SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
FBI agents paid employees in Best Buy's Geek Squad unit to act as informants, documents published Tuesday reveal.
Agents paid managers in the retailer's device repair unit to pass along information about illegal content discovered on customers' devices, according to documents posted online by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The digital rights group sued the FBI for the documents last year after the bureau denied a Freedom of Information Act request.
The EFF filed the lawsuit to learn the extent to which the agency trains and directs Best Buy Geek Squad employees to conduct warrantless searches of customers' devices during maintenance. The EFF said it was concerned that use of repair technicians to root out evidence of criminal behavior circumvents people's constitutional rights.
[...] Another document shows the FBI approved a $500 payment to a "confidential human source" whose name was redacted. The EFF said the payment appears to be one of many connected to the prosecution of Mark Rettenmaier, a Southern California doctor accused of possessing child pornography after he sent in his computer to Best Buy for repairs.
The EFF said the documents detail investigation procedures in which Geek Squad employees would contact the FBI after finding what they believed to be child pornography on a customer's device.
The EFF said an FBI agent would examine the device to determine whether there was illegal content present, and if so, seize the device and send it to the FBI field office closest to where the customer lived. Agents would then investigate further, and in some cases try to obtain a warrant to search the device.
Best Buy said last year that three of the four employees who may have received payment from the FBI are no longer employed by the company. The fourth was reprimanded and reassigned.
Previously: Cooperation Alleged Between Best Buy and the FBI
FBI Used Best Buy's Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance
EFF Sues FBI to Obtain Records About Geek Squad/Best Buy Surveillance
Related: How Best Buy's Computer-Wiping Error Turned Me into an Amateur Blackhat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:06AM (21 children)
Good job firing those people, and looking out for your CP customers. If Best Buy doesn't guarantee confidentiality of customer data, then any criminal evidence the techs find is a win for the good guys.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @02:58AM (13 children)
I kinda share your sentiments. Except - Grandma can be sent to the pen for having photos of her grandbabies getting their first baths. Think about that for a bit.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:47AM (12 children)
Has that ever happened? And if it did, the problem is with the obscenity laws, not how the evidence was gathered.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:56AM (11 children)
Yes, it most certainly has happened. I'm running short on time - why don't you do an internet search for terms similar to "unjust convictions on child pornography law". The problem started even before the internet. People sending their photos off for development were sometimes shocked when the police knocked at the door (or maybe kicked the door down?), then be arrested for child porn.
Memory is vague, I'd have to do my own search to refresh my memory. It seems that a very small number of photography labs reported a huge number of child porn cases. Meanwhile, the vast majority of labs developed photos that were equally revealing, and never batted an eye. To a large degree, porn is in the eye of the beholder. Take one Puritanical overseer, who has a vested interest in obtaininig a high conviction rate, and he can see porn EVERYWHERE!
Have fun with the search!
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:56AM (10 children)
Tsk, tsk, Runaway! You are doing it Again! You heard something on Fox News, and now you think it is fact, with no citation, no reference, no evidence, and you beg off on the Republican "I cannot recall" cop-out? Shame on you, Runaway! Shame! Bad Redneck, Bad!!! No donut for you!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:14PM (9 children)
Hey, 'tardo, I don't watch Fox news, except on very rare occassions. But, you've messed up with this one. Fox isn't the one that's going to report unjust convictions. That's more in line with liberal and progressive reporting. One good thing about the left side in our country is, they do like to challenge the courts, on behalf of the underdogs. That isn't *always* good, but mostly, it is.
Let me tell you about Fox. I stopped at one of my favorite restaurants for breakfast this past Saturday. Fox was on. You can't hear a damned thing, but it was on. There are two guys, with some chick sitting between them. I was not quite, but almost embarrassed at the woman's state of half-dress. I mean, she's sitting there, knees together, with a camera focused on her, at an angle that will see whether she is wearing panties if she parts those knees.
WTF, Fox? It's pretty obvious that you didn't hire this woman for her wit, her charm, her intelligence, or her commentary. She's a damned DECORATION for your TV set! Every woman in the country should be up in arms over that sort of shit. Put a women half-dressed on stage, then keep a camera focused on her, just hoping for that panty shot? If/when she has to get up for some reason, it's going to have to be choreographed carefully, to prevent everyone seeing what she is or is not wearing under that skirt. Wait - did I say skirt? Hell, some of my T-shirts cover more than that skirt covers.
Maybe I should send the woman one of my T-shirts, with an explanation. Maybe she's so damned stupid, she doesn't realize that a significant segment of the veiwing audience hopes to see what color her pubic hairs are. Or, alternatively, to view her shaved beaver.
Fox, you're disgusting. Oh, wait. It belongs to Rupert Murdoch, right? Then it's EXPECTED to be disgusting.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:46PM (8 children)
Help me out a little bit here. Why are you disgusted by women, or pubic hair, or shaved "beaver"?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:11PM (7 children)
It is disgusting that Fox is openly exploiting this woman's body, for ratings.
Seriously, the woman on the screed (don't know, don't care what her name is) wasn't bad looking. Not hard to look at, at all. But, her state of dress would be a distraction from any serious news, at best.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:31PM (6 children)
Speaking in generalizations, the right supports the idea that if everyone consents, it is OK for businesses to provide things people like. By your own admission, a good portion of viewers might enjoy this. Perhaps even you, since you find it distracting.
Still in generalization territory, the left is lately becoming the anti-sex people, working to criminalize all facets of sexuality right on down to a compliment, wink or even a smile. Unless, of course, there are at least three gender-nonconforming participants.
So I guess you're in the "disgusted by sex" camp. Try to keep that perversion to yourself; don't ruin it for the millions with healthy drives.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:37PM
I do have my perversities, but "disgusted by sex" is not one of them. :^)
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:47PM (4 children)
When was the last time you saw a TV News cast where the anchor was wearing something that would possibly show off his underwear or lack thereof? The problem is the exploitation of women. Not Runaway's opinions/views on sexual content / sexuality. NSFW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_women_in_mass_media [wikipedia.org] --- Not Safe for Work
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:49PM
^^I accidentally took out the explicit reference to a Male news anchor when typing that out.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)
The market segment of viewers who would like to see men's underwear or lack seems to be rather small, otherwise, more people would probably rise up [sic] to provide that service.
If the women involved are consenting to the situation, why do you consider it a problem? If not disgusted by sex, well then what?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:19PM (1 child)
How about to teach our children that women are more than just a hunk of flesh? *A lot of people probably still need to learn that.* That you don't have to be a "pretty runway model / barbie doll" to actually be pretty. That you don't need to "show a little leg", to get the job. That news and facts should be the main attraction. Not that your news anchor might flash you, if they accidentally moved the wrong way.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @09:32PM
When you teach your children things that are not true, what they actually learn is that Mommy and Daddy will lie to them.
The truth is that a great many women know exactly when they are flashing, and they enjoy being viewed, as do the people who are viewing them. This makes sex-hating puritans apoplectic. Perhaps you are confusing your leftist fantasy utopia with reality, but reality remains what it is, your attempts to redesign and prescribe the perfect sanitized human behavior notwithstanding.
A great many women also know that "showing a little leg" can glean them some quite substantial advantages in certain situations, and they are not the least bit reluctant to "exploit" themselves.
Back to the example at hand: a woman on TV is very unlikely to "accidentally" flash the camera, because everyone is painfully aware that sex-hating puritans have imposed enormous fines for such "accidents". So the stimulus which simultaneously arouses and frightens you is unlikely to materialize. Still... you can't bring yourself to stop watching, because maybe... just maybe... she might... so you keep watching.
And that was probably the goal all along.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:51AM (3 children)
I wish I knew whether you were being straight or sarcastic. And either way, I'd probably still need help discerning the "good guys": CP hoarders aren't; revelations over the past few years, including this one about paying BB to "find" evidence makes it clear the FBI doesn't qualify; Nerd Herders scouring customer hard drives for porn and music/videos to copy off and potentially planting CP to "find" aren't; Best Buy has proven in many ways over the years, including supporting this deal with the FBI, that they're not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:13AM (2 children)
So you think planted evidence is a problem. Does that mean we can never believe any evidence from law enforcement? After all, they all get paid to "find" it. I say keep an open mind and if there's evidence of a crime, pursue it. If there is a trial, make sure the jury knows if evidence came from a paid snitch.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:37AM (1 child)
Does that mean we can never believe any evidence from law enforcement?
All police evidence should be considered suspect unless backed up by corroborating details. Think of the explosion in cases where police body-cams have shown them planting evidence. Yes, these guys were rewarded on a high arrest rate, and gamed the system to make their numbers.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 08 2018, @12:21PM
Allowing the police state to make up its own "crimes" when nobody has been harmed is the start of all this trouble.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:15AM (2 children)
It's not a win for the "good guys" if the government violates the Constitution, regardless of the reasons why they did it. It's not okay to violate the highest law of the land just to supposedly nab some bad guys. I think this was unconstitutional because if the government recruits people like this, then they basically become government agents and are subject to constitutional limitations as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06AM (1 child)
You, oh noble AC, must be one of those that arcz is worried do not understand law. The government recruits "contractors", kinda like mercenaries like the formerly known as Blackwater brother of the Sec. of Educamation, Eric the Prince, and thus the contractors are under no constitutional limitations! Hooray! Think of it as kind of like Uber cops. No license, no training, no liability insurance, but hey! Cheaper and plausible deniability! The CIA calls them "assets", and they can commit treason!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @07:24PM
Well, that's only currently tolerated because our courts are absolutely packed with insane authoritarians. Good luck getting rid of these practices when all branches of government are in favor of it, despite its blatant unconstitutionality.