Rather than obtaining a warrant, the bureau purchased sensitive data:
Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged for the first time that it purchased US location data rather than obtaining a warrant. While the practice of buying people's location data has grown increasingly common since the US Supreme Court reined in the government's ability to warrantlessly track Americans' phones nearly five years ago, the FBI had not previously revealed ever making such purchases.
The disclosure came today during a US Senate hearing on global threats attended by five of the nation's intelligence chiefs. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, put the question of the bureau's use of commercial data to its director, Christopher Wray: "Does the FBI purchase US phone-geolocation information?" Wray said his agency was not currently doing so, but he acknowledged that it had in the past. He also limited his response to data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes.
"To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising," Wray said. "I understand that we previously—as in the past—purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project. But that's not been active for some time." He added that the bureau now relies on a "court-authorized process" to obtain location data from companies.
It's not immediately clear whether Wray was referring to a warrant—that is, an order signed by a judge who is reasonably convinced that a crime has occurred—or another legal device. Nor did Wray indicate what motivated the FBI to end the practice.
In its landmark Carpenter v. United States decision, the Supreme Court held that government agencies accessing historical location data without a warrant were violating the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches. But the ruling was narrowly construed. Privacy advocates say the decision left open a glaring loophole that allows the government to simply purchase whatever it cannot otherwise legally obtain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Defense Intelligence Agency are among the list of federal agencies known to have taken advantage of this loophole.
[...] Last month, Demand Progress joined a coalition of privacy groups in urging the head of the US financial protection bureau to use the Fair Credit Report Act (FCRA)—the nation's first major privacy law—against data brokers commodifying Americans' information without their consent. Attorneys who signed on to the campaign, from organizations such as the National Consumer Law Center and Just Futures Law, said the privacy violations inherent to the data broker industry disproportionately impact society's most vulnerable, interfering with their ability to obtain jobs, housing, and government benefits.
While the 21st century's privacy problems may have been beyond the imaginings of the FCRA's authors 50 years ago, modern injustices tied to the sale of personal data may, they argue, still fall under its purview.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, @10:57PM (4 children)
Gotta bridge for sale, pretty old, but in good condition
Really, is there any reason to believe these people? Just assume the worst, they get their info where they can, don't believe the lies
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @03:06AM (1 child)
He could very well be telling the truth. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be paranoid.
Hey, what if they stopped buying and just hacked the companies selling the data?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @04:33AM
Ah, you mean, use a small scandal to cover the bigger one?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday March 11, @07:45AM (1 child)
Actually they get your info. That's kind of the problem...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @09:20PM
No, it's theirs... Everything you have is theirs. If it was yours, they wouldn't have it. You own nothing, not even the flesh you presently occupy.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Barenflimski on Saturday March 11, @01:26AM (1 child)
I swear someone, like a couple of days ago or so, just told me I shouldn't conflate FBI buying data and spying. I mean, I get what you were saying, but not gonna say I told ya so. Not even gonna make names or nuthin' but.... 😘
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @03:18AM
How about the FBI conflating fighting terrorism with sponsoring terrorism?
https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/ [theintercept.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots [theguardian.com]
See also: https://www.middleeasteye.net/discover/chris-morris-the-day-shall-come-liberty-city-seven [middleeasteye.net]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Spamalope on Saturday March 11, @03:56AM
Those weasel are all you need to hear to know they're still doing it. data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes Yeah, so now they're using data gathered for data brokering instead. Or they're using data specifically gathered for sale to intel agencies. Intel agencies have considered themselves above the constitution since at least the 50s, and those houses have never been cleaned meaningfully. If you're wondering whether they'd use that info for gaining power, look at how many high office holders have been either formerly high ranking intel operatives or their direct family members and it'll be an eye opener for you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MIRV888 on Saturday March 11, @06:42AM (1 child)
Are they sidestepping warrants? Absolutely. Is it illegal? No. We forfeit our rights to our location, spending, home floor plans, fingerprints, facial specs, and such freely all the time. Once you give up that data, the owner of that data can sell it to whoever they want. No one's rights have been violated because you gave them up willingly. That's what the 'I accept' button is for. I don't get the surprise or outrage about the Bureau buying commercially sold data.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11, @08:01AM
They're spending your own money to fuck you over.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday March 11, @07:49AM
A big fat nothing.
Someone will close that "loophole" - and nevermind that it's not the legality of what they do that matters but the morality. They'll find another one loophole. Or they'll just plain go unconstitutional. That''s what three-letter agencies do. It's not like anybody ever does actual hard time over that sort of thing.