4 ms·

FBI admits to using Carrier IQ data

75 points by adeelarshad82 15y ago

revscat 15y ago
And just like that, NFC was killed before it ever even had a chance to mature. Also -- and it pains me to say this, because until now I have considered him to be a nutcase -- but RMS was right.[1] [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallma...
- cq 15y ago
  If you considered him a nutcase, you might want to reassess the methods which you use to determine if someone is a nutcase. I'm not really surprised by this. The FBI is a horrible organization, just like most wings of the US government.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    Complete abstention from modern methods of communications because "zOMG GOVERNMENT" puts one squarely into nutcase territory. And I'm not even going to get into his behavior and demands at talks. RMS is a well-intentioned nutcase, but a nutcase nonetheless.
    - revscat 15y ago
      That's my point, though. He is not a nutcase, and his warnings were spot on. Since 9/11 this nation has descended into an oligarchical police state, wherein all federal policies serve either national security, which more often than not means "protect the wealthy from the middle- or lower classes." This is not crazy talk. It might have been 30 years ago, but it is no longer. RMS is NOT a nutcase. He's spot-on.
      - roc 15y ago
        It can be both. Only a very few people are willing to adhere as tightly to a set of ideals as RMS, despite the severe personal hassle and time/energy expenditure. Perhaps 'nutcase' is unnecessarily pejorative but his behavior places him well outside the bell curve under which the vast bulk of humanity falls. Regardless of whether those ideals are correct/justifiable/etc.
    - spodek 15y ago
      You're saying someone whom you refer to by his email username completely abstains from modern methods of communication?
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      I think too often "nutcase" is just a less well-reasoned way of saying, "decision weighting algorithm has different priors from mine," or, "doesn't conform to societal norms," rather than the "makes decisions with no rational basis" that the word seems to imply.
- codezero 15y ago
  Be fair, he is a nutcase AND he was right :)
frankc 15y ago
This is being wildly overinterpreted. It could just as well mean that the FBI is investigating CarrierIQ for misconduct. You can't FOIA this stuff during an active investigation for obvious reasons. I'm not saying this is necessarrily what's going on, but we shouldn't be jumping to the worst conclusions either.
- ajross 15y ago
  It could, but that seems awfully naive. Is there any precedent for the justice department pursuing a civil privacy case via secret (!) FBI investigation? As opposed to, you know, just filing a suit and getting the relevant documents during discovery?
  - evgen 15y ago
    What makes you think this is a civil privacy case? It is quite possible carrier iq was violating federal wiretapping statutes, which will put people into prison for years if convicted. In a criminal investigation you need to, you know, gather sufficient evidence and justification to get a search warrant so that you can dig into bits that are not out in public; a manual describing what the software actually does is one piece of data that would help in this case.
    - ajross 15y ago
      I don't buy it. I'm not aware of any similar investigation of a corporate entity like that, are you? What would be the point when you could just subpoena the relavant documents? Why must they have secrecy? I'm no law enforcement expert, but the kind of scenario you posit just doesn't seem to happen in the real world. On the other hand, the FBI has been repeatedly caught with its hand in the surveilance cookie jar. Seriously, given the available evidence you can't honestly say you find it more likely that the FBI is secretly investigating an existing company than that it's using that company's data for law enforcement surveilance. Can you?
      - evgen 15y ago
JadeNB 15y ago
I'm with frankc (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347998); much as I suspect that nefarious goings-on are, well, going on, this seems more like evidence of over-reaching reflexive secret-keeping than of the FBI using CIQ data. (That's not to say that I don't believe it's happening, just that I don't believe that the FBI was 'tricked' into revealing anything here that it didn't want to reveal.) Is there anyone out there with more experience of FOIA requests who can indicate whether this response (which the article itself calls a 'canned denial') actually indicates anything substantive, or is just boilerplate?
jolie 15y ago
I've been in touch with CIQ and have written about both sides of the story. CIQ told me that if the FBI got CIQ's data, they got it from carriers, not from CIQ. It kinda makes sense, since law enforcement work with carriers all the freakin time anyhow. Full statement is here: http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/13/carrier-iq-fbi-rebuttal/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/13/carrier-iq-fbi-rebuttal/
- revscat 15y ago
  While this might shift the blame, it does not in the least change the outrageousness of the facts.
  - jolie 15y ago
    That the FBI gets data about supposed criminals from mobile carriers? That they usually have something like a warrant or probable cause to do so? I'm all about carrying a torch & pitchfork when it's necessary, but I find other government-sponsored BS (SOPA, for example) a bit more compelling & troublesome at the moment. From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides, it seems unlikely that the government is watching your every move if you're not doing something wrong or at least suspicious. It's not a perfect system, but it's not something to put Carrier IQ out of business for, either.
    - Sympta 15y ago
      "I'm all about carrying a torch & pitchfork when it's necessary" You are illiterate.
    - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
      "From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides, it seems unlikely that the government is watching your every move if you're not doing something wrong or at least suspicious." Ah, the old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument...
Kylekramer 15y ago
As much as it gins up page views, denial of access isn't proof of existence (you know once you are citing X-Files as your proof, you've gone off the deep end). I can easily see denying a FOI request on the grounds of "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings" as a simple rubber stamp way of avoiding to have go through the process of looking for the information that may not even exist. Not that it is less alarming, but I hate hazy conjecture boldly presented as fact.
losethos 15y ago
You think the FBI is bad, you ain't seen God! Mind reading sucks. No porn. Not even lustful thoughts, allowed. God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\HUCKFINN.TXT t." The duke bristles up now, and says: "Oh, let UP on this cussed nonsense; do you take me for a blame' fool? Don't you reckon I know who hid that money in that coffin?" "YES, sir! I know you DO know, because you done it yourself!" "It's a lie!"--and the duke went for him. The king sings out: "Take y'r hands off!--leggo my throat!--I take it all back!" The duke says: "Well, you just own up, first, that you DID hide that money there, intending to give me the slip one of these days,
AlekseyKorzun 15y ago
Faulty headline; FBI did not admit to anything. Please stop paying attention to findings of an idiot who had no clue what he is doing. http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/view/20285/Dan-Rosenberg-Gives-The-Real-Story-On-CarrierIQ.html http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/view/20285/Dan-Rosenberg... Read what real researchers have to say on this subject.
privacyguru 15y ago
No, the FBI did NOT admit to using Carrier IQ data. http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-not-proof-software-being-used http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-not-p...

75 points by adeelarshad82 15y ago

And just like that, NFC was killed before it ever even had a chance to mature. Also -- and it pains me to say this, because until now I have considered him to be a nutcase -- but RMS was right.[1] [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallman.html http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-stallma...

cq 15y ago
If you considered him a nutcase, you might want to reassess the methods which you use to determine if someone is a nutcase. I'm not really surprised by this. The FBI is a horrible organization, just like most wings of the US government.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  Complete abstention from modern methods of communications because "zOMG GOVERNMENT" puts one squarely into nutcase territory. And I'm not even going to get into his behavior and demands at talks. RMS is a well-intentioned nutcase, but a nutcase nonetheless.
  - revscat 15y ago
    That's my point, though. He is not a nutcase, and his warnings were spot on. Since 9/11 this nation has descended into an oligarchical police state, wherein all federal policies serve either national security, which more often than not means "protect the wealthy from the middle- or lower classes." This is not crazy talk. It might have been 30 years ago, but it is no longer. RMS is NOT a nutcase. He's spot-on.
    - roc 15y ago
      It can be both. Only a very few people are willing to adhere as tightly to a set of ideals as RMS, despite the severe personal hassle and time/energy expenditure. Perhaps 'nutcase' is unnecessarily pejorative but his behavior places him well outside the bell curve under which the vast bulk of humanity falls. Regardless of whether those ideals are correct/justifiable/etc.
  - spodek 15y ago
    You're saying someone whom you refer to by his email username completely abstains from modern methods of communication?
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    I think too often "nutcase" is just a less well-reasoned way of saying, "decision weighting algorithm has different priors from mine," or, "doesn't conform to societal norms," rather than the "makes decisions with no rational basis" that the word seems to imply.
codezero 15y ago
Be fair, he is a nutcase AND he was right :)

frankc 15y ago

This is being wildly overinterpreted. It could just as well mean that the FBI is investigating CarrierIQ for misconduct. You can't FOIA this stuff during an active investigation for obvious reasons. I'm not saying this is necessarrily what's going on, but we shouldn't be jumping to the worst conclusions either.

ajross 15y ago
It could, but that seems awfully naive. Is there any precedent for the justice department pursuing a civil privacy case via secret (!) FBI investigation? As opposed to, you know, just filing a suit and getting the relevant documents during discovery?
- evgen 15y ago
  What makes you think this is a civil privacy case? It is quite possible carrier iq was violating federal wiretapping statutes, which will put people into prison for years if convicted. In a criminal investigation you need to, you know, gather sufficient evidence and justification to get a search warrant so that you can dig into bits that are not out in public; a manual describing what the software actually does is one piece of data that would help in this case.
  - ajross 15y ago
    I don't buy it. I'm not aware of any similar investigation of a corporate entity like that, are you? What would be the point when you could just subpoena the relavant documents? Why must they have secrecy? I'm no law enforcement expert, but the kind of scenario you posit just doesn't seem to happen in the real world. On the other hand, the FBI has been repeatedly caught with its hand in the surveilance cookie jar. Seriously, given the available evidence you can't honestly say you find it more likely that the FBI is secretly investigating an existing company than that it's using that company's data for law enforcement surveilance. Can you?
    - evgen 15y ago

JadeNB 15y ago

I'm with frankc (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347998); much as I suspect that nefarious goings-on are, well, going on, this seems more like evidence of over-reaching reflexive secret-keeping than of the FBI using CIQ data. (That's not to say that I don't believe it's happening, just that I don't believe that the FBI was 'tricked' into revealing anything here that it didn't want to reveal.) Is there anyone out there with more experience of FOIA requests who can indicate whether this response (which the article itself calls a 'canned denial') actually indicates anything substantive, or is just boilerplate?

jolie 15y ago

I've been in touch with CIQ and have written about both sides of the story. CIQ told me that if the FBI got CIQ's data, they got it from carriers, not from CIQ. It kinda makes sense, since law enforcement work with carriers all the freakin time anyhow. Full statement is here: http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/13/carrier-iq-fbi-rebuttal/ http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/13/carrier-iq-fbi-rebuttal/

revscat 15y ago
While this might shift the blame, it does not in the least change the outrageousness of the facts.
- jolie 15y ago
  That the FBI gets data about supposed criminals from mobile carriers? That they usually have something like a warrant or probable cause to do so? I'm all about carrying a torch & pitchfork when it's necessary, but I find other government-sponsored BS (SOPA, for example) a bit more compelling & troublesome at the moment. From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides, it seems unlikely that the government is watching your every move if you're not doing something wrong or at least suspicious. It's not a perfect system, but it's not something to put Carrier IQ out of business for, either.
  - Sympta 15y ago
    "I'm all about carrying a torch & pitchfork when it's necessary" You are illiterate.
  - lawnchair_larry 15y ago
    "From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides, it seems unlikely that the government is watching your every move if you're not doing something wrong or at least suspicious." Ah, the old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument...

Kylekramer 15y ago

As much as it gins up page views, denial of access isn't proof of existence (you know once you are citing X-Files as your proof, you've gone off the deep end). I can easily see denying a FOI request on the grounds of "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings" as a simple rubber stamp way of avoiding to have go through the process of looking for the information that may not even exist. Not that it is less alarming, but I hate hazy conjecture boldly presented as fact.

losethos 15y ago

You think the FBI is bad, you ain't seen God! Mind reading sucks. No porn. Not even lustful thoughts, allowed. God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\HUCKFINN.TXT t." The duke bristles up now, and says: "Oh, let UP on this cussed nonsense; do you take me for a blame' fool? Don't you reckon I know who hid that money in that coffin?" "YES, sir! I know you DO know, because you done it yourself!" "It's a lie!"--and the duke went for him. The king sings out: "Take y'r hands off!--leggo my throat!--I take it all back!" The duke says: "Well, you just own up, first, that you DID hide that money there, intending to give me the slip one of these days,

AlekseyKorzun 15y ago

Faulty headline; FBI did not admit to anything. Please stop paying attention to findings of an idiot who had no clue what he is doing. http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/view/20285/Dan-Rosenberg-Gives-The-Real-Story-On-CarrierIQ.html http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/view/20285/Dan-Rosenberg... Read what real researchers have to say on this subject.

privacyguru 15y ago

No, the FBI did NOT admit to using Carrier IQ data. http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-not-proof-software-being-used http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-not-p...