FBI access to e-mail and Web records raises fears
by PETE YOST,Associated Press Writer
1 month ago | 662 views | 16 16 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
This Sept. 1, 1999, file photo, shows lights burning at FBI Headquarters in Washington. Invasion of privacy in the Internet age. Expanding the reach of law enforcement to snoop on e-mail traffic or on Web surfing. Those are among the criticisms being aimed at the FBI as it tries to update a key surveillance law. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
This Sept. 1, 1999, file photo, shows lights burning at FBI Headquarters in Washington. Invasion of privacy in the Internet age. Expanding the reach of law enforcement to snoop on e-mail traffic or on Web surfing. Those are among the criticisms being aimed at the FBI as it tries to update a key surveillance law. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
slideshow
WASHINGTON (AP) — Invasion of privacy in the Internet age. Expanding the reach of law enforcement to snoop on e-mail traffic or on Web surfing. Those are among the criticisms being aimed at the FBI as it tries to update a key surveillance law.

With its proposed amendment, is the Obama administration merely clarifying a statute or expanding it? Only time and a suddenly on guard Congress will tell.

Federal law requires communications providers to produce records in counterintelligence investigations to the FBI, which doesn't need a judge's approval and court order to get them.

They can be obtained merely with the signature of a special agent in charge of any FBI field office and there is no need even for a suspicion of wrongdoing, merely that the records would be relevant in a counterintelligence or counterterrorism investigation. The person whose records the government wants doesn't even need to be a suspect.

The bureau's use of these so-called national security letters to gather information has a checkered history.

The bureau engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority to issue the letters, illegally collecting data from Americans and foreigners, the Justice Department's inspector general concluded in 2007. The bureau issued 192,499 national security letter requests from 2003 to 2006.

Weathering that controversy, the FBI has continued its reliance on the letters to gather information from telephone companies, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses with personal records about their customers or subscribers — and Internet service providers.

That last source is the focus of the Justice Department's push to get Congress to modify the law.

The law already requires Internet service providers to produce the records, said Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department's national security division. But he said as written it also causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary litigation as some Internet companies have argued they are not always obligated to comply with the FBI requests.

A key Democrat on Capitol Hill, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, wants a timeout.

The administration's proposal to change the Electronic Communications Privacy Act "raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns," Leahy said Thursday in a statement.

"While the government should have the tools that it needs to keep us safe, American citizens should also have protections against improper intrusions into their private electronic communications and online transactions," said Leahy, who plans hearings in the fall on this and other issues involving the law.

Critics are lined up in opposition to what the Obama administration wants to do.

"The FBI is playing a shell game," says Al Gidari, whose clients have included major online companies, wireless service providers and their industry association.

"This is a huge expansion" of the FBI's authority "and burying it this way in the intelligence authorization bill is really intended to bury it from scrutiny," Gidari added.

Boyd, the Justice spokesman, said the changes being proposed will not allow the government to obtain or collect new categories of information; rather it simply seeks to clarify what Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993, he argued.

Critics, however, point to a 2008 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel which found that the FBI's reach with national security letters extends only as far as getting a person's name, address, the period in which they were a customer and the numbers dialed on a telephone or to that phone.

The problem the FBI has been having is that some providers, relying on the 2008 Justice opinion — issued during the Bush administration — have refused to turn over Internet records such as information about who a person e-mails and who has e-mailed them and information about a person's Web surfing history.

To deal with the issue, there's no need to change the law since the FBI has the authority to obtain the same information with a court order issued under a broad section of the Patriot Act, said Gregory Nojeim, director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit Internet privacy group.

The critics say the proposed change would allow the FBI to remove federal judges and courts from scrutiny of its requests for sensitive information.

"The implications of the proposal are that no court is deciding whether even that low standard of 'relevance' is met," said Nojeim. "The FBI uses national security letters to find not just who the target of an investigation e-mailed, but also who those people e-mailed and who e-mailed them."
comments (16)
« Mipoco wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:40 PM »
FormerRoman wrote: "Obama has a VERY thin skin."

and

"Mystic, here's the latest example of our fine dictator.

A thin skinned dictator?
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:22 PM »
FormerRoman writes: "reagan did it, but the numbers weren't like these."

Apples and oranges. Reagan was a white Republican; Obama is a black Democrat. And all that anger you are placing so much faith in isn't as focussed as you'd like. If the GOP had a viable front runner or two, the average Republican could just sit back and wait this one out -- just as we Dems thought we could do with pre-9/11 Bush.

The anger, I think, stems from a creeping sense of HELPLESSNESS that even the GOP can't save you. And helpless isn't the best emotion to get people to the polls.

« FormerRoman wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:15 PM »
Mystic, happy hour hasn't started yet..If Obama gives these illegals amnesty-Then Democrats are DONE!..aqbout 60 % of the country will be outraged..reagan did it, but the numbers weren't like these..BTW-Not a Scotch drinker..And in the post below SR1 wasn't referring to you, but rather blah,blah,blah..
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:07 PM »
FormerRoman: It's your use of terms like "dictator" that vindicate my decision to refer to you as a kook in the below post. If President Obama is a dictator, then so was his predecessor, and so will any future president who doesn't a.) Repeal the Patriot Act; b.) Get the U.S. out of the Middle East; or c.) Do something about reversing the growth of government.

Go easy on the scotch. It isn't even 5 o'clock yet.
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:05 PM »
And your point? We survived eight years with the Patriot Act, complain as we did. Now you can live with it for another eight, complain as you will.
« FormerRoman wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 03:04 PM »
Mystic, here's the latest example of our fine dictator..He's trying to circumvent Congress on imigration reform and declare amnesty for all illegals presently here..He's out of control with all these Czars and end runs around Congress..Hell, he even scared Pat Leahy!.We've lost our checks and balances system with this man!..He better act fast because come November he'll be standing on one leg.
« cranky71 wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 02:56 PM »
Bush made it, Obama campaigned against it, and now Obama reenacts it without much fuss from the Left. If it twas wrong then it is wrong now. If someone was against it then they got to really hate the new additions even more. Sorry, but got a suspicious eye turned on toward anything that gets sneaked out of Washington nowadays.
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 02:38 PM »
cranky71: The Patriot Act was the brainchild of the Bush Administration, and enacted during its first term. After this and other deeds, George W Bush was re-elected. Presumably, if yours was among those votes to re-elect, you thought the Patriot Act was a good idea. But now, you seem to have a problem with it. What gives?

« cranky71 wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 02:07 PM »
In case some of you werent looking, Obama signed and reenacted the Patriot Act earlier this year as it was ready to expire. Nary a newscamera to be found commemorating this historic event. The Left barely said a thing about it, the very ones who howled and yelled about it during the Bush era remained silent. Now you got Democrats not supporting the shady crap being slipped into it. New administration, new President, same old hanky panky going on. I agree totally with both of FormerRomans posts.
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 01:29 PM »
FormerRoman writes: "Obama has a VERY thin skin..He doesn't take criticism well."

Aside from his well-publicized denouncements of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh -- whose rhetoric only serve to further toxify this country's deeply dysfunctional national conversation -- can you cite some compelling examples? Of the president actually using the power of government to silence critics, I mean? Because that's the only way a thin skin would be a democratic liability, as opposed to being, well, just a thin skin.

« Mipoco wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 01:09 PM »
I believe he has thicker skin and takes criticism much better than the act he followed. He has a lot more class as well.

Here, sneak a peek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tq27KXKtuE

« FormerRoman wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 12:39 PM »
Whoa, I'll claim to be retired,conservative and sometimes bored...But, I'll draw the line at KOOK..I know what's coming from this White House..Obama has a VERY thin skin..He doesn't take criticism well.
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 11:10 AM »
What's more, FBI shenanigans of this sort have been going on since before Barack Obama was even born. J Edgar Hoover transformed the bureau into his own personal police state within the government. It has always had the potential for rogue behavior, regardless of the administration in power. Obama has more than enough on his hands than to worry about snooping into people's emails and Internet behavior, except in the overheated imaginations of bored (often retired) conservative kooks.
« Mipoco wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 10:51 AM »
This is all true REM. .

"The FBI is playing a shell game," says Al Gidari,

People need to look to see how it applies to their individual internet use and behavior.

As to email personally I get very little spam yet I have a very wide range of sites that I visit. With the number of sites I visit it seems that I would be covered up. In July I have received only one spam email. All other email is business and family.

They either might get bored at my email or they are looking and keeping it. I am missing two business emails from yesterday.
« RealEstateMystic wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 09:14 AM »
FormerRoman writes: "Just more governmental control from the Obama administration to silence their critics..He also wants to silence talk radio and the cable chatter.."

The article is about the FBI and whether this snooping (which goes back to the Bush era, if you bothered to keep reading) is legal. It further states that "to deal with the issue, there's no need to change the law since the FBI has the authority to obtain the same information with a court order issued under a broad section of the Patriot Act."

The Patriot Act, of course, was a creation of the Bush Congress.

If you want to be paranoid, you've had about ten years to get that way.
« FormerRoman wrote on Friday, Jul 30 at 08:58 AM »
Just more governmental control from the Obama administration to silence their critics..He also wants to silence talk radio and the cable chatter..Soon, if you criticize him on the Net, the feds will probably be knocking on your door with charges of treason.