Eric Holder Cuts Off Program That Helped Spur Police Asset Seizure 'Shopping Sprees'

from the good-move dept

Well, here's a bit of a surprise. For years we've been highlighting the ridiculousness of police asset seizure and asset forfeiture laws (and, actually, were working on another post on some new such laws that we may now need to revisit...). These laws have basically become a legalized way for local police to steal cars and money without ever charging anyone with a crime. And then... they get to keep the money and sell off the cars. Some have even admitted the process is basically the police going "shopping" for stuff they want. They can seize anything, claiming that it was used in a crime, even if no one is ever charged with a crime. Effectively, they're "charging the thing" which is why you get crazy case names like the (actual case): United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.

However, on Friday, somewhat unexpectedly, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was massively limiting a federal program that helped make these seizures so valuable to police:

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said in a statement.

Holder’s decision allows some limited exceptions, including illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, a small fraction of the total. This would eliminate virtually all cash and vehicle seizures made by local and state police from the program.

While police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. Many states require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.

There's still more to be done to fix bad asset seizure and forfeiture laws, but this is a really big step forward.

Of course, just watch as police departments start to protest that they can no longer go "shopping" for "toys" that they can steal:

The policy will touch policing and local budgets in every state. Since 2001, about 7,600 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments and task forces have participated in Equitable Sharing. For hundreds of police departments and sheriff’s offices the seizure proceeds accounted for 20 percent or more of their annual budgets in recent years.

Either way, kudos to Holder for making this move.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, asset seizure, cars, doj, equitable sharing, eric holder, feds, money, police

FBI Raids House Of 'Second Leaker' Who Provided Terrorist Watchlist Documents To The Intercept

from the FBI's-'Leak-Repair-Kit'-swings-into-action dept

The government appears to have located the "second leaker." Snowden obviously still remains out of reach in Russia, but the other leaker -- one hinted at over the past few months and confirmed in Laura Poitras' Snowden documentary "Citizenfour" -- seems to have been identified by the FBI. Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News breaks the news.

The FBI has identified an employee of a federal contracting firm suspected of being the so-called "second leaker" who turned over sensitive documents about the U.S. government's terrorist watch list to a journalist closely associated with ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, according to law enforcement and intelligence sources who have been briefed on the case.

The FBI recently executed a search of the suspect's home, and federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia have opened up a criminal investigation into the matter, the sources said.

Once again, we're limited to anonymous "sources" and other unconfirmable information, but it seems the target of the raid was behind the leak of documents related to the federal government's terrorist watchlist program, published by The Intercept on August 5th. This was the same story the government attempted to defuse by leaking an official version to the Associate Press shortly before the Intercept's article went live.

Shortly after publication, government officials began to openly speculate about the existence of a second leaker, something others had been hinting at for weeks after a run of leaked documents at German news site Der Spiegel, none of which were attributed to Ed Snowden.

If the feds have their man, we'll get to see whether this administration will continue its record-setting pace for prosecuting whistleblowers. A hint dropped by one unnamed official suggests the DOJ may not be quite as enthusiastic about leaks punishment as it once was.

One source, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said there was concern "there is no longer an appetite at Justice for these cases."

Maybe not, but it's highly unlikely this case will slide if the leaker is caught. First off, there have been no statements from anyone with the requisite amount of power that the US government has softened its stance on Snowden's leaks. As far as they're concerned, he's still a criminal. The documents leaked by the second leaker may not have been as sensitive as those leaked by Snowden, but they still contain information the government wished to withhold. Add to that the ongoing prosecution of journalist James Risen and the recent sentencing of Chelsea Manning, and you still have an environment highly hostile to leaky government employees.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, feds, leaker, second leaker, terrorist guidelines, terrorist watchlist, the intercept, tsa, whistleblower

Latest Abuse: Feds Reading Emails Between Prisoners And Their Lawyers

from the because-they-can dept

Another day, another story of abuse by federal prosecutors. The latest is that they're now regularly reading the emails between inmates and their lawyers. These are the kinds of things that most people believe should be part of confidential attorney-client privilege. And, for quite some time, prosecutors respected that. However, now they're claiming that since prisoners using the prison email system agree to a notice upfront saying their communications may be monitored, they gave up that right.

Inmates’ calls to or from lawyers, however, are generally exempt from such monitoring. But across the country, federal prosecutors have begun reading prisoners’ emails to lawyers — a practice wholly embraced in Brooklyn, where prosecutors have said they intend to read such emails in almost every case.

The issue has spurred court battles over whether inmates have a right to confidential email communications with their lawyers — a question on which federal judges have been divided.

The "divide" from judges seems pretty ridiculous. Some judges say it's okay in part because inmates have other ways to communicate privately with their lawyers, but everyone with a basis in reality notes that those "other ways" (mainly letters) take forever and really hamper the ability of an inmate to work with his or her lawyers. But, some courts just don't care.

The judge overseeing that case, Allyne R. Ross, ruled on Thursday that the government was allowed to review the emails. “The government’s policy does not ‘unreasonably interfere’ with Mr. DiFiore’s ability to consult his counsel,” she wrote.

In Dr. Ahmed’s case, the judge, Dora L. Irizarry, ruled against the government last month, barring it “from looking at any of the attorney-client emails, period.”

This certainly seems like one of those issues that's destined for the Supreme Court in the near future.

Filed Under: attorney-client privilege, doj, feds, inmates, prosecutors

Lavabit Tried Giving The Feds Its SSL Key In 11 Pages Of 4-Point Type; Feds Complained That It Was Illegible

from the kudos-to-ladar dept

We already wrote about the basics of Lavabit's Ladar Levison standing up to the feds, however, the full filing has now been released, and (on top of that), Kevin Poulsen has updated his story with more details, so it's worth digging in a bit. Lavabit was hit with an initial pen register, which it refused, leading to the order to hand over the SSL keys. The new details show that Lavabit explained to the judge that giving up Lavabit's SSL keys wouldn't just let the feds spy on Snowden, but all of Lavabit's customers, and for obvious reasons, the company had a huge problem with that:

“The privacy of … Lavabit’s users are at stake,” Lavabit attorney Jesse Binnall told Hilton. “We’re not simply speaking of the target of this investigation. We’re talking about over 400,000 individuals and entities that are users of Lavabit who use this service because they believe their communications are secure. By handing over the keys, the encryption keys in this case, they necessarily become less secure.”

And it becomes clear that Levison then was actually willing to abide by the initial pen register, to basically figure out a way to just tap Snowden, but at this point the government was no longer willing to stop there. The government pushed for getting the SSL key, basically promising not to abuse it:

“We can assure the court that the way that this would operate, while the metadata stream would be captured by a device, the device does not download, does not store, no one looks at it,” [Prosecutor James] Trump said. “It filters everything, and at the back end of the filter, we get what we’re required to get under the order.”

“So there’s no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever,” Trump added. “No one looks at that, no one stores it, no one has access to it.”

“All right,” said [Judge Claude] Hilton. “Well, I think that’s reasonable.”

The judge then made a ruling that should cast a massive chill over anyone setting up private communications services:

[The government's] clearly entitled to the information that they're seeking and just because you-all have set up a system that makes that difficult, that doesn't in any way lessen the government's right to receive that information just as they could from any telephone company or any other e-mail source that could provide it easily."

Yikes. So, even if you set up a secure communication system, this judge says that you have to let the feds wiretap it.

Somewhat amusingly, Lavabit tried to comply "by turning over the private SSL keys as an 11 page printout in 4-point type." The feds complained that "the FBI would have to manually input all 2,560 characters, and one incorrect keystroke in this laborious process would render the FBI collection system incapable of collecting decrypted data." Poor, poor FBI. The judge has no problem putting a massive burden on Lavabit, but asking the FBI to actually do some data entry is too onerous? Yup. Apparently. The court then ordered Levison to provide a more useful electronic copy, which then resulted in the $5,000/day fine for failing to live up to that, and then the closure of the site.

Filed Under: doj, ed snowden, fbi, feds, ladar levison, ssl
Companies: lavabit

Court: Feds Can Spy On Americans Without Warrants With No Legal Repurcussions

from the uh,-what-now? dept

We've followed the Al-Haramain case against the US government for a while through all of its ridiculousness. This was the challenge to the government over warrantless wiretapping, which went through crazy twists and turns, because information on the wiretapping was deemed classified -- even though it was published by reporters. The only reason the case exists in the first place is that the government accidentally leaked a document that proved that such wiretapping happened. Earlier cases to challenge the warrantless wiretapping in general failed on the grounds that the people suing had no standing since they couldn't prove that they'd been spied upon without a warrant (and if this sounds like something Joseph Heller would write about, you've got the right idea).

Eventually, the court actually ruled that the feds violated wiretapping laws, but then there were questions of what the court could actually do about it. It turned into a wrist slap for the government, with it being ordered to pay $20,400 to each of the two lawyers who represented Al-Haramain.

However, earlier this week, that got overturned. The appeals court has basically said that even though Congress passed a law that said the feds could not eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant, it didn't waive sovereign immunity rights for the government, which lets the government basically wave away any lawsuits. And thus, the government can ignore wiretapping lawsuits -- even in the one and only case where there's clear evidence of it violating the law. Yeah.

Think about that one for a second.

And then... realize it gets worse. That's because in a different ruling, by the same court, a few months ago, the court said that someone couldn't sue the telcos for helping the government warrantlessly wiretap Americans, in part because they could still sue the government. Yet now they're saying that you can't actually sue the government either (once again, paging Joseph Heller).

The court tries to get around this by suggesting that you might be able to sue individuals within the government (though it then goes on to reject such an attempt in this case) or to recover actual monetary damages, if you can prove that such damage occurred. But "distress" apparently doesn't qualify since there's no monetary issue there. So, as long as the government spies on you illegally (and everyone seems to admit that it's illegal) without doing anything with that info that is causing you monetary damages, even if you find out about it, you probably can't do anything about it.

Yeah. That doesn't seem right.

The court itself admits that this result is "anomalous and even unfair," and says that's really Congress' problem because of the way it drafted the statute. Either way, the end result seems pretty crazy, and gives the federal government wide ability to spy on people at will, even as the law says they can't. This is a situation that Congress now needs to fix, though it almost certainly will not do so.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, al-haramain, feds, warrantless wiretapping

Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang

from the consumer-confusion? dept

Nearly three years ago, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous plan by the US government to try to deal with a motorcycle gang. Beyond just arresting approximately 80 members of the Mongols motorcycle gang around the country and charging them with a variety of criminal charges including murder, robbery, racketeering, extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing... the US government also decided it wanted to seize the trademark of the gang, and then use that to try to stop the gang. At the time, they claimed this would allow them to simply take jackets off of motorcycle riders by claiming trademark infringement. Of course, that's not (at all) how trademark law works.

I had assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that this issue had gone away, but Dave P. alerts us to the news that three years later, the fight over who gets to own the logo is still ongoing. Apparently, while a judge issued an injunction against the gang using the logo, things went further last year, when the US government tried to officially forfeit the logo. While a judge initially agreed, he reversed his original ruling, after remaining members of the Mongols claimed that they collectively owned the logo, and the government couldn't just seize it. The government, in turn, claims that the trademark is actually held by just one guy, who has already pleaded guilty to various charges.

Of course, I still can't fathom why the government thinks holding such a trademark is useful. It's not going to stop gang members. It wouldn't take much effort to find a new logo, and the government likely wouldn't win if it actually dared to try to make use of the trademark.

Filed Under: feds, mongols, motorcycle gang, trademark

Feds Got Reporter's Phone, Credit Card & Bank Records In Trying To Track Leaker

from the going-too-far dept

Back in January, when I saw Daniel Ellsberg speak, one of the things he noted was how much more aggressive the Obama administration appeared to be in going after leakers than any previous administration. Ellsberg's theory -- which he admitted was based on just his intuition -- was that President Obama is actually quite embarrassed by some of the things he's doing and is, thus, more aggressive in trying to stop leaks, knowing that his actions are damaging his reputation. I don't know if that's true, but there is growing evidence of the level of questionable activities from the Obama administration even in going after leakers. Ellsberg noted at the time that the Obama administration has brought more indictments for leaking than all other presidents combined before him.

The latest is the report that came out late last week that the government, in going after leakers, got access to reporter James Risen's phone records, bank details and credit card statements. As the report notes, this is pretty extreme:

Although there have been other public controversies over subpoenas -- real and threatened -- to reporters in recent years, there have been few, if any, cases in which it has been documented that federal prosecutors obtained the bank records and credit reports of journalists.

It's not entirely clear if all of these activities took place under the Obama administration or previous administrations, but multiple people quoted in the article say this kind of activity has been much more common in the Obama Justice Department. For a President who has positioned himself as being a big supporter of press freedoms, this looks really hypocritical. Spying on reporters is bad. As the report notes, Risen was subpoenaed directly twice, but both times a judge reasonably quashed the subpoenas. So, for the administration to basically go around all that and get records from others is pretty bad.

Filed Under: feds, journalists, leaks, privacy, sources, whistleblowing

Obama 'Considering Legal Action' Against Wikileaks

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Following the latest Wikileaks leak, apparently the Obama White House is exploring "the possibility of taking legal action" against the site. That's amusing. Of course, with Homeland Security expanding its mandate to seize domain names it doesn't like, you could see an attempt to seize the Wikileaks domain. However, while I'm sure there are some in the federal government who would favor such an action, I would think there are at least a few knowledgeable people in the administration who would note that the backlash to such a move would be overwhelming. The government may be able to fool some people by pretending that seizing websites without a trial isn't censorship when it comes to copyright issues, but it would be a much more difficult claim when the site is a whistleblowing site.

Filed Under: censorship, feds, free speech, obama administration, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Feds Pushing For New Legally Required Wiretap Backdoor To All Internet Communications

from the unintended-consequences... dept

The unfortunate, if not surprising, news story making the rounds today is that the feds in the US are looking to pass new laws to legally require a wiretap backdoor in every kind of internet communication offering. Yes, you read that right. If there's any way to communicate online, the US government is demanding the right to be able to wiretap it. Any company that doesn't comply will face fines. This despite the long history of the US government massively abusing its wiretapping privileges repeatedly throughout history.

And, yes, this would supposedly apply to non-US communications services as well:

Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts.

Yeah, that'll go over well. It's difficult to see how this is any different than foreign governments demanding access to others' communications as well. It's pretty ridiculous for President Obama to talk about open internet principles to the UN, while cooking this up at the same time. Pushing for this also means that the US will have no excuse when the governments of Iran, China and elsewhere also demand backdoors into all US-based communications.

And, really, that's the biggest problem with this law. Beyond the inevitable privacy violations by the feds, putting backdoors into communications technologies guarantees that those backdoors will be used by others (outside of the federal government) to snoop on communications. The FBI and the NSA (who are pushing for this) are being totally and completely naive if they think that they're the only ones who will use this. We've pointed out in the past how large scale surveillance systems mean large scale security risks, and this is no different. We showed how a similar surveillance system in Greece was hacked into to spy on government officials. US officials should be aware that they're opening themselves up to these same potential risks.

And, the simple fact is: this won't help and it won't matter. The people who really want to communicate secretly will still use tools to communicate secretly. The feds are (once again) being naive to think that such tools won't exist and won't be widely known and widely utilized. Instead, all this will do is open up everyone else to abuse of the system by other governments, organized crime, people with malicious intent and (of course) the US government.

Filed Under: encryption, feds, privacy, security, wiretap

Feds Won't Bring Charges Against School District Officials In Webcam Spying

from the criminal-intent dept

There have been a couple of new developments in the saga of the suburban Philadelphia school district, the Lower Merion School District, that was sued by a student, after that student was disciplined (supposedly for eating candy) using photos taken by secretly installed and used webcam spying software. The school initially claimed that it only used the software 42 times, but an investigation founded 58,000 photos were taken -- including hundreds of another student, who has now also sued.

As stories came out about administrators enjoying spying on students -- referring to it as a window into their own "little... soap opera," the FBI got involved. However, the prosecutors are now saying that they won't bring charges, because there is no evidence of criminal intent. That shouldn't impact the various civil lawsuits, of course.

At the same time, Julian Sanchez points us to the news that after all of this, the school district has finally put in place new policies designed "to govern the use and tracking of student laptops and other technology." Seems like, perhaps, that should have been in place a wee bit earlier.

Filed Under: feds, high school, investigation, webcam