Beta
×

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!

FBI Rejects Freedom of Information Act Request About Carrier IQ

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the let's-jump-to-conclusions dept.

Android 156

bonch writes with news that website Muckrock recently sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI asking for "manuals, documents or other written guidance used to access or analyze data gathered by programs developed or deployed by Carrier IQ." The Bureau has now responded with a rejection of the request, claiming an exemption applies because such documents "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." While many have been quick to assume the worst, the Muckrock article says it's unclear "whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm stunned (5, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349370)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

Re:I'm stunned (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349404)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

Perhaps Putin made some of his fortune as an adviser.

being an ex-cagey bee and all...

These Are Not The Androids You're Looking For (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349568)

You have violated Robot's Rules of Order, and will be asked to leave the future, immediately.

Re:I'm stunned (3, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350764)

Notably, both Stalin's regime and entire Stasi organisation have been significantly less successful at monitoring people. We long past the point where even those comparisons in terms of monitoring would be appropriate. To try to whine about Putin, who actually failed at any significant monitoring of his people (as in comparison to both above) shows extreme depth of ignorance in the subject. As it stands now, top countries in terms of monitoring their citizens are located in the West, and the gap between them and others is more of a huge chasm.

Re:I'm stunned (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351464)

Citations?

The KGB and Stasi were remarkably successful at what they did. Yes, I know that the US is moving beyond their example, but how far down that road are we? IMO, the UK is much further along than the US is. And, you could probably make a case for the UK surpassing the USSR. But, citations are in order, if you make that attempt. Not to mention, any attempts to quantify and to qualify the comparisons might be suspect. Are there records available somewhere, documenting how many Stasi there were, and how frequently they monitored each citizen? Can we check their reliability in identifying "enemies of the state"?

Your final sentence is almost certainly correct. But, how do we verify that?

Re:I'm stunned (4, Interesting)

Gription (1006467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349448)

Letting citizens exercise the rights could "interfere with enforcement proceedings" so hand over all your rights immediately!

Re:I'm stunned (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349896)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

The only thing we know for sure is that the companies that installed this iCarrier spyware definitely abused their power.

If the abuse goes up to the FBI, then there's no way that information is not going to come out. We'll know soon enough where iCarrier came from and where we should aim our ire. The iCarrier story is just getting started.

Re:I'm stunned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350626)

We know it "for sure". I think the hyperbole is a bit deep here...

Now they *may* have been abusing it. That I can buy. But "for sure"? You have proof?

My *bet* is it came from some middle manager. Who came up with the idea of 'metrics'. "we need more metrics on how people use our system". That it can be used for more than that is icing on the cake for them.

Re:I'm stunned (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350702)

My *bet* is it came from some middle manager. Who came up with the idea of 'metrics'.

So you believe that this spyware was installed on all those devices based on a decision that someone in "middle management" made?

And this one middle manager made this decision for at least three separate companies (Apple, HTC and Samsung)?

I had no idea that Apple, HTC and Samsung had all hired the same middle manager. I've heard of people with three jobs, but this must be one hard-working middle manager.

Re:I'm stunned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351384)

OH, absofuckinglutely! This guy/gal was a good teflon-coated pitch man. They got it through their company... The rest is just keeping up with the Joneses.

Re:I'm stunned (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351500)

The existence of icarrier is abusive. And, the decision to implement it is abusive on the parts of SENIOR management at each carrier that had it installed.

Middle management? Really? Dude - middle management decides how often the floors should be swept and mopped, how often machines are to be oiled, and which personnel are on call on holiday weekends. Upper management decides what hours the plant will be open, they determine budgets, and other important stuff. Executives - you know, like CEO's decide what products the company is going to offer, and the features incorporated into them. Icarrier may have been the brainchild of some lesser minion, but executives decided to use it.

There's no FBI investigation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350668)

Ironically to investigate Carrier IQ, they'd have to get a search warrant against them, but to use Carrier IQ's data, they'd just need to pay a fee.

There is no FBI investigation because there is no search warrant.

Re:I'm stunned (2)

forand (530402) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350684)

Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ. No clue what iCarrier is and Google only finds 4 pages with both terms so I am betting that iCarrier is not the name of their software product.

The Carrier IQ software is a cross platform problem that seems to be associated with the carriers and headset makers, including both Android and Apple devices.

Re:I'm stunned (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350882)

Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ.

No, that was just a mistake on my part.

Although Apple is listed in the Wikipedia article about Carrier IQ as one of three companies that had installed Carrier IQ on their products. It also says that it is not included in iOS 5.

Re:I'm stunned (2)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351198)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

The only thing we know for sure is that the companies that installed this iCarrier spyware definitely abused their power.

If the abuse goes up to the FBI, then there's no way that information is not going to come out. We'll know soon enough where iCarrier came from and where we should aim our ire. The iCarrier story is just getting started.

You know i love you like i do my brothers PopeRatzo, but wtf is iCarrier?

You making shit up again?

This discussion is about Carrier IQ, not whatever you are talking about.

Re:I'm stunned (5, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350140)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power. I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe Eric Holder is advising them as to handle the situation.

... or your government might not want to hand over information that it is investigating a criminal act by a corporation.

If you filed a FOIA request for Maddof's case while they were building it, they would have denied that one, too, but not because they were abusing their power.

Re:I'm stunned (2)

danlip (737336) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350312)

That was for a particular case. Because of other rules a criminal case can only remain open for so long. I don't see any time limit for this, and it affects a much broader group (all of us).

Re:I'm stunned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350532)

A government agency does not want to hand over information that may link it to abusing its power.

The FBI doesn't need Carrier IQ. The FBI has the force of (unconstitutional) law. They'll just issue a national security letter and be done with it.

Re:I'm stunned (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350622)

But when the FBI/CIA/NSA or some other TLA requests details of a carrier's customer, they PAY for it. Were you not here when there were massive discussions about the release of a carrier's price list for law enforcement and the services they offered to them? Law enforcement doesn't have to get a warrant or a subpoena, they just fill out an order form, check the appropriate boxes and send payment. It's not "law." It's commerce.

Re:I'm stunned (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350874)

they PAY for it

There's a slashdot story about how the feds were having their wiretaps canceled for nonpayment.

Re:I'm stunned (5, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350628)

Good thing we elected Obama to stop this shit.

Oh.....

Re:I'm stunned (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351708)

Good thing we elected Obama to stop this shit.

Note to future voters: look at actions, not words.

Exemptions may apply (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349378)

The rule is: If we don't want you to know, then there's an applicable exemption to the rule.

And we know where you were last Summer...

Re:Exemptions may apply (1)

redkcir (1431605) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349972)

So there's an app for that?

Re:Exemptions may apply (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350258)

There is, but we don't want to tell you about it...

Re:Exemptions may apply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350858)

"The rule is: If we don't want you to know, then there's an applicable exemption to the rule."

This. An infinite times this.

The entire point of law is to create exceptions. To make some theft permissible and some not. To make some murder permissible and some not. When a concession in the law is made for the ostentatious purpose of making things 'fair', one can simply wait until an application of that new rule involves something those with power to enforce the rules didn't consider and don't want held to the same standard.

This is why I always point out that whatever government does is by definition legal, because it makes the law. So long as power determines legality, this will be the case.

Re:Exemptions may apply (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351180)

And we know where you were last Summer...

But you don't know where I'll be next.

And my name's not Summer.

Does it really matter ? (2)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349426)

whether the FBI used Carrier IQ's software to in its own investigations, whether it is currently investigating Carrier IQ, or whether it is some combination of both - not unlikely given the recent uproar over the practice coupled with the U.S. intelligence communities reliance on third-party vendors.

Does it really matter ? If they want CarrierIQ data for a customer, they can just get it from the carrier, and pay the carrier to collect it [for active investigations approved by a judge].

Re:Does it really matter ? (4, Insightful)

nomel (244635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349476)

I think something about that last bit is where any interest in the data might come from.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349498)

I'm still confused as to where the controversy comes from. The US government relies on vendors for just about everything.

Re:Does it really matter ? (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349674)

The US government relies on vendors for just about everything.

Including circumventing Constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure!

Hey! Look! Google and Facebook are a Trojan Horse for the unaccountable Police State!

Re:Does it really matter ? (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349760)

Do you realize...

you can live life w/o google and facebook?

You just have to move to a remote mountain town here in the rockies and get real good at farming, ez right?

Re:Does it really matter ? (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349840)

Do you realize...

you can live life w/o google and facebook?

You just have to move to a remote mountain town here in the rockies and get real good at farming, ez right?

Sure....

I've read enough to know those little backcountry mountain towns are the power base for the invasive state security apparatus, "I don't care if a few eggs get broken, just so the one or two things we actually care about get overturned or banned." That attitude, on the part of millions of rural Americans paved the way for Iraq.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351692)

That may be because everybody moved to the cities in search of a "better" life. If all of the sane people left the back country, who is left there?

Re:Does it really matter ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349912)

That will work until Google buys images obtained from DHS autonomous drones to create Google Mountainview.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350366)

That will work until Google buys images obtained from DHS autonomous drones to create Google Mountainview.

Ha! Little did you know Google already has this feature in Google Earth and Google Maps, they highly detailed views which are not only clear to mere centimetres, further, they are updated every five minutes and can be live when they need to be. DHS only has this view, which means FBI and CIA. But they don't want you to know about it, they don't want anyone to ...

Hold on, someone at door..

NO CARRIER

Re:Does it really matter ? (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350094)

remote mountain towns are used by the CDC as disease test centers.(see if you can remember raccoon city)

That is why I own a private island. I have cannons too. I can keep pirates and zombie hordes at bay.

Re:Does it really matter ? (2)

mhelander (1307061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350656)

Ha! Everyone know the French use private islands to test their nukes!

I live in a rowing boat on a secret lake where I (almost) constantly row around in a criss-cross pattern determined by a quantum random generator.

Re:Does it really matter ? (2)

jimpop (27817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349504)

Go ahead and guess which tool a carrier could use to collect that data.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349560)

I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?

I wrote a post about how carrier privacy legislation will be required to fix this, since economic incentive and standard practice and legal precedent at the moment says it's all business as usual.

Which is why I say ... does it matter *how* the data is being collected, or the fact that the data is being collected ( which is a given at this point ). I think what people really want, is a means to opt out of the data being collected. [law enforcement will be an obvious, unavoidable exception, given the reality of life on earth]

Re:Does it really matter ? (3, Informative)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349804)

People, there is a path here...

http://androidforums.com/evo-4g-all-things-root/459292-how-do-i-remove-carrier-iq-software.html [androidforums.com]

Rom your phone, walla no more carrier ifucked.

It's little things like this why the art of hacking is not all lost despite the American social media's mass confusion.

Re:Does it really matter ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351306)

I understand. People are upset over the fact that CarrierIQ is being used to collect data. But everyone upset over it, agreed to it, via the TOS they signed with the carrier. So why do any of the details of the collection process matter ?

Oh c'mon, do you honestly not think the entire Carrier IQ thing was a dirty data collection operation?

Note how the carriers BROADCAST things they want us to know about (and in fact pay tens of millions in advertising to achieve).

In contrast, they probably wish we never new about Carrier IQ. Why do you think that may be?

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351350)

do you honestly not think the entire Carrier IQ thing was a dirty data collection operation?

I completely agree it's dirty. So dirty, I refuse to get a smart phone from a US carrier and pay them to collect data on me. But dirty in this world of underhanded tactics and legal loopholes does not equate with illegal activity or violations of the constitution.

If you read the rest of my posts concerning this issue, you will see I'm attempting to explain to people who are still crying about it, that legislation allowing customers to opt-out of the data collection process is necessary to solve this issue. The sooner people focus on insisting legislation be enacted that requires carriers to offer an opt-out provision, the sooner this problem can be solved, and people can regain a modicum of privacy in this digitally logged world of the matrix.

Re:Does it really matter ? (4, Insightful)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349588)

Wise question. Simple answer. 3rd party data collection is cheaper for the carriers.

CEO: These constant warrantless wiretap requests are a pain in the ass. It's only going to get worse.

CTO: There's a app for that, y'know.

Re:Does it really matter ? (3, Interesting)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349698)

constant warrantless wiretap requests

There is no evidence of any warrantless wiretapping occouring. Let me explain.

Customer wants a phone, customer signs TOS agreeing to be monitored. Carrier does monitoring of customer, which customer agreed to. FBI wants data for an investigation. FBI pays carrier to get records of customer, which customer agreed to allow to be collected and logged. This is not a "warrantless wiretap" just as walking into an FBI office and handing them copies of all your records voluntarily is not a warrantless wiretap.

I completely get that the outcome of the process, is essentially the same as allowing the FBI to have wiretaps, but only on those who agree to it voluntarily, by way of the carrier TOS. Much like it's a given that Googles log data will be sold to the FBI, and Google clearly spells it out in their TOS.

The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).

Re:Does it really matter ? (2)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349772)

Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349812)

Where in the TOS does it say we voluntarily hand the FBI all our records? Allowing the carrier to monitor us is not the same as allowing the federal government to monitor us.

You can check Verizons website for an example. Its in their "privacy policy" and it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and have 0 expectation of privacy. I assume other carriers have the same legal boilerplate, but have not personally investigated all the carriers to claim it as fact.

As soon as you allow the carrier to log device data, via the TOS, that log data becomes property of the carrier, and they can sell it to whomever they want, which is also stated in their TOS, in wording similar to "data may be provided to 3rd parties."

That is the mechanism by which this current, legal but controversial, practice is occurring.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349970)

as an afterthought ...

This is the exact same mechanism by which the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies ) have been obtaining peoples credit card statements for decades. Nobody is making a stink about it, claiming constitutional violations, etc. I'm pretty sure people realize, if you don't want to leave a trail, don't use a credit card.

Re:Does it really matter ? (4, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350048)

> it spells out clearly that you are being monitored and
> have 0 expectation of privacy
Website privacy policy != TOS, and provide a URL or it didn't happen.

No contract with a carrier voids the constitution.

Re:Does it really matter ? (4, Informative)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350144)

This has zip, 0, nada, to do with the constitution, but you don't get that, because you are on a witch hunt, looking for a witch to burn.

Go read the mobile device privacy policy / TOS. It's spelled out in black and white. I know this to be a fact for Verizons network, which ironically, apparently, doesn't use CarrierIQ. When you sign up for phone service, you agree to be logged, and you agree to allow {carrier} to give the data to 3rd parties. You have agreed to this. It's no more a violation of the constitution as taking a test and handing it to the teacher, at which point, the teacher can do whatever they want with it. You wouldn't call that a warrantless wiretap would you ?

When you are done with the witch hunt, the cries of constitutional violations, etc, and you actually start to focus on how to solve the problem, you will realize nothing short of legislation requiring carriers to allow you to opt out will fix this.

In the meantime, have fun getting angry and burning witches. Anything short of demanding our government representatives fix this via legislation that allows you to opt out will just be wasted emotion, time, and energy.

Re:Does it really matter ? (3, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349860)

Is Carrier IQ collecting data from customers without their knowledge? Does the FBI have warrants granting them access to those customers' data? If the answer to the former is yes and the answer to the latter is no, what we have is quite literally a warrantless wiretap. It's just that the wiretapping is being carried out by a different party than the one that's supposed to get a warrant.

Re:Does it really matter ? (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349898)

Exactly. It's a legal warrantless wiretap, which is the problem.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350200)

The meat of this entire issue, is that, there is currently no way to get a phone in the US, from a carrier, and opt-out of the data collection process, such that one does not voluntarily leave a trail of everything they do. Being able to opt-out, would require law enforcement to get a judge approved wiretap to collect current and future information, as no log will have existed ( in the being able to opt out scenario ).

I don't have a smart phone. Why? Because my work provides me with one. There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do. In essence, to be employed in any kind of technological, sales, management, or host of other areas, you are essentially required to be tracked at all times.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350266)

There is probably no way for me to opt-out of any kind of data collection that the carrier (or my employer) wants to do.

That does indeed add a whole other dimension to the problem of how to opt out of data logging, since I believe it has already been decided that employers can monitor employees activities on employer owned devices being used for work.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351138)

While it's not a warrantless wiretap, it could be a warrantless pen register.

Re:Does it really matter ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351184)

It could be, except for the fact that people give permission for the carrier to "provide" ( that means give or sell ) the data to third parties, of which law enforcement is [a third party]. Therefore, it's not a warrantless pen register either.

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349472)

Once you let them get away with warrantless wiretapping once, they'll do it in perpetuity

The game is over, citizens. They violated the Constitution and you didn't do anything about it. Enjoy the slow march into facism and your new police state.

carriers already save text message content... (2)

realized (2472730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349494)

The funny thing here is Carriers already save text message data Without Carrier IQ - and they have the ability to save URL data also since we are on their network. why would the FBI need Carrier IQ unless it was getting more data than that? Pictures we take on our phones? videos? emails ? http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1740,iid=313504,00.asp [pcmag.com]

Re:carriers already save text message content... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350520)

they have the ability to save URL data also since we are on their network.

Not if you're connecting to the website using SSL, they don't.

Data logging (5, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349522)

If the FBI is using Carrier IQ data for investigative purposes, doesn't that call into question the earlier claim from security researchers that Carrier IQ isn't logging data [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Data logging (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349640)

Classic case of "We're not doing anything wrong, and even if we are, it's not really wrong anyway, and you should let us keep doing these not-wrong things, because, really, they're the right thing to do, because they're not wrong and we're not doing them."

Re:Data logging (4, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349892)

If the FBI is using Carrier IQ data for investigative purposes, doesn't that call into question the earlier claim from security researchers that Carrier IQ isn't logging data [slashdot.org] ?

If you read closely, you'll see that Carrier IQ's argument relies heavily on that data never hitting their servers. The fact that their keylogger-capable malware allows the carrier to extract that info, and consequently hand it to the FBI, is "not their fault" [1].

[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/12/08/carrier-iq-interview [daringfireball.net]

What?????? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349538)

Silly me........and there I thought with Obama and Holder running things we'd have unicorns prancing down Main Street with rainbows shining out their butts.

Re:What?????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349666)

Oh, that will happen .. but only during his 2nd term. Vote him in again and then we'll see Hope and Change

tommy j (0)

MichaelKristopeit401 (1976824) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349558)

when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty

Why was this modded down ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351478)

when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty

I like this comment :)

Well, the 4th Amendment... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349600)

... itself also undoubtedly "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

Re:Well, the 4th Amendment... (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351334)

Well, the 4th Amendment itself also undoubtedly "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

Don't give them any ideas.

Stallman Was Right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349634)

"It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - The Right to Read [gnu.org]

Re:Stallman Was Right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38349842)

"It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - Richard Stallman

Stallman is a prophet, a toe jam eating prophet, but a prophet none the less.

Re:Stallman Was Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350052)

Stallman is an Idiot.

You can call him a prophet when I get arrested for running the OS of my choice.

Re:Stallman Was Right (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350444)

Rooting your iPhone or console to put on your own OS is "hacking" (violating the TOS makes it unauthorized access of a computer system, even if you own it), and "hacking" got Terry Childs jailtime. Sure, nobody has been put in jail for OS upgrades, but the legal chain has been laid, and they are waiting for a good test case to send someone to jail for installing an OS. It could be done today, if they really wanted to.

Re:Stallman Was Right (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351476)

The FCC has came out and said rooting an iPhone is legal.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/

I take them a more authoritative on the matter then a random slashdot poster.

Re:Stallman Was Right (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351156)

Plenty of folks with Xboxes have already been arrested for doing just that!

Re:Stallman Was Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38351414)

you mean like this guy who was modding them commecally, the first ever prosecuted case of its kind?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/xboxmodding-trial/
Where the Judge lambasted the prosecution for it's poor behavior?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/xbox-judge-riled/
And the case was finally dismissed?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/

So, I challenge you to name two successful prosecutions.

Re:Stallman Was Right (2)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351554)

Stallman is an Idiot.

You can call him a prophet when I get arrested for running the OS of my choice.

Don't you think it will be too late then?

Congratulations (1)

slasher999 (513533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349690)

Congratulations on making your request. Welcome to The List.

Re:Congratulations (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349774)

While your at it, might as well inquire about "The List" too.

If there's going to be a dog and pony show, might as well go along for the ride.

It's about to get worse! (5, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349758)

The new National Defense Authorization Act contains an amendment allowing the military the authority to detain American citizens, on American soil, indefinitely and without access to an attorney. The President has said he'll veto it; write to him and hold him to it! This has wide bipartisan support, and while I'm typically hesitant of doomsaying about America becoming a police state, this is the legal codification of one!

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA [aclu.org]

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349918)

The Senate passed it 92 to 7. I'm pretty sure that's more than a 2/3 majority.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349924)

This already got passed.... the president signed it gladly.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349940)

Er, no it didn't. It's still in reconciliation committee.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349962)

Re:It's about to get worse! (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38349980)

There's a new one every year, dumb fuck. It provides the military budget. The amendment is only in the 2011 version.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350064)

Hey, you can't blame him. 2009 and 2011 are almost the same year, right?

Re:It's about to get worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350082)

Lol. The authoritarian-minded bootlickers on this site really have hardon for this amendment, don't they? So much so they're trying to convince others that passage of the Authorization act is already a fait accompli.

Re:It's about to get worse! (0, Flamebait)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350112)

Haha my bad... in any case how about you go fuck yourself?

Re:It's about to get worse! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350394)

How about we fuck YOU instead, with a crowbar ?

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350020)

Pants on fire!

The NDAA hasn't even cleared Congress yet, just the Senate.

Re:It's about to get worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350222)

Oh but a different version passed the House so they're getting reconciled.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350574)

I didn't say I thought it wasn't going to get passed. I was just responding to the outright wrong claim that it had been passed and "gladly" signed into law by Obama.

Re:It's about to get worse! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350644)

The President has said he'll veto it; write to him and hold him to it!

I think the Americans and the ACLU are being hoodwinked.

If you believe Senator Cal Levin in his speech on the senate floor it was the Obama Administration that requested that the sections from the Bill that protected US citizens be removed.

Here is the Video Clip of Senator Levin's Speech where he says just that:
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/ [rt.com]

Or read Senator Levin official Gov page about the speech:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/senate-floor-speech-on-the-detainee-provision-in-the-defense-authorization-bill/ [senate.gov]

The Obama Administration has no problem with what they themselves requested it be removed!, The Obama Administration is objecting to (threatening a veto over) another section of the bill, section 1032 (see above link).

It is all over the web, just search:

obama levin section 1031 1032

Crazy stuff.

What about subsection (e)? (1)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350660)

The new National Defense Authorization Act contains an amendment allowing the military the authority to detain American citizens, on American soil, indefinitely and without access to an attorney.

What about subsection (e)? Wouldn't that argue against that interpretation?

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (5, Interesting)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350068)

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

  --Pravin Lal

Look (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38350206)

I know legally you need hard evidence to make accusations but I would leave you with this thought, why would there be one exception to the invasion of privacy with the feds and carrierIQ when it's rampant in almost every other scenario.

Apple Logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38350822)

Shouldn't this have an Apple logo instead of an Android logo? Google came out and said they didn't put it in Android (the logo used). Apple on the other hand did include it in IOS. Spreading misinformation??

Re:Apple Logo (3, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351148)

Google didn't put it in Android but a number of Android OEMs ARE using CarrierIQ, mostly at the behest of carriers like AT&T who said "include CarrierIQ or we wont sell your new phone"

wholesale NFL jersey (1)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351018)

Bored NFL jerseys is exceptionally exceptional fashion before in order NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] to demonstrate that they are below their players having released that NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] not participating in athletic competitions alone or or cover said title.Essentially, Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] Lions Jerseys is a train in the sports industry & complementary amateur foundation trust have passed even interested in inquiring in to them.other dress bored at home they do not understand how to wear a team jersey for MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] several minutes in a couple of minutes elderly as their advocate with the same gadget.

The sad truth is .. (1)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351034)

The government and intelligence agencies are treating citizens like terrorists and internet users as enemy combatants. They have no interest in serving the people and are doing their very best to destroy our civil liberties and freedoms. Take a look at the S-1867 bill that was recently passed - it gives the military sweeping powers to arrest, detain and incarcerate people without any legal recourse. Welcome to hell. You are a number and have no rights.

Why would the FBI use (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38351624)

Why would the FBI use commercial software like this? Don't they have computer scientist and software programmers them-selfs?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?