10 ms·

FBI Kept Demanding Email Records Despite DOJ Saying It Needed a Warrant

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Suppose I'm a user whose information was disclosed by Yahoo! under these illegal requests. Would I have standing against Yahoo!? What about against the U.S. government?
- tomkinstinch 10y ago
  You generally can't sue the government unless it lets you. Sovereign immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...
  - grrowl 10y ago
    or unless you are a multinational corporation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-leg...
    - rgbrenner 10y ago
      No, that's still a case where the government has agreed that you can sue them. Every government being sued has agreed to investor-state dispute resolution in one or more treaties that they've signed (to encourage foreign investment). The ICSID does not hear cases against countries that have not agreed to abide by its rulings.. so if you invest in a country that has not signed, you're SOL... they're not going to help you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_Disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settl...
themartorana 10y ago
"In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI was only entitled to get the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records from companies without a warrant. Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." "The FBI has said it disagrees with that conclusion, and interprets the opinion differently, according to a 2014 inspector general report. It sees the question as more of an “impasse” than an actual legal barrier." It's madness to me that the FBI can just say "na, we see it differently" and until the Supreme Court tells them to stop (and even then?) they'll do whatever they want.
- rayiner 10y ago
  It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    What's the OLC's authority? Is their opinion binding?
    - scintill76 10y ago
      From above, "Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." So they don't have any legal authority or hierarchy per se since they're two parts of one legally defined branch of the government, but apparently the OLC is supposed to be the authority.
      - kahnpro 10y ago
        But is the president not in charge of the entire executive branch? If he wanted to fix it, could be not issue binding orders?
        DiabloD3 10y ago
Aelinsaar 10y ago
The casual disregard with which the FBI has always treated the law is disgusting, and unfortunately, the true face of our country.
- xviia 10y ago
  It surely didn't start in the last decade, and it won't stop this decade, either. Just look at COINTELPRO in the 1960s: COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Jean Seberg, never forget that name.
beedogs 10y ago
The FBI is really long past its prime and needs to be done away with.
- yuzi 10y ago
  It would just be replaced with a new shiny organization having a new name, more freedom to do more harm (given its lack of baggage) and probably end up employing the same people. Sadly being on the brink of destruction is likely going to be the only motivator for real change.
  - epoxyhockey 10y ago
    FTFY: It would just be replaced with a new shiny organization having no name ..the kicker being that the organization probably already exists
    - gknoy 10y ago
      Oh come on, surely there's no such agency. ;)
      - yuzi 10y ago
        Sure there is. I've seen them. They wear back suits, black sunglasses, and drive big black oil guzzling SUVs that move in tight groups travelling at the exact same speed. I've also seen their leader too: http://bit.ly/1Y5Irgs http://bit.ly/1Y5Irgs (whom is shown reading this thread).
        dang 10y ago
        Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
        yuzi 10y ago
        Pfft... Reminder to self: sense of humour not allowed on HN unless you're part of the clique, when then becomes permitted.
bpchaps 10y ago
This stuff is becoming more and more maddening to hear after my recent FOIA adventures. I requested this from Chicago's Mayor's office last week: Please provide to me all communications or records of communication (phone, email, receipts of phone/email, etc) from those in the mayor's office for the below companies. Please limit the search to Oct, Nov, Dec of 2014. Aura - Prestige Club (of verycoolrooms.com) Kennealy & O Callaghan Statewide Investigative Services Azura Investigations Their response, which reeks of complete bullshit: In order to run an email search, the Mayor’s Office needs the names or email accounts that you wish searched. The email system’s tool set cannot identify the department where an email user works, and therefore, a search cannot be based on a department. Parameters that would assist the Mayor’s Office in conducting an email search include: (1) the e-mail address of the account you wish searched; and (2) the e-mail address of each individual’s mailbox, if you seek e-mail correspondence to and from two individuals. Without email addresses, search terms, or a time frame, the Mayor’s Office would have to retrieve each and every email for every employee from October – December, 2014, which is both unduly burdensome and costly. After retrieving these e-mails, each and every e-mail message a Mayor’s Office employee received or sent would have to be downloaded and reviewed to determine if it is responsive to your request or is exempt from disclosure. If any exemptions were to apply, the Mayor’s Office would need to redact such information. The entire process of retrieval of the emails, finding responsive records, reviewing for exempt information, and then redacting the materials would be onerous.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  You should have given them an explicit list of domains to query for in the headers.
  - bpchaps 10y ago
    Based on history from previous and successful requests, I shouldn't have needed to. They've fulfilled requests as vague as that in the past. Submitted two requests two days ago that might be a bit better than providing the domains, though. One for DNS resolution logs of the mayor's office and another for all domains and times for all emails sent from their office. If just one of those are successful, then I don't need to play any more FOIA games with mayor's office. Sure, I could just submit the same request to their IT department like those two... but, no. I'm getting that information from the mayor's office directly, dammit. :)
kordless 10y ago
The FBI was founded by a man who believed in secretive abuses of power. There will always be those who believe it is their purpose to protect us from ourselves. What those in power don't get is that all suffering can't be eliminated without creating a whole new level of suffering at lower levels of society as a result. Or do they?
- curiouscats 10y ago
  Not only that the FBI continues honoring his memory with his name on their building. That they keep up that public honor to his memory is consistent with their continued behavior. It is sad we continue to elect people that allow that type of thinking to direct behavior of such a powerful organization but it is pretty clear we have elected very few people that are interested in changing the actions they continue to engage in.
Sacho 10y ago
“The FBI asks for so much, because it is banking that some companies won’t know the law and will disclose more than they have to. … The FBI is preying on small companies who don’t have the resources to hire national security law experts,” he argued. This is something police officers routinely do, to people with vastly less resources than companies like Yahoo. It is sanctioned because all the "bad guys" must be caught. Why is it a problem when the FBI does it?
- tremon 10y ago
  Why is this not a problem when the police does it?
  - zaroth 10y ago
    The 6th District described the practice of police lying about having DNA, "a regrettable but frequent practice of law enforcement was not unconstitutional," citing to People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299 - which allow police deception as long as it is not unlikely to produce an untruthful confession. http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-jones-31413 http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-jones-31413
ck2 10y ago
It's always tragic when people expect law enforcement to actually obey the law themselves. It's not just an FBI problem, it's anyone in an authoritarian position, from individuals to entire organizations.
lasermike026 10y ago
Vote. Raise money. Spread it around.
robbiemitchell 10y ago
Just. Get. A. Warrant.
venomsnake 10y ago
What happens if a government agency demand something they don't have the authority to do, but they get it. If FBI wants from your isp your name, address and contents of your emails. But they are entitled only to the first two. Your ISP though complies on all 3 counts. What is the state of the information gathered by the content of your email since it was surrendered voluntarily by your ISP?
yompers888 10y ago
I'm repeatedly astounded by the FBI's overreach (though I oughtn't at this point). I'm also always surprised how much people wanna take swings at NSA when FBI are the ones abusing everything domestically (though certainly NSA are helping them, and they shouldn't.)

Suppose I'm a user whose information was disclosed by Yahoo! under these illegal requests. Would I have standing against Yahoo!? What about against the U.S. government?

tomkinstinch 10y ago
You generally can't sue the government unless it lets you. Sovereign immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_Stat...
- grrowl 10y ago
  or unless you are a multinational corporation. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-leg...
  - rgbrenner 10y ago
    No, that's still a case where the government has agreed that you can sue them. Every government being sued has agreed to investor-state dispute resolution in one or more treaties that they've signed (to encourage foreign investment). The ICSID does not hear cases against countries that have not agreed to abide by its rulings.. so if you invest in a country that has not signed, you're SOL... they're not going to help you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_Disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settl...

themartorana 10y ago

"In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI was only entitled to get the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records from companies without a warrant. Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." "The FBI has said it disagrees with that conclusion, and interprets the opinion differently, according to a 2014 inspector general report. It sees the question as more of an “impasse” than an actual legal barrier." It's madness to me that the FBI can just say "na, we see it differently" and until the Supreme Court tells them to stop (and even then?) they'll do whatever they want.

rayiner 10y ago
It represents a real failure of leadership on the part of the President if parts of the executive are ignoring OLC opinions.
- leereeves 10y ago
  What's the OLC's authority? Is their opinion binding?
  - scintill76 10y ago
    From above, "Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch." So they don't have any legal authority or hierarchy per se since they're two parts of one legally defined branch of the government, but apparently the OLC is supposed to be the authority.
    - kahnpro 10y ago
      But is the president not in charge of the entire executive branch? If he wanted to fix it, could be not issue binding orders?
      - DiabloD3 10y ago

Aelinsaar 10y ago

The casual disregard with which the FBI has always treated the law is disgusting, and unfortunately, the true face of our country.

xviia 10y ago
It surely didn't start in the last decade, and it won't stop this decade, either. Just look at COINTELPRO in the 1960s: COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Jean Seberg, never forget that name.

beedogs 10y ago

The FBI is really long past its prime and needs to be done away with.

yuzi 10y ago
It would just be replaced with a new shiny organization having a new name, more freedom to do more harm (given its lack of baggage) and probably end up employing the same people. Sadly being on the brink of destruction is likely going to be the only motivator for real change.
- epoxyhockey 10y ago
  FTFY: It would just be replaced with a new shiny organization having no name ..the kicker being that the organization probably already exists
  - gknoy 10y ago
    Oh come on, surely there's no such agency. ;)
    - yuzi 10y ago
      Sure there is. I've seen them. They wear back suits, black sunglasses, and drive big black oil guzzling SUVs that move in tight groups travelling at the exact same speed. I've also seen their leader too: http://bit.ly/1Y5Irgs http://bit.ly/1Y5Irgs (whom is shown reading this thread).
      - dang 10y ago
        Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
        yuzi 10y ago
        Pfft... Reminder to self: sense of humour not allowed on HN unless you're part of the clique, when then becomes permitted.

bpchaps 10y ago

This stuff is becoming more and more maddening to hear after my recent FOIA adventures. I requested this from Chicago's Mayor's office last week: Please provide to me all communications or records of communication (phone, email, receipts of phone/email, etc) from those in the mayor's office for the below companies. Please limit the search to Oct, Nov, Dec of 2014. Aura - Prestige Club (of verycoolrooms.com) Kennealy & O Callaghan Statewide Investigative Services Azura Investigations Their response, which reeks of complete bullshit: In order to run an email search, the Mayor’s Office needs the names or email accounts that you wish searched. The email system’s tool set cannot identify the department where an email user works, and therefore, a search cannot be based on a department. Parameters that would assist the Mayor’s Office in conducting an email search include: (1) the e-mail address of the account you wish searched; and (2) the e-mail address of each individual’s mailbox, if you seek e-mail correspondence to and from two individuals. Without email addresses, search terms, or a time frame, the Mayor’s Office would have to retrieve each and every email for every employee from October – December, 2014, which is both unduly burdensome and costly. After retrieving these e-mails, each and every e-mail message a Mayor’s Office employee received or sent would have to be downloaded and reviewed to determine if it is responsive to your request or is exempt from disclosure. If any exemptions were to apply, the Mayor’s Office would need to redact such information. The entire process of retrieval of the emails, finding responsive records, reviewing for exempt information, and then redacting the materials would be onerous.

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
You should have given them an explicit list of domains to query for in the headers.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  Based on history from previous and successful requests, I shouldn't have needed to. They've fulfilled requests as vague as that in the past. Submitted two requests two days ago that might be a bit better than providing the domains, though. One for DNS resolution logs of the mayor's office and another for all domains and times for all emails sent from their office. If just one of those are successful, then I don't need to play any more FOIA games with mayor's office. Sure, I could just submit the same request to their IT department like those two... but, no. I'm getting that information from the mayor's office directly, dammit. :)

kordless 10y ago

The FBI was founded by a man who believed in secretive abuses of power. There will always be those who believe it is their purpose to protect us from ourselves. What those in power don't get is that all suffering can't be eliminated without creating a whole new level of suffering at lower levels of society as a result. Or do they?

curiouscats 10y ago
Not only that the FBI continues honoring his memory with his name on their building. That they keep up that public honor to his memory is consistent with their continued behavior. It is sad we continue to elect people that allow that type of thinking to direct behavior of such a powerful organization but it is pretty clear we have elected very few people that are interested in changing the actions they continue to engage in.

Sacho 10y ago

“The FBI asks for so much, because it is banking that some companies won’t know the law and will disclose more than they have to. … The FBI is preying on small companies who don’t have the resources to hire national security law experts,” he argued. This is something police officers routinely do, to people with vastly less resources than companies like Yahoo. It is sanctioned because all the "bad guys" must be caught. Why is it a problem when the FBI does it?

tremon 10y ago
Why is this not a problem when the police does it?
- zaroth 10y ago
  The 6th District described the practice of police lying about having DNA, "a regrettable but frequent practice of law enforcement was not unconstitutional," citing to People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299 - which allow police deception as long as it is not unlikely to produce an untruthful confession. http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-jones-31413 http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-jones-31413

ck2 10y ago

It's always tragic when people expect law enforcement to actually obey the law themselves. It's not just an FBI problem, it's anyone in an authoritarian position, from individuals to entire organizations.

lasermike026 10y ago

Vote. Raise money. Spread it around.

robbiemitchell 10y ago

Just. Get. A. Warrant.

venomsnake 10y ago

What happens if a government agency demand something they don't have the authority to do, but they get it. If FBI wants from your isp your name, address and contents of your emails. But they are entitled only to the first two. Your ISP though complies on all 3 counts. What is the state of the information gathered by the content of your email since it was surrendered voluntarily by your ISP?

yompers888 10y ago

I'm repeatedly astounded by the FBI's overreach (though I oughtn't at this point). I'm also always surprised how much people wanna take swings at NSA when FBI are the ones abusing everything domestically (though certainly NSA are helping them, and they shouldn't.)