FBI: Customers Might Sue If They Knew Companies Were Helping With Wiretaps

from the uh...-isn't-that-the-point? dept

Wed, May 11th 2011 2:39pm — Mike Masnick

It's really quite stunning to see how the government justifies its overreaching efforts into citizens' privacy. The latest example comes from the ACLU, which found a gem in the heavily redacted documents it retrieved via the Freedom of Information Act in seeking info about the warrantless wiretapping program. One bit of information they found has the FBI saying it thinks the public should not know about companies that are helping the feds with warrantless wiretapping because (*gasp*) people might sue about their rights being violated:

"Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI. The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies' services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber info."

Yes, that's the FBI saying that it shouldn't be forced to say who's violating their rights, because people might get upset that their rights are being violated and sue. And that's bad for business. This is a justification for secretly spying on people without a warrant? That people would get upset and sue? Once again, the feds seem to be arguing that the law should be whatever is most convenient for them, rather than about what most protects the rights of citizens against over-intrusive behavior by the government.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fbi, privacy, wiretaps

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 2:34pm

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE!

I mean, puh-leeze! IF you're going to harm big business, you might at least do it more subtly, like making it impossible for competition to even remotely stand a chance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re: Nice.
  You're a master of subtlety there...
  
  ;-P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pixelpusher220 (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 2:58pm

Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fbi-if-we-told-you-part-ii

paraphrasing - "If people knew these companies were helping us, the companies would sue the government to not have to provide this info."

So they also know the companies would challenge this in court - and likely win since they'd have big biz money behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
  So, transparency is bad because it encourages lawsuits?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 7:08pm
  
  Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
  Didn't bush already grant these companies immunity?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 12 May 2011 @ 5:14am
    
    Re: Re: Check Part 2 of this story posted today.
    "Didn't bush already grant these companies immunity?"
    
    Clearly, that is what Ex Post Facto is for.
    The constitution, suitable for framing or wiping your ass.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 3:32pm

So in other words, the goverment knows it's involved on illegal and is basically admitting it? Good jerb dumbasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  In, not on.
  
  DURRR
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Derp
    
    Not durr
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  "involved in illegal activity"
  
  Kids, this is why you should proofread your comments before posting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Or an edit button?
    
    Jerb made me laugh though, which given the obscenity of this post was helpful. Thank You.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 4:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      as much as i thought i would like an edit button (ya know, cuze i make some doozies too) i actually changed my mind.
      
      its nice to know that once someone breaks out with the super-tard and posts, its there and cant be altered which often leads to many entertaining hours of watching them twist in the wind trying to explain and defend their comments.
      
      the edit button would make all that a thing of the past...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dave, 11 May 2011 @ 6:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Easy fix. Just make edits look like this:
        
        Dumb comment!
        
        **EDIT May-11-11 6:56pm**
        I meant to say "Really dumb comment!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, it would be a programming nightmare, but posts can always be like a wikki where people have the option to go back and view what the post previously said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 12 May 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are forums that do it that way, it would not be a nightmare. There's probably off the shelf forum software that does it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 3:45pm

No big surprise.
The FBI knows they are breaking the law via warrantless wiretapping and they don't want to have to deal with anyone finding out about it.

The spooks do whatever they d*** well please, and they do not care one bit about any such silly things as the Constitution or enacted laws.

I'm not sure what's worse; the government or the criminals; the line is fast blurring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re: No big surprise.
  What line?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Markovich, 11 May 2011 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re: No big surprise.
  Speaking of blurry lines, it seems that distinguishing between corporate objectives and government policy is becoming more difficult and less meaningful all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 11:46pm
    
    Re: Re: No big surprise.
    Welcome to Shadowrun, where there is only one Megacorp, and runners steal information for a living.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 4:33pm

The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies' services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber info.

You know, if the people at the FBI had just a tiny bit of self-awareness and empathy, it might occur to them that if people would freak out and start lawsuits if they knew what the FBI were doing, maybe the FBI shouldn't be doing those things.
Of course, the fact that the FBI doesn't show any concern for the people they're supposed to be protecting is in itself one of the reasons people distrust them to the point where, as the FBI themselves said, any company known to be working with them gets abandoned and sued by their customers.

Between the FBI and the ICE, the US government seems to be doing its darndest to make the US a bad place to run a business. That's not going to help the economy, y'know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jughead's Hat, 11 May 2011 @ 5:40pm
  
  Re: For shame, FBI!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 4:53pm

"..If They Knew Companies Were Helping With Wiretaps"
This is why we don't store our data in the "cloud" boys and girls! Most of the time the Gov does'nt even need an official document. Go heavy on the encryption schemes. ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 6:29pm

National security Letters
So our government is morally bankrupt.

It's high time we bankrupt them for our freedom from NSLs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
catchxxii, 11 May 2011 @ 7:03pm

Didn't bush already grant these companies immunity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hans, 11 May 2011 @ 8:42pm
  
  Re: Immunity
  "Didn't bush already grant these companies immunity?"
  
  No, Obama granted the telecoms immunity. One reason he doesn't get my vote next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 12 May 2011 @ 5:23am
    
    Re: Re: Immunity
    "No, Obama granted the telecoms immunity. One reason he doesn't get my vote next time"
    
    AFAIK, the president does not have this sort of authority.
    In this case, as in most, congress passes a law, the president signs it and the courts attempt to sort it all out.
    btw, Bush also approved of passing such legislation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hans, 12 May 2011 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Immunity
      Well, US Presidents sign executive orders for all sorts of things some say they don't have the authority for...
      
      But on the subject of Obama and immunity: Bush asked Congress for retroactive immunity, Congress put it in a bill. Senator Obama said he would filibuster any bill with retroactive immunity, but when given the chance did not, and voted in favor of the bill.
      
      Once President, his Attorney General successfully ended law suits, using the new law, because the Attorney General's role is to defend the laws passed by Congress. You decide.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 9:50am
    
    Re: Re: Immunity
    But...but.. he killed Osama! you HAVE to vote for him now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2011 @ 10:52pm

How can you write about privacy?
Like this site okay, but how can you write about privacy when you're allowing google.com and quantserve.com (which is Quantcast) to collect data on your site's visitors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 11 May 2011 @ 11:47pm
  
  Re: How can you write about privacy?
  NoScript is your friend.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 2:34am
  
  Re: How can you write about privacy?
  Apples and oranges. Don't be riciculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 9:26pm
    
    Re: Re: How can you write about privacy?
    Not apples and oranges. The article is about the govt. using private companies. This site is a private company, as are google and quantcast. And it's been well documented that both google and quantcast will and do sell their data to the govt.--as do yahoo, Microsoft, et. al., all of whom admit the practice. Privacy is privacy. Either you believe in it or you don't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2011 @ 5:54am

Welcome to Amerika!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
revolutionary, 12 May 2011 @ 12:22pm

I wonder what type of advice our forefathers would give if they were alive today.
How much of our constitution is gonna be trampled on before people get pissed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 12 May 2011 @ 10:39pm

Repressive Gov't
Well Gents, it's like this, if you don't do something to change it, the US will be just like all the other middle eastern countries living under repression, we are all most there, Maybe it is time for Paul Revere to ride again, only this time he will be saying, " the US Gov't is Comming"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]