Or so say's former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a firm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes.
Best that they dot those i's and cross those t's ... lawsuits hang in the balance.
FBI’s search for ‘Mo,’ suspect in bomb threats, highlights use of malware for surveillance
by Craig Timberg and Ellen Nakashima, washingtonpost.com -- Dec 6, 2013
[...]
The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera -- without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording -- for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico, now on the advisory board of Subsentio, a firm that helps telecommunications carriers comply with federal wiretap statutes.
The FBI’s technology continues to advance as users move away from traditional computers and become more savvy about disguising their locations and identities. “Because of encryption and because targets are increasingly using mobile devices, law enforcement is realizing that more and more they’re going to have to be on the device -- or in the cloud,” Thomas said, referring to remote storage services. “There’s the realization out there that they’re going to have to use these types of tools more and more.”
The ability to remotely activate video feeds was among the issues cited in a case in Houston, where federal magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith rejected a search warrant request from the FBI in April. In that case, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, Smith ruled that the use of such technology in a bank fraud case was “extremely intrusive” and ran the risk of accidentally capturing information of people not under suspicion of any crime.
[...]
The FBI has got to go where the action is, does it not? Afterall Judges are there to protect the privacy interests of those caught unawares.
Or so the theory goes, anyways ... how about the practice?
FBI Taps Hacker Tactics to Spy on Suspects
by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries and Danny Yadron, wsj.com -- Aug. 3, 2013
[...]
A group at the FBI called the Remote Operations Unit takes a leading role in the bureau's hacking efforts, according to former officials.
Officers often install surveillance tools on computers remotely, using a document or link that loads software when the person clicks or views it. In some cases, the government has secretly gained physical access to suspects' machines and installed malicious software using a thumb drive, a former U.S. official said.
The bureau has controls to ensure only "relevant data" are scooped up, the person said. A screening team goes through all of the data pulled from the hack to determine what is relevant, then hands off that material to the case team and stops working on the case.
The FBI employs a number of hackers who write custom surveillance software, and also buys software from the private sector, former U.S. officials said.
[...]
The 'Bad Guys' have gone mobile -- so must those who chase them ... so the theory goes.
It's a brave, instantaneous, clickable world out there. One that moves at the speed of search engines.
Ex-FBI official claims organization can remotely activate the mic on Android phones to record user's conversations
by David Mccormack, dailymail.co.uk -- 2 August 2013
The FBI has developed the capability to remotely switch on the microphones in Android handsets and record user’s conversations, claims an anonymous former U.S. official.
The same technology also enables investigators to do the same to microphones in laptops without the user knowing, the person said.
[...]
What is new is that the FBI now has a dedicated hacking group -- the Remote Operations Unit.
‘[The FBI] hires people who have hacking skill, and they purchase tools that are capable of doing these things,’ said the former FBI official.
[...]
There must be rules, right? Procedures that get followed, to determine who should be surveilled, and who should not, right?
One would assume so ... but then again you know what they say "about assuming" ...
There must be rules, right? That determine when remote bugs get activated, and when they get squashed ...
Well we do have laws -- but those laws are primarily for catching 'the law-breakers'. You know, those deemed the "Bad Guys" by those others in the know ...
FBI hacking squad used in domestic investigations, experts say
by Suzanne Choney NBC News, nbcnews.com -- Aug. 6, 2013
[...]
Mark Rasch, former head of the Department of Justice's Computer Crimes Unit who has worked with the FBI in the past, said the existence of the hacking team is well-known, and that there are other similar teams, coordinating with private contractors.
"There's a whole bunch of groups in the FBI that do this," Rasch, now an independent consultant, told NBC News. "There's one that interfaces with telephone companies, another with Internet providers. These guys make 'critters' -- malware, a bug, virus, a worm -- that can infect the computer, the cellphone ... any kind of communication device."
However, he said, the FBI is obtaining court-approved warrants or wiretap orders to do the surveillance.
"If I'm going to turn on your camera on your laptop, I'm going to need to go through the same legal process that I would need in order to install a camera in your house," he said. "There are exceptions to the warrant requirement, but I would be surprised if they were doing this without a warrant or some kind of legal process."
Soghoian said he is not so sure that is the case. "We don't know much about what legal standards they follow," he said.
[...]
"There are exceptions to the warrant requirement" --
there are always "exceptions" -- especially with respect to when a "target" is deemed "tappable" ...
No worries though. It's all "under control." They've got a very "sophisticated surveillance system" that "collects, sifts, and stores" all the messy details ...
Profile: Operational Technology Division (FBI) (OTD)
Compiled by History Commons -- cooperativeresearch.org
Operational Technology Division (FBI) (OTD) was a participant or observer in the following events:
1997-August 2007 and After: FBI Builds Digital Collection System Network Enabling Real-Time Monitoring of US Communications
Starting in 1997, the FBI constructs a sophisticated surveillance system that can perform near-instantaneous wiretaps on almost any telephone, cell phone, and Internet communications device, according to documents declassified in August 2007. The system is called the Digital Collection System Network, or DCSNet. It connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by land-line operators, Internet-telephony companies, and cellular providers. The documents show that DCSNet is, in reporter Ryan Singel’s words, “far more intricately woven into the nation’s telecom infrastructure than observers suspected.” Steven Bellovin, a computer science professor and surveillance expert, calls DCSNet a “comprehensive wiretap system that intercepts wire-line phones, cellular phones, SMS [short message service, a protocol allowing mobile devices to exchange text messages], and push-to-talk systems.” The system is an entire suite of software that together collects, sifts, and stores phone numbers, phone calls, and text messages. The system directly connects FBI wiretapping offices around the country to a sprawling private communications network. [...]
Security Breaches -- The system is vulnerable to hacking and security breaches (see 2003). [Wired News, 8/29/2007]
They've got a very "sophisticated surveillance system" that "collects, sifts, and stores" all the details ... until that day, when
someone deems they
are relevant.
But, Who are those someones? ... and Why are "our personal effects" forever, archivally relevant? -- Now those are the right questions.
Questions ... that few running the "cloudy" operations, dare to precisely answer. Something about the lacking "Need to Know" -- you understand, right?
Besides as we all learned last decade:
"If you haven't done anything wrong ... you have Nothing {you still may have a lot to} to worry about."
That's
the One Rule that matters most it seems,
in our brave, new super-wired world. ... Or so the actual "practice" could lead one to assume ...
Afterall, were all presumed "tappable" -- it seems, simply because the Data Is There. As super-cloudy, as our individual cases may be.
It would be super 'unwise' not to ... construct (and then climb) Data Mountain.
-- Would it not !?! {Just Nod. No critical thinking required.}
That's another good question, that too few are asking/answering ... Why make oneself 'a target', -- the one doing all the hand waving? Life is already messy enough, without that extra attention ...
Thank you very much!
And slinking away into the background, is so very much easier ... is it not? {just nod quietly. So far they can't tap that -- yet. But just wait ...}