Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?

[seemslikeadream]

By IPR
Jan 14, 2005, 15:27


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FBI and other offices of the US Department of Justice, seeking the release of documents that would reveal whether the government has been using the USA PATRIOT Act to spy on Internet users' reading habits without a search warrant.
At issue is PATRIOT Section 216, which expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations using pen registers or trap and trace devices ("pen-traps"). Pen-traps collect information about the numbers dialed on a telephone but do not record the actual content of phone conversations. Because of this limitation, court orders authorizing pen-trap surveillance are easy to get - instead of having to show probable cause, the government need only certify relevance to its investigation. Also, the government never has to inform people that they are or were the subjects of pen-trap surveillance.

PATRIOT expanded pen-traps to include devices that monitor Internet communications. But the line between non-content and content is a lot blurrier online than it is on phone networks. The DOJ has said openly that the new definitions allow pen-traps to collect email and IP addresses. However, the DOJ has not been so forthcoming about web surveillance. It won't reveal whether it believes URLs can be collected using pen-traps, despite the fact that URLs clearly reveal content by identifying the web pages being read. EFF made its FOIA request specifically to gain access to documents that might reveal whether the DOJ is using pen-traps to monitor web browsing.

"It's been over three years since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, and the DOJ still hasn't answered the public's simple question: 'Can you see what we're reading on the Web without probable cause?'" said Kevin Bankston, EFF Staff Attorney and Bruce J. Ennis Equal Justice Works Fellow. "Much of PATRIOT is coming up for review this year, but we can never have a full and informed debate of the issues when the DOJ won't explain how it has been using these new surveillance powers."


FOIA request: www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/FOIA_Request.php

more
http://magic-city-news.com/article_2779.shtml

[napi21]

1. I don't know about browsing, but anything you post is public, right?

I don't know exactly what the patriot act authorizes, and I guess I'm just too lazy to read the whole thing. I'm also not sure if a technical expert could monitor the suspected site to see who's going there. I did find out though that several posts I made on different sites showed up when I googled my own name.

I'm under the impression that most of what you do on the net becomes part of public domain. Isn't the ony thing they need a warrant for is your HD?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Anybody who assumes this is not the case

has not been paying attention

Hello boys, echelon, and the rest of the listening squad.

You enjoy reading this, never mind it is against my rights, I am sure.

Here is a middle finger salute

[BeFree]

19. Hehehe

I just mooned 'em! How ya like them shiners, boys?

Ya know, if someone is using the net to do bad stuff, they'd use encryption. They be wasting their time looking over our shoulders, but you can bet they are wasting time...

[leftofcool]

3. Posts made to DU, Newsgroups, etc...........

are public domain groups. Anyone can read the posts, even little guvm't spies but until the "spies" start watching my email, I don't think there is a reason for most of us to worry.

Left of Cool

[seemslikeadream]

5. READING HABITS

eom

[havocmom]

14. Yep, the problem is not what you post, but what you read in what you think

is a private manner. They want to know what sites you READ! NOT cool

[havocmom]

4. Sure, AFTER they get that little translation problem fixed!

!@(*#$#@#*#$(_!@$* assholes! We ARE NOT safer when they still can't do the simplest tasks.

Let's see:
Trouble with translations that's a big yeppers
Trouble with software ditto
Did they ever find all those hundreds of missing FBI laptops?

Can we trust them to check up on our web browsing when they can't even keep track of their own computers? :wtf:

And alluding to Homeland Security, is the percentage of cargo containers coming into US ports uninspected STILL hovering between 80 - 95%?

And I just had to go to my local post office and provide 2 forms of specifically accepted ID so I can keep getting mail in the PO box I have been using for over 5 years. (We do NOT have mail delivery here and there are less than 400 people in town; the postmaster knows who everyone is. But hey, rules are rules)

How about that Homeland Security, huh?

[ally_sc]

13. hell i live less than 2 miles away from a port eom

[McKenzie]

6. Carnivore etc...

Internet traffic is probably routinely monitored. In the UK we have legislation that allows monitoring of any given IP with minimal legal impediments. I think the position in the US is similar. Run a Gooogle search in the advanced search "all words" field for "carnivore internet surveillance" Many US ISP's had that monitoring software running on their servers a while ago; don't know if it is still in place because I haven't followed the debate for a while. From memory, Earthlink is one of the few that refused to allow the monitoring software to be used.

The newsgroups were full of debate on the matter a couple of years ago. Some posters suggested that encryptation could be unscrambled by software, whether it was Carnivore I can't recall. The name "Magic Lantern" is worth searching for that. But high strength encryptation such as algorithms to 448-bit Blowfish strength probably couldn't be broken, nor proggies that work off a public/private key system such as PGP.

[leftofcool]

25. Eschelon Maybe?

This has been going on for several years now, even prior to 9/11. Some of our ISPs (here in the US) refused to use the software to allow monitoring of their customers.

Left of Cool

[Just Me]

31. Doesn't stop 'em from planting a tracker in your PC. n/t

[leftofcool]

37. Unless.................

Your hubby works in computer security and knows what to do and who to contact and who to haxor to keep em out.

Left of Cool

[Quakerfriend]

7. of course they can!

Where have you been?? The Patriot Act covers it all!

[lovuian]

8. Excellent lawsuit!!! I want to know too!!!

Cause they may be compiling lists!!!

[dave123williams]

9. Hell, they can just use tracking cookies....carnivore not required.

However, if you're (rightly) concerned about this government snooping in to your private affairs, I would recommend this:

http://www.sophos.co.uk

American firms that purport to protect you from worms and viruses (like MacAffee) leave the door open for the FBI. Sophos doesn't.

[Megahurtz]

18. Also, very important:

Always make sure to dump pesky Index.dat and Content.IE files. These files gather information on your computer.

You will need to get a program to do this (internet search) or go into DOS and write it out, otherwise you cannot delete these files.

Cleverly devised.

[JDPriestly]

10. Lawyers use the internet

to communicate with their clients on the assumption that the communications are privileged. It seems to me we should have the right to consider those communications just as private as though they were exchanged through the mails.

[Redstone]

11. Of course they can.

They can do whatever the fuck they want to, because who's going to stop them?

If you don't believe it, just make a phone call or (possibly) send an email with some specific words in it, like the word that starts with K having to do with causing someone's death; the word that starts with p that denotes the US version of a Prime Minister, and the word starting with b that could be a person's last name or the kind of plant that blueberries grow on.

The phone call WILL get some attention (not so sure the email would), though if you use the words in an innocuous context, you won't be getting any visits. Use those three words preceded by the phrase I want to and you'll be on the list.

Trust me on this. Don't do this if you want to be allowed onto an airplane in the foreseeable future.

Redstone

[NYC]

21. I have friends who wonder why I won't

speak freely on the telephone. They are just too trusting.

[Megahurtz]

12. They do whatever they want anytime they want

but they won't tell you, just in case they're going above their own laws.

[fishwax]

27. I think that's pretty much the case

I don't think they feel the need to restrain themselves because of mere technicalities like the Constitution which, like the geneva convention, this administration seems to feel is "quaint."

[Cori Cycle]

15. If I remember correctly..

There is a governmental project (I forgot the code name) that monitors all telephone conversation. Words like "bombs", "President" triggers the machine to begin monitoring and report the result to whomever. On the April fools day, many techie types picks up phone, call their friends, and say those words, just to overwhelm the system and the project (as a form of protest).

If you got a CSC degree, this topic must have came up in one of your classes because a lot of time, you are required to take ethic seminar before the graduation

[mslux]

16. Fighting for Democracy

Isn't that why you are here? It makes you a soldier in the war for Liberty, et al. Soldiers put their lives at risk. So you accept the consequences of being under seige.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. Agent Mike and his buddies can kiss my ass

Since they'll be reading this anyway, I may as well use the opportunity to pass a message along.

Man, I'm in one of those moods today!

[DBoon]

20. Of course they can

Even if they needed a search warrent to do so, they would go ahead without one. They just couldn't use anything they found out as evidence in a court of law.

Of course, the FBI being understaffed, they cannot monitor more than a few individual's Web browsing.

They can monitor anyone, but not everyone.

[hunter]

22. Those pictures of a young George W. Bush molesting livestock...

...gotta be around here somewhere. They're the bomb, man, a real nuke.

Oh yeah, 7, 9, 4, 2, 1, 5, 8, 1, 4; code yellow.

That ought to catch the sniffers out, eh? For my next trick I will encrypt a Finnish copy of "The Wizard of Oz" and email it to a friend in Africa.

In case anyone cares, here's a little snippet of my browsing, from my "spookiest" browser. (I use several browsers at once):

1105510127
Democratic Underground Forums - NYT: E-Mail Shows Higher Toll From Crash of Submarine(1 Dead 60 Hurt)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1143020
1105510354
Democratic Underground Forums - U.S. nuclear sub runs aground in Pacific..........huh?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2935690
Democratic Underground Forums - Viewing topics in Latest Breaking News
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view342.html
1105510695
Google
http://www.google.com/
1105515437
Google Search: Richard Scary Busytown
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Richard+Scary+Busytown&btnG=Google+Search
1105515455
Democratic Underground Forums - Ridge Seeks Fingerprints on Passports
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Richard+Scarry+Busytown&spell=1
Flanner-Buchanan Funeral Centers
http://obit.flanner-buchanan.com/obit_display.cgi?id=17
1105603123
Democratic Underground Forums - Probe Lands On Saturn Moon; Sends Photos
Google News
http://news.google.com/
1105700869
Top News Article | Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7332735
1105700909
Top News Article | Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VUH0UVMKEEWKGCRBAEKSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=7333826
1105700972
Democratic Underground Forums - Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7333826&pageNumber=1
1105701146

Cool, huh? Is it real? Is it something I made up? Is it something that I edited along the way?

The Federal Government does a lot of snooping that wouldn't stand up in court. I take that as a given. Do you use a wireless phone? Somebody can listen to that without going through the bother of a cassical "wire tap." Cell phones too. Any "encryption" in those technologies is crappy. And internet communications are wide open.

A certain segment of the internet community seeks to overwhelm the snoops by encrypting everything they do. Confronting the spooks head on is probably more productive. When the snoops come to your door, don't invite them inside. Make them show you a warrant. Don't talk to them. Don't be persuaded by any false appeals to your "patriotism" or anything else. Quite simply, the Constitution protects us all from unreasonable searches, and reasons for searches must be set to paper and signed by a judge.

As a young man I was sometimes a suspicious character walking down the street, or jogging through places joggers rarely go. (It's two in the morning, and here's Hunter wearing only shorts and sneakers jogging past the gates of hush-hush aerospace facility. Hmmmm.)

I was always polite to whoever stopped me, and I'd tell them my name, but I'd be damned unAmerican if I'd felt any obligation to carry identification. (Now I carry I.D. because my wife would be pissed if I collapsed and was taken to the E.R. as a John Doe. Now that I think about it, she'd be pissed if I went jogging at two in the morning.)

One problem the EFF and similar groups face in these situations is that their actions lend credibility to the public perception of the FBI and other Federal agencies as competent players in this arena. Often they are not.

I would guess the FBI is actually happy to see stories like this posted in the wake of their recent software boondoggles.

Even if the FBI software was not really a boondoggle (as some tinfoil hatters have suggested) and that story is just a cover for something worse, it is your duty as a United States Citizen to poke the snoops in the eye whenever they violate your rights.

One way to do that is to write and speak freely your own opinions. If you feel our president should go fuck himself with a cholla cactus, you are free to post that in any appropriate internet forum. In fact I would think it would be very interesting if the FBI kept statistics on that sort of expression...

"Well sir, it seems that 211,219 Americans think you should fuck yourself with a cholla cactus. It's not clear they would vote for you if you did, and other larger voting blocs would probably find that phrase offensive, but perhaps a carefully targeted word-of-mouth internet campaign would be effective."

[SlowDownFast]

38. exercising my constitutional right:

I really do think Bush should go fuck himself with a cholla cactus...

there. I feel better already.

oh, and to any spooks reading this:

you can go fuck yourself with a cholla cactus, also.

damn, downright therapeutic.

[uppityperson]

23. Think this'll get their attention?

hijack weapon wood sarin poison anthrax puppy smallpox media airborn gun sex arabic osama SAM kitten email internets terror alert bomb president airplane

ps. I went to BBC, the Guardian, Seattle Times and Doctors without Borders today. Just so you don't have to check. And Amazon. And for the pen traps: 2873017389. Now I feel safer.

[donheld]

24. That's why we must surf lots of porn

this gives the FBI something fun to "surveille"

[Buns_of_Fire]

39. That's right! It's the Murkin thing to do!

Hi, Agent Mike! :hi:

[Up2Late]

26. I don't think so

NPR reported yesterday that they are going to have to start over with the "New" computers system that they was started (to be designed) 3 years ago. :dunce:

I think it's already almost obsolete, and they're only about 1/3 done with the set up.:argh:

And if you are running 128 bit encryption on your browser, it would tack a Cray XT3™ to Hack your computer/browser, just to find most people going to sites like this or some Porn site.

What you DON'T want to do, is start making death threats on *, even as a joke. I think they have the MATRIX system looking for that sort of stuff.

Plus, they don't have the budget to hire enough agents as it is, without spying on jokers like us. The people to worry about are these new "Private Information Corporations," they suck.:hurts:

[Liberty Belle]

28. All they have to do is a google search

To find out most of what they want to know.

It wouldn't catch e-mail or financial transactions, but would certainly reveal a lot about what sites people are visiting and what views have been aired.

[struggle4progress]

29. kick

[genieroze]

30. I don't care if they know, the hell with them.

[bpilgrim]

32. can CORPORATIONS? yes. can they SELL it? sure... if the PRICE IS RIGHT ;->

besides... who has any 'EXPECTATION' of privacy anymore, ESPECIALLY on the INTERNETs



peace

[leftchick]

33. Thanks for another great post SLAD....

I think... :scared:

[Just Me]

34. Seemslikeadream is wonderful contributor!!!

I, too, want to express my gratitude!!!

[paineinthearse]

35. Have you read any federal govt website policy recently?

Here's the White House policy - http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy.html Republican sites (state and national) are similar.

White House Website Privacy and Security Policy

Thank you for visiting the White House Website and reviewing our privacy policy. Our privacy policy is clear: We will collect no personal information about you when you visit our website unless you choose to provide that information to us.
Here is how we handle information about your visit to our website:

White House Internet Security Policy

For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, this government computer system employs software programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage.

Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this service are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

Information Collected and Stored Automatically

If you do nothing during your visit but browse through the website, read pages, or download information, we will gather and store certain information about your visit automatically. This information does not identify you personally. We automatically collect and store only the following information about your visit:

The Internet domain (for example, "xcompany.com" if you use a private Internet access account, or "yourschool.edu" if you connect from a university's domain) and IP address (an IP address is a number that is automatically assigned to your computer whenever you are surfing the Web) from which you access our website;
The type of browser and operating system used to access our site;
The date and time you access our site;
The pages you visit; and
If you linked to the White House website from another website, the address of that website.
We use this information to help us make our site more useful to visitors -- to learn about the number of visitors to our site and the types of technology our visitors use. We do not track or record information about individuals and their visits.

If You Send Us Personal Information

If you choose to provide us with personal information by sending an e-mail to the President or someone else in the White House, or by filling out a form with your personal information and submitting it through our website, we use that information to respond to your message and to help us provide you with information that you request. If you submit your resume through our website, we use your personal identification information only in considering your application for employment. We do not collect personal information for any other purposes. The information you provide is not given to any private organizations or private persons. The White House does not collect or use information for commercial marketing.

We would share your e-mail with another federal government agency only if your inquiry related to that agency or if we were required to do so by law. The Presidential Records Act requires us to maintain some documents, including e-mails, received by the White House and requires public disclosure of some of these documents twelve years after President Bush leaves office. In addition, we would release documents, including e-mails, if required to do so by a congressional or judicial subpoena.

If you submit resume information through the Presidential Personnel Application, this information will be shared only with White House employees involved in making hiring decisions and, if you express interest in employment with a federal executive agency other than the White House, with officials responsible for making hiring decisions in that agency. We are required by the Presidential Records Act to maintain your resume as a record, but your personal resume information is not subject to public disclosure under the Act.

Links to Other Sites

Our website has links to the websites of many other federal agencies. In a few cases, we link to private organizations, with their permission. Before leaving the White House website, a page will appear informing you that you are leaving our server. Once you link to another site, you are subject to the privacy policy of the new site.

[n2mark]

36. The FBI. Homeland Security etc.

will do whatever they damn well please, the rights of people doesn't matter to them and they could care less.