DEA Not Only Gets Intelligence Data, But Then Is Instructed To Cover Up Where It Gets The Info
from the wow dept
Okay, so we were just talking about other government agencies wanting data from the NSA. The NY Times story claimed that the NSA was regularly turning down such requests. Except... this morning Reuters broke the news that the NSA, along with the CIA, FBI, IRS and Homeland Security, are actually funneling data to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and (even worse) the DEA is then instructed to lie about where it gets the evidence.The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.As the article notes, the DEA doesn't just hide the actual details from those they're prosecuting, but even from judges and US attorneys in the Justice Department. Basically, it looks like the NSA is illegally giving the DEA info, and then the DEA is figuring out ways to pretend it got that info from legal sources. That goes way, way, way beyond what is supposed to be happening.
"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.
"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."
"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."And this isn't just for extreme cases either. Reuters says that two separate senior DEA officials said that this technique "is used almost daily." As the Reuters report explains, the info from the NSA might, for example, highlight a particular vehicle that may be involved in a drug effort (remember, the NSA isn't supposed to collect or look at info on things happening in the US), and then DEA officials will be told something like "look for this vehicle in this place." The DEA will then ask "state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle," leading to a search. Then they later claim that the arrest and finding drugs came because of a "routine traffic stop" rather than NSA surveillance dragnet efforts.
There's a lot more in the article, including a variety of DEA officials insisting that there's nothing wrong with this sort of thing... balanced out by a variety of defense attorneys pointing out that it's unconstitutional to hide where information for an investigation came from. It is a fundamental aspect of basic due process that those accused of crimes get the details of the evidence and the investigation that lead to their arrests. That the DEA appears to be actively covering up this information, and that it's been standard operating procedure for decades, is immensely troubling.
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: cia, cover up, dea, drug enforcement, fbi, nsa, sod, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And if it's happening with the DEA, what other agencies are doing the same thing? I feel like I'm going into tinfoil-hat land here, but it's almost as if the NY Times story was "leaked" by someone knowing that information like this was going to come out and trying to get the opposite out first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As another AC commented, bring the Sahara, there's not enough sand in the US for these morons to bury their heads in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was exactly the intent. What's most disturbing is that this gives the DEA (and potentially others) the capability to incriminate someone and then cover their tracks...
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The drug may have come from foreign soil, silly. The vehicle pieces may have been manufacture abroad. There are all sorts of non-American stuff running out there, how can we be sure? So we collect all. ALL! *malevolent laughter*
Then they later claim that the arrest and finding drugs came because of a "routine traffic stop" rather than NSA surveillance dragnet efforts.
The sad part is that this could be found by plain old investigative effort. Due process being respected.
That the DEA appears to be actively covering up this information, and that it's been standard operating procedure for decades, is immensely troubling.
And yet it probably works on petty criminals or just plain users instead of drug lords. And considering the US is one of the largest drug destinations in the world it spells failure all over this effort putting yet another argument against the destruction of privacy in favor of security or whatever it is right now. Security is just a code word in NSA dictionary, it probably means CONTROL in regular English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I expect to see Obama in a 3rd term.
Sure it may be against the rules, but when has that ever stopped him?
Obama '16 For The Children Because Terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as the old boss.
It doesn't really matter. They'll campaign on the wedge issues, and then vote on things like surveillance the same way anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except, of course, if you don't TELL the court, they have no way of knowing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm actually curious how many thousands of drug convictions over the past eight or so years would be thrown out on the spot if it came to light how the DEA got the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is very hard to track evidence chains when the evidence came from the experts in avoiding evidence chains.
Plausible deniability and all, it would take a biblically incompetent move, to proove the tip and retracing it back to NSA...
That is the danger of big data: If they are used, they are abused!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's extremely illegal even if it was NOT found out by the court. In fact, that makes it MORE illegal. It's just that they aren't going to get CAUGHT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
:p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know the answer, all I'm saying is: "Big surprise"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perhaps this is what was going to be relied on in the Dotcom case? the DoJ is trying it's nuts off so as to not hand over information requested by the Dotcom legal team. could it be a touch of crapping backwards, again? could it be that Dotcom is nowhere near as guilty of anything as the DoJ is? interesting!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That his way was easier and more efficient (and unfortunately illegal) highlights the backward thinking of the 'others' in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So does Netflix, Pandora, radio stations, etc. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He'd be more respectable if he'd given a cut from premium to the creators but then he'd have to deal with the MAFIAA and the actual artists still would get nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would only mean that the evidence they had against him were acquired illegally and they did not want to show that fact! At the moment it seems FBI is stalling the case to avoid having to give up on their evidence. The extradition cased is still running and will run untill at least next year...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another take
It uses your driver's license or whatever official ID you present to the cashier. Goes into a database run by the DEA.
We're giving this stuff away. Got an allergy? Want relief? The DEA wants your info, too!
Wonder if the NSA is doing a swap on this stuff? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
I am also starting to long for the days when the stories were about buffoonish censorious asshattery and desperate dying business models, rather that stories of US Govt. activities that directly affect me, and would make Stalin simultaneously blush and turn green with envy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we need judges to throw out massive numbers of convictions
Undoing tens of thousands of convictions or more (even if it does let serious criminals go free) is the ONLY way you're going to get the government and prosecutors to start behaving and following the law and constitution in trials.
Judges should especially be doing this in areas involving new technology without clearly defined rules, like the government's insistence on not needing a warrant for just about anything involving searching your computer or web activities. After all, we need to message that just because you got 100,000 people convicted by violating the constitution before someone more clearly speed out rules that seemed obvious to everyone else doesn't mean it's ok that you didn't follow the rules in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why we need judges to throw out massive numbers of convictions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious: GOOGLE!
Not just search terms and websites, but Google can directly access webcam and microphones, and probably does the keyword recognition on audio plus face recognition.
When you think surveillance, think Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious: GOOGLE!
How many times must I yell this into your ear before you get it through your thick skull?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious: GOOGLE!
And right there's where you passed into paranoia territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's obvious: GOOGLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious: GOOGLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd also like to once again thank the US government for bringing crack to our cities in the 70s 80s and 90s. Without this vital support there would have been no reasonable chance for the WoD to go nuclear.
Auto-Convict will be leaving BETA any day now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Blessing to Defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Blessing to Defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Blessing to Defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome...
What?!
It worked for Vlad the Impaler...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A wise Techdirt AC predicted this
(err, correction ... I guess it's not a prediction if it's been going on for decades)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Case Mantra
Prosecutor: No they didn't!
Defense Attorney: Prove it!
Judge: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The executive branch is corrupt.
The legislative is bought and corrupt.
The judiciary is treading water.
Logically, this is going to get much, much worse. And then there will be blood. You can't beat cheaters and you can't cheat death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no oversight when they can lie and misdirect with impunity even those charged with doing oversight. Then there is the issue of congress not knowing or not caring about these matters til the public rubs their noses in it. Obama and crew have once again lied about how informed congress is when those voting to extend these programs can't even get answers to their questions regarding the issues they are voting for.
The top of the pile it seems has barely been revealed and already I'm beyond disgusted at how the laws of the land have been twisted to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all national security.
Is there such thing as ordinary crime anymore? Isn't everything a matter of national security now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At a secret government black site
Prisoner: No man! I just stole a bag of Doritos from 7-11! Why the hell have your friends been torturing me for the past six months!
Interrogator 1: Son, do you know how critical those Doritos were to the national security of the United States of America?
Prisoner: .....What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power Creep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]