Anyone see this on Nightline or 20/20 about govt. web surveilance?

[Partychief67]

A guy at work was telling me he had seen this on 20/20 or Nightline or some expose show like that a few months ago.

Here is the topic he said they were discussing:

Information Awareness Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a nutshell it's the governments use of automated internet data mining to gather intelligence on private citizens.

Supposedly the ATF made use of some of this data to get warrants on some survivalist types in Wyoming or somewhere out that direction.

 

[Texan2]

Supposedly the ATF made use of some of this data to get warrants on some survivalist types in Wyoming or somewhere out that direction.

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim? Typically "warrants", be they search warrants or arrest warrants, require an affidavit of probable cause be provided to a judge....and the evidence in said affidavit must have been obtained legally. IF....Wyoming authorities had warrants on some type of "survivalist", I would have to assume there was evidence that some law was broken.

If there is anything that proves otherwise, I am all ears.

 

[Partychief67]

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim? Typically "warrants", be they search warrants or arrest warrants, require an affidavit of probable cause be provided to a judge....and the evidence in said affidavit must have been obtained legally. IF....Wyoming authorities had warrants on some type of "survivalist", I would have to assume there was evidence that some law was broken.

If there is anything that proves otherwise, I am all ears.

Thanks for the reply texascop... No, I don't have any more specific information than what I stated in my original post. That's what I was actually asking for, if you had read the comments in my post, was if anyone else in the forum happened to see the 20/20 episode (or whatever specific television program it had happened to be).

I don't know where your a cop at, or if your local, county, state or federal, but the ATF, being a federal agency, and linked up with DHS may have a different set of rules (specific to homeland security) and a lower standard of evidence required to obtain a federal warrant. That's what I'm sort of guessing at.

Re:

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

Protect America Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Texan2]

Thanks for the reply texascop... No, I don't have any more specific information than what I stated in my original post. That's what I was actually asking for, if you had read the comments in my post, was if anyone else in the forum happened to see the 20/20 episode (or whatever specific television program it had happened to be).

I don't know where your a cop at, or if your local, county, state or federal, but the ATF, being a federal agency, and linked up with DHS may have a different set of rules (specific to homeland security) and a lower standard of evidence required to obtain a federal warrant. That's what I'm sort of guessing at.

I didnt see the 20/20 report and 20/20s left leaning reporting is lacking in my opinion....
I can understand your concern, its just that until I see evidence, I am skeptical of most accusations of the "Black Helocopters"
I am a city cop....
And while LE at different levels may have different structures....the legal definition of "probable cause" is the same for everyone. Do Feds spy on Americans? Maybe...but if someone in Wyoming was arrested with an arrest warrant, I would suspect there may have been some substance to it. I know that govt abuses abound, but I tend to give LE the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. LE does it right the majority of the time.

 

[Partychief67]

You sound like one of the good ones texascop... I come from a whole family of cops, my dad, my grandpas on both sides of the family, all my uncles, etc. I have one uncle that is with the Federal Marshals service and even have one uncle that is an attorney. Unfortunately my attorney uncle is a criminal defense attorney with a ton of trial experience. Makes for some real heated conversation at family reunions and holiday get to gathers. Anyhow, with that line up of the men in my family and having heard the private, "dinner table" opinions and stories of both sides of the aisle, I have a very jaded opinion on many things in the area of public service... LOL

I agree with you on the fact that a valid arrest or search warrant is required to arrest anyone. I guess my curiosity with regard to that information from my original post was the means by which federal law enforcement collects their intel. It would be pretty controversial if the feds were using such a lame thing as data mining to go on a "cold" fishing expedition and it ends up in arrest warrants being issued. There are a whole range of ethical and legal principals that could suffer severe collateral damage if such things came into common practice. Obviously the most severe potential damage are with regard to 2nd and 9th amendments.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Dont forget the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

[Texan2]

I understand your concerns....just don't let them consume you.

 

[robocop10mm]

Information mined from such sources could be used to obtain a search warrant. Very likely a search warrant/subpoena to find out who the person is that uses a screen name or a particular IP address.

 

[Texan2]

Information mined from such sources could be used to obtain a search warrant. Very likely a search warrant/subpoena to find out who the person is that uses a screen name or a particular IP address.

Could only be used if it was obtained legally...technically I guess it could be used even if it was obtained illegally. Problem there is that when the defense files a motion to supress and it gets granted, which it would if the evidence to support the search warrant were obtained illegally...away goes the case

 

[Major Woody]

I strongly suggest Startpage Web Search and use the proxy service. Or Scroogle They do not record ISP addresses.

 

[Texan2]

I strongly suggest Startpage Web Search and use the proxy service. Or Scroogle They do not record ISP addresses.

Interesting....I never knew about this

 

[Partychief67]

I strongly suggest Startpage Web Search and use the proxy service. Or Scroogle They do not record ISP addresses.

Thanks for the links Woody... I've never seen or heard of those before. I just found out the hard way though, Scroogle.ORG and not Scroogle.COM

 

[TexasRedneck]

ummm....now, I'm relying on memory from 15 or so years ago, but IIRC, there WAS a governmental agency monitoring the 'net - I don't recall the code name, but it WAS active, because I can remember the SHTF when it broke. Now this was QUITE a while back - this was back when the old GEnie information service was one of the biggest out there. It was also the time frame when AOL got caught mining HD's of their subscribers an' had to do all kinds of back-peddling to recover.
But...could it be done? Without a doubt. Do I think it's being done? Hell, yeah - thing is, it's gotta be a nightmare to try to keep up with the influx of intel!

 

[robocop10mm]

Could only be used if it was obtained legally...technically I guess it could be used even if it was obtained illegally. Problem there is that when the defense files a motion to supress and it gets granted, which it would if the evidence to support the search warrant were obtained illegally...away goes the case

If they are "mining information" by monitoring web traffic looking for key words AND found open web traffic (posts on a forum such as this) that needed further investigation, then they could get warrant/subpoena based on that information.
If they are mining and find private web traffic (E-mail) that needed further investigation, I believe the Patriot Act allows some degree of latitude in obtaining warrants. As long as they can call it "National Security" the evidence will not likely get supressed in Federal court. State courts are more likely to be restrictive.

 

[Texan2]

If they are "mining information" by monitoring web traffic looking for key words AND found open web traffic (posts on a forum such as this) that needed further investigation, then they could get warrant/subpoena based on that information.
If they are mining and find private web traffic (E-mail) that needed further investigation, I believe the Patriot Act allows some degree of latitude in obtaining warrants. As long as they can call it "National Security" the evidence will not likely get supressed in Federal court. State courts are more likely to be restrictive.

I agree that the Patriot Act allows them much more latitude. I work in the state court system and as you stated they would have more difficulties there. I also agree that if labelled "National Security" they can almost do anything they want. That having been said....it is my belief that you would have to be doing something pretty horrific for the Feds to proceed with a case based on info posted on an open forum. The fallout from widespread prosecution of folks who post their views on a public forum would be devastating to those in power and I believe that they would steer away from it when possible.

 

[Partychief67]

and I believe that they would steer away from it when possible.

Here are some relevant wiki articles:

Hepting v. AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI)

Read through all of the Hepting vs. AT&T article... Pretty crazy!

 

[Texan2]

Here are some relevant wiki articles:

Hepting v. AT&T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carnivore (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Read through all of the Hepting vs. AT&T article... Pretty crazy!

Scary stuff....
I like and use Wikipedia quite often but keep in mind that Wikipedia is made of of user contributions and often contains unreliable speculation. Read the following which is copied straight from Wikipedia's site:

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by an largely anonymous internet users who write without pay. Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity if they choose though the latter is discouraged for safety reasons. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia, however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference web sites, attracting around 65 million visitors monthly as of 2009. There are more than 85,000 active contributors working on more than 14,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. As of today, there are 3,197,265 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics.)
Every contribution may be reviewed or changed. The expertise or qualifications of the user is usually not considered"

 

[TexasRedneck]

True on Wiki....but they also are good about cross-references, to whit:

Hepting v. AT&T | Electronic Frontier Foundation

 

[Randman]

That having been said....it is my belief that you would have to be doing something pretty horrific for the Feds to proceed with a case based on info posted on an open forum. The fallout from widespread prosecution of folks who post their views on a public forum would be devastating to those in power and I believe that they would steer away from it when possible.

Of course mix in the Liberal Media's version of the story to back up the Feds, and oh what a pot there would be brewing...

Moral of the story...Don't want it used against you? Don't put pen to paper, or in this case text to web...As far as I know our thoughts are still private..who knows anymore..

 

[Partychief67]

Thanks TexasCop for being the voice of conservative reason... I have always known about the reliability of Wikipedia, but like TexasRedneck I always check the reference citations to the more reputable websites.

And I must say, when my buddy was telling me that story I thought it was pure B.S., now after having done a little bit of research I believe there could be a grain of truth to the story. I had never heard of the Hepting vs. A.T.&T. case, or Narus, or Carnivore. And I had SURE never heard of the "Electronic Frontier Foundation"... Good info.

The scary part is sites just like this one could be subject to "data mining" by the feds. or any agency I guess.