# Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?



## Makalakumu (Jan 15, 2005)

Read and Comment...



> Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?
> By IPR
> Jan 14, 2005, 15:27
> 
> ...



upnorthkyosa


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 15, 2005)

They are going to do whatever they feel like. In the early seventies my friends Mom told me that at the phone company where she worked as an operator the Maryland state police would sit at the switchboard and listen in to phone conversations almost daily without a warrant.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 15, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> They are going to do whatever they feel like. In the early seventies my friends Mom told me that at the phone company where she worked as an operator the Maryland state police would sit at the switchboard and listen in to phone conversations almost daily without a warrant.



And as long as we simply give in to this sort of behavior without a fight, we're betraying everything that we supposedly hold dear about American freedom.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> And as long as we simply give in to this sort of behavior without a fight, we're betraying everything that we supposedly hold dear about American freedom.


That I can agree with.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 15, 2005)

A point to remember, aside from the legality of the event, is that theres a difference between the "listening" and what can actually be used as evidence in court. Personally, I dont agree with listening in on private communications without a warrant.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 15, 2005)

On the otherhand, this story is about tracking what web pages people are looking at, not hacking into e-mail. Dont commercial outfits monitor our web reading habits as a matter of course. Or at least try to?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont commercial outfits monitor our web reading habits as a matter of course. Or at least try to?


Yes.  But typically you have to agree to it in a EULA even if you dont mean to/want to.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 15, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yes. But typically you have to agree to it in a EULA even if you dont mean to/want to.


Thats true...read evertyhing.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 15, 2005)

In our county all of the inmate phone conversations are recorded, but it tells you that in a voice recording when the call is connected.  You'd still be surprised how many admit to stuff over the phone when talking to people.


That being said, spyware tracks where you have been.  Yahoo Groups also tracks all of the places you go.  Gov't is no different in wanting to know things.  But, as has been said knowing information and acting on that information without a warrant are completely different ( I don't think anyone should be able to track your online stuff, period whether it is gov't or business).


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 15, 2005)

It is been said many times that there are certian words, phrases, books, sites that are "flagged" by the (higher) LEO agencies that will give cause for them to watch an individual henceforth. With recent events (Oklahoma city, Ruby Ridge, 9-11, etc.) this is ...umm, understandable to a point. Their intent is to ensure the safety of the American people so that such events don't occur again. 
However; where do we draw the line? Where do THEY draw the line? What is investigation and what is paranoia. A student doing a study of the Manhattan project for their history paper might get flagged. Another doing research on anthrax and choleria. Someone interested in looking up Fascism and Communism or the Civil Rights Movement. Another still out of curiosity finding the well known pro-terrorist web-page. Are these potential threats to our "National Security" ? Or are they just folks doing studies, research, satisfying their curiosity? 
Is everyone a potential terrorist, revoluntionary? How can they tell? 
What about on a "personal" level. Those studying criminal law or social services looking up items related to drugs, pornography (i.e. child), and other criminal activities. Are they criminals or those wishing to study, know more? 

We are thinking that we have a right to privacy and we do (at least we're supposed to) have a degree of privacy so long as it doesn't impunge upon the privacy of others without consent.  But without a warrant, by law LEO's cannot (should not) look at our private lives/thoughts/actions.  Judges are supposed to be able to demand "just-cause" by those seeking warrants and be assurred that it is for investigative purposes in the event of a crime or potential crime because of prior history.  Prior history is another thing to consider as well. Just because a person has done something wrong once does it absolutely, positively guarantee that they will do it again?  The odds are in LEO's favor (unfortunately for them and for us -- the innocent). 

The whole system needs revamping and restructuring. There needs to be a better way to ensure Americans (and World) safety) than the methods we are employing now. The internet is a great and terrible thing. How we use it determines that. How we are going to judge those using it could be better. 
Although it was Hollywood hype, "Enemy of the State" was a great movie that looked at this. 



			
				Peach Monkey said:
			
		

> And as long as we simply give in to this sort of behavior without a fight, we're betraying everything that we supposedly hold dear about American freedom.


I agree absolutely! It's just HOW are we going to fight this behavior is the question. 
 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 15, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> And as long as we simply give in to this sort of behavior without a fight, we're betraying everything that we supposedly hold dear about American freedom.


Yup yup!


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 16, 2005)

I'm not in the US, so it doesn't (I think) effect me in any way, but I am of the opinion that so long a person has done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.

Like I said just my opinion, I'm not looking for an arguement.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 16, 2005)

The threshold question for the discussion should be do you have a right to privacy for the electronic trail you leave while surfing in a public domain?  Much of the recent 4th amendment case law makes a distinction between your house and elsewhere.  A good analogy is warrantless measuring of heat exces from houses that might be engaged in marijuana growing operations.  Since the police activity doesn't involve any real physical  intrusion,  coupled with readily available technology to measure the heat, the courts take a different approach.    4th amendment protections are not absolute.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 16, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> And as long as we simply give in to this sort of behavior without a fight, we're betraying everything that we supposedly hold dear about American freedom.


I guess the question is how to fight it when the government won't even admit to the practice... Sure, the savvy web-user can use IP re-directors, and anonymous e-mail, but the average person has no idea how to do so...

Jeff


----------



## bignick (Jan 16, 2005)

I remember reading a while back the government developing keystroke loggers and other types of trojans and nasty little tricks to spy on people.  The thing was is that I believe they were trying to reach or had come to an agreement with the anti-virus industry to leave these programs off the detection list so there is nothing you could do to get rid of them, or even know you had them.  

Can they do it? Sure, it's pretty easy...

Should they, without a warrant? Absolutely not.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2005)

Probably sure they could do it... and reasonably sure that they WOULD do it. 
Thing is that (and I'm just presuming here so prepare a dose of Dr. Scholls' Toothpaste for me  ) you can buy anti-virus programs from foreign countries that wouldn't have these restrictions or whatever. 

Thing is that you have got to give the government a REASON to want to "spy" on you. Even if you typed out one of the flagged words or visited a "flagged" web-site you weren't the only one and they (I'm guessing) that they don't have the man power to watch every single person that does. 

We could start a campaign for everyone to type in "ATOMIC DEVICES" all on the same day and time and watch Langley or some other place blow up because their system gotten an overload of redflags popping up everywhere.  :lol: 

Seriously, you gotta give them just cause good enough for a judge to sign a warrant and you gotta give them good enough reason for them to have just cause to watch you in the first place. ... at least ... I'm hoping it's this way.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 17, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I guess the question is how to fight it when the government won't even admit to the practice... Sure, the savvy web-user can use IP re-directors, and anonymous e-mail, but the average person has no idea how to do so...



During the COINTELPRO days, the government wouldn't admit to actively spying on its citizens either, but it did so -- and sufficient activism by those citizens led to the end of the practice.  

Now, so many people are willing to give up their freedom in the name of "safety in the war on terrorism" that they refuse to fight these incursions.

It's not just about disrupting attempts to spy on you technologically -- it's about activism, as well as choosing political leaders who will respect their oaths to the Constitution.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 17, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> ...as well as choosing political leaders who will respect their oaths to the Constitution.


Does such a politician still exist? I found it doubtful, unless we get back to the original intent of the framers of said Constitution, average citizens serving terms  in office, as opposed to career politicians.

Jeff


----------



## OUMoose (Jan 17, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Thing is that you have got to give the government a REASON to want to "spy" on you. Even if you typed out one of the flagged words or visited a "flagged" web-site you weren't the only one and they (I'm guessing) that they don't have the man power to watch every single person that does.
> 
> We could start a campaign for everyone to type in "ATOMIC DEVICES" all on the same day and time and watch Langley or some other place blow up because their system gotten an overload of redflags popping up everywhere.  :lol:



They already do.  Here's an article about National Crash Eshelon Day.  For those that don't know, the Echelon project is a joint UK-USA project used to eavesdrop on all forms of electronic communication coming across the mediums today.  But...  As we saw on another thread, there's not many people here who believe "conspiracy" theories...    *goes back to his corner and puts on his tinfoil pyramid hat*


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> I'm not in the US, so it doesn't (I think) effect me in any way, but I am of the opinion that so long a person has done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.
> 
> Like I said just my opinion, I'm not looking for an arguement.




That argument, at first, seems cogent.  It fails in the following instances.

A police officer stops a person for an infraction or offense while operating a motor vehicle.  He asks that person to open the trunk.  The driver refuses.  The assumption on the officer's part at that time might be that the individual has something to hide.  We have several possibilities here...perhaps more, but I'll list a few:

1.  The person stopped does indeed have something to hide, and it is illegal.

2.  The person stopped has something to hide, but it isn't illegal--but perhaps embarrassing or socially compromising, or otherwise deemed by that person to be of a "private" nature.  This could range from controversial political literature to pictures of the driver in compromising situations with his secretary.

3.  The person being stopped isn't sure as to the legality of the contents of his trunk, given his ignorance of local laws.  He elects to err on the side of caution and refuses the officer's request.  The potential offense in question doesn't have to be some incredibly dark felony.  He might be driving through a state with weapons laws with which he was unfamiliar and remember--all too late--that he has a questionable martial arts weapon in his trunk and he had forgotten to put it there.  This could range from embarrassing (as in #2), to the criminal (as in #1).  He thus opts to exercise his right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.  

My wife, for instance, might borrow my car (without asking me) and realize at the moment of the stop that I might have put my gun(s) in the trunk.  She has no license and rather than try to explain herself out of the situation, she refuses the officer's request.

4.  The person being stopped has nothing to hide, but takes umbrage to the request as he as a sensitivity to civil rights issues and based on his knowledge of search and seizure laws, refuses the request on a matter of principle.  My attorney, a moral and upright man, would fit into this category.

5.  The person being stopped has nothing to hide but feels the stop and/or request was unreasonable and feels the officer had no valid reason for probable cause--this being complicated by a perception that he was politically, ethnically, or racially profiled.  


One can think up other scenarios involving a computer. 


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Jan 17, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> The threshold question for the discussion should be do you have a right to privacy for the electronic trail you leave while surfing in a public domain? Much of the recent 4th amendment case law makes a distinction between your house and elsewhere. A good analogy is warrantless measuring of heat exces from houses that might be engaged in marijuana growing operations. Since the police activity doesn't involve any real physical intrusion, coupled with readily available technology to measure the heat, the courts take a different approach. 4th amendment protections are not absolute.


In association with this point, heres a question for you guys. If I as a LEO were to use a pair of binoculars to look into your window and see you doing something illegal, would you say thats a 4th amendment violation? How about a thermal imager? A parabolic microphone? Where do you draw the "plain view" line?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 5. The person being stopped has nothing to hide but feels the stop and/or request was unreasonable and feels the officer had no valid reason for probable cause--this being complicated by a perception that he was politically, ethnically, or racially profiled.


If we have probable cause, we wouldnt be asking. 

Not too long ago a pair of officers asked a driver for consent to search and found a murdered body in the trunk...you never know if you dont ask.


----------



## OUMoose (Jan 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In association with this point, heres a question for you guys. If I as a LEO were to use a pair of binoculars to look into your window and see you doing something illegal, would you say thats a 4th amendment violation? How about a thermal imager? A parabolic microphone? Where do you draw the "plain view" line?


Unless you had a warrant on you, why are you looking/listening in my house with that equipment?  That's not exactly "plain view".  

If, as a LEO, you were walking by 2 guys standing on a porch talking about some illicit activity, I could see where that blurs the line a little.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 17, 2005)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Unless you had a warrant on you, why are you looking/listening in my house with that equipment? That's not exactly "plain view".
> 
> If, as a LEO, you were walking by 2 guys standing on a porch talking about some illicit activity, I could see where that blurs the line a little.


 
You will find this site interesting. Some of those are fully legal, some are not (but may be)...

http://www.criminal-defense-colorado-springs.com/Surveillance.htm 



> *BINOCULARS, TELESCOPE, TELESCOPIC LENS, PHOTO ENLARGEMENT*
> 
> Use of a bifocals, binoculars, field glass telescope or a similar device to magnify does not constitute an illegal search.  United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927).
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

If the object is in plain view, and the binocs are used to enhance the view...sure.  That's reasonable.  Unless of course you're watching my wife bathe.

But if you were going from house to house randomly, looking in with binoculars, that might be pushing the issue a bit.  I'm not sure that would pass the same constitutional test.  I don't doubt that issue will eventually pop up someday.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 18, 2005)

Hi HARDHEADJARHEAD,
 and thanks for the food for thought, however, I must still insist that as long as a person has done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about, if it is something socially embarassing, then I am sure that it will be treated with sensitivity, and if it is something inadvertantly illegal, then I would say that common sense would prevail, and any law enforcement officer would use their discretion wisely, failing that the judicial system.
Simon


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 18, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> ...however, I must still insist that as long as a person has done nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about, if it is something socially embarassing, then I am sure that it will be treated with sensitivity, and if it is something inadvertantly illegal, then I would say that common sense would prevail, and any law enforcement officer would use their discretion wisely, failing that the judicial system.


 The concept that "people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about" is a classic tool of police states and dictatorships everywhere, and runs counter to everything we believe about freedom.

 Moreover, the history of abuses of freedom and restriction on law enforcement in the United States alone will show you how the idea about common sense restraining socially embarassing data is fallacious.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 23, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The concept that "people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about" is a classic tool of police states and dictatorships everywhere, and runs counter to everything we believe about freedom.
> 
> Moreover, the history of abuses of freedom and restriction on law enforcement in the United States alone will show you how the idea about common sense restraining socially embarassing data is fallacious.


Perhaps so, but I am sure that there are more decent law enfocement personnel than otherwise.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 23, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Perhaps so, but I am sure that there are more decent law enfocement personnel than otherwise.



All it takes is the one less-than-decent law enforcement officer to ruin your life.  That's why checks and balances are crucial.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2005)

Checks and balances that are too often ignored, sadly.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> All it takes is the one less-than-decent law enforcement officer to ruin your life. That's why checks and balances are crucial.


Very true, but I went through a stage of getting pulled over about once per week about 10 years ago, because I was a young man with a fast car, just for routine checks (and I'm sure it isn't the same for everyone) but even though it was an inconvenience at the time, I thought about it later when my car got stolen, I wish they could have been around to stop the thieves.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 25, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> Very true, but I went through a stage of getting pulled over about once per week about 10 years ago, because I was a young man with a fast car, just for routine checks (and I'm sure it isn't the same for everyone) but even though it was an inconvenience at the time, I thought about it later when my car got stolen, I wish they could have been around to stop the thieves.



When they were pulling you over, they were likely decent law-enforcement officers doing their jobs.  When your car was stolen, they were likely decent law-enforcement officers that can't possibly be everywhere at once.

Neither point is relevant to the fact that checks and balances are required for the rare isolated case when a less-than-decent LEO can wreak havoc.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 26, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> When they were pulling you over, they were likely decent law-enforcement officers doing their jobs. When your car was stolen, they were likely decent law-enforcement officers that can't possibly be everywhere at once.
> 
> Neither point is relevant to the fact that checks and balances are required for the rare isolated case when a less-than-decent LEO can wreak havoc.


No arguement from me there, but in my personal experience (as maybe I should have said in the start) police officers are generally decent and honest enough.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 26, 2005)

SIMONCURRAN said:
			
		

> No arguement from me there, but in my personal experience (as maybe I should have said in the start) police officers are generally decent and honest enough.


 That's certainly been my experience as well.  

 The system of checks and balances is there to protect us from both aberrations and from a systematized police state.


----------



## Simon Curran (Jan 26, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> That's certainly been my experience as well.
> 
> The system of checks and balances is there to protect us from both aberrations and from a systematized police state.


And more the better for it.


----------

