FBI Says Paper Trails Are Optional 244
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "According to this Washington Post article, the FBI says that it doesn't have to comply with even the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act when asking for phone records. Apparently that whole due process thing doesn't include them. Funny thing is, they've apparently already been doing it for years." Quoting: "Under past procedures, agents sent 'exigent circumstances letters' to phone companies, seeking toll records by asserting there was an emergency. Then they were expected to issue a grand jury subpoena or a 'national security letter,' which legally authorized the collection after the fact. Agents often did not follow up with that paperwork, the inspector general's investigation found. The new instructions tell agents there is no need to follow up with national security letters or subpoenas. The agents are also told that... they may make requests orally, with no paperwork sent to phone companies. Such oral requests have been made over the years in terrorism and kidnapping cases, officials said."
Dual Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Those oral requests can be denied (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't wire taps, this is getting your phone records. This is social engineering.
You could do this too, you don't have to be a federal agent.
Re:Dual Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want privacy you're better off finding other means of communication.
Re:double entendre (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, that's funny. it's almost a real riot.
Click here [wikipedia.org] to gain a new understanding of the sentence.
Re:I caught a little bit of the hearing today... (Score:3, Interesting)
What does the last six years have to do with anything? Didn't the Clintons [assumption.edu] use FBI files against their political opponents? At least this is done under the guise of National Security and not for political intimidation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this. I am telling you to not assume that this started when Bush took office. If anything, they're making a step in the right direction. I guess if you are going to abuse governmental powers, at least do to fight terrorism and not to fight the "other party". I guess that if you could not let your Bush hatred blow your logic circuits, you'd see that not all problems started when Bush took office.
Re:Okay, since when did FBI become KGB? (Score:2, Interesting)
You want big government? This is it.
I still can't believe how many people think they can have their cake and eat it too. Enough is enough -- it's time to grow up and realize that injustice is proportional to the amount of power at the center.
Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.
-- R.J. Rummel
Let's stop chasing impossible dreams and admit that he was absolutely correct.
Re:The real worrying thing is (Score:3, Interesting)
I work (through three contractor levels of abstraction) for a telco here in Aus, and there are laws and BIG penalties for giving out customer records to anyone, including the police, who doesn't have the correct authority
What I'm trying to say is, aren't the US telco's here breaking a few laws?
Re:Somebody tell me, please: (Score:4, Interesting)
I share many of your fears but not your complete lack of hope. You are right on about the terrible consequences of a possible war with Iran. Such would most definitely result in the collapse of US global hegemony and domestic security.
These problems both domestic and foreign, stem from our current neo-conservative, ultra-nationalist world view (at least among our elected representatives, both Dem. and Rep., legislative and executive). I would point out that we put too much emphasis on the platitude "democracy" and not on freedoms (speech/expression, religion, from want) and rule of law. Autocracies and constitutional monarchies can sometimes provide these freedoms better than democracies (e.g. Wiemar Germany, the French Revolution, the current Iraqi "democracy"). Viewed in these terms, the global condition is nowhere nearly as dire as we now all think: the massive increase in quality of life in China, Russia, and many parts of the Middle East, though their regimes are not as "democratic" as the West.
Further establishing "democracies" or other governments that provide the freedoms and rule of law does not ensure that either the government or the people governed will agree with all US policy, contrary to the neo-conservative understanding that all "democracies" toe the US policy line. US citizens and their elected representatives are no exception with respect to the policy of the executive branch. And understanding that this disagreement is natural and may be completely innocent (i.e. one need not be an Islamic Fundamentalist to disagree with the government but could have a conflict of interest that is economic or social) will lead to less hard-line, no-holds-barred domestic and foreign policy.
When we think of things practically and take into account the other side's point of view, we begin to realize the benefit of more restrained policy both to ourselves and others. The more we can get others to think rationally, the more who will buy into it, including our own government and those of the Arab nations we are currently needlessly threatening (i.e. not all Arab nations hated the US before the Iraq, and still many depend on us to maintain a world order that makes them wealthy). We need fear mongering among neither the conservatives (i.e. "The whole united Muslim world wants to destroy the West") nor the liberals (i.e. "Put on your tin foil hat"), because both are equally hyperbolic and lead to dangerously extreme, reactionary behavior. I shared both your fear of Muslim reprisal and of Right Wing conspiracy. However, a careful, rational examination shows that the Muslim world is as fragmented and complex as the West, it has age old feuds and religious scisms as does the West (e.g. Al Qaeda/the Taliban and Iran almost went to war in the late 90s!). Further, right wing neo-conservative philosophy is less about conspiracy and more about a knee-jerk mass hysteria, ultra-nationalism, and near infinite greed. Simple, deliberate changes could begin to heal the rifts that we currently think are beyond repair. Just look at examples in history: France and England, the US and China.
I just recently read Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World by John Hulsman and Anatlo Lieven (ISBN: 0375424458), and most of my opinions above are influenced by an Ethical Realist worldview. Though the book is more focused on foreign policy, its tenets of Ethical Realism could easily be applied to domestic policy as well. It was a fascinating read, and it illustrates the dangers of our current ultra-nationalist/fascist neo-conservative course, but also outlines some relatively sensible changes we could make to salvage both our foreign relations and our affairs at home.
how to fix this problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the feds didn't follow up with the required paperwork, then does this even qualify as a patriot-act request? Seems like the companies could follow up in next month's phone bill:
Dear Customer,
On Jan 1, 2007 the FBI invoked the patriot act to ask for the records of John Q Smith, saying they would provide us with a subpoena in a timely fashion to keep this request confidential.
The subpoena was never brought to us. We thought you might like to know.
Sincerely,
Phone Company
Re:No warrant, no due process.. what nextt ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Gestapo, for all its flaws, followed the WRITTEN laws of Reich at that time meticulously.
They NEVER violated the law of the land, and always had paperwork done. Always.
That is why it was easier in Nuremberg trials to convict so many of them, since they left such thick paper trials.
In FBI case, it simply wants to avoid all that...
In way FBI is worse...