- Related Stories
-
Net wiretapping plans under fire
December 19, 2005 -
Carnivore redux
January 31, 2005 -
Feds back wiretap rules for Internet
August 4, 2004 -
FBI wants to eavesdrop on fiber links
August 3, 2004 -
Feds step up push to wiretap VoIP calls
February 11, 2004 -
FBI targets Net phoning
July 29, 2003 -
FBI wants Carnivore powers for phone taps
November 21, 2001 -
FBI takes the teeth out of Carnivore's name
February 9, 2001 -
New documents shed more light on FBI's "Carnivore"
November 16, 2000
(continued from previous page)
One reason why the full-pipe technique raises novel legal questions is that under federal law, the FBI must perform what's called "minimization."
Federal law says that agents must "minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception" and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations.
University of Colorado at Boulder
Prosecutors routinely hold presurveillance "minimization meetings" with investigators to discuss ground rules. Common investigatory rules permit agents to listen in on a phone call for two minutes at a time, with at least one minute elapsing between the spot-monitoring sessions.
That section of federal law mentions only real-time interception--and does not explicitly authorize the creation of a database with information on thousands of innocent targets.
But a nearby sentence adds: "In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception."
Downing, the assistant deputy chief at the Justice Department's computer crime section, pointed to that language on Friday. Because digital communications amount to a foreign language or code, he said, federal agents are legally permitted to record everything and sort through it later. (Downing stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the Justice Department.)
"Take a look at the legislative history from the mid '90s," Downing said. "It's pretty clear from that that Congress very much intended it to apply to electronic types of wiretapping."
EFF's Bankston disagrees. He said that the FBI is "collecting and apparently storing indefinitely the communications of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of innocent Americans in violation of the Wiretap Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution."
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said a reasonable approach would be to require that federal agents only receive information that's explicitly permitted by the court order. "The obligation should be on both the (Internet provider) and the government to make sure that only the information responsive to the warrant is disclosed to the government," he said.
Courts have been wrestling with minimization requirements for over a generation. In a 1978 Supreme Court decision, Scott v. United States, the justices upheld police wiretaps of people suspected of selling illegal drugs.
But in his majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist said that broad monitoring to nab one suspect might go too far. "If the agents are permitted to tap a public telephone because one individual is thought to be placing bets over the phone, substantial doubts as to minimization may arise if the agents listen to every call which goes out over that phone regardless of who places the call," he wrote.
Another unanswered question is whether a database of recorded Internet communications can legally be mined for information about unrelated criminal offenses such as drug use, copyright infringement or tax crimes. One 1978 case, U.S. v. Pine, said that investigators could continue to listen in on a telephone line when other illegal activities--not specified in the original wiretap order--were being discussed. Those discussions could then be used against a defendant in a criminal prosecution.
Ohm, the former Justice Department attorney who presented a paper on the Fourth Amendment, said he has doubts about the constitutionality of full-pipe recording. "The question that's interesting, although I don't know whether it's so clear, is whether this is illegal, whether it's constitutional," he said. "Is Congress even aware they're doing this? I don't know the answers."
See more CNET content tagged:
Carnivore, surveillance, Internet provider, IP, IP address
Not surpised that this is happening, and it is a wonderful means to have control over all aspects of life...
Not surpised that this is happening, and it is a wonderful means to have control over all aspects of life...
Only a few steps before the government subjects the population to an UFIA.
~Mr. Network
Only a few steps before the government subjects the population to an UFIA.
~Mr. Network
It?s the fed?s they get lots of free money so they can afford to build large and
Fast search systems.
Just start off by doing a keywords search that's easy.
Now after you found keywords you then can perform a contextual search.
Where by reading the entire content of a message where the keyword came from you can see if the message is evil or good.
You can even buy this type of software yourself; this is just one of the many companies that sell this type of software.
http://www.zyn.com/flcfw/fwtproj/perilog-ames.html
Than way automatically you can with a computer tell the difference between.
Let?s say your message software is scanning in the gigs of messages and it sees.
The keyword, ?bomb? it tags that message stuff it in different database for more research.
Now completely under computer controls it looks at the messages in this detail search database.
The contextual search then reads this database and sees.
Message 1) from: juicee.moo@quake.com
Jan 10, 2007 10.00 am
From Ip 532.234.356
Traceroute information:
Body of message;
This party was a bomb.
End of message
Message 2) from: al-ki-da@aol.com
Jan 11, 2007 1:00 pm
From ip. 764.434.643
Trace route information:
Body of message;
After the party starts we detonate the bomb.
End of message:
Which message is more evil? The software can tell.
And if the above is true, then why the h_ll does the FBI need such intrusive methods to spy on all our e-mail traffic (mostly from innocent citizens), since a more likely terrorist message would be, "tell Mom that I will pick her up at 11:00 pm?" which, of course, would likely not alert anyone?
It?s the fed?s they get lots of free money so they can afford to build large and
Fast search systems.
Just start off by doing a keywords search that's easy.
Now after you found keywords you then can perform a contextual search.
Where by reading the entire content of a message where the keyword came from you can see if the message is evil or good.
You can even buy this type of software yourself; this is just one of the many companies that sell this type of software.
http://www.zyn.com/flcfw/fwtproj/perilog-ames.html
Than way automatically you can with a computer tell the difference between.
Let?s say your message software is scanning in the gigs of messages and it sees.
The keyword, ?bomb? it tags that message stuff it in different database for more research.
Now completely under computer controls it looks at the messages in this detail search database.
The contextual search then reads this database and sees.
Message 1) from: juicee.moo@quake.com
Jan 10, 2007 10.00 am
From Ip 532.234.356
Traceroute information:
Body of message;
This party was a bomb.
End of message
Message 2) from: al-ki-da@aol.com
Jan 11, 2007 1:00 pm
From ip. 764.434.643
Trace route information:
Body of message;
After the party starts we detonate the bomb.
End of message:
Which message is more evil? The software can tell.
And if the above is true, then why the h_ll does the FBI need such intrusive methods to spy on all our e-mail traffic (mostly from innocent citizens), since a more likely terrorist message would be, "tell Mom that I will pick her up at 11:00 pm?" which, of course, would likely not alert anyone?
Michael
Michael
approach for safeguarding opportunities to
perform their jobs. My ONLY possible gripe
might be if a function of the programming
causes the waste of my time or the use of
my computer's functions in any way. In a
case like that, then whichever controlling
party, (not at all just our security agencies),
but, perhaps we ought to be concerned about the
ways that big business can cause us to loose the
use of computer functions or residual printer
cartridge ink (if, for example, we are not buying
enough ink cartridges to offset the losses in the
sale of the printer if that were the case).
I feel that the folks in our security agencies
are really as ethical as can be. They do not at
all have anything to gain by not being as ethical
as can be. The frustrations which I sometimes
have, instead, are always with large firms which
change the way that my computer or printer works.
These changes are NOT seamless, and are very very
disruptive in my offices.
Thank you for considering my email.
Dan.
Just another step down the path to dictatorship.
What I find REALLY odd, is that all of the people out here whining and complaining have essentially signed an agreement to let their ISP store and monitor any of their traffic. But when the FBI, working in our intereste, gets a court order(check/balance for our interests) to obtain data for an investigation, people suddenly become paranoid and accuse the government of being abusive.
The anti-government comments here really make zero sense. Basically, people are saying... "I trust all my data to my ISP and whomever they choose to hire." While at the same time they seem to be saying "I don't trust my data to the FBI, who is working to protect me, even after a court reviews their request and agrees that it doesn't violate my rights or present unnecessary harm."
Some people really have this situation layed out completely backwards. It is your ISP you should be frightened of. They'll hire ANYBODY. Consider how many hackers would find it adventageous to work for an ISP. ISPs don't need court orders to research your activities. You've thrown all your information into the hands of the unknown, while you sit around and complain that national defense and crime fighting efforts using the same information are abusive. When will people grow up?
Now after saying this, I am sure the Canadian government has a very similar approach, but we just don't hear about it. One thing I can say about you Americans, is that eventually you do get the news,something I can't say we Canadians get. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
approach for safeguarding opportunities to
perform their jobs. My ONLY possible gripe
might be if a function of the programming
causes the waste of my time or the use of
my computer's functions in any way. In a
case like that, then whichever controlling
party, (not at all just our security agencies),
but, perhaps we ought to be concerned about the
ways that big business can cause us to loose the
use of computer functions or residual printer
cartridge ink (if, for example, we are not buying
enough ink cartridges to offset the losses in the
sale of the printer if that were the case).
I feel that the folks in our security agencies
are really as ethical as can be. They do not at
all have anything to gain by not being as ethical
as can be. The frustrations which I sometimes
have, instead, are always with large firms which
change the way that my computer or printer works.
These changes are NOT seamless, and are very very
disruptive in my offices.
Thank you for considering my email.
Dan.
Just another step down the path to dictatorship.
What I find REALLY odd, is that all of the people out here whining and complaining have essentially signed an agreement to let their ISP store and monitor any of their traffic. But when the FBI, working in our intereste, gets a court order(check/balance for our interests) to obtain data for an investigation, people suddenly become paranoid and accuse the government of being abusive.
The anti-government comments here really make zero sense. Basically, people are saying... "I trust all my data to my ISP and whomever they choose to hire." While at the same time they seem to be saying "I don't trust my data to the FBI, who is working to protect me, even after a court reviews their request and agrees that it doesn't violate my rights or present unnecessary harm."
Some people really have this situation layed out completely backwards. It is your ISP you should be frightened of. They'll hire ANYBODY. Consider how many hackers would find it adventageous to work for an ISP. ISPs don't need court orders to research your activities. You've thrown all your information into the hands of the unknown, while you sit around and complain that national defense and crime fighting efforts using the same information are abusive. When will people grow up?
Now after saying this, I am sure the Canadian government has a very similar approach, but we just don't hear about it. One thing I can say about you Americans, is that eventually you do get the news,something I can't say we Canadians get. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
With this new revelation we all need to remember that America is a land OF THE PEOPLE, and if we allow fear to control us we will, in fact, be putting our Democracy away forever.
We must stand up for our rights or we will no longer have any.
Robin Szczepaniak
United States considering the Democrats now have control of both
the house and senate.
But then again, fools will be fools. Let me give you a tip. Go spend
a month in a country that really is a totalitarian regime. If you
survive, you may gain some wisdom.
- FBI MONITORING
- by RobinSzcz January 30, 2007 6:13 PM PST
- Whether this is all for the good, or bad, only time will tell. I can say that, for any that have been paying attention, the Administration has spent the last six years moving towards a totalitarian regime. The Iraq War, many believe, was for the sole purpose of increasing the President's powers as a War-Time President. They say it didn't matter who we went to war with but a war was the only way for him to utilize powers reserved for war-time. Since then the Administration has done everything possible to move towards a dictatorial form of government. They have knowledge of every gun in America, every National Guard is now in their control (instead of the State's), they have put their people in place in the DHS, Supreme Court, and Attorney General's Office (to name a few). It will take a long time to figure out if this is a good or bad thing. One thing is undeniable, though, and that is that this Administration, one way or another, will not step out of office in 2008. They are only just beginning. It is more than a little scary because it brings to mind governments which have monitored, through fear, the communications of their citizens; Communist Russia, China, Iraq, and Cuba (to name a few). There is a saying that states that Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. It is a difficult task for a person to assume complete power over a nation (where 2/3 of the people don't like him) and make it work. It would take a horrendous act to give him the total control and to that end I am horrified at the possibilities they might employ to not only stay in office, but to eliminate those who might stop them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Well, apparently
- by b_baggins January 31, 2007 7:33 AM PST
- he isn't doing a very good job of making himself dictator of the
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 3 pages (139 Comments)With this new revelation we all need to remember that America is a land OF THE PEOPLE, and if we allow fear to control us we will, in fact, be putting our Democracy away forever.
We must stand up for our rights or we will no longer have any.
Robin Szczepaniak
United States considering the Democrats now have control of both
the house and senate.
But then again, fools will be fools. Let me give you a tip. Go spend
a month in a country that really is a totalitarian regime. If you
survive, you may gain some wisdom.