Inspector general: FBI not embracing privacy safeguards
This is an actual, completely redacted page from the inspector general's report on Section 215.
The FBI has wielded the Patriot Act's extraordinary surveillance powers to unlawfully collect information about American citizens and has resisted some efforts to impose additional privacy safeguards, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's inspector general.
Inspector General Glenn Fine, in a pair of reports released on Thursday reviewing the 2006 calendar year, acknowledged the FBI's top management has been receptive to the points he raised in his first report a year earlier. But he indicated that there was nevertheless resistance to increased oversight and better record-keeping, which would help to prevent further abuses.
The longer of the two reports (PDF) dealt with national security letters, or secret FBI requests -- done without court oversight or approval -- for administrative information that communication providers, credit agencies, or banks might store. The second report (PDF) discusses broader "Section 215" requests for information that can be sent to any individual or company under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; these, however, must be approved by a judge. (The second report was heavily redacted, with some key pages blacked out.)
Some highlights:
* The FBI tried to whitewash illegal uses of Patriot Act surveillance authority that was intended to be used against terrorists and spies but ended up being used against Americans. FBI officials characterized these unlawful acts as "administrative errors," which Fine said "diminishes their seriousness and fosters a perception that compliance with FBI policies... is annoying paperwork."
* An FBI working group created by the attorney general recommended against the privacy-protective step of "tagging" information obtained through national security letters on grounds it would place "an undue burden on the operation" of the bureau.
* The same working group downplayed the severity of the FBI's surveillance abuses, saying agents have a highly regulated system for approving national security letters and for identifying violations. Fine's response: "Contrary to the NSL Working Group's conclusions, we do not believe that existing controls are a sufficient basis on which to rely in evaluating the need for additional privacy protections."
* The Justice Department inaccurately reported the number of national security letters. Eleven of the letters sought billing records on a total of 3,860 phone numbers -- a whopping amount. That figure was not disclosed to Congress.
* Even though national security letters are not supposed to be used to obtain the contents of communications -- they only can obtain billing records and so on -- some e-mail providers handed over full message bodies or Subject: lines anyway. In these cases, however, the FBI's general counsel directed that the records be sealed and a second request sent.
* No information from a Section 215 order was actually used in a criminal proceeding in 2006. In addition, "the evidence showed no instance where the information obtained from a Section 215 order... resulted in a major investigative development." Nevertheless, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell responded by calling them "an invaluable tool."
* Companies served with Section 215 orders in two known instances in 2006, either by accident or because they're overeager, turned over more information than they're authorized to divulge. In one case, a company handed over data "that was not requested in the Section 215 application or authorized by the FISA court."
* In those cases, the FBI's adherence to the law is spotty. A situation involved the FBI receiving information about a U.S. person for two months after the surveillance order expired -- without objecting. In fact, the FBI argued that the information should be treated as an "voluntary production." Fine's report: "We disagree and believe that the production of these additional records should not be considered as voluntary..."
* The FISA court twice rejected the FBI's request for Section 215 orders because the police were investigating lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment. But after the FBI was rejected, it sent national security letters instead. Fine said the FBI should have re-evaluated the investigation instead.
The Justice Department said in a statement: "The Inspector General correctly emphasizes the need for sustained oversight of the FBI's use of NSLs and concludes that the senior leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI are committed to addressing these issues and continue to devote significant energy, time, and resources to this effort."
What does all this mean? For starters, it puts the FBI and the Bush administration slightly on the defensive; it's not convenient to have intelligence-related abuses and overzealous conduct by e-mail providers in the news at the same time you're calling for retroactive immunity for them and other companies.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in response: "The FBI mirrors the rest of the Bush administration in seeking to avoid accountability by providing itself blanket authority. When the Senate returns after the March recess, I intend to follow up with another oversight hearing. Legislative action may be necessary to correct these abuses."
I wrote earlier this week of the politics of wiretapping and eavesdropping, which are playing out in a new Democrat-backed bill that does not immunize telecommunications providers from lawsuits saying they opened their networks to the National Security Agency in violation of privacy laws. Republicans oppose it.
The Senate has already approved retroactive immunity by a 68-29 margin. A few weeks ago, if an up-or-down House of Representatives vote on retroactive immunity had been held, it probably would have passed. Now, with Thursday's pair of reports and other recent disclosures, it may be significantly less likely.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
...F#@& I have no more private...
Does anyone think this is about catching terrorists and law enforcement? Hint: The answer should be "not anymore"!
Still not convinced?
* The FISA court twice rejected the FBI's request for Section 215 orders because the police were investigating lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment. But after the FBI was rejected, it sent national security letters instead.
The police were investigating lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment, and used National Security Letters to do it!
Once More...
The police were investigating lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment, and used National Security Letters to do it!
For those who still don't get it, please write all the reasons you can think of for the police to investigate lawful conduct protected by the first amendment. By the way, lawful means it's not against the law, and protected by the First Amendment means that it's one of the most lawful things you can do as an American, just in case anyone was confused. It happened twice (that we have been told about). I guess it wasn't an accident.
Anyone out there a parent? If your kid asks your permission to do something, and you say no, what happens if they do it another way that doesn't require your permission? Yea, me too. And if they do it again? Answer if you like, I don't talk about the beatings in public.
When you read "... But after the FBI was rejected [by the FISA court judge], it sent national security letters instead." do you think the FBI has respect for FISA authority? Do you think they can be trusted to police themselves? Yea, me either.
The abuse of section 215 and the National Security Letters is flagrant, and yet the positive results are non-existent. If the FBI can't get results when they don't play by the rules, why is giving them another swing at it even a consideration? The results will logically be less if they do play by the rules.
That is, unless national security and law enforcement have nothing to do with the results they are trying to achieve.
Yea, me too.
Lampie The Clown
"So, sue me, sue me, what CAN YOU DO ME, I'm in LOVE WITH YOU!"
Thank you for this opportunity to TALKBACK.
TTFN
(From WW2, and an old friend, Blechley Park, UK, where the Enigma Code was cracked and and also saved millions of lives........Ta Ta For Now). GOOGLE Search "Enigma Machine."
Americans are catching onto the patterns:
When a politcal figure is busted for personal illegal activities, its basically a political sacrifice, usually perfectly timed to cover up something they don't want in the news.
When a big corperation begins a 'touchy feely' ad campains it usually is some sort of damage control for something they did wrong (ie: Dow chemical, Exxon and the rest of the Oil companies, etc.) to attempt to boost their damaged image.
Spitzer is quite well timed and relevant because he was caught in part, by using electronic surveillance that if done on a private citizens, would have been very close to, if not completely illegal in the past. I am not defending Spitzer, as a public official he should not expect his actions to not be scrutinized.
I can see how the powers that be could see that sacrificing this guy, might boost their position by saying, "look how we can catch corrupt politicians with these survelliance powers" but in truth that is not what they will use it for. Spitzer's conduct supposedly has been going on for years, one has to ask, why now, does it come to light?
'The powers that be' are not stupid, they know how to manipulate the public conscience, and we must learn how and when they are doing so. Its psychological warfare, like it or not, we have to fight, or we become first, mental slaves, then when all of our rights are stripped through law we become phyisical slaves.
This I only found out (pre-Bush Administration) through the FOI Act when I requested his personnel files all 1100 pages of them including correspondence from J. Edgar "Tiny Dancer" Hoover himself. As a matter of fact I still have an award given to my dad signed by Hoover hanging on the wall.
You see so the FBI has a long History of abuse of it's powers.
No Federal Agency has the slightest regard for the Constitution as they are above it. (Gag!)
PS - Although a lot of my father's records were blacked out I'll bet if I reequested them today that it would either be denied or it would all be blacked out. That is another change that has occurred under our current administration.
People, get a life.
You should know better than to judge the powers that be, after all they are only looking after your own best interests. Really, if they can't spy on you, what is their relevance? I mean geeez, what do you want them to do, stop drug smugglers, infiltrate gangs and crime families and bring real criminals to justice. So they lie a little, spy a little, fill the prisons with people for minor infractions (third strike law), I mean really, we have to keep up appearances in the world.. We have more people in prison than even China does, I guess we have to have at least one area where no one can top us.
Elections are around the corner, its time to toss all the big crooks (politicians) out of office and bring in a new batch.
And wishful thinking, maybe just maybe the next group of members from the worlds second oldest profession, that are elected to the highest levels in D.C. will bring back some semblance of honesty and freedom back on stage.
TWO QUOTES TO PONDER
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
It is clear to me that Bush, Cheney and company have little sense of honor. Why would the people they pick be any different?
What does shock me is the fact that Congress is not having Bush and Cheney in prison!
Mark Heinemann
- U.S. Intelligence agencies need to be cleaned up
- by Dr_Zinj March 18, 2008 8:40 AM PDT
- The real fact of the matter is that the FBI, CIA, NSA all abuse their powers more often than not. That's my not-so-uninformed opinion; as you will never be allowed to dig out all the facts on their abuses due to classifying the information as secret, top secret, or more restrictive classifications.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)We KNOW that Hoover monitored and coerced innocent people based on his own criteria. That capability has never been removed from the FBI; in fact, it has been enhanced.
I know for a fact that FBI agents allowed the cold-blooded murder of Roger Wheeler, and others, by the Boston mob under the lame, limp excuse that the killers were informants that they were protecting in order to get closer to the mobs leaders.
A government agency that condones the murder of innocent citizens doesn't deserve more power and more secrecy; they deserve to have all secrecy revoked.