14 ms·
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back
- zacharypinter 16y agoThe nerve of these people amazes me. They're caught red handed, probably never had a warrant (with the law shaky on if they need one), and they probably didn't have a very solid lead to start with (how convenient that he was reported by an "anonymous" tip). In the middle of all this, they still had time to try to bully him into getting back the surveillance equipment from their botched attempt, with lines like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate." Just reading the story sickens me.
- rtra 16y agoI don't know much about US law and I'm wondering what could have happened if he didn't hand them over the damn device without some sort of proof of ownership or a formal request.
- muriithi 16y agoOn the Reddit post they were repeatedly asked to get a lawyer or go to ACLU. I am not sure whether they did that or if it would have made a difference. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_...
- aw3c2 16y agoIn Germany they first lie about it ("No, we have no idea whose unit it is") and one year later demand you give it to them. German source: http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009&src=UA&cHash=bcebcaa2b1 http://www.taz.de/1/nord/artikel/?dig=2008%2F04%2F22%2Fa0009...
- Stephan_ 16y agoHowever, in that case there was a warrant by the Federal Court of Justice authorizing the tracking.
- Ennis 16y agoYou're right. When it comes down to it, it really is the lack of a warrant that's the issue. There is still enough trust in the judicial system to screen out federal abuses of power. It seems to me that anger is based on the circumvention of the courts and not that the boy was targeted because he was Arab American. Both reasons just don't seem morally right.
- tibbon 16y agoDoes that forgive the moral questionability of lying?
- roel_v 16y agoThe 'warrant' part is unrelated to the ownership issue of the tracking device. Even if it was used under unlawful circumstances, the FBI remains owner of the device. To take an extreme example, if I throw a brick through your window with a note attached to it 'this brick is owned by jimmy jones and I have no intention of relinquishing ownership', I remain owner of the brick. That I'm liable for the damage caused by it is self-evident. (the note is to preempt a digression into 'apparent abandonment of property' or whatever the exact wording it is in the appropriate jurisdiction) 'Ownership' of something, and 'committing a crime' with that something are orthogonal. Apart from some specifically designated by law items (drugs, weapons), committing a crime with something does not change its ownership status. I don't quite see the controversy here (that is, after one steps back and looks over the 'oh my god! big gubmint is spying on us!' knee-jerk reaction. Let's not forget the kid (from what I gathered...) was apparently connected to organized crime, even if only through blood).
- roel_v 16y agoCorrection: guy's family wasn't organized crime, I misremembered - father was a Muslim leader. No mention of what that entails more specifically. Still without knowing more it does seriously detract from that part of my point.
- VBprogrammer 16y agoThere is something about the tone of what you just wrote that deeply annoys me. Had the boys father been a Christian leader would you have been concerned by what exactly that entails?
- roel_v 16y agoIf the father had been a Westboro Baptist Church or Branch Davidian style sect leader? Of course. We don't know what happened. For the guy to post to Reddit starting off with a 'look I'm being investigated because I'm Arab! FBI is racist!' post while not giving any information on the circumstances, that just sounds like a PR spin.
- CWuestefeld 16y agowith lines like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate." That sounds to me like a pretty explicit threat that they'll be violating the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" provisions. IANAL, but I wonder if that can amount to anything.
- khafra 16y agoI believe law enforcement is allowed to say anything they want to. As a civilian, you're not allowed to lie to most LEOs; but they're allowed to lie to you.
- icegreentea 16y agoThere's a few things they can't lie about. They can't lie/make up any deals for lighter sentences or whatever. Note, that doesn't mean if they say 'we'll try to get them to easier on you' means that will happen, but if you (and your lawyer) actually strike a real deal (say to provide enough evidence to convict others), the police can't screw with that. They also can't lie about the legality of actions while in the visible position of being the police. That means they CAN lie about it when undercover.
- smokeyj 16y agoWhen they move their lips, they ARE lying to you.
- dunstad 16y agoCan we get some supporting evidence, please? This strikes me as a little unreasonable.
- spokey 16y agoOf course that is unreasonable. I don't think it was meant to be taken literally, but as advice recommending that as a suspect or person of interest one generally shouldn't assume that law enforcement folks are on your side. (I have a lot of respect for the police: they accept a lot of risk to try to ensure a civil society in exchange for not a lot of reward, but there's little doubt that if they see themselves in an adversarial relationship with someone they are willing and able to mislead or misdirect that person in order to accomplish their aims. There is a reason that the Miranda Warning became a legal requirement.)
- tptacek 16y agoThe FBI does not need a warrant to plant a GPS tracker on your car, for much the same reason as they do not need a warrant to surveil you from a car or helicopter. This bothers people for reasons I can understand, but I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive.
- wnoise 16y agoThe expense is a good thing. They need to be focusing rather than throwing dragnets. Expense forces prioritization.
- evgen 16y agoThe are focusing. You may disagree with the object of their focus, but the alternative (e.g more broad surveillance of the general public) is far less pleasant.
- spokey 16y ago> I think the concern is irrational; the alternative (having agents manually tail people) is error prone, > subjective, incredibly expensive, and no less intrusive. Don't underestimate the role of the "incredibly expensive" part. The physical and resource constraints for tailing people limit law enforcement's ability to do that. In this way GPS trackers are more intrusive than traditional surveillance methods, in the sense that they can be deployed indiscriminately at a much larger scale. (For a related example, in "Code" Lessig argues that the US founders didn't need an explicit right to privacy since it was implied by the search-and-seizure and trespass constraints. Prior to electronic surveillance methods, it was difficult to invade one's privacy without already violating trespass or similar laws.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- justinph 16y agoThe kid sounds like he is indeed boring, but also not the sharpest crayon in the box. It's too bad, really, because it would be great to have someone that was a little more aware of his/her rights to try to take the .gov to task for this kind of shenanigans.
- zaidf 16y agotake the .gov to task for this kind of shenanigans Easy to say that sitting behind a keyboard. When the FBI knocks at your door and screams "terrorism" to your shock, all you want to do is want that moment to disappear forever and hope your family is ok. Taking the gov to task is pretty low down on the list of to-dos.
- olefoo 16y agoAnd that is why those who do stand up for their rights should be recognized for their courage on our behalf. Personally, were I to discover such an item on my vehicle, it would go directly to my lawyers office; it wouldn't get posted on reddit.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- loewenskind 16y agoI strongly disagree about posting on reddit. If needed they can shut you and your lawyer up but they can't make potentially millions of people un-see something.
- barrkel 16y agoI'm not sure I'd be willing to turn my life upside down, and possibly destroy it, on a hopeful chance of pushing back against the weight of the US government. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that people who do that are brave but foolhardy - probably not the sharpest crayons in the box.
- chmike 16y ago
- jrockway 16y agoDon't worry, you're boring. Seems like a waste of my tax dollars to put a tracking device on his car then...
- nkassis 16y agoMy first reaction to that quote was, get a lawyer now and never speak to them again.
- retrogradeorbit 16y agoThat statement makes me think the FBI is going on fishing expeditions now. Or do they use metrics on how many cars they had to track to help justify more funding?
- rbanffy 16y agoThe device was paid for and they had nobody more interesting to track... The tracking itself is automated and, most probably, nobody would ever look into the data. I'd probably find a desert and draw something very confusing for them.
- smokeyj 16y agoSaid: Don't worry, you're boring Implied: Don't make this news, we don't want the public to know us thugs harass any kid off the street for no reason.
- marcusbooster 16y agoThis is what a police state looks like.
- pvg 16y agoHe opined thoughtfully, resplendent in his wizard robe and tinfoil hat.
- sprout 16y agoNo, a police state has checkpoints and men with semiautomatic weapons clearly visible during most daily commutes. This is a very bad thing, but it is not a police state. Nothing was done.
- davidmurphy 16y agoNothing was done? This person's privacy was violated, and the country I love is slipping away in some ways. That's what was done. No, it's not a police state, but yes, it's very bad to have things going in the direction they're going. We MUST stand up and STOP this kind of stuff. We must not let it keep getting worse. EDIT: To quote Picard, "the line must be drawn HERE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU
- kmfrk 16y agoYou're construing his "Nothing was done" to fit your point, but you're obviously being too literal about it.
- thwarted 16y agoThat's a terrible choice for a Picard speech for this topic. What happens in "The Drumhead" is much more applicable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ZZyJCqkg4#t=3m43 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ZZyJCqkg4#t=3m43 But watch the entire clip for context.
- lzw 16y agoBy your completely arbitrary definition of a police state, then NYC is a police state as are americas airports. Reality is, this country is a police state, it is the modern one, and it is pumped full of government propaganda about how it isn't a police state and how all these police state actions are justified so that people are able to continue to delude themselves. Frankly most of the police abuses are simply never reported in mainstream media. But the reality is, depending on where you draw the line, either this is already a police state or it is well on its way.
- DevX101 16y agoIn his original post on reddit, the guy admitted to having a supply of weed in his apartment along with the GPS tracker. This could have went south pretty quickly.
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoIf him having weed is his biggest crime then I would hope the FBI would have bigger fish to fry than catching a college stoner. What a waste of resources.
- pyre 16y agoSounds like they still will be tracking him to me. The "don't talk to a lawyer, you're boring" thing just seems like a pretty lame attempt to say, "just forget this happened," so that they can surveil him more. Personally, I think they feel he will lead them to someone 'big' or 'of interest,' which is why they also didn't bother busting him for weed (or they just didn't read the Reddit post).
- piguy314 16y agoDid he have to return the device? If they placed a device in his car that sounds like they abandoned their property.
- mike_esspe 16y agoOne of the agents produced a printout of a blog post that Afifi’s friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of months ago. It had “something to do with a mall or a bomb,” Afifi said* The nickname of the friend of this student, who posted the story on reddit is "khaledthegypsy", and he posted this comment couple of months ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_de... Seems like FBI didn't bother to check the context of that comment.
- rtra 16y agoThe comment doesn't justify any sort of spying. It's not a threat, but a seemingly true observation. Schneier has said essentially the same.
- loewenskind 16y agoCall me a cynic but I think they did. His comment is right, the "war on terror" is and always has been bullshit. The people who benefit from convincing the public that there is some imminent terrorist threat would probably love to shut people up who point out why there isn't.
- binspace 16y agoThe FBI probably has a spider bot which searches for keywords. Ooh, they are high-tech. Too bad they don't review the effectiveness of the "threat" detection. Our tax dollars being put to good use.
- kjhmkghn 16y agoFunnier famous example in Britain from the 60s/70s. The communist party HQ found a bug and removed it, and were subsequently prosecuted for destroying government property. While the government denied in court spying on them, and even denied the existence of MI5, the agency involved. The case succeeded on the basis that those being spied on believed the government were responsible and therefore intended to destroy government property.
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoAny links? I am curious how they would go about prosecuting for this if they did indeed destroy the device, which would presumably be the evidence.
- arethuza 16y agoApparently the bug is on display in the "People's History Museum" of the CPGB: http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/0505cpgb.html http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/0505cpgb.html Can't see any reference to where this is located on the CPGB website: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/ http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
- Pyrodogg 16y agoA black, unknown object that looks like it could be a pipe is attached to the bottom of my vehicle. I'd just call in and report a bomb. See if the authorities can figure it out. On a more serious note, California is in the 9th Circuit which recently ruled you have no expectation to privacy regarding your car parked in your driveway or an open lot. I doubt the FBI agents had a warrant.
- brlewis 16y agoThey would take the object away, blow it up, and hold a press conference to say that nobody is safe, and more government power is needed to meet the threat.
- khafra 16y agoProbably do a controlled detonation of your car.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoThe 9th Circuit is absolutely famous for being lovers of government power. They like privacy and police power issues, as seen here. They're also quite anti-business. All-in-all, the 9th Circuit is the most-overturned circuit in the country. Why is it that it's so lopsided? Since it's the president (I think) who is nominating all of these justices, rather than a local leader, I would expect that the demographics of each circuit would be fairly similar (generally reflecting the preferences of the preceding few presidents, rather than any geographic tendencies). If I could be excused for wearing a tinfoil hat for a moment, it makes me wonder if it's some kind of long-term strategy to manufacture (and get us used to) wildly liberal case law.
- ahi 16y ago9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit because it's the biggest with the most cases and most judges. The cert rate is in line with the other circuit courts.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- julianz 16y agoThe same thing has happened in New Zealand, I can't find a reference right now but it was last year/year before and drug squad police who attached the tracker.
- khafra 16y agoIs that the case where the police said it wasn't theirs, then complained when he put it up for sale on Ebay?
- bl4k 16y ago"One of the agents produced a printout of a blog post that Afifi’s friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of months ago." Is it really that easy to tie up so many federal resources? They knew everything about this guy and dedicated a team to him just because he was the blog posters friend (edit: a Reddit commentors friend). Amazing and inefficient. The real terrorists can drown themselves in noise by flooding the intel agencies with fake posts from real people and real names. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not already doing this. Dedicating entire teams to follow all the friends of every semi-threatening blog post doesn't scale.
- chopsueyar 16y agoPerhaps that was the anonymous tip the FBI referred to?
- jrockway 16y agoIs it really that easy to tie up so many federal resources? Yes. The Secret Service came to my house, with guns, because of a one-sentence Slashdot comment I wrote.
- auxbuss 16y agoAfter that you've got to provide a link so we can see what you said. Or have you got something to hide :)
- ugh 16y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1602664 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1602664
- DevX101 16y agoDid they request your IP from slashdot or did they find some other way of independently tracking you down?
- jrockway 16y ago
- AndrewS 16y agoI would find it quite tempting to destroy it, but I guess that satisfaction wouldn't be worth the opportunity cost.
- loewenskind 16y agoI would report it online and then "lose" it on a Greyhound or something.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ck2 16y agoNEVER have a "conversation" with law enforcement if they are questioning you about ANYTHING, regardless how casual it seems. In court, law enforcement is allowed to testify to whatever they "recall" during conversations with you. And you won't be able to challenge it whatsoever. You are testifying against yourself when you do this, even if you are 1000% innocent - they might "recall" differently. And then you are screwed. Everything from "do you know how fast you were going" to something much more extreme like this case.
- mootothemax 16y agoIt's not so much lousy memories, it's that law enforcement are compelled to give evidence against you (as Miranda and various worldwide cautions spell out) but they do not legally have to say anything that proves your innocence. At least that's the bit that convinces me there's no good to be had in talking to law enforcement.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoI'm not sure about the rules for the cop himself. However, the prosecution, meaning the DA and his office, are required to disclose to you and your attorney anything that would support your innocence (known as exculpatory evidence). I'm not a lawyer, so it's not clear to me how this interacts with the cop's role. As a witness, I guess he wouldn't have to offer anything. But as the guy who arrests you, I'd think that he's part of the "prosecution team", and thus would be covered by the rules of exculpatory evidence. Anybody know more than my supposition?
- wnoise 16y agoIn theory they do. In practice, there's no consequence if they don't, and it might gain them more convictions.
- avar 16y agoThis is a great talk on that topic by Professor James Duane: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
- motters 16y agoI went for a job interview about a year ago - one of the strangest I've ever had - in which precisely such a secret vehicle tracking device was described. Apparently they broadcast at a very low baud rate in order to reduce the amount of energy emissions which could be detected by counter-surveillance operations.
- jseifer 16y agoAfifi’s encounter with the FBI ended with the agents telling him not to worry. “We have all the information we needed,” they told him. “You don’t need to call your lawyer. Don’t worry, you’re boring. “ They shook his hand and left. Yep, don't worry, no need to call a lawyer everything's cool. High five?
- dpatru 16y agoYes, isn't this the best time to call your lawyer (when you're innocent and want to protect your rights?) Or should the fourth amendment only be invoked by criminals?
- oozcitak 16y agoIs giving back the device the right thing to do in this circumstance? Shouldn't FBI produce proof of ownership of the device? What if sometime after FBI leaves, CIA shows up and says it was their device and they want it back?
- kahawe 16y agoI am not from the US nor am I a lawyer but what were his rights in such a situation? Could he have decided not to hand over the device immediately and ask for proof of ownership and ask to see a warrant or whatever-else is needed for the FBI to track him? Feds telling him "you don't need a lawyer, you are boring" sounds a lot like they actually did something incriminating, he caught them and now they are worried about legal actions against them. This seems to fit with the threatening to get the device back - no device, no evidence, no case in court, government will deny knowledge. When the feds or the police come knocking on your door, do you have the right to NOT let them inside without a warrant? Do you have the right not to answer any questions and immediately get legal help, thus creating legal documents which might serve as evidence later on? Really, what rights and freedom do you people in the USA have against the "terrorism" witch hunt or do the feds practically have "carte blanche" now?
- CWuestefeld 16y agoone of only a few people known to have found a government-tracking device on their vehicle I think all citizens need government-tracking devices. (if it's not immediately clear, the writer misused that hyphen, which changes the meaning into something that might actually be more appropriate, given the story)
- superk 16y agoIs anyone else surprised at how huge that thing is? I would've expected something around the size of quarter... not a walkietalkie connected to a clarinet... Guess I watch too much (70's era) James Bond...
- harry 16y agoI was! That's the first thing I thought: "I could make a way smaller one of those with a GPS shield on an arduino." http://www.ladyada.net/make/gpsshield/ http://www.ladyada.net/make/gpsshield/ I figure the bulk is in the battery pack. Altho that baffles me, if I was tasked with building one I'd make it splice into to the tail lights power like a cheap tow adapter kit. edit: Damn, I had to add "make a lojack style tracker for my truck" to my project list. Just seems too easy to create something that updates truck location to a private twitter account whenever the engine is started/brakes applied.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoAfifi [...] asked a series of questions – did he know anyone who traveled to Yemen or was affiliated with overseas training? One of the agents produced a printout of a blog post that Afifi’s friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of months ago. It had “something to do with a mall or a bomb,” Afifi said. He hadn’t seen it before and doesn’t know the details of what it said. He found it hard to believe Khaled meant anything threatening by the post. “He’s a smart kid and is not affiliated with anything extreme and never says anything stupid like that,” Afifi said. “I’ve known that guy my whole life. “ The agents told Afifi they had other agents outside Khaled’s house. “If you want us to call them off and not talk to him we can do that,” Afifi said they told him. “That was weird. [...] I didn’t really believe anything they were saying.” When he later asked Khaled about the post, his friend recalled “writing something stupid,” but said he wasn’t involved in any wrongdoing. Khaled declined to discuss the issue with Wired.com. So Afifi was completely wrong about Khaled, he did write a post, clearly views he was hiding (or Afifi would have guessed it to be true) and he wasn't prepared to answer for it to the press. My leaning is with the spooks on this one - but we need more details to know anything substantial. It amazes me that people are so negative about those who take on the task of covert civil protection.
- mtinkerhess 16y agoApparently this is the "blog post" the article refers to: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_de...
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoYes, I'd read that was the case. But how do we know this is not simply PR/spin on behalf of the accused? If I was shopped for a inflammatory post suggesting terrorist activity and wished to win public support, eg to allow by supporters to riot and be supported by public opinion should I be detained. Then I'd whip down that post and put up something inane to point at and say what idiots the FBI are. (I'm not saying this is the case, just that there is very real doubt as to the true story). Timeline on all this is presumably only attainable from the FBI and/or the accused.
- maeon3 16y agoHe should have gotten a lawyer when the FBI said: "your fine, nothing to worry about, don't get a lawyer".
- mcdowall 16y agoReminds me of an episode of The Wire with Herk trying to recover his camera.
- runjake 16y agoThis story has a positive side. It inspired me, and probably many others, to renew their long-expired EFF (http://www.eff.org http://www.eff.org) memberships. They and the ACLU have expressed interest.
- parfe 16y agoAfifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially. And that right there explains the entire story. He's being investigated because he's sending money into Egypt.
- sdurkin 16y agoSending money to a foreign country is not a federal crime.
- lzw 16y agoAbsolutely true, but the so-called "money laundering" statutes at the federal level are written in such a way that they can convict anyone under them for any financial transaction. This is by design, because it gives the government a free hand to get warrants, seize assets and convict people that they otherwise would not be able to because they lack evidence of a real crime.
- parfe 16y agoNo kidding. He wasn't charged with a crime. He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job. Investigate and if evidence of a crime is found, to pass it off for prosecution. I'm not really seeing anything wrong here, other than the fact the tracker may have been placed without a warrant. And even that is currently legal.
- sdurkin 16y agoSending money to a foreign country is not probable cause to investigate a federal crime. "He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job." Statements like this evince a complete misunderstanding of the role of law enforcement in a democratic society. The FBI's job is to respond to proper complaints of violations of the law, and to investigate where there are clear and articulable facts that lead them to believe a crime has occurred. Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.
- Estragon 16y agoSo, what would it take to detect such a device?
- notyourwork 16y agoDoes anyone else hate the following transpiration: Afifi asked, “Are you the guys that put it there?” and the agent replied, “Yeah, I put it there.” He told Afifi, “We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate.”
- tibbon 16y agoI'm unsure about the 'ownership' of such a device. If someone denies ownership of something, do they loose all rights to it? "Is that your $20? No? Ok, must be mine." Furthermore, if you trespass upon someone's property and leave something that you feel is important ($20) while trespassing, can you demand it back? Also proof of ownership is something I wonder about. Surely the FBI has serial numbers, but the person with the 'device' could deny them to enter their private property to inspect such. If i haven't done a crime, then you can't get a warrant to search my place for such a device. Should i find such on my motorcycle, I'll simply attach it to the nearest 18-wheeler I find, or mail it around the country.
- 16s 16y agoHe only found the big one. That was the one they wanted him to find.