Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New FBI Operations Manual Increases Surveillance

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

Government 189

betterunixthanunix writes "The New York Times is reporting that the new FBI operations manual suggests a broad increase in surveillance. Denoted the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the manual officially lowers the bar of acceptability when it comes to engaging in surveillance activities, including allowing agents to perform such surveillance on people who are not suspected terrorists without opening an inquiry or officially recording their actions. The new manual also relaxes rules on administering lie detector tests, searching through a person's trash, and the use of teams to follow targeted individuals. It should be noted that these guidelines still fall within the general limits put in place by the attorney general."

cancel ×

189 comments

wow (4, Funny)

MagicM (85041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426030)

0 comments, because they're watching

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426556)

Times like this, I kind of want to move to the middle of nowhere, cut myself off from everything and enjoy being an unwatched hermit. Of course, I guess that'd make me look like the Unibomber but it's not that they would have found him but for a brother with very reasonable concerns about his sibling's sanity.

Still, I'd really miss my video games.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426888)

But were you the FiRsT? DHS whach list, I mean terrorist list, is all about the FiRsT impressions..

4th? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426036)

Unconstitutional. Period.

Re:4th? (2)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426138)

"they" are going to keep trashing the Constitution; and 90%+ of "We The People" are going to continue to just sit there and take it.
Want to join a tireless, irate minority that's actually, measurably turning the tide? We're gathering. We're winning. See my .sig

Re:4th? (2)

return 42 (459012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426512)

Please detail for us in what ways the FSP is "actually, measurably turning the tide". Don't just say "read the site"; who has time to trawl through the whole site? Spell it out for us. Or stop making empty boasts.

My impression of the FSP is that it will never reach the 20,000-signature mark, and the fewer than 1,000 members that have moved (or were already there) have made some impact on local politics, perhaps a little at the state level, and none at all at the national level. I'd be delighted to hear I'm wrong.

Re:4th? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426730)

They're not. The Free State Project is a failure because they picked the wrong state. They want 20,000 freedom loving people to move to NH, while 10,000 massholes move there each year, canceling out the FSP efforts in 2 years.

Re:4th? (1)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426890)

Many of the people moving to NH from Mass are doing so to escape "Taxachusetts" and to embrace the NH culture. Look at the towns near the border: some of the most staunch pro-liberty State Reps [nhliberty.org] are from there.

Re:4th? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427120)

The Free State Project is a failure because they picked the wrong state. They want 20,000 freedom loving people to move to NH, while 10,000 massholes move there each year, canceling out the FSP efforts in 2 years.

Not to mention it is too fucking cold up there for too much of the year.

Pick somewhere more temperate....and friendly (think more southern in direction).

Re:4th? (5, Informative)

Plugh (27537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426860)

Fair questions. Different FSP members are likely to give you different answers as we all have different priorities. For me, the biggest wins are:
  • Elected over 1 dozen FSP members to the State legislature
  • Elected dozens of FSP members to local office all over the state (including myself, FWIW)
  • Outright eliminated [freestateproject.org] all knife laws in NH
  • Passed a law forbidding NH from participating in the Real-ID [freestateproject.org] program, or any de facto national ID that may follow therefrom
  • Likely to pass a resolution this year asserting state sovereignty [freestateproject.org]
  • Passed laws reducing regulations on various businesses: contractors, home-schoolers
  • Prevented any state income tax, sales tax, or seat belt law from passing, despite intense lobbying for such from other quarters
  • Started libertarian TV shows, radio programs, and newspapers all over the state -- far more media saturation than in any other state

A lot more are listed over at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?253-New-Hampshire [ronpaulforums.com]

FBI Gives Out New Powers Just After Patriot Act (3)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426882)

Surprisingly, the FBI waited to give out these new powers to their agents until just _after_ the Congress approved renewal of the PATRIOT Act. Wouldn't want to risk losing a few votes by doing it beforehand, while they were whining about how they needed to keep all the power they had.

Re:4th? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426144)

so is getting your crotch fondled without probable cause, or getting your bank account frozen for a month while bill checks bounce just because you deposited or spent more than your "usual" amount of money....but since we're now a police state instead of a democratic republic with rights none of that matters anymore

Re:4th? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426348)

You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".

According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.

BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.

Re:4th? (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426412)

So the whole "unreasonable search and seizure" part (Fourth Amendment) of the constitution doesn't really apply?

Re:4th? (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426540)

Unreasonable search and seizure of your trash which you left out on the curb and if you live in a city are paying money to the city to take from you?

Re:4th? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426554)

It applies only if what the cops do is actually unreasonable.

Googling your name to see if you're a flamboyant crook isn't unreasonable.

Re:4th? (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426750)

Is it reasonable for the FBI to go trolling through your life online, databases, trash, surveillance squads, and attending your meetings looking for random evidence of crime without having any "reasonable suspicion" of a specific crime?

Re:4th? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427022)

I may not be exactly thrilled by the FBI doing those things, but quite frankly IMHO*, what you publish publicly on-line and what meetings you publicly attend IRL aren't going to trigger the "reasonablness" provision of the 4th Amendment, no. That's kind of what "public" means. Should the FBI be required to get a warrant before reading your private e-mails or private Facebook (as an example) posts? Yes*. But if you post something in a public forum (for example, here on /.), all bets are off.

*These are my "interested layman" opinions. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, and since I am therefore unqualified to provide it, this is NOT legal advice. Use this information at your own peril.

Re:4th? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427172)

You are doing those things in public, so yes.

Re:4th? (2)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426950)

You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".

According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.

It may not be common, but it does happen [findlaw.com] . There are two nuggets in this particular link. First, Alberto Gonzales claimed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus -- just that, IF you already have the right, it can't be denied to you. Anyone familiar with the Constitution will understand that Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution WRT habeas corpus is simply asinine. Second, in the linked article, Dean states that the Supreme Court has, in fact, rebuffed Gonzales' notion that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus (which, in all truth, I was not aware of until reading the article). I'm not saying that SCOTUS will always get it right when the AG gets it wrong, but sometimes SCOTUS does act as an effective brake on an otherwise out-of-control executive branch, fortunately. In this case, however, I'm not entirely sure I would count on SCOTUS to reign in the FBI. To my non-lawyer mind, some of these look sufficiently grey to possibly not trigger the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment (for example, searching through your trash, since, IIRC, there is precedent that once you put your trash on the curb, it's not an invasion of your privacy to search through it).

BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.

Re:4th? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426422)

Yeah.. So?

Freedom slipping away fast (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426708)

It's getting worse by the day ... http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/daniel-ellsberg-all-the-crimes-richard-nixon-committed-against-me-are-now-legal/ .. "Daniel Ellsberg: All the crimes Richard Nixon committed against me are now legal"

Necessary for safety. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426048)

With so many terrorists targeting the USA these days, such measures are necessary to ensure the safety and security of the populace. Sad, but true.

Re:Necessary for safety. (1)

Nimatek (1836530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426082)

Obvious troll is obvious.

I think Ben Frankin said it best: (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427096)

"if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide"

Re:Necessary for safety. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426118)

With so many terrorists targeting the USA these days, such measures are necessary to ensure the safety and security of the populace. Sad, but true.

With that attitude (real or not), there's really nothing left to protect anymore. Our country is based upon Freedom and when our freedoms, our core beliefs are compromised for safety, then why do we even exist anymore?

America lives in name only - we are no longer a free country and we're the only ones who have to blame for it.

Re:Necessary for safety. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426120)

yes, just as the TSA's vigilance has stopped many terrorists including the underwear and shoe bomber. and planes no longer drop out of the sky like hail.

Re:Necessary for safety. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426740)

With that attitude, the terrorists have won a decisive victory where the British, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, German, and many other enemies at some time or another have never had a chance of coming near to.

Re:Necessary for safety. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427018)

What terrorists? One attack in a decade makes "such measures necessary"?

Israel, Northern Ireland and Spain are laughing. Ok, snickering, you don't laugh about the schoolyard bully, even if you learn that he's afraid alone in the dark. Home of the brave, my ass.

Well well (2)

threeseas (2245516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426058)

They are running out of things to do, ways to spend/waste tax payer dollars...

Re:Well well (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426174)

You have it backwards. By limiting themselves unnecessarily and not investigating things fully they were wasting taxpayer dollars that were budgeted to do investigations fully.

Ugh, polygraphs (4, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426080)

Why is the federal government so in love with polygraph machines given the scientific community's near-complete dismissal of polygraphs as valid [wikipedia.org] ?

(The cynical side of me says it's because they give superiors and judges a reason to pass their opinion as judgement on someone without any real evidence...)

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426188)

It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them. Using them doesn't produce actionable evidence, but it weeds out the guilty who know they're guilty and don't feel they can beat a polygraph. Saves a lot of rubber-hose time that way.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426568)

It's because perps, except the true psychopaths, are scared shitless of them.

So the machine can really only tell if you're lying or crazy.. Eh, that's probably the case with most people..

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427036)

So the machine can really only tell if you're lying or crazy.

It does a piss-poor job of determining the former..

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427046)

Not only perps. I'm scared shitless of it too, and I (probably) didn't even do it. I'm scared because I know that this thing is pretty much doing something akin to crystal ball reading and it could easily find me "guilty", no matter whether I am or not.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427148)

So don't submit to it. Say you know they're innaccurate and inadmissable. Or better, have your lawyer say it. Make them prove your guilt themselves.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426198)

They love it because of the placebo effect. If the perp thinks that the voodoo magic polygraph machine can actually tell if they're lying, it has some effect on investigations I suppose.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426200)

The way to beat the test is to clench your anal sphincter while answering the question.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426274)

Nope, they'll detect that. The way to beat a polygraph is to realize that the error margins are so large that it can be argued away in court very, very easily.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427064)

Now please tell me they don't detect that the way that I envision right now!

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Informative)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427112)

I had to take a polygraph for a job once (it was a Federal job that required a security clearance). It took three tries, even though I was telling the truth (I have not EVER used illegal drugs, then or since, other than a couple of drinks when I was under age -- and that was only illegal because of my age *and* I told them about that). The problem was, for as long as I can remember, I've always used various breathing and relaxation techniques to, well, relax. That caused unusual spikes and dips on the polygraph test, which caused the administrator to think I was trying to hide something. Once I figured out that 1) they were intentionally trying to create stress in the test environment, and that 2) they were picking up the wild variations between when I would start to feel any anxiety and when I would start to try to calm myself down, I figured out what I needed to do to pass: build up the stress instead of trying to keep myself calm. Once the stress level was raised, it was easy to keep it relatively constant throughout the test.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426912)

Since the FBI and the rest of three-letter-acronyms stick their fingers in everyone's asses, they would notice right away.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426204)

The feds administer polygraphs so they can wave the results at you and tell you that you failed. The hope is that your 'failure' will make you confess. Of course, the confession, whether done by trickery or not, will be admissible in court.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426260)

Reminds me of a story I read somewhere, where the police didn't have a polygraph available. So they rigged up a headband with some wires, ran the wires into a photocopier and printed off copies of "HE'S LYING" in huge letters every time they thought he was. Probably and urban legend, but also probably about as effective as a 'real' polygraph is.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426346)

Urban legend, here on Snopes [snopes.com] .

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426530)

Reminds me of a story I read somewhere, where the police didn't have a polygraph available. So they rigged up a headband with some wires, ran the wires into a photocopier and printed off copies of "HE'S LYING" in huge letters every time they thought he was. Probably and urban legend, but also probably about as effective as a 'real' polygraph is.

And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense, all while the real perp is free to commit again. =/

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Informative)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426784)

And if true, someone somewhere who has an IQ bordering on mentally disabled is sitting in a jail cell for a crime he did not commit but confessed to under false pretense

Assuming that you have been advised of your rights, police in the United States are allowed to lie or otherwise mislead you when you are being questioned.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (3, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426220)

information extracted by torture is well known to be unreliable, while very effective ways of getting information and cooperation have been perfected for decades....but our government still went with the torture. Says a lot about the kind of contemptible thug scum we have running the place, doesn't it?

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426284)

Says a lot about the kind of contemptible thug scum we have running the place, doesn't it?

Says even more about the citizens who elect them, or though inaction, allow them to be elected.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426406)

I'm a permanent resident of the US and a Canadian citizen, and thus can't vote in elections in either country (since you have to be both a citizen and maintaining a physical residence within their borders to vote in either country's elections). I'll absolutely resume my civic duty as soon as I can become a US citizen, which is in a little less than two years.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426698)

Not true for the United States you have to be a citizen but you don't have to own property at all to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

Look at the section on Absentee voting.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426424)

So let's say that I spend my entire life campaigning against these guys and vote against them personally. What then? I'll tell you what: the ones with the most corporate funding still win out because they can hire people to make me look bad or insignificant and their candidate look just swell.

We're not living in a democracy, stop kidding yourself. The choice is between corporate whore A and corporate whore B.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426536)

So let's say that I spend my entire life campaigning against these guys and vote against them personally. What then? I'll tell you what: the ones with the most corporate funding still win out because they can hire people to make me look bad or insignificant and their candidate look just swell.

We're not living in a democracy, stop kidding yourself. The choice is between corporate whore A and corporate whore B.

Can we add "Rationalizing Coward" as an option for posting replies?

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427000)

how about realist? please do tell how you imagine to effect change to our system

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426756)

True, but giving up and surrendering just means that usually the nastiest of the bunch will win.

At least with voting, you end up having a lesser evil in office. Take Satan vs. Cthulhu. Satan corrupts, but at least stuff is left standing for a bit. Cthulhu will just slurp you up, body/mind/soul up wholesale.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427092)

Damn straight, they could have voted for Kodos.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

danhaas (891773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426374)

"while very effective ways of getting information and cooperation have been perfected for decades..."

Do you mind clarifying? With examples, please.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426552)

Do you mind clarifying? With examples, please.

Oh, say, waterboarding, tasers, dogs, foreign countries. We just don't tell people about it, and in the press release say the prisoner cooperated.

Those techniques have been perfected for decades, and our PR department is great at cover stories.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

NoAkai (2036200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426364)

(The cynical side of me says it's because they give superiors and judges a reason to pass their opinion as judgement on someone without any real evidence...)

Give your cynical side a cookie. Now I might be completely wrong here, but the above is really the only reason I can fathom, either that or complete and utter ignorance... Which of course isn't too far-fetched an option... Luckily, polygraphs are not used in court over here in Sweden.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426376)

The point of polygraphs is that some people think they work. This sets up the opportunity for the interrogator to glance at the readouts and look doubtingly at the person being interrogated. At the end, he can say something like "are you QUITE sure there isn't something you'd like to tell us?" as if the machine had picked up something nefarious. It is a way to pressure someone into divulging something they wouldn't otherwise have divulged. It removes people's attention from what they are saying to what the machine might be registering, thus making them more likely to trip themselves up. It's like shining a light into someone's eyes to put them off their game.

Imagine you are interrogating some tribesman who believe in voodoo. In that case it might be helpful to have the interrogator pretend to be using voodoo to invoke terrible punishment from the spirits to anyone who tells a lie, or something like that. That is what polygraphs are.

Now of course, directly using the readings of the polygraph as actual evidence is on par with convicting someone based on tea leaf readings.

The trouble with things like this is that they make the interrogation experience more traumatic for the innocent. If you have to traumatize 100 people to catch 1 guy, it's not worth it. Trouble is, the cost of traumatizing interrogations is borne by the victims and not by law enforcement, so there is no effective mechanism in place to counterbalance overzealous or power-tripping cops. After all, if you complain, why are you trying to make the terrorists go free?

Same as any expansion of government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426416)

Anything that brings in revenue and/or power is welcomed with open arms by the pyramid of government. Their goal is to increase the net worth of their business, as proven by history year after year. The more government costs, and the more power over the people, the more lucrative the business of government is for the elite who have the ability exploit that power and cash flow for personal gain.

It's not rocket science. The people who run the business of government work purely for themselves, not you and me. We need to finally accept this cold hard truth for what it is, and set strict limits on the scope of government measured both in revenue and power over the people. Any politician who is opposed to strict limits on his own power and cash flow is simply showing his true colors: greed and self-interest.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

snkline (542610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426662)

Polygraphs are not generally used as 'lie detectors' but as interrogation tools. They are the flourish made by the magician with his left hand while he palms the coin with his right. Their purpose is to be a prop used to throw the person being interrogated off balance.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

harl (84412) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426670)

Except that they're not admissible in court.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426790)

However, someone who does not think they can beat a polygraph may opt to confess to their crimes, thinking that it is better than lying and getting caught. Of course, this also means that better educated people will be less likely to go to prison, but that would be true without the polygraph: educated people will not say anything until they have spoken with a lawyer.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (1)

harl (84412) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427192)

All of this is based on a flawed premise. The situation you describe should never exist. If you are guilty talking to the police can never help.

Once the police ask to talk to you both you and the police become impotent. You're in lawyer land at that point. Shut the fuck up and let them do the talking.

Re:Ugh, polygraphs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426828)

If you manage to outlaw reasonable behavior you can use this to coerce people and bypass the judical process when the question is simple. Both of the participants can be very aware of the the situation. It doesn't give the "criminal" a chance to defend himself properly, even if the law in question was clearly unjust.

To express your opinion... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426134)

...about this manual it is a good idea to regularly defecate into your trashcan.

Re:To express your opinion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426178)

Actually, it is illegal to put poo into the garbage (and now you know why...)

Re:To express your opinion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426388)

...about this manual it is a good idea to regularly defecate into your trashcan.

I don't produce all that much trash. The majority of what I do put in the trash is from my cats. If they want to search through that...

So nothing's really different. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426162)

So, nothing is really different about what they could do, within the law, they're just being told by their executives that they should do more, within the law.

I see why this should be controversial. It appears that their policy has been not to do everything they could.

Re:So nothing's really different. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426224)

IMHO for a lot of these things at the legal extremes of what they could do, but didn't, the problem isn't that they weren't doing them, it's that they had the ability to do them in the first place.

The law shouldn't have large sections that are only used when you piss off a federal agent / judge.

Re:So nothing's really different. (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426534)

The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?

As for the "piss off a federal agent" thing, that will always be a part of the paradigm, as long as we rely on human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes. The key is to rely on independent human beings to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by federal agents.

If you read TFA you realize that 90% of this story is about how much infrastructure we have in place to ensure that the things cops can do are not abused by the cops.

Because, left to their own devices, they devise rubber hoses, evidence drops, and one-way trips to the county line. This is nothing more than telling them there are things they can do that aren't rubber hoses, evidence drops, or one-way trips to the county line, that they can devise on their own recognizance and still be acting within a suspect's rights.

Economy... (2)

threeseas (2245516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426196)

As the GOVcorps continues to take money out of the economy/circulation they know this causes stress on the people and want to catch any uprising so to fill the 180 FEMA detention camps across the country. If you doubt the reduction of currency in circulation then where did all the trillions (10+) go that so many countries are doing the bailout dance? Wikileaks showed that Israel has intentionally kept the Gaza strip on the brink of economic collapse.... for their sense of control. the "Trillion dollar bet" of the 90's drained south east Asia. Sept 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld stated 2.3 trillion of pentagon spending is unaccounted for and later there seems to be 9.7 trillion of bailout money is "We don't know where it went".... So the US doing the same to its people as Israel to the Gaza strip, simply requires more of the big brother watchful eye...And YES things are intentionally going to get worse.

Get used to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426230)

This behavior by the federal government has been going on for years and will continue to increase in their level of intrusion.

Once local/state organizations are targeted by cyberattacks these rules will begin to apply to local law enforcement as well allowing for a double penetration of our privacy, all for "the good of the community and the country".

haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426266)

Hope and change!

Trash? (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426272)

All others aside, why is trash such a big deal? I was under the impression that anyone can look through anyone's trash provided it was on the sidewalk/street.

Re:Trash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426854)

That's the problem with the change, they no longer have to wait for it to be on the sidewalk. They will now trespass to search your property without a warrant.

More likely (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426314)

just a codification of what they've been doing all along since 9/12/2001.

The second casualty in (endless) war is the true Rule of Law.

They Can Search Your Trash +1, Fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426336)

but they can't find the U.S. $ 6.6 billion" [npr.org] "missing" in Iraq.

Dear F.B.I. : For some prime suspects, try the Washington, D. C. area.

Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout

FBI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426444)

Its not a police state and there not all bad.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426604)

Where?

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426454)

Hello.

Re:1984 (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427216)

So they're late with the implementation, what else did you expect from government?

I own a very large dog and a paper shredder (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426458)

...and I pity the fool digging through my trashcan.

Yes, it does affect you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426472)

Allowing FBI agents who are highly trained, to effectively do what they like, without being watched themselves, and with access to massive technical resources is begging for corruption (as if there isn't a lot now;))

You may be wondering why we need such surveillance? The simple answer is... we don't! As the above excerpt says "allowing agents to perform such surveillance on people who are not suspected terrorists" means they are not looking into YOUR private affairs for any other reason then to look into them.

"Hey, john... lets watch this bloke. hes bound to do something wrong sooner or later. And when he does, well have all of his phone records, recordings, pictures, video, bank statements... shit... we'll even know how he likes to fuck his wife etc... We'll have all the evidence we need to be seen to be doing something honorable for this country"

But why would the FBI rules and regulations have been relaxed to allow such? Two reasons, firstly, to make those FBI agents think they have the right to do what ever they like. This of course breeds complete arrogance. And when an FBI agent, highly trained, with access to fire arms, and the arrogance to use them, is sitting on your couch in your house, its probably too late to ask this question. He will have murdered you "legally" because he didn't like the way you answered his question.

Secondly, these propaganda "press" announcements are supposed to make you fearful of the FBI and its seemingly unstoppable authority.
"YOU ARE BEING WATCHED... COMPLETELY" "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO WATCH YOU BECAUSE, WELL... WE SAY SO!"

"Those who swap freedom for security, deserve neither"

No "firm reason" required! (5, Interesting)

Thruen (753567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426478)

I like this line at the very end:

But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.

Is anyone else somewhat appalled that they don't need a "firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing" to waste time and money on an investigation? Add that to everything about this manual, and it kind of seems like the FBI is wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer money running around looking into random BS instead of focusing on serious issues. Even if we forget about the trampling of rights of innocent people here, and forget about them spending our money helping the MPAA/RIAA sue people, the mere fact that they are willing to investigate without a firm reason is bothersome from a "you-work-for-me-and-you're-wasting-time" perspective.

TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426544)

This will create another new source for more unwanted, imbecillic TV shows.

Valerie Caproni looks like a nasty dyke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426588)

Has anyone else noticed this ?

TFA (1)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426590)

Paywall? Seriously?

Re:TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426908)

Watch out - you'll be put under surveillance for comments like that comrade.

Post AC like me for protection.

so in summation (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426694)

there is no cause for alarm, your elected government
is operating at normal and safe levels to protect you
against threats it has identified to the good of its members, and you
.
this legislation is no cause for alarm, and should be
regarded as normal and regular. Please augment any
feelings of dissatisfaction, fear, or confusion with your
regularly scheduled, preferred docu-drama-comedy sitcom lineups as
provided by your television. Those wishing to consume may do so at
or above their levels of discretionary spending, with or without regard
to this legislation or its details as the legislation has been designed to
be compatible with existing models of american consumerism.

Personal accountability? (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426716)

When I read this story in the local paper (probably a NYT or AP version, likely shrunk) it made it sound like that many of these things they've already been doing but that they required "opening an official investigation" or something to that effect, which involved some oversight but a ton of bureaucracy and turning the wheels of process.

The net effect seemed to be that they could continue to do some of this stuff, except it would require less organizational oversight and more personal discretion.

THIS is the part I find shocking. I read a story recently about an IRS agent who makes a point of running plates on sports cars he sees on the streets and then checking to see if the people who own the car list enough income on their taxes to justify the ownership. If it seems fishy, he then does a criminal audit.

Even though the people may be cheating on their taxes, this strikes me as kind of rogue behavior that I'd hope the FBI would be restrained from.

Re:Personal accountability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427076)

Link please.

Re:Personal accountability? (1)

RocketChild (1397411) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427110)

Yeah, I'd love to see that sourced too!

Well, Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426770)

Am I the only one that ever heard of Rex Stout?

They are watching... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426932)

They are always watching you. No matter what you type, text, or tweet, they can and will read it and you will never even know.

After facebook facial recognition technology comes to fruition, your behavior patterns will be analyzed and recorded, and you may be 're-programmed' to fit back in to society nicely. If you fail to comply with the surveillance overlords, you must be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
The 'land of the free and the home of the brave' thanks you in advance for your cooperation.
Have a nice day.

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427010)

Here we go....

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427132)

Your government at work....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...