FBI fights to protect ISPs that snoop on their customers The FBI has finally come clean on the real reason it doesn't want to name phone and internet service providers that participate in a sweeping surveillance program that taps international communications without a warrant: Customers would get mad and dump or sue the providers. This rare piece of honesty came in a recently filed …
... thinking that the FBI was there to /protect/ interstate commerce. Or what it is that they do now-a-days anyway. Protect companies against their own customers? What?
This in a country that proverbially supports "voting with your wallet"; but the government is intent to take that away too. It's enough to drive a man to wear tin foil hats, it is.
The providers who don't do this for the FBI could turn this to their advantage by advertising the fact that they gaurantee they don't work with the FBI without a warrant. ISP's who are will not advertise such as they would be in a very vulnerable position if they did.
Anyone who is worried about FBI snooping need then only choose an ISP who states they won't bend the rules.
It implies the FBI thinks these ISPs are doing something of dubious legality. And it more then implies the FBI are not doing what they get tax money for.
It also begs the question, "What, exactly, *IS* the FBI doing with the tax dollars it gets?" Clearly it isn't prosecuting illegal wiretaps.
If these isp's acted and didn't check the legality of the FBI's request beforehand then tough.
If they did and went ahead anyway then they made a judgement call so again tough.
Either way the Feds should spill the beans regardless of whether it damages the ISPs.
It's the only way to show both the Isp's and the Govt not to carry out acts of dubious legality with their customers data. Let them be reminded who pays both their wages.
And last and most naively isn't the Feds duty to the US and its citizens not corporate America?
You forget that in the US corporations are people too. There are far fewer corporations than flesh and blood people, so they probably also count as a minority.
So do you really want the US government to be victimising minorities at the behest of the majority?
@oopsie, yep, warrantless wiretapping is illegal. And you know what? The former CEO of Qwest was approached and asked to do this, *TOLD* them this was illegal and he refused to participate. In retaltation, charges were trumped up regarding insider trading (really, someone with millions of dollars, and the claim was he was doing insider training to make like an extra $1,000 or so) so he was removed as CEO and tossed in jail. In adidition, several telecom contracts were suddenly cancelled at this point. This is the worst thing about this, and this push for "immunity" for the companies that broke the law -- some DIDN'T break the law, so really those who did do not deserve immunity.
Seriously though -- ISPs that are braking the law should 100% be exposed for doing this. It is not the FBIs job to help companies maintain market share.
This is a call to action, if you work at an ISP that is participating in this program, go to cryptome or wikileaks and let everyone know. The public deserves to know. If you figure out how to determine this is happening (without working at the ISP), do the same, make this public knowledge.
Considering what happened to Qwest CEO why do you expect that anyone will do that?
As far as customers getting mad - after people like Qwest CEO got removed out of the way do they really have a choice left? You can get mad if you have the option to get mad. If you do not... Well... You do not...
"As far as customers getting mad - after people like Qwest CEO got removed out of the way do they really have a choice left? You can get mad if you have the option to get mad. If you do not... Well... You do not..."
I thought this was the kind of thing that Americans keep saying they need their guns for...
"The FBI has finally come clean on the real reason it doesn't want to name phone and internet service providers that participate in a sweeping surveillance program that taps international communications without a warrant: Customers would get mad and dump or sue the providers."
Ya think?!?
(We need a "stating the bleedin' obvious" icon...)
“Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI,” .... "Therefore, the FBI has properly withheld this information.”
Short and sweet - there would be repercussions.
Sadly, for those wishing otherwise, there _will_ be repercussions. It will only take a bit more time...
Those companies should have thought of what they were doing before they started cozying up to the federales. If I found out that my company was invading my privacy and in bed with the federales, I'd drop them like a bad habit. And yes, I would like to know what companies, then I could avoid them. Sounds like the EFF needs to submitting so many FIOA requests that the feds would think that hell froze over and it was snowing.
Had to pick George because he was sooo right!
El Reg carried a diagram of how BT taps the lines some while ago, during the 'Phorm storm'. There is a brief explanation of how the 'passive taps' work in the Comments. Presumably these cover the entire network.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_documents/
And wasn't there a bit of a fuss when a whistleblower explained how secret cabinets were being installed in major exchanges in the USA, housing similar passive taps in rooms that didn't have a number and weren't shown on the plans?
It must be easy access to the customer database that the FBI doesn't want to disclose, whereby they can link IP addresses to customers. Or, if providers really are doing the snooping, rather than the FBI having to comb through all the data themselves, what is their payoff?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
