FBI to access e-mail and Web data WITHOUT a Warrant.

[Raider]

Leave it to a controlling Liberal turd like Obama to be pushing this.

And NOT to my surprise, all the whiners who b*tched and moaned about the Patriot Act are SILENT on this issue, SILENT on the fact that Obama has been expanding on the Patriot Act since taking office.



FBI access to e-mail, Web data raises privacy fear

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jul 30, 1:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Invasion of privacy in the Internet age. Expanding the reach of law enforcement to snoop on e-mail traffic or on Web surfing. Those are among the criticisms being aimed at the FBI as it tries to update a key surveillance law.

With its proposed amendment, is the Obama administration merely clarifying a statute or expanding it? Only time and a suddenly on guard Congress will tell.

Federal law requires communications providers to produce records in counterintelligence investigations to the FBI, which doesn't need a judge's approval and court order to get them.

They can be obtained merely with the signature of a special agent in charge of any FBI field office and there is no need even for a suspicion of wrongdoing, merely that the records would be relevant in a counterintelligence or counterterrorism investigation. The person whose records the government wants doesn't even need to be a suspect.

The bureau's use of these so-called national security letters to gather information has a checkered history.

The bureau engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority to issue the letters, illegally collecting data from Americans and foreigners, the Justice Department's inspector general concluded in 2007. The bureau issued 192,499 national security letter requests from 2003 to 2006.

Weathering that controversy, the FBI has continued its reliance on the letters to gather information from telephone companies, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses with personal records about their customers or subscribers — and Internet service providers.

That last source is the focus of the Justice Department's push to get Congress to modify the law.

The law already requires Internet service providers to produce the records, said Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department's national security division. But he said as written it also causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation as some Internet companies have argued they are not always obligated to comply with the FBI requests.

A key Democrat on Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, wants a timeout.

The administration's proposal to change the Electronic Communications Privacy Act "raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns," Leahy said Thursday in a statement.

"While the government should have the tools that it needs to keep us safe, American citizens should also have protections against improper intrusions into their private electronic communications and online transactions," said Leahy, who plans hearings in the fall on this and other issues involving the law.

Critics are lined up in opposition to what the Obama administration wants to do.

"The FBI is playing a shell game," says Al Gidari, whose clients have included major online companies, wireless service providers and their industry association.

"This is a huge expansion" of the FBI's authority "and burying it this way in the intelligence authorization bill is really intended to bury it from scrutiny," Gidari added.

Boyd, the Justice spokesman, said the changes being proposed will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information; rather it simply seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993, he argued.

Critics, however, point to a 2008 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel which found that the FBI's reach with national security letters extends only as far as getting a person's name, address, the period in which they were a customer and the numbers dialed on a telephone or to that phone.

The proposed amendment would add the category "electronic communications transactional records" to the section of the law that currently lists only those items cited in the Justice legal opinion. Those four words are already in another section of the law.

The problem the FBI has been having is that some providers, relying on the 2008 Justice opinion — issued during the Bush administration — have refused to turn over Internet records such as information about who a person e-mails and who has e-mailed them and information about a person's Web surfing history.

To deal with the issue, there's no need to change the law since the FBI has the authority to obtain the same information with a court order issued under a broad section of the Patriot Act, said Gregory Nojeim, director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit Internet privacy group.

The critics say the proposed change would allow the FBI to remove federal judges and courts from scrutiny of its requests for sensitive information.

"The implications of the proposal are that no court is deciding whether even that low standard of `relevance' is met," said Nojeim. "The FBI uses national security letters to find not just who the target of an investigation e-mailed, but also who those people e-mailed and who e-mailed them."

[SIKHboy]

really sad day, what are we? Are we just Puppets?

[draggar]

The little known part is that this was already legal.

The law stated that emails could not be intercepted / copied etc.. while in transit.

Now, emails will go from server to server to server so any one stop (at a server) it is not in transit - it would be legal to copy the email during the milisecond (or longer, if needed) it was at that server.

[KING dot NET]

And the employer are not allowed legally to let you know (employee) that FBI got a copy.

This is why I prefer to use personal email all the time. Not 100% proof but ok.

[DomainsInc]

private companies like microsoft for example can already get access to people's email as long as they scream lawsuit to the provider.

[TheLegendaryJP]

The US has " rooms " in all major providers across the country, theyve been monitoring you and developing keyword catching for years now.

Nothing new and suprised your government even bothers to ask.

[Gerry]

Yeah, this never happened en masse with the Patriot Act.

The billions of intercepted emails and phone calls previously never happened.

Opponents of the Patriot Act? Where were they, indeed! when the clandestine operations were going on without the acknowledgement of the US Government.

It would be interesting to see what the actual count is of intercepted calls and emails since 9-11.

Not to mention the more than 1,600 independent contractors working for Homeland Security.



Why act like this is new news? This has been going on with such global furor for nearly a decade. Simply because someone posted a headline does not make it anything new. Even from the referenced source it stipulates:

To deal with the issue, there's no need to change the law since the FBI has the authority to obtain the same information with a court order issued under a broad section of the Patriot Act, said Gregory Nojeim, director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit Internet privacy group.

It is a formality to go through the courts to attempt to gain access without a court order.

Now, every one who believes that this is not going on already, raise you hand.

[barefoot]

Here we go again... corporate-controlled media stirring up panic and paranoia once again.

[Nathan King]

Encryption anybody?

p.s. My e-mail service is hosted in another country that has strict privacy laws. Not why I use it but a nice selling point either way.

[KING dot NET]

Encryption is good to have, as long as they can make it a little easier to use.

I hope google will offer this soon.

[draggar]

Encryption anybody?

p.s. My e-mail service is hosted in another country that has strict privacy laws. Not why I use it but a nice selling point either way.

Unless you have a LAN cable connected from a port outside the USA straight to your computer - the email will still make hops in the USA. Just to a tracert on your mail servers to see what I mean.

If you really want to mess with the government, start browsing anarchist sites, bomb making sites, etc.. for a month or two. Then, start emailing your friends about a "big event" - it's going to be huge let them know about a date and a location. A few days before, make sure you go to Home Depot to pick up a couple extra propane gas tanks (use a credit card or debit card). Take out a lot of cash, too (ATM).

Have fun at your barbeque - just make sure you use cash to buy the meats, beer, etc.. Make sure you offer a burger to the secret service that are watching your house.

[Infoproliferati]

Unless you have a LAN cable connected from a port outside the USA straight to your computer - the email will still make hops in the USA. Just to a tracert on your mail servers to see what I mean.

If you really want to mess with the government, start browsing anarchist sites, bomb making sites, etc.. for a month or two. Then, start emailing your friends about a "big event" - it's going to be huge let them know about a date and a location. A few days before, make sure you go to Home Depot to pick up a couple extra propane gas tanks (use a credit card or debit card). Take out a lot of cash, too (ATM).

Have fun at your barbeque - just make sure you use cash to buy the meats, beer, etc.. Make sure you offer a burger to the secret service that are watching your house.

Haha...Draggar you are one devilish genius. lol

The U.S is quickly becoming China. It shouldn't be a surprise that email surveillance is going on and will become more politically acceptable as the years move along. It raises the age old question: "At what point is freedom dangerous?"

I don't know that anyone has the answer to that. Governments around the world wrestle with the idea of surveillance and eventually abuse the right to know. Look at China, Indonesia, the Netherlands etc. The UK has small as it is accounts for about 20% or more of the world's surveillance cameras. I hate the idea that modern governments are resorting to this. But how can I really blame them. There is way too much moral decay in today's societies around the globe.

It isn't even that terrifying anymore the level of surveillance that is going on. The day when A.I robots have the job of keeping tabs on people because a human can't do the job as efficiently is the day when we are all in trouble.

[Focus]

I vote a big NO on that bright idea dude.

I could care less really let them read away, maybe they will help me out on some domain renewal emails, or let me finally collect that 75 million I won like 20 times already this month from the Nigerian lottery held by Microsoft.

[Gerry]

If you really want to get on a watch list, order powders and products for pyrotechniques!

I have a buddy that is licensed as a pyrotechnician. Every company that sells any explosive mixtures or powders over the years have had to turn their records and mailing lists over to the feds. Joel has been on the Feds "watch" list for years. Several years back, he had to account for each and every gram of certain powders he had purchased, when they were used, where they were used, and how much he had remaining on hand. Several of the powders he had bought and had used (and had on hand) are now totally illegal to purchase, sell, or own. A few companies he had ordered from over the years have totally shut down due to all the restrictions.

[fab]

If they go through mine they should be able to find loads of viagara suppliers. Hope that will contribute to the security of our nation.

[Raider]

Obama's Power Grab

The Obama administration wants to "clarify" FBI power to get online records without warrants -- and vastly expand it.
Julian Sanchez | July 29, 2010 |

They're calling it a tweak -- a "technical clarification" -- but make no mistake: The Obama administration and the FBI's demand that Congress approve a huge expansion of their authority to obtain the sensitive Internet records of American citizens without a judge's approval is a brazen attack on civil liberties.

At issue is the scope of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's power to obtain information from "electronic communications service providers" using national security letters (NLS), which compel private companies to allow government access to communication records without a court order. The administration wants to add four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to Section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which spells out the types of communications data that can be obtained with an NSL. Yet those four little words would make a huge difference, potentially allowing investigators to draw detailed road maps of the online activity of citizens not even suspected of any connection to terrorism.

MORE >>>

It is a formality to go through the courts to attempt to gain access without a court order.

A formality? Yeah, Like ALL Federal Judges are merely rubber stamps.

Without a doubt, this has to be the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

Obama want's to re-write the Patriot Act that gives the FBI the right to obtain private data from American citizens withOUT a warrant, and your attempting to justify it? Are you doing this because your boy is in the oval office? you must be, if this was Bush pushing for this, you and your Liberal buddies would be all over this crying foul right now.

Always the hypocrite.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

I could care less really let them read away

Really? Now let me understand this; Last year you refused to buy the car you really wanted because it had OnStar installed on it, you didn't like a subscription based service provided by a private company being able to track you in case of an emergency, BUT yet you DON'T have a problem with the Federal Government reading your emails and seizing your computer files without a warrant?

[draggar]

Raider - do you know how much goes on behind our backs? For every little tidbit you learn there are books that you don't know.

[Nathan King]

Obama want's to re-write the Patriot Act that gives the FBI the right to obtain private data from American citizens withOUT a warrant, and your attempting to justify it

It was already like this before Obama came to office. He's just continuing the policies that were originally laid out by the Bush/Cheney administration. It was out of suit for a republican, but not surprising from a democrat. Party bias aside, this is the way it is.

[Gerry]

A formality? Yeah, Like ALL Federal Judges are merely rubber stamps.

Without a doubt, this has to be the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

Obama want's to re-write the Patriot Act that gives the FBI the right to obtain private data from American citizens withOUT a warrant, and your attempting to justify it? Are you doing this because your boy is in the oval office? you must be, if this was Bush pushing for this, you and your Liberal buddies would be all over this crying foul right now.

Do you even read what you post or refer to?

The practice of Bush/Cheney et al of doing this without a warrant was deemed unconstitutional.

As it presently stands, any interception of mail, email, phone must be obtained under warrant of a judge (although its been going on clandestine as always).

However, the current administration would like to, in some cases, to be able to do this without a warrant - ala Bush/Cheney.

So it is a formality to petition the courts to allow seizure of material without warrant, in extreme cases.

Read your own garbage that you are using as your source of information.

Damn Obama for wanting to rewrite the Patriot Act? When under Bush and Cheney when all of this was done without warrants, judicial oversight, etc.?

They were the architects of obtaining kazillions of emails and phone messages without warrant.

That is why the courts ruled it unconstitutional.


Yeah, damn that Turd Obama for wanting to follow the letter of the law and petition the courts in this case rather than say damn the law; we are the law ala Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzalez.

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

It was already like this before Obama came to office. He's just continuing the policies that were originally laid out by the Bush/Cheney administration. It was out of suit for a republican, but not surprising from a democrat. Party bias aside, this is the way it is.

Precious does not see, read, understand or comprehend this.

See Obama? Obama bad!

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

if this was Bush pushing for this, you and your Liberal buddies would be all over this crying foul right now.

Been there, done that.

It was your Bushies who started this.

And you know what? it was expected after 9-11.

Some of us have accepted the fact that life will never be the same, that certain liberties and freedoms will be infringed upon, and that information gathering will be the norm.

You are forgetting that there are more than 1600 agencies that fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security.

Here you have but one of those entities, the FBI, who is essentially appealing the court's decision.

This is not newsworthy for us or the forum.

This is newsworthy as you want to portray Obama as involved in a power grab?

Are you serious? He is a "powergrabber" simply because the FBI is trying to get a decision overturned?

He is a "powergrabber" simply because the FBI wants to continue a practice they were doing under the Bush administration?

Read the first reference you are posting - Finding in 2007 and a ruling in 2008.

Once more, your failure to comprehend what you are reading makes you look like an absolute fool in posting this nonsense about this being Obama.

You claim Obama want's to re-write the Patriot Act that gives the FBI the right to obtain private data from American citizens withOUT a warrant as if it never has happened before.

Read! Comprehend! This is the FBI appealing a decision made in 2008 - wanting a reversal of what a judge ruled against the practice during the Bush/Cheney years.

It is nothing more, nothing less.

It is one agency who had been ruled against basically appealing that ruling. One, the FBI, out of over 1600 under the Homeland Security umbrella.

As for me, I could care less because all of this has been and continues to go on without due process and without our knowledge.

[Mike Cruz]

What is a Warrant? I thought those things were dissolved when Bush was president.