10 ms·

Student Who Found GPS Device On His Car Due To Reddit Comment Sues The FBI

193 points by jedwhite 16y ago

aw3c2 16y ago
actual and better source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_track...
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Much better source. "His lawyers say Afifi, who was born in the United States, was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East — he travels there frequently, helps support two brothers who live in Egypt, and his father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt." This is part of the story that TechDirt left out in favor of the inflammatory but misleading man-persecuted-over-Reddit-comment angle.
  - ugh 16y ago
    What’s the difference? Whether he was put under surveillance for traveling frequently to the middle east or because of a misinterpreted comment, that seems both to be about equally bad. There is of course always the caveat that the FBI might have had other credible evidence but if not that at least should be a civil rights violation. (Should be. I obviously know too little about the law to tell whether it actually is.)
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      The difference is that investigating someone who fits a particular behavioral profile is something that a reasonably competent organization might do, while investigating someone over nothing but a Reddit comment that he didn't even write would be stupid. When even the subject of the story describes it as the former, reporting it as the latter is sloppy at best, fallacious pandering at worst. See, what bothers me about this is that instead of highlighting the actually interesting legal question of whether installing such GPS devices is a violation of civil liberties or should require a warrant--the things Afifi is actually suing over--TechDirt (among scores of others in the giant web echo chamber) just throws this into the "look at this fucking government" bin where it does little more than reaffirm, 2 minutes hate-style, whatever the reader already believed.
  - lurchpop 16y ago
    That's not a misleading angle. During that encounter when he asked why he was being followed they cited the out-of-context Reddit conversation.
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      Where I said "misleading" you seem to be interpreting me as saying "false". The comment is relevant, sure, but leaving out everything else changes the interpretation of the story significantly.
  - furyg3 16y ago
    Replace the words with whatever country is 'scary' to you, and you've got probable cause! "His lawyers say Wing, who was born in the United States, was targeted because of his extensive ties to asia — he travels there frequently, helps support two brothers who live in China, and his father was a well-known Asian-American community leader who died last year in China." Ridiculous... racism is not probable cause.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      > Ridiculous... racism is not probable cause. It is when ignorance is your knowledge base.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >"well-known Islamic-American community leader" This sort of comment I always assume is double-talk (government-ese maybe) for someone who they know has close ties to terrorists. I'm guessing one of the family has been undertaking some "terrorist" activities and that makes it look bad for Afifi as he's sending money home. Of course this is speculation and Afifi himself wouldn't likely know if it were true or not so I have no way of knowing either.
      - chalst 16y ago
        You've been reading too much Daniel Pipes.
        pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        I'd never heard of him.
      - Confusion 16y ago
        Martin Luther King was a "well-known Christian-American community leader". That's how you should read it. That you think otherwise means they already managed to indoctrinate you that far, to accept the seeds of doubt and mistrust they try to plant. That way, however it turns out, they are always right.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    I'd rather say they are being less inflammatory than possible. That a single Reddit comment triggered the placing of the device is silly in itself, but once you realize that only happened because he was already under surveillance for the unacceptable reason of having 'extensive ties to the Middle East', it just adds insult to injury.
davidk0101 16y ago
All these goof-ups by the FBI don't paint a pretty picture about the agency at all and I'm surprised some news agency isn't up in arms about their funding and incompetence like they are with the teachers' unions.
- HelloBeautiful 16y ago
  When was the last time you saw a mainstream US news agency in arms about a government agency?
  - ja2ke 16y ago
    Any time the news agency is Fox and the government agency is a public or social service, so, reasonably often.
- raganwald 16y ago
  All these goof-ups by the FBI don't paint a pretty picture about the agency Do you mean the agency founded by J. Edgar Hoover? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoov... Its founding principle was that there are baddies out there who need a special force of investigators who have powers far exceeding the regular police and who collect dossiers on suspicious citizens rather than simply waiting for crimes to occur and then investigating. In a certain sense, they aren't being incompetent, they're doing exactly what they were designed to do. The problem isn't the execution, it's the mandate. Here's another tidbit: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO
  - davidk0101 16y ago
    I have no problem with the mandate. It's the clear lack of competence in intelligence gathering that bothers me. Who honestly considers anything said on reddit to be of any significant value to state security matters? They might as well throw a dart on some board and make decisions that way if they are so desperate as to use postings from reddit.
  - 16y ago
smutticus 16y ago
What I don't get is why he had to give it back. Since the FBI stuck it to his car isn't it his now? When they came to demand it back he should have refused. Are they going to arrest him for harboring stolen property? They gave it to him.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  If I recall correctly he did ask for proof that it was theirs before he would hand it back, but I seem to remember they refused and basically threatened him into returning it.
  - Evgeny 16y ago
    What would they do to him if he just destroyed it as a suspicious, unknown, but potentially dangerous object?
    - SandB0x 16y ago
      Or had "accidentally" dislodged it and attached it to a freight truck.
      - mcantor 16y ago
        "Jeez. This guy really drives a lot, for a student."
    - kgo 16y ago
      On the reddit thread way back, many people pointed out he could be charged with destruction of government property. I believe a few people even had precedences of this actually happening. But I'm not going to dig through the thread, so I'll mark my own comment as [Citation Needed].
hollerith 16y ago
If this is how they react to a comment on Reddit, just think of how much quicker or more drastic their reaction to a similarly provocative comment on a site with the ominous name Hacker News. ("ominous name": Although the word Hacker is not ominous to most of us, it is to almost all non-technical members of the Washington establishment.)
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  PG could be in your house stealing your megahertz right now.
- acangiano 16y ago
  Prosecutor: "Is it true Mr. Hollerith that you self-identify as a hacker and that you frequent a community of hackers known as Hacker News?" You: "Yes, but..." Prosecutor: "A simple yes or no will suffice." You: "There are questions that can't be answered with a simple yes or no. For example, you could ask me if I have stopped beating my wife." Prosecutor: "Have you, Mr. Hollerith?" In short, a jury of "peers" is not going to be comprised of peers. On average they are people who have a poor grasp of logic, statistics, and the personality of hackers. They'll judge you based on the way you look, talk, etc... And since you are all Mr. Smarty Pants, members of the average jury will not trust you, like you, or relate with you. As such, hacker types have a major disadvantage in court, even before tossing around labels that are considered as "shady" by the general public.
  - jotr99 16y ago
    I've found the response "The question assumes facts not in evidence" to be a fine answer to questions of that nature.
  - mcantor 16y ago
    Is it permissible in American courts to require the prosecutor to unambiguously define "hacker" before answering? If not, can you feign ignorance of the definition and explain that you are thus literally incapable of providing an honest & informed answer; and since you are under oath, require a definition before answering?
tptacek 16y ago
For my little branch of this comment thread, can we leave aside the FBI's reason for planting a GPS monitor? Just assume the FBI had no reason whatsoever. That they did it randomly. I tend to agree that in this case, they didn't seem to have a good reason. But, then: Exactly what is the damage this guy suffered? What's he suing over? Why should it be unconstitutional for the FBI to use technology to do something they can clearly already do without technology? It is not a violation of your civil rights for an unmarked car to follow you around and watch you. There clearly is a line here, so let me foreclose on that response right up front. Yes, it would be unconstitutional if the FBI tried to track all of us, by making coded GPS monitors mandatory on all cars. But in this case, if they couldn't plant the monitor, they could just follow him. He'd have no case. It's almost exactly the same loss of privacy. So why it such a big deal in the GPS case?
- rokhayakebe 16y ago
  I was once followed by the FBI (without my knowledge). They were following someone I knew and I was at their house frequently. They did this for quite some time. I ended up having to meet with an agent to answer his questions. I made sure to meet him at lunch time so he could buy me lunch if he needed me. It ended up being at a coffee shop. He explained to me a situation and wrapped the case (it was a false alert). He promised I would never hear from him again or his agency, but with these guys who knows. I felt a bit weird, but one thing is for sure, if the FBI is following you at least you have somewhat of a protection.
- iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
  >Exactly what is the damage this guy suffered? What's he suing over? That's what we are trying to find out! He was being spied on because he has a foreign sounding name - is he now on a no-fly list? is he on a secret do-no-hirelist for defense companies? for telecoms companies? for any companies with govt contracts? Does the FBI secretly OK who state colleges accept? If being secretly tracked by the secret police is no real damage - at what point is there damage? When the cattle trucks arrive ? Or when they get over 6Million
  - tptacek 16y ago
waterlesscloud 16y ago
Leaving aside the particulars of this case since all we've heard so far is what his lawyers are saying happened, the troubling issue here is that somehow attaching a GPS device is an action that does not require a warrant. I can accept the argument that it doesn't gather information that couldn't be gathered by other warrantless activity such as following him with agents. But it also MUST require that they entered the personal property of his car. You can't search a car without consent or a warrant, why can you enter it without either?
Kilimanjaro 16y ago
If they can plant a GPS in your car, what will stop them from planting a microphone or video camera in your bedroom? Wiretapping is so common nowadays that we don't even complain any more.
naner 16y ago
He didn't find it "due to Reddit." His mechanic noticed it when doing maintenance work (it was hidden improperly and was an older, bulkier model). Then the kid posted a picture of it to Reddit and asked what it was. Shortly after the FBI showed up at his house and asked for it back.
- mitcheme 16y ago
  I think the headline is supposed to mean that the GPS device was on his car due to a Reddit comment. It is a really awkward headline though.
code_duck 16y ago
The consensus here seems to be that the FBI crossed the line from passive to active tracking, and should have needed a warrant, when they entered his property to place the GPS device into his vehicle. Tracking you by something like GPS on your cell phone doesn't require physical interaction with your property. The effect is similar, though. What's the difference?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
ajays 16y ago
I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but: some people seem to be saying, "what's the harm? what damage did he suffer?". I'd like to point them to Kyllo -vs- United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States . Basically, the USSC ruled that taking a thermal image of a house amounted to "unreasonable search". Even though the heat rays emanating from the dwelling can be considered "public knowledge", the cops can't use it to then conclude that there's a grow op in the house. So, just because something is sorta "public" it doesn't mean the cops can reach for it.
- jeza 16y ago
  Wouldn't it be a little scary finding such a device in your car? At first, you might wonder if it's linked to a a bomb. Then if you consider it's a tracking device, who is actually following you? I'm sure it's enough to give some people at least moderate anxiety and others possible severe. Who knows what else.
printerjam 16y ago
Open information systems (the internet) leads to all sorts of changes in closed system (Middle Eastern governments, State Departments, the FBI). The internet is fun again.
shennyg 16y ago
Not sure if I missed it but what was the comment he posted that flagged him to the FBI?
- eapen 16y ago
  This was actually his friend's comment on Reddit. 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...

193 points by jedwhite 16y ago

aw3c2 16y ago

actual and better source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_track...

GHFigs 16y ago
Much better source. "His lawyers say Afifi, who was born in the United States, was targeted because of his extensive ties to the Middle East — he travels there frequently, helps support two brothers who live in Egypt, and his father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year in Egypt." This is part of the story that TechDirt left out in favor of the inflammatory but misleading man-persecuted-over-Reddit-comment angle.
- ugh 16y ago
  What’s the difference? Whether he was put under surveillance for traveling frequently to the middle east or because of a misinterpreted comment, that seems both to be about equally bad. There is of course always the caveat that the FBI might have had other credible evidence but if not that at least should be a civil rights violation. (Should be. I obviously know too little about the law to tell whether it actually is.)
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    The difference is that investigating someone who fits a particular behavioral profile is something that a reasonably competent organization might do, while investigating someone over nothing but a Reddit comment that he didn't even write would be stupid. When even the subject of the story describes it as the former, reporting it as the latter is sloppy at best, fallacious pandering at worst. See, what bothers me about this is that instead of highlighting the actually interesting legal question of whether installing such GPS devices is a violation of civil liberties or should require a warrant--the things Afifi is actually suing over--TechDirt (among scores of others in the giant web echo chamber) just throws this into the "look at this fucking government" bin where it does little more than reaffirm, 2 minutes hate-style, whatever the reader already believed.
- lurchpop 16y ago
  That's not a misleading angle. During that encounter when he asked why he was being followed they cited the out-of-context Reddit conversation.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    Where I said "misleading" you seem to be interpreting me as saying "false". The comment is relevant, sure, but leaving out everything else changes the interpretation of the story significantly.
- furyg3 16y ago
  Replace the words with whatever country is 'scary' to you, and you've got probable cause! "His lawyers say Wing, who was born in the United States, was targeted because of his extensive ties to asia — he travels there frequently, helps support two brothers who live in China, and his father was a well-known Asian-American community leader who died last year in China." Ridiculous... racism is not probable cause.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    > Ridiculous... racism is not probable cause. It is when ignorance is your knowledge base.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >"well-known Islamic-American community leader" This sort of comment I always assume is double-talk (government-ese maybe) for someone who they know has close ties to terrorists. I'm guessing one of the family has been undertaking some "terrorist" activities and that makes it look bad for Afifi as he's sending money home. Of course this is speculation and Afifi himself wouldn't likely know if it were true or not so I have no way of knowing either.
    - chalst 16y ago
      You've been reading too much Daniel Pipes.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        I'd never heard of him.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      Martin Luther King was a "well-known Christian-American community leader". That's how you should read it. That you think otherwise means they already managed to indoctrinate you that far, to accept the seeds of doubt and mistrust they try to plant. That way, however it turns out, they are always right.
- Confusion 16y ago
  I'd rather say they are being less inflammatory than possible. That a single Reddit comment triggered the placing of the device is silly in itself, but once you realize that only happened because he was already under surveillance for the unacceptable reason of having 'extensive ties to the Middle East', it just adds insult to injury.

davidk0101 16y ago

All these goof-ups by the FBI don't paint a pretty picture about the agency at all and I'm surprised some news agency isn't up in arms about their funding and incompetence like they are with the teachers' unions.

HelloBeautiful 16y ago
When was the last time you saw a mainstream US news agency in arms about a government agency?
- ja2ke 16y ago
  Any time the news agency is Fox and the government agency is a public or social service, so, reasonably often.
raganwald 16y ago
All these goof-ups by the FBI don't paint a pretty picture about the agency Do you mean the agency founded by J. Edgar Hoover? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoov... Its founding principle was that there are baddies out there who need a special force of investigators who have powers far exceeding the regular police and who collect dossiers on suspicious citizens rather than simply waiting for crimes to occur and then investigating. In a certain sense, they aren't being incompetent, they're doing exactly what they were designed to do. The problem isn't the execution, it's the mandate. Here's another tidbit: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO
- davidk0101 16y ago
  I have no problem with the mandate. It's the clear lack of competence in intelligence gathering that bothers me. Who honestly considers anything said on reddit to be of any significant value to state security matters? They might as well throw a dart on some board and make decisions that way if they are so desperate as to use postings from reddit.
- 16y ago

smutticus 16y ago

What I don't get is why he had to give it back. Since the FBI stuck it to his car isn't it his now? When they came to demand it back he should have refused. Are they going to arrest him for harboring stolen property? They gave it to him.

ErrantX 16y ago
If I recall correctly he did ask for proof that it was theirs before he would hand it back, but I seem to remember they refused and basically threatened him into returning it.
- Evgeny 16y ago
  What would they do to him if he just destroyed it as a suspicious, unknown, but potentially dangerous object?
  - SandB0x 16y ago
    Or had "accidentally" dislodged it and attached it to a freight truck.
    - mcantor 16y ago
      "Jeez. This guy really drives a lot, for a student."
  - kgo 16y ago
    On the reddit thread way back, many people pointed out he could be charged with destruction of government property. I believe a few people even had precedences of this actually happening. But I'm not going to dig through the thread, so I'll mark my own comment as [Citation Needed].

hollerith 16y ago

If this is how they react to a comment on Reddit, just think of how much quicker or more drastic their reaction to a similarly provocative comment on a site with the ominous name Hacker News. ("ominous name": Although the word Hacker is not ominous to most of us, it is to almost all non-technical members of the Washington establishment.)

mkr-hn 16y ago
PG could be in your house stealing your megahertz right now.
acangiano 16y ago
Prosecutor: "Is it true Mr. Hollerith that you self-identify as a hacker and that you frequent a community of hackers known as Hacker News?" You: "Yes, but..." Prosecutor: "A simple yes or no will suffice." You: "There are questions that can't be answered with a simple yes or no. For example, you could ask me if I have stopped beating my wife." Prosecutor: "Have you, Mr. Hollerith?" In short, a jury of "peers" is not going to be comprised of peers. On average they are people who have a poor grasp of logic, statistics, and the personality of hackers. They'll judge you based on the way you look, talk, etc... And since you are all Mr. Smarty Pants, members of the average jury will not trust you, like you, or relate with you. As such, hacker types have a major disadvantage in court, even before tossing around labels that are considered as "shady" by the general public.
- jotr99 16y ago
  I've found the response "The question assumes facts not in evidence" to be a fine answer to questions of that nature.
- mcantor 16y ago
  Is it permissible in American courts to require the prosecutor to unambiguously define "hacker" before answering? If not, can you feign ignorance of the definition and explain that you are thus literally incapable of providing an honest & informed answer; and since you are under oath, require a definition before answering?

tptacek 16y ago

For my little branch of this comment thread, can we leave aside the FBI's reason for planting a GPS monitor? Just assume the FBI had no reason whatsoever. That they did it randomly. I tend to agree that in this case, they didn't seem to have a good reason. But, then: Exactly what is the damage this guy suffered? What's he suing over? Why should it be unconstitutional for the FBI to use technology to do something they can clearly already do without technology? It is not a violation of your civil rights for an unmarked car to follow you around and watch you. There clearly is a line here, so let me foreclose on that response right up front. Yes, it would be unconstitutional if the FBI tried to track all of us, by making coded GPS monitors mandatory on all cars. But in this case, if they couldn't plant the monitor, they could just follow him. He'd have no case. It's almost exactly the same loss of privacy. So why it such a big deal in the GPS case?

rokhayakebe 16y ago
I was once followed by the FBI (without my knowledge). They were following someone I knew and I was at their house frequently. They did this for quite some time. I ended up having to meet with an agent to answer his questions. I made sure to meet him at lunch time so he could buy me lunch if he needed me. It ended up being at a coffee shop. He explained to me a situation and wrapped the case (it was a false alert). He promised I would never hear from him again or his agency, but with these guys who knows. I felt a bit weird, but one thing is for sure, if the FBI is following you at least you have somewhat of a protection.
iujyhfgtrtgyhju 16y ago
>Exactly what is the damage this guy suffered? What's he suing over? That's what we are trying to find out! He was being spied on because he has a foreign sounding name - is he now on a no-fly list? is he on a secret do-no-hirelist for defense companies? for telecoms companies? for any companies with govt contracts? Does the FBI secretly OK who state colleges accept? If being secretly tracked by the secret police is no real damage - at what point is there damage? When the cattle trucks arrive ? Or when they get over 6Million
- tptacek 16y ago

waterlesscloud 16y ago

Leaving aside the particulars of this case since all we've heard so far is what his lawyers are saying happened, the troubling issue here is that somehow attaching a GPS device is an action that does not require a warrant. I can accept the argument that it doesn't gather information that couldn't be gathered by other warrantless activity such as following him with agents. But it also MUST require that they entered the personal property of his car. You can't search a car without consent or a warrant, why can you enter it without either?

Kilimanjaro 16y ago

If they can plant a GPS in your car, what will stop them from planting a microphone or video camera in your bedroom? Wiretapping is so common nowadays that we don't even complain any more.

naner 16y ago

He didn't find it "due to Reddit." His mechanic noticed it when doing maintenance work (it was hidden improperly and was an older, bulkier model). Then the kid posted a picture of it to Reddit and asked what it was. Shortly after the FBI showed up at his house and asked for it back.

mitcheme 16y ago
I think the headline is supposed to mean that the GPS device was on his car due to a Reddit comment. It is a really awkward headline though.

code_duck 16y ago

The consensus here seems to be that the FBI crossed the line from passive to active tracking, and should have needed a warrant, when they entered his property to place the GPS device into his vehicle. Tracking you by something like GPS on your cell phone doesn't require physical interaction with your property. The effect is similar, though. What's the difference?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

ajays 16y ago

I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but: some people seem to be saying, "what's the harm? what damage did he suffer?". I'd like to point them to Kyllo -vs- United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States . Basically, the USSC ruled that taking a thermal image of a house amounted to "unreasonable search". Even though the heat rays emanating from the dwelling can be considered "public knowledge", the cops can't use it to then conclude that there's a grow op in the house. So, just because something is sorta "public" it doesn't mean the cops can reach for it.

jeza 16y ago
Wouldn't it be a little scary finding such a device in your car? At first, you might wonder if it's linked to a a bomb. Then if you consider it's a tracking device, who is actually following you? I'm sure it's enough to give some people at least moderate anxiety and others possible severe. Who knows what else.

printerjam 16y ago

Open information systems (the internet) leads to all sorts of changes in closed system (Middle Eastern governments, State Departments, the FBI). The internet is fun again.

shennyg 16y ago

Not sure if I missed it but what was the comment he posted that flagged him to the FBI?

eapen 16y ago
This was actually his friend's comment on Reddit. 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...