• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WaPo: "FBI wants access to Internet browser history"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archer

Member
Clear your browser of fap pages, the FBI might come a'lookin without needing a warrant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?postshare=6161465253213235&tid=ss_tw

The Obama administration is seeking to amend surveillance law to give the FBI explicit authority to access a person’s Internet browser history and other electronic data without a warrant in terrorism and spy cases.

The administration made a similar effort six years ago but dropped it after concerns were raised by privacy advocates and the tech industry.

FBI Director James B. Comey has characterized the legislation as a fix to “a typo” in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which he says has led some tech firms to refuse to provide data that Congress intended them to provide.

But tech firms and privacy advocates say the bureau is seeking an expansion of surveillance powers that infringes on Americans’ privacy.

Now, at the FBI’s request, some lawmakers are advancing legislation that would allow the bureau to obtain “electronic communication transactional records” using an administrative subpoena known as a national security letter. An NSL can be issued by the special agent in charge of a bureau field office without a judge’s approval.

Such records may include a person’s Internet protocol address and how much time a person spends on a given site. But they don’t include content, such as the text of an e-mail or Google search queries. There’s also a limit to how much visibility the bureau would have into which part of a website a person had visited. For instance, according to the bureau, if the person went to any part of The Washington Post’s website, law enforcement would see only washingtonpost.com — nothing more specific.

Comey said that making this change to the law is the bureau’s top legislative priority this year. The inability to obtain the data with an NSL “affects our work in a very, very big and practical way,” he told the Senate Intelligence Committee in February.

The Senate panel recently voted out an authorization bill with the NSL amendment. The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering a similar provision introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) as an amendment to ECPA, a law governing domestic surveillance.

Cornyn said that what he characterized as a “scrivener’s error” in the law is “needlessly hamstringing our counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts.”

But privacy groups and tech firms are again warning that the expansion of power would erode civil-liberties protections.

The fix the FBI seeks would “dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users’ online activities without oversight,” said a coalition of privacy and civil society groups and industry organizations in a letter sent to the Hill Monday.

The new categories of information that could be collected using an NSL “would paint an incredibly intimate picture” of a person’s life, said the letter, signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Google, Facebook and Yahoo, among others. For example, a person’s browsing history, location information and certain email data could reveal details about a person’s political affiliation, medical conditions, religion and movements throughout the day, they said.

In addition, the NSL would come with a gag order preventing the company from disclosing it had a received a government request, said Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU legislative counsel. The letter noted that over the past 10 years, the FBI has issued more than 300,000 NSLs, most of which had gag orders. “That’s the perfect storm of more information gathered, less transparency and no accountability,” Gulani said.

But a law passed last year, the USA Freedom Act, requires the Justice Department to review gag orders periodically to assess whether they are still justified.

The amendment being considered Thursday by the Judiciary Committee is part of a broader effort by lawmakers to update ECPA to require law enforcement to get a warrant for all email content, regardless of whether it is one day or one year old.

Privacy groups and tech companies support the broader ECPA update, versions of which some lawmakers have sought for years.

But the groups and tech organizations in their letter said that if the ECPA bill includes the NSL provision, they will pull their support.

A November 2008 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel made clear that ECPA allows the FBI to obtain with an NSL only four types of basic subscriber information from Internet companies: name, address, length of service and telephone bill records. There is no reference in the law to browser history, for instance. The opinion said the four existing categories were “exhaustive.”

The FBI’s Office of General Counsel, however, has argued that electronic communication transactional records are the functional equivalent of telephone billing records. To eliminate any uncertainty, the FBI wants the law to explicitly cover such data.

Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking minority-party member on the Judiciary Committee, and Mike Lee (R-Utah), a committee member, oppose the Cornyn amendment. They say they will push for a clean version of the ECPA update similar to a bill passed by the House earlier this year.
 

Permanently A

Junior Member
13585786974m.jpg

.
 
Obama sure loves mass surveillance.

It's for our own good. It's a tough job. He needs these tools. We shouldn't worry if we're not doing anything illegal. Cut him some slack. He probably personally disagrees with it anyway. The other side would be worse. Stop complaining.
 
So like if i was writing a story and needed to know how a bomb was made for accuracys sake and then googled it i could get the FBI at my door or something
 

Archer

Member
It's for our own good. It's a tough job. He needs these tools. We shouldn't worry if we're not doing anything illegal. Cut him some slack. He probably personally disagrees with it anyway. The other side would be worse. Stop complaining.

Exactly what the Stasi said in East Germany.
 

Azalean

Banned
It's for our own good. It's a tough job. He needs these tools. We shouldn't worry if we're not doing anything illegal. Cut him some slack. He probably personally disagrees with it anyway. The other side would be worse. Stop complaining.
Almost took this seriously for a sec. Good one.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Don't worry guys it's only for use against terrorists, just like the Patriot Act.
 
"If we make the haystack 1000 times bigger, we'll find more needles!"

I believe this will reduce the capability of the FBI et al to detect terrorism.
 
How can they justify asking for this access without a warrant.... isn't that the whole point of warrants?

National Security Letters have generally been considered legal because the information sought doesn't violate your "reasonable expectation of privacy" - they can't be used to read your emails, but they can be used to obtain your email address or recipients. The major issues are nondisclosure and general judicial oversight of the letters.

The concern over the expansion of this is that the additional information would give authorities a much clearer picture of the private lives of the subjects - an unconstitutionally clear picture.
 

Archer

Member
National Security Letters have generally been considered legal because the information sought doesn't violate your "reasonable expectation of privacy" - they can't be used to read your emails, but they can be used to obtain your email address or recipients. The major issues are nondisclosure and general judicial oversight of the letters.

The concern over the expansion of this is that the additional information would give authorities a much clearer picture of the private lives of the subjects - an unconstitutionally clear picture.

The thing is, 14 Eyes already obtains these details. This simply makes said material actionable with less roadblocks.
 

HoodWinked

Member
If it's for terrorism and spies I don't really care. I highly doubt people pirating game of thrones or the next Taylor Swift album they would even bother going after.

Other countries are already doing this we put ourselves at a disadvantage by not being proactive.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
If it's for terrorism and spies I don't really care. I highly doubt people pirating game of thrones or the next Taylor Swift album they would even bother going after.

Other countries are already doing this we put ourselves at a disadvantage by not being proactive.

Other countries do a lot of terrible things to their citizens in the name of protecting them. I'm good on not copying those policies.

On another note, I'm usually all for Obama and think he will be remembered quite fondly in the future but his record on things like surveillance is not great and I think will be one of the marks against him in the long term. Even after things like Snowden he hasn't really changed his tune but seems to not really talk about it in public like his other ventures.
 
If it's for terrorism and spies I don't really care. I highly doubt people pirating game of thrones or the next Taylor Swift album they would even bother going after.

Other countries are already doing this we put ourselves at a disadvantage by not being proactive.

I consider not using terrorism as a boogeyman to get people to support breaches of privacy a leg up on other countries.
 

Moosichu

Member
Better get them warrants if you want dat browser history boys in washington. Gotta protect the civil liberties of suspected spies and terrorists.

If someone is a suspected Spy or Terrorist they can obtain a warrant. Making a haystack bigger does jack shit. There is zero evidence that says Mass Surveillance has helped with anything ever.
 

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
if someone is a suspected spy \ terrorist, don't they kind of get a blanket warrant at some point?
 

Rootbeer

Banned
Lawmakers are some crooked as fuck people often as not, do they even want their own browser histories so easily viewed? Surely they must be considering things like that.

As often as lawmakers formulate and bend laws to meet their own ends, could they at least do it in cases like this? Don't fail us, corrupt lawmakers! For once, do something that serves the people as much as yourselves.
 

Kyuur

Member
I wouldn't really have a problem with an intelligence agency secretly tailing people and recording their locations and length of stay, so I don't really have a problem with this.
 

Pryce

Member
Not to derail this thread, but is Hillary any better? I haven't heard much from her. Obama is trash in these areas.
 

Karkador

Banned
I wouldn't really have a problem with an intelligence agency secretly tailing people and recording their locations and length of stay, so I don't really have a problem with this.

You're not accounting for a huge difference in scale and persistence
 

Kyuur

Member
I'm actually confused; this article makes it sound like they already have access to browser history, just not to specifics (what specific web page on the domain, what was entered into a web field or email, etc) which they are trying to amend. Can someone clarify?
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
As much as I love Obama he is fucking garbage tier when it comes to issues like this.

This + protection for whistleblowers. Absolutely disappointing from his administration. What's more, I don't think I haven't heard any candidate talk about these issues in debates. Very concerning.

I think that anyone being a sitting president would support mass surveillance programs if you were constantly reminded "a 9/11 attack could happen again if we don't do this". Doubt anyone wants to be that president. However, I think it's clear at this point, that these programs are not really useful, or well, at least Prism. Wasn't one of the Snowden documents about how not one attack had been prevented with these programs?
 

Breads

Banned
You're being naïve if you think that's the only thing they would use it for.

I was just being obtuse.

Pinning this on Obama specifically is ridiculous. The government has been trying to do steer certain laws a certain way for a decade and a half and personally it feels like they are slowly trying to legally justify the use of evidence they already have but illegally obtained.

:e:

If you want to know how I really feel on the issue - if they were suspected spies and terrorists getting a warrant seems like a pretty fucking easy thing to accomplish which tells me they have other plans for this or at the very least are using this to eventually open the door to more nefarious things.
 

Sorcerer

Member
This isn't a thing already?

I just assumed the FBI could just bring up something like your browser history from headquarters.

I guess I have been watching too much Criminal Minds and Garcia doing her thing at her computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom