Law enforcement GPS tracking: how widespread?

After the recent Supreme Court decision ruling unconstitutional at least certain types of warrantless tracking of automobiles with GPS devices attached to the cars, the FBI has apparently turned off many of its trackers.

After the ruling, the FBI had a problem collecting the devices that it had turned off, Mr. Weissmann said. In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly – only in order to locate and retrieve them.

What I find interesting is that it appears that around 3,000 of the devices were deactivated.  That represents 3,000 people who up to a couple of weeks ago were secretly tracked by their government without the minimum requirement of a simple search warrant. Not a huge number, but it is the number of devices in operation at one point in time. The number of people tracked by the FBI over the past several years is probably at least 180,000, assuming 30 days per person tracked over five years. And this estimate only covers the FBI. Surely other Federal agencies were using the same techniques.

This represents a significant victory over the continuing erosion of privacy rights in the United States.

Steve Jobs’ FBI file

The FBI investigated the background of Steve Jobs back in 1991 in connection with a proposal by President George H.W. Bush to appoint Jobs to a Federal position. Yesterday, the FBI released the file in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The bottom line? The FBI concluded that Steve Jobs experimented with drugs and did not always tell the truth.

One anonymous source described Mr. Jobs as a “deceptive individual who is not completely forthright or honest,” adding that he will “twist the truth and distort reality in order to achieve his goals.” Several discussed the fact that Mr. Jobs fathered a child out of wedlock.

Shocking.

Your tax dollars at work

The FBI is circulating a set of flyers purported to identify suspicious behaviors that indicates possible terrorist activities that therefore should be reported to the FBI by all good citizens.  The flyers are headlined “Communities Against Terrorism” and there are at least 25 versions.

The version for Internet Cafes is particularly disturbing in that is essentially says that anyone protecting their privacy online is quite possibly a terrorist.  Among the “suspicious” activities listed on the flyer are:

  • Always pay cash
  • Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)
  • Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address
  • Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.
  • Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game
  • Gather information about vulnerable infrastructure or obtain photos, maps or diagrams of transportation, sporting venues, or populated locations

So people who want to protect their privacy online, or who wish to pay for things with money, or who look up a sports stadium (maybe to find their seat for an event, say) ought to be reported to the FBI?

FBI opens probe of News Corporation

More trouble for the Murdochs:

In the U.S., the FBI opened a probe into whether employees of News Corp. might have hacked or attempted to hack into the private calls, voice-mail messages or call records of 9/11 victims or their families, according to people familiar with the investigation. The probe was opened Thursday morning, following a request a day earlier by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), who heads the House Homeland Security Committee and whose Long Island district was home to many victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

It will also look into whether any News Corp. employees bribed or sought to bribe police officials to gain access to such records.

FBI defends ISPs, telecoms for warrantless wiretaps

This is probably not surprising (although it is depressing) but the FBI is going to court to protect telecoms and ISPs from having to disclose their participation in warrantless wiretaps in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. Why? Because if the companies are named their customers might sue or drop them.

This rare piece of honesty came in a recently filed court declaration (PDF) from a top FBI official arguing why the agency shouldn’t have to supply the names in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI,” David M. Hardy wrote. “The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies’ services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber information. Therefore, the FBI has properly withheld this information.”

So, disclosure of warrantless wiretaps (or email taps) is a “proper” reason for non-disclosure of companies that go along to get along? Really? How could it possibly hurt a business if it discloses to customers that everything the business knows is open to the government?

More from the ACLU here.

Related articles

Wiretaps built-in

The Federal government is pushing for new laws that, in essence, would require that all communications technology would have to include functionality making wiretapping easily available to the government. The Feds have been working on this plan, called “Going Dark”. Some of the details were outlined in documents secured by the EFF pursuant to a FOIA request.

The FBI states the Going Dark program is a “five-prong strategic approach to address the lawful ‘Intercept capability gap’” (GD3, p. 10). These five prongs are:

  1. modernization /amendment of existing laws,
  2. enhancing authorities to protect industry proprietary and [law enforcement] sensitive lawful intercept information, equipment and techniques,
  3. enhancing [law enforcement] agencies’ coordination leveraging technical expertise of FBI with other [law enforcement] entities,
  4. enhancing lawful intercept cooperation between the communications industry and [law enforcement agencies] with a “One Voice” approach, and
  5. seeking new federal funding to bolster lawful intercept capabilities.

And yesterday, a hearing on the matter was held in Congress.

Ms. Caproni [FBI General Counsel] emphasized that the F.B.I. was not seeking new surveillance powers, but rather a way to keep its existing powers from eroding. She also said the F.B.I. was not seeking a decryption key that would allow the government to directly intercept and unscramble secure communications.

Rather, she said, the bureau hoped to require communication service providers to deploy, within their own systems, a wiretapping capability. The provider would have to be able to isolate, intercept and deliver to the government a particular user’s communications in response to a wiretap order.

This is a bad idea on several levels. First, there is no constitutional basis for requiring any business or citizen to create a path for wiretaps. Could the Congress require that microphones be placed into homes and business so that law enforcement could simply switch them on when desired? Despite claims to the contrary, this is an effort to secure additional, new wiretap powers.

Second, such back door access technologies are subject to a risk of hacker takeover.

Finally, American technology with such required back doors would be rejected by most the rest of the world, thereby crippling our business competitiveness.

FBI wants more warrantless data (updated x2)

Chalk this up as another Obama breach of campaign promises. He claimed that he would rebalance civil liberties in national security matters, at least partially restoring traditional privacy rights of citizens. Instead, he is proposing a broadening of the information that the FBI can require ISPs to produce regarding individuals. And this production can be required without a warrant and merely on the basis of a claim by a local FBI field office.

The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau’s authority. “It’ll be faster and easier to get the data,” said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. “And for some Internet providers, it’ll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL.”

This is outrageous. And a flat repudiation of Obama’s campaign pledges.

Update: By the way, why do we need court review of subpoenas from the FBI? How about because of this.

Update 2: Now the New York Times, in an editorial, notes the same breach of campaign promises by the Obama administration.

In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion saying this discrepancy meant the F.B.I. could no longer ask for the information. Many Internet providers stopped turning it over. Now the Obama administration has asked Congress to make clear that the F.B.I. can ask for it.

These national security letters are the same vehicles that the Bush administration used after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to demand that libraries turn over the names of books that people had checked out. The F.B.I. used these letters hundreds of thousands of times to demand records of phone calls and other communications, and the Pentagon used them to get records from banks and consumer credit agencies. Internal investigations of both agencies found widespread misuse of the power, and little oversight into how it was wielded.

President Obama campaigned for office on an explicit promise to rein in these abuses. “There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties,” his campaign wrote in a 2008 position paper. “As president, Barack Obama would revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.”

FBI wants Internet records kept

Your Federal government continues to insist that ISPs should be required to keep records of internet usage by their customers for use in criminal investigations. Think of this a the equivalent of having your geographic location tracked and provided to the government at its request. Compare it to requiring your library to track books you check out, or your local video store being required to provide to the government the videos you rent. (I think that Robert Bork might have something to say about that.)

The FBI claims this merely allows them to continue to do traditional investigation. But that is not the case. It is a blatant invasion of privacy.