U.S. Gov't Spent $30M On Citizens' Personal Info 181
infosec_spaz writes "According to a news story on Yahoo! News, the U.S. Government has spent US$30 million in the last year on buying citizens' personal phone records from online brokers...The very ones who Congress is trying to put out of business." From the Article:"Congressional investigators estimated the U.S. government spent $30 million last year buying personal data from private brokers. But that number likely understates the breadth of transactions, since brokers said they rarely charge law enforcement agencies any price." "So...who is getting all of BellSouth, SBC(AT&T) and other phone records?"
Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
But lets look down the bulleted list:
_A U.S. Labor Department employee who used her government e-mail address and phone number to buy two months of personal cellular phone records of a woman in New Jersey.
_A buyer who received credit card information about the father of murder victim Jon Benet Ramsey.
_A buyer who obtained 20 printed pages of phone calls by pro basketball player Damon Jones of the Cleveland Cavaliers.
OK, so these are individual people who happen to work for the Government - not the government itself, ie; it's not like theres the "department of buying phone records" set up somewhere.
I was watching MSNBC's "to catch a predator", the sting operation where they lure pedophiles to a house thinking there's a 13 year old waiting, and then bust them. One guy they busted was some sort of government official, but nobody started reporting the news that "Government is now molesting children!"
Blah, reactionary clap-trap "arrr we hate bush arrr".
As far as the NSA - they don't need to buy your personal information. They already have it.
That is wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Just... (Score:4, Insightful)
Two wrongs (Score:4, Insightful)
Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies have bypassed subpoenas and warrants designed to protect civil liberties and gathered Americans' personal telephone records from private-sector data brokers.
These brokers, many of whom advertise aggressively on the Internet, have gotten into customer accounts online, tricked phone companies into revealing information and even acknowledged that their practices violate laws, according to documents gathered by congressional investigators and provided to The Associated Press.
So, the US Government, which tells us it is trying to protect us, is doing it by buying illegal records. What else is new?
When it comes to security, any kind of security, it's a black ops world. The Federal Government is not going to have any qualms about getting what it wants, precisely because it wields so much unfettered power. While we elect our President and Congressional Representatives, once we do, we tend to let them go their own way and the average American doesn't apply much oversight to them, unless they've done something blatantly wrong, and even then people don't always react appropriately.
So here's the Government, telling us it needs our phone records and plenty of people are like "oh sure, if it's for security reasons," little realizing that it doesn't matter if they give their ok or not -- the Feds will get the data, even if from admittedly illegal sources. Come on -- do you think spying on another country is "legal?"
Of course now someone is going to decide to sue the government, taking them to task for dealing with these brokers. There will be Congressional hearings on the matter, a lot of harrumphing, and in the meantime, the Government will simply find another way to get the data it wants.
And this is why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government agencies freely buying information they are essentially constitutionally barred from having is BAD! I find it even more distressing that due to some of the extraterritorial implications of the PATRIOT act, US firms could cause *my* personal information to seep back into US control, and become US government property despite Canadian privacy laws which are supposed to prevent exactly that.
I used to respect the US constitution and system of government. Now, they're really beginning to scare me as they become more of a police state.
You have already lost to terrorism, time to stop pretending you still care about those constitutional protections and just roll over.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is alarmist - but that is a better for the press to be too alarmist than to be insufficently dilligent.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, many news sites (and papers) rewrite the AP copy, and some even do a little additional research. Semantically, Yahoo! News is doing the reporting, not AP. AP may have done the research and written the copy, but it is Yahoo! who is presenting it to the public (reporting).
What the hell do you think government is, but a collection of individuals? And how can they spend $30 mil, plus have had untold free requests honored, if there was not some systematic acquisition of records?
Hey, look! Some of the requests were by individuals for individual records relating to individual research issues!!!1 Therefore, there is no systematic inquiry!
One, it doesn't matter whether it is systematic or not -- there is still a privacy issue.
Two, those individual cases are red herrings.
Three, the government is a collection of individuals that are employed by the people, along with the established rules governing their activities and ours. If a system (in this case, the government) allows regular abuse, then the system is at fault just as much as the individuals abusing the system -- particularly if the abuse is so rampant that those individuals don't even consider it out of the ordinary.
What are you scared of? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you actually worried that a terrorist is going to kill you? Are you really concerned about the dealers on the corner selling drugs or the kids next door smoking pot? What is it you are afraid of and why? Does the government need personal information on millions of americans to fight what you are most afraid of?
When I think about these questions I can answer them pretty quickly. I am more worried about being killed in a car crash than being blown away by terrorists. I don't care what people shoot/smoke/snort as long as they do it on their own property. What am I most afraid of? The government's reactionary and arbitrary laws. The government certainly doesn't need to know personal information about millions of american's to stay the fuck out of my life.
What I see is the USA spending 30 mil on things I'm not concerned about when they could have put it into education, public transportation, food for the poor, social-security, research, etc, etc. But the question needs to be asked: Why does the goverment want to spy on americans? Because the majority of the american publics wants the government to. Most american's want the government to tell gays they can't marry. Most people don't want grandpa to be allowed to smoke a bowl before going to bed. Most people want to fine radio and TV stations for making certain vibrations in the air!
Most people cannot handle freedom and they want someone else to tell then what they can and cannot do. We need to fix the people more than we need to fix the government.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, cite the actual *source* of the article. It's just a pet peeve of mine. I see other sites saying equally stupid things like "according to an article on slashdot", which in turn refers to an article on Yahoo, and eventually if you want to find out the source of the information, you have to follow the chain upstream until you do.
IMO, the source of the news is every bit as important as the news itself, if not more.
And yes, I'm aware its a complete non sequitor.
According to an article on google [google.com] Microsoft is bad and linux is super fantastic!
Re:Data Warehouse (Score:5, Insightful)
A few things:
1) Apparently the "U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act" explicitly prevents them from getting some kinds of information. Ever.
2) Someone (or multiple someone's) have given legal opinions that "The FBI said it relies only on well-respected data brokers and expects agents to abide by the law. "The FBI can only collect and retain data available from commercial databases in strict compliance with applicable federal law," spokesman Mike Kortan said Monday.
Basically, they've been told it's OK to buy information they're not supposed to have, from someone who may have used illegal means, because since it's at arms length (ie. no Federal employee needed to break a law) and not an organization who is bound to obey any consumer protection laws, it must be all OK. All of the crimes were comitted by other people who apparently don't have to follow the rules.
You know, it's like when Rumsfeld and Gonzales make any of their scary-assed interpretations on legal issues. We can torture them if we don't show photos or if we can keep it secret. We can deem constitutional protections don't apply to certain citizens when it's inconvenient. What Geneva convention? Trade agreements don't apply. That kind of stuff.
Scary, indeed!
Two views... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
In law enforcement. For law enforcement purposes.
I was watching MSNBC's "to catch a predator", the sting operation where they lure pedophiles to a house thinking there's a 13 year old waiting, and then bust them.
These busts have always been of extremely dubious validity. As one guy who got busted said (my paraphrase) , "I didn't think there was a 13 year old waiting for me. I went to find out who the person really was and the woman who presented herself to me was obviously about 30 pretending to be younger. People lie. I know that."
When you start busting people for thought crimes you start busting them for what you think they think and statutory rape is a crime of fact, i.e. it doesn't matter what they think, it matters what they did.
Playing naughty cheerleader and coach isn't a crime if the "naughty cheerleader" isn't 13.
As far as the NSA. .
They don't arrest people. Law enforcement does. Law enforcement is supposed to have checks and bounds on their surviellence activities.
They already have it.
Yeah, they bought it a few years ago.
Blah, reactionary clap-trap "arrr we hate bush arrr".
Well, if he's doing illegal surviellence, yeah. I react to that sort of thing.
KFG
Re:What are you scared of? (Score:2, Insightful)
I live just outside of DC, and watched the pentagon burn, and as a matter of fact - if not for a scheduling fuckup, I very well could have not only been in the building, but in the newly rebuilt com center (where the plane hit). I spend most of my time on site in government buildings or police departments, which are probably the target for attacks.. So, kinda.
Are you really concerned about the dealers on the corner selling drugs
Yes, they carry guns and every night theres a report of some kid being shot in a drug deal gone bad, or someone caught in the crossfire. If you're so cavalier about it, I can show you some real cheap real estate in DC or Baltimore. The police are afraid to go there at night, for fuck sakes.
or the kids next door smoking pot?
Pretty tricky combining the two into one question. The kids next door smoking pot? Nah. Invite me over. The meth addict next door? Yeah. I've seen what that does to peoples brains.
What is it you are afraid of and why?
Sharks! They eat people.
Does the government need personal information on millions of americans to fight what you are most afraid of?
Those millions of americans people are the government, it's a democracy, remember?
If you want to register to vote, you give that information to them.
This article, in as much as it is news, and it's about individuals - who happen to be employed by the government - obtaining personal info. Nothing you or I couldn't do. The connection to the government seems tenuous, at best it's about some people abusing their positions. A problem as old as time itself.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that there's no credible evidence here that the government was involved in most of the examples given. And no, individuals aren't "the government".
Now, one of those records might be official. The murdered child's father might have been a suspect, and the acquisition of his phone records might have been a legitimate investigative tactic which is frequently used. No, I don't like these companies. I'd rather see the records come straight out of the phone companies (after issuing the appropriate warrant, of course), but there's no reason to begrudge this as a valid investigative technique given that this is currently the mechanism by which, for example, the FBI could obtain cellular records.
I would expect that the majority of the $30m (which, keep in mind, is hubcap money in government circles) was spent in this way. If this were an NSA-like operation to gather everyone's records, it would cost orders of magnitude more and would not have been through a third party.
Re:I am amazed by the whole concept. (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop deliberately misinterpreting the article (Score:5, Insightful)
You deliberately lied, hoping that people would believe your summary and not read the story, didn't you? You hate it when "your team" looks bad, don't you? This isn't about partisan politics. Would you have the same dismissive reaction if it were a Democrat in office right now? Your "Arr, we hate bush, arr," comment gives your game away. No one is saying they hate Bush. We hate what the government is doing, and we'd hate it if it were a Democrat doing it.
"Grey area" that is more black than anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Would just love to see them try to use any of this court, by the simple fact that they are paying for illegally obtained information they are encouraging crimes to be committed
Also, as it is illegally obtained information, could very easyly be clasified as something simerlar as "recieving stolen goods"
Americans really needs to wake up to their information being sold left and right and get real laws to put a stop to it....and also stop giving it out to anyone who asks
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
This just in.....
An overwhelming amount of commercial entities and businesses now use Slashdot to keep up on important news and stuff that matters. A survey of cubicle occupants confirms this information.
Another case of government outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe that, then walk into a bank wearing a ski mask.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
What? They sure are. Individual employees acting with government authority in the course of government work are not government? Even if the employees are acting outside of the scope of their duties, they are still government employees, acting with government authority, billing the charges to the government, and hence, government. This is not an isolated problem relating to a few individuals, it is systemic, and therefore a problem with government, not with individuals working in government. Even if it were a small set of isolated individuals, it would still be a government issue, since the government is paying for it, and there is apparently not enough oversight.
Your apologist attitude notwithstanding, those two examples definitely ARE red herrings. They are not in any definition a representative sample of the records acquired (far too small a sample, and not identifiable as representative) and thus cannot be used to analyze the records, and the acquisition of the records, as a whole... as such, they are not relevant to discussion of the problem. This makes them red herrings, meant to distract people from the larger, and more important, issue at hand. It asppears that some people willingly fall for this time and time again.
"If this were an NSA-like operation to gather everyone's records, it would cost orders of magnitude more and would not have been through a third party."
The NSA doesn't pay for this. They ask... and receive.
Regardless of whether there is a central database bein created, there is still the concern about illegal methods used to acquire personal information, never mind the fact that this type of information is likely illegal to gather anyway without a warrant[1]. It IS worthy of concern, especially considering how common it is.
[1] Depending, of course, on why the information is being gathered -- whether in order to investigate a specific crime (in which case it's legal without a warrant, since the records are not considered private) or whether it's for fishing, in which case it is not legal.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What really blows my mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a friend who is very much anti-Bush. This is a man who sees real reasons to mistrust Bush. He is suspicious of our president on every count. This is a good thing. I think Bush has shown himself untrustworthy in many areas. Yet this same friend wants to give over his family's health care into his (and his cronies') hands. He wants to give this government control over who gets to do business with him and how they do business. I just don't get it.
But you can extend such arguments back to any President you choose. Would we have had a 9/11 if Clinton had actually ordered the missile strike on Bin Laden, instead of being overly concerned about the political repercussions in the middle of the Lewinsky scandal? Just how much did Reagan know about selling arms to the Contra Rebels? Why did Kennedy feel compelled to launch the Bay of Pigs invasion when it would have been easier to simply bide his time and have Castro assassinated?
No President can be trusted wholly, even if everybody voted for him. Same holds for Congress. The power that these people get exposed to is intoxicating. When you sit at the highest peak, and the functioning of the country turns on the decisions you make, how hard is it to resist the urge to put your own personal predilections into play and shape the country as you see fit? Pretty hard, I imagine. It was just this kind of thing George Washington feared when he stepped down as President.
Re:What are you scared of? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because they're not willing to hire & train all the people that they would need to have a properly-functioning infrastructure, just like their reasoning for not hiring enough teachers for a properly-functioning educational system ("they" being the people in charge of handing out the govt money).
Among the problems that they see:
In the end, you end up with a perpetually-starved set of systems which function just enough for some people to defend them, but which nobody is really happy about. Of course, everybody blames the performance of the people in the system, and completely ignore (or in some cases deny) that a system starved of resources isn't going to function very well.
The same people responsible for hating to pay for education & public-safety seem to be quite happy giving up tax-money to build prisons though. My cynicism has grown to the point where I've pretty much ceased to have any empathy for what crimes happen to upper-middle-class & richer folks, unless they're someone who I might know personally.
Differences (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason a lot of us want increased federal spending for education is simple: there is huge inequity in school funding. The system was designed so that poorer people got poorer education, and richer people got much better education. It's part of the American class structure. (Off-topic: our education system is fucked from the get-go. We need a massive overhaul of our education system, from kiddy-garden up to the hallowed halls of the greatest University. We need a variety of schools, and we need equity between schools. There is a direct correlation between education and success in life.)
The great thing about both of these ideas is this: they can be monitored. Watched. Observed. And they can both be implemented by cutting our military spending in half. Granted, that would only give us a military budget three time greater than China, the second largest military spender. And maybe we'd only be spending more than the next 6 nations combined, rather than the next 14.
And these new programs could be monitored.
The expanded power Bush has granted himself was done without oversight. It was done without consent, or review, or even knowledge of others whom it affected. They did it in secrecy, which indicates they knew it was wrong. Bush has proven more than untrustworthy. He has betrayed America, and the world. And the worst part is, the same people who got their panties in a twist over a blow-job in the oval office are sitting by silently, like they are sports fans who support their team through even the worst losing streak.
This is a far cry from the desire to see everyone have access to basic medical care, or have the opportunity for a decent education. It doesn't require trust in the government. It just requires the recognition that something is deperately wrong in this country.
Oh, and the only gun control I'm for is the ability to accurately hit your mark.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually soliciting a minor, but as you point out the person wan't a minor; and as a number of these people have pointed out they were reasonably sure the person wasn't a minor before they met them and certain of it after meeting them, no matter what the person said.
People "play pretend." It gets them off.
What happens in practice, because even the accusation of a sex crime is so damaging, let alone bearing going through a public trial for same, where you're grilled about your sex life for days on end, is that the accused cops a plea to avoid the mess, even though they know they commited no actual crime.
KFG
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody knows that government is important, and necessary to provide services that people themselves are too stupid to provide.
Actually, our government is there to provide for common services that no individual, group, of individuals, city, or state can provide. I certainly can't defend the United States against a terrorist attack or attack by missiles from North Korea by myself. I've entrusted the Federal Government to provide for my defense, to hopefully provide some kind of retirement if I can't doit for myself, and to make sure the infrastructure of this country operates so that I can go about my daily tasks without having to worry if there will be roads, electricity, etc.
That said, the current structure of our Federal government is inadequate to the task. It's not about what's good for all Americans, but what's good for legislators and their cronies, on both sides of the aisle. Our Founding Fathers had the right idea, but they could not forsee the changes that would take place in technology and culture all over the world. But they did leave us an out: the ability to change and amend the Constitution to take into account these changes. I've said it for many years now: what this country needs is a Constitutional Convention, to bring the Constitution more up-to-date and to iron out inequities in the system.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
By the people, for the people, and all of that happy shit.
Theoretically we are all the government, but we elect people to manage certain tasks and do certain things.
But most people here do see "the government" as some wholly seperate entity as many of our employees have kind of gone off to start their own side-businesses.
Re:Yahoo! News is as news as slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
What?? This article is not alarmist, it is WRONG. Just because we are members of a group of people (as you said) does not mean we lose our individuality. We retain our ability to make decisions and act for ourselves independently of the group. This is something we learned during World War Two. It is the reason we no longer trust racist assumptions. It is the justification behind the end of bigotry. I actually find what you said to be offensive.
You're comparing me with racists and Nazis? You know what that means...
No, people in organisations do not lose their individuality. I never said that. But organisations that are made up of voluntary members (as government agencies are) have to have a degree of responsibility for their employees behaviour. To indulge your silly Nazi analogy for a moment - Hitler and Eichmann wouldn't have had any responsiblity for the Holocaust because their underlings had free will, by your logic.
Ignorance is Bliss (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did "I didn't know it was illegal" become an acceptable response?
Re:What really blows my mind... (Score:2, Insightful)
Puuhlease, JFK did not launch the Bay of Pigs invasion --- it was the Dulles boys --- who were sacked along with the deputy director of the CIA (you know, that brother of the then-mayor of Dallas who suddenly ordered a different route for JFK's motorcade on the day of his assassination??). Please do no historic revisionism on my watch!!
It was widely reported at that time as to the number of CIA acts of sabotage against agricultural and food supplies shipped to Cuba - which Kennedy subsequently apologized for and reimbursed Castro for. (NO, I don't have the link for that - it was widely covered in Newsweek and Time during the several years after his assassination - this was long before advent of the Web.) Kennedy was attempting to establish reapproachment with Castro - while the CIA had started a phoney disinformation campaign - placing extreme numbers of counterfeited documents into the National Archives to falsify the actual history of that time. Later, the remainder of the shadow government would be kicked out of the CIA by a much more aware president, Jimmy Carter, who appointed Stansfield Turner to that task. Please refer to the Washington Post and LA Times, around 1978-1980, to see all the internal CIA assassinations which then took place. (Hint: when they kill internally, it is tradition to do it via a boat - boating accident, suicide on a boat, heart attack on boat, etc.)
We can now observe that shadow government residing in the Pentagon - although I feel confident that the Civil Insurgency expert now heading the US intelligence, John Negroponte, will help to spread it back to the CIA, if he can....