get user info? Presumably that is not some sort of elaborate conspiracy to convince Facebook users that the government is not monitoring each and every one of their check-ins.

drivebyacct23• 15 years ago

Again, this is all ancient news. We've known for years now that the FBI has had eavesdropping ability not just on phones but on the Internet. We've had whistle blowers talk about installing large routers to duplicate and divert Internet traffic on huge top-tier ISP levels.

Time and time again, no one cares or at least cares enough to do anything.

yuhong2• 15 years ago

But it is surprising to see they admit it.

cookiecaper4• 15 years ago

If you talk to individuals they'll almost always tell you something along these lines. I've heard "the public doesn't want to know what it takes to keep America safe" a couple of times now from agents in different federal law enforcement/intel agencies.

Lost_BiomedE2• 15 years ago

Many people I talk to only think about their cell calls and do not know about mic recording as well. They also do not know that this can occur while the phone is off.

drivebyacct23• 15 years ago

That sounds a bit more tin-foiley. That would require modifications to firmware and phone software that would require direct cooperation from a lot more parties. It would also be relatively easy to discover (vs snooping of traffic that is out of your control).

(edit) Thanks for all the info. I hadn't heard as much about this stuff.

fleitz• 15 years ago

You know you might not be serving the public interest if... "The stigma of working with the FBI might cause customers to ... file civil actions to further prevent the disclosure of information"

Joakal2• 15 years ago

Serving national interest is different to serving public interest despite some similarities.

cqdx• 15 years ago

And both are perverted frequently enough to require proper oversight.

bluedanieru4• 15 years ago

Not necessarily. It's hard to tell what you mean though. Are you saying the interests of the state and the interests of its people are necessarily at odds, or just that they have become so in the US?

nkassis2• 15 years ago

I'm with Kirk on this one, the Good of the one sometimes outweigh to good of the many as is the case here.

jvdh4• 15 years ago

No, the real world could really do without a Jack Bauer.

jrockway2• 15 years ago

At least they're honest.

jared314• 15 years ago

More aware than honest.

bluedanieru4• 15 years ago

At least they forgot to redact that.

moxiemk1• 15 years ago

I think more importantly, serving the public interest is not the same thing as serving the popular interest.

I do not approve of FBI methods, but in the pedantic case I do recognize that a fundamental part of a republican (little r) government is doing what's best for the people, not what they like.

smokeyj2• 15 years ago

The republic knows what's best for our own good. All hail the mother land.

rglover• 15 years ago

Honestly at this point, most people should expect this sort of behavior from any type of telecom company. Yeah, it sucks but it's the name of the game. Take into consideration that the gov owns the air space/spectrum these companies use, and you'll understand why they're so compliant with releasing information. The only way this will change is if there's a privatization of air space which at this point is seemingly impossible.

bluedanieru4• 15 years ago

I don't know that privatization is a panacea for the government corruption we see here. And you are right that privatization of airspace is impossible (read: undesirable). How about taking steps to curb government corruption?

cookiecaper4• 15 years ago

That's pretty pie in the sky too barring an entire reform of our economic system. How about we take steps to get everyone using strong client-side encryption?

nitrogen• 15 years ago

I would like to know when and how phrases like "that sucks but," "that's just the way it is," and "that's the name of the game" were first introduced to the language. These non-justifications are like a poison that kills our curiosity and our ability to question what's wrong with the world.

wattsbaat• 15 years ago

This why the recent iPhone location data "scare" doesn't make sense to me. The wireless carriers must have MUCH more extensive location data on a much larger user base. I understand the growing concern over privacy issues as more companies begin aggregating user data etc, and I'm glad that people are (hopefully) becoming more aware of this issue, but shouldn't we react a bit more proportionately to corporate violations of user privacy?

MrVitaliy• 15 years ago

The iPhone scare was about the availability of data. If someone finds/steals your iPhone they can with little effort recover the GPS data. As oppose to federal bureau or phone company who are, at least theoretically, bound by law.

iwwr• 15 years ago

When they can railroad through just about any piece of law they want (in the interest of 'national security'), they're not exactly bound by law.

stephen_g• 15 years ago

"If someone finds/steals your iPhone they can with little effort recover the GPS data."

Except that it wasn't GPS data - just a list of cell tower and wifi hotspot pings.

micampe• 15 years ago

I would be much more worried about my emails than GPS data.

Entlin• 15 years ago

What about people outside the US? Before Apple, the FBI couldn't track them. Now that the phones are sending their gps tracks home every 12 hours, they probably can...

jcampbell1• 15 years ago

This is why you should use Skype. The only phone service not based in the US... oh, wait a second.

Seriously, though, I wonder if the FBI can eavesdrop on a Skype call. It seems like it would be damn near impossible because it is peer to peer and encrypted.

timmyd• 15 years ago

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_security

My understanding was that some global intelligence organisations can request decryption and that China is doing this actively [see above link].

I also recall reading some time ago that organisations that work exclusively with skype to provide some add-ons can be given access to decrypt.

Further, there was also that techcrunch article - http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/08/skypes-innermost-security-l... - which spoke about this

hugh32• 15 years ago

Question: if you're embarrassed about the idea of the FBI knowing something about you, then why are you cool with the idea of the phone company knowing it?

ceejayoz2• 15 years ago

The phone company doesn't have the ability to bash down my door and point guns in my face, and I can switch providers if I don't like them.

hugh32• 15 years ago

Are you committing crimes?

If so, you can hardly complain about the FBI breaking down your door.

If not, then gaining additional evidence doesn't make it more likely that they're going to break down your door.

pstack• 15 years ago

Are you kidding? While we're a litigation-happy society, we are also entirely content with letting government and business trample all over us without raising an eyebrow, much less a finger.

We let companies get away with destroying the economy through sloppy and greedy irresponsible behavior and then we cover their asses by bailing them out. Because the committees that determine their bailing out are filled with former/current executives of the same companies they're bailing out (Goldman Sachs, for example).

We let companies stick dangerous and unproven chemicals in our food, soda, animals with little evidence that it's safe beforehand and little oversight afterhand, because the various government agencies (FDA, for example) are staffed primarily with executives of the companies that are trying to ram these things through (aspartame, roundup-ready seeds, rbgh in milk, etc).

We have food that is mass produced in conditions that are horrifying to anyone who, even if they love meat like I do, don't like to see living creatures abused and tortured in the process and that are filthy and commonly spread disease (that we see reports of all the time on the news when there are outbreaks and recalls), because the FDA and other agencies are - again - staffed with current/former executives of the biggest food manufacturers and processors in the world.

Hell, we even have government officials shutting down public run juvenile rehabilitation centers so that private ones can take their places and then those private companies paying judges directly to incentive's them to send juveniles to jail. I forget where this was (the northeast is what I remember), but a couple years ago it was huge news and it actually happened. The judge in question (and there may have been more than one) received millions of dollars in payola from the private prison industry system that built the juvenile detention centers. As a result, the judge just kept sending kids there. First time offenders. Kids who did very little to deserve it (get in a fight at school, use foul language, skip school) would get about two minutes of face time with the judge before he sentenced them to the facility. And once at the facility, they would keep kids indefinitely, until they said it was time to go. So a two week sentence could turn into a year. (Oh, found the story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/13/us-crime-usa-judge... -- "Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention center in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences.")

So if we know all of these things and we don't care (I'm sipping on a diet coke and eating a processed microwave burrito right now, for example), why should I expect that people are going to give much more concern to their privacy or the liberties of anyone else around them? Unless they think you're taking jesus away from them, cheap gasoline away from them, or their $5 latte away from them, or their favorite television show away from them . . . they don't fucking care.

Not only don't they care, but a big percentage will always play the role of apologist. For anything. FBI pouring through your personal information, using your geolocation data. Whatever it is, the complaining voices are always few and the people taking action even fewer.

jvdh4• 15 years ago

Good to see that someone watched Capitalism: a Love Story and joined the fight.

arthurgibson• 15 years ago

RE: Juvenile centers, there was a 60 minutes recently about private companies paying judges. Here is the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4798743n&tag=mnco...

yuhong2• 15 years ago

On the FDA, don't forget drugs too. The Vioxx fiasco being one example, there are many others too, some even worse I think.

FBI: If you knew what your phone company tells us, you'd probably sue

Related Stories