FBI admits to buying location data of US citizens without a warrant

[DragonSlayer101]

The big picture: Online privacy has long been a major cause for concern, with most of the allegations of shady practices typically leveled against large tech firms like Google and Meta. However, police and other government agencies have also come under fire for resorting to unethical - or at times outright illegal - means to obtain data.

The FBI recently admitted it purchased the location data of US citizens without obtaining a warrant. The acknowledgement came from FBI Director Christopher Wray at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats.

Answering a question from Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon about whether the FBI purchases the phone-geolocation information of US citizens, Wray said the agency had previously done so for an unnamed national security project, but does not indulge in such practices any more.

According to Wray, "To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from Internet advertising...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."

Instead of buying the location data of US citizens, Wray said the agency currently uses a "court-authorized process" to get data required for investigation. Wray did not specify whether the process involves getting a warrant or resorting to other legal means.

Wray's revelations mark the first time the FBI has admitted ever buying people's location data, despite persistent complaints from privacy activists and civil rights organizations about the policy.

As reported by Wired, a US Supreme Court ruling in the landmark 'Carpenter v. United States' case held that government agencies accessing the location data of US citizens without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, the ruling left a loophole that has since been exploited by many federal agencies, including US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The Department of Homeland Security is also known to have purchased the location data of US citizens from private marketing firms in the past.

As expected, the revelations have set alarm bells ringing among privacy advocates and national security reform activists, who say such actions by the FBI and other investigative agencies could have dangerous consequences for the freedom and digital privacy of US citizens.

In a statement to Ars Technica following Wray's testimony, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Senior Staff Attorney Adam Schwartz said, "US government agencies must not be allowed to do an end run around the Fourth Amendment by buying private information from data brokers who collect information about the precise movements of hundreds of millions of people without their knowledge or meaningful consent.

"This extremely sensitive information can reveal where we live and work, who we associate with, and where we worship, protest, and seek medical care," he added.

Sean Vitka, a policy attorney at civil liberties and transparency advocacy group Demand Progress, termed the FBI's actions "horrifying" and said, "The public needs to know who gave the go-ahead for this purchase, why, and what other agencies have done or are trying to do the same." He also said Congress should formulate legislation to ban the practice entirely.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97888-fbi-admits-buying-location-data-us-citizens-without.html

 

[envirovore]

Governments and their enforcement agencies do shady/sketchy sh*t?! I'm shocked...wait, no...not at all surprised by this nor should anyone else be.

For those outside the U.S., you can bet your government has done this too.

 

[Tetr1s]

I love the fourth amendment!!! "The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law."

 

[Thanthan]

Governments and their enforcement agencies do shady/sketchy sh*t?! I'm shocked...wait, no...not at all surprised by this nor should anyone else be.

For those outside the U.S., you can bet your government has done this too.

I’ll never understand this absurd focus on ‘government’. The shady thing here is that it is LEGAL for private third parties to continuously track EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH A PHONE, and sell that data to whoever wants it.
That the government also occasionally buys that data is, frankly, a small additional problem in the massive storm of **** that is modern ‘privacy’…

 

[Uncle Al]

We need a DOJ that enforces the law, regardless of the benefit to Govt. Agencies and those that approved the action should be held accountable ... period. Yeah, I'm a dreamer .....

 

[wiyosaya]

I love the fourth amendment!!! "The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law."

Its not even that, really. The Constitution literally only protects US citizens against its own government by things like the 1st and 4th amendments.

Governments and their enforcement agencies do shady/sketchy sh*t?! I'm shocked...wait, no...not at all surprised by this nor should anyone else be.

For those outside the U.S., you can bet your government has done this too.

I’ll never understand this absurd focus on ‘government’. The shady thing here is that it is LEGAL for private third parties to continuously track EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH A PHONE, and sell that data to whoever wants it.
That the government also occasionally buys that data is, frankly, a small additional problem in the massive storm of **** that is modern ‘privacy’…

My thoughts exactly. Literally anyone can buy this info, and that loop-hole in the SCOTUS ruling/law needs to be closed by the people who held this hearing and are pretending to be incensed by what happened.

We need a DOJ that enforces the law, regardless of the benefit to Govt. Agencies and those that approved the action should be held accountable ... period. Yeah, I'm a dreamer .....

The trouble is, as I see it, that there is this loop-hole that the law has left open. Those who make the laws need to close or eliminate the loop-hole.

 

[envirovore]

I’ll never understand this absurd focus on ‘government’. The shady thing here is that it is LEGAL for private third parties to continuously track EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH A PHONE, and sell that data to whoever wants it.
That the government also occasionally buys that data is, frankly, a small additional problem in the massive storm of **** that is modern ‘privacy’…

Its not even that, really. The Constitution literally only protects US citizens against its own government by things like the 1st and 4th amendments.


My thoughts exactly. Literally anyone can buy this info, and that loop-hole in the SCOTUS ruling/law needs to be closed by the people who held this hearing and are pretending to be incensed by what happened.


The trouble is, as I see it, that there is this loop-hole that the law has left open. Those who make the laws need to close or eliminate the loop-hole.

Aye, my phrasing was a bit poor I'll admit, with the point being what you both touched on, that this is a glaring loophole which of course will be abused and needs to be closed due to allowing the sale of data collection on citizens to happen in the first place.

There's multiple issues to fix here.

 

[Julnor]

It's always best to be on top, no matter what era of history there is always a ruling class and then everyone else. The ruling classes never have to suffer anything, while everyone else just gets shat on.

 

[p51d007]

Do you really think these alphabet agencies give a flying flip?
Nope! They are "above the law". They don't care. Before, they would do it, but
not admit it, but now, they just don't care.
I'm just glad I'm old enough I won't have to put up with it once it REALLY goes all
"communist/dictatorship".

 

[waclark]

I’ll never understand this absurd focus on ‘government’. The shady thing here is that it is LEGAL for private third parties to continuously track EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH A PHONE, and sell that data to whoever wants it.
That the government also occasionally buys that data is, frankly, a small additional problem in the massive storm of **** that is modern ‘privacy’…

There's a big difference between a private company and the government. Private companies have very little control over my life. The government, on the other hand, can make my life very miserable including incarcerating me for no good reason whatsoever. They can confiscate my property, prohibit me from engaging in legal business ventures, freeze my bank accounts and more. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al not so much.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I’ll never understand this absurd focus on ‘government’. The shady thing here is that it is LEGAL for private third parties to continuously track EVERYONE IN THE WORLD WITH A PHONE, and sell that data to whoever wants it.
That the government also occasionally buys that data is, frankly, a small additional problem in the massive storm of **** that is modern ‘privacy’…

That private companies can do this is, indeed ridiculous.

But that doesnt make the focus on the government abusing its power yet-a-fraking gain "absurd".

Both should be outlawed

We need a DOJ that enforces the law, regardless of the benefit to Govt. Agencies and those that approved the action should be held accountable ... period. Yeah, I'm a dreamer .....

The only way that would happen would be if the voters, the common people, stopped electing clowns. Put actual politicians with actual ideas on how to fix issues in power, and rotate them out regularly, and you may see actual progress.

But we'd rather elect total clowns (Trudeau, every president since carter, ece) that have no concept of what life is like for normal people, spitting out orders from their ivory towers to the detriment of all who grovel below.

 

[waclark]

Its not even that, really. The Constitution literally only protects US citizens against its own government by things like the 1st and 4th amendments.


My thoughts exactly. Literally anyone can buy this info, and that loop-hole in the SCOTUS ruling/law needs to be closed by the people who held this hearing and are pretending to be incensed by what happened.


The trouble is, as I see it, that there is this loop-hole that the law has left open. Those who make the laws need to close or eliminate the loop-hole.

Actually, the Constitution does protect non-US citizens. Check this site for more info, https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2020/11/16/undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rights-too/.

Here's the TLDR;

Undocumented immigrants are not just entitled to the basic fundamental human rights, but are also covered by the Constitution of the United States. Yes, without question, the Constitution applies to undocumented immigrants on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States. Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” We can reasonably conclude therefore, that rights to own property, engage in lawful employment, rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause apply to citizens and noncitizens. A conclusion that has been supported by the Supreme Court of the United States in a variety of cases.

It doesn't convey every right to non-citizens, like the right to vote or hold certain offices, but it most assuredly includes the right to protection against unlawful search and seizure.

 

[waclark]

Aye, my phrasing was a bit poor I'll admit, with the point being what you both touched on, that this is a glaring loophole which of course will be abused and needs to be closed due to allowing the sale of data collection on citizens to happen in the first place.

There's multiple issues to fix here.

I believe that some states, like California, have passed laws about selling data and giving people the right to opt of out of having their data sold. Not sure how universal that is.

 

[envirovore]

I believe that some states, like California, have passed laws about selling data and giving people the right to opt of out of having their data sold. Not sure how universal that is.

IIRC there is starting to be some push back against it finally.
The fact that you have to 'opt out' of having your information collected and sold is a major issue as well. Opt out should be the default, with users agreeing to let companies collect info if they choose to opt-in...probably with the benefit of having more functionality out of whatever application (accurate location services for maps, for instance).

Guess it doesn't help things that *everything* is considered a commodity in an attempt to turn some sort of profit now. Sh*ts depressing.

 

[n3o127]

Was trying to read but not comment, lol -- So many good comments here and often on topics like this, we are not nearly as divided as one would think given the last few years -- while sure we don't all perfectly agree, look at this topic (though just one example for sure) - We the People are more on the same page (than we may believe), it's our government that simply not keeping pace with our needs, wants, and moral reflection of who we as a people are today.

 

[axiomatic13]

On June 7, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing James Comey, who was dismissed by Trump on May 9, 2017.

Thanks for nothing, Donnie.

 

[waclark]

IIRC there is starting to be some push back against it finally.
The fact that you have to 'opt out' of having your information collected and sold is a major issue as well. Opt out should be the default, with users agreeing to let companies collect info if they choose to opt-in...probably with the benefit of having more functionality out of whatever application (accurate location services for maps, for instance).

Guess it doesn't help things that *everything* is considered a commodity in an attempt to turn some sort of profit now. Sh*ts depressing.

Unfortunately, this has been going on for some time, even before the advent of the Internet. When we gave up our rights to our personal image when taken outside the home, we opened the floodgates for everything that came after. The Internet was simply pouring gasoline on an existing fire. And as someone else stated here, it's all our fault for electing the clowns that sit in WA D.C.

 

[kiwigraeme]

That's why the spy agencies have 5 eyes - us Kiwis are good at spying on USA citizens - no laws broken.
Kind of like getting a non believer to do your stuff on the Sabbath for you

Oh a USA spies on Kiwis

Then again I'm a more philosophical about all this - people who rave about the abuse of their rights
Put them in a room with 9 others - say one person has a 30 round sub-auto pistol in their bag and the law is no searches under any conditions allowed - and the person will 100% go postal - I sure they will take one for the team.- Just a commedic seeing young communists with black and white views protesting police brutality and government - with Tshirts with pro-russian and "government for the people" in London late 80s
Or the Religious Far right you go on about freedoms

Oh well another off topic warning coming - I just saying many happy with abuses if they favour them - or those that complain - then unhappy if too lily-livered when a 9-11 event happens.

also beware of the politicisation of issues - above mentions Border control.
Now most want drug dealers , people smugglers rounded up .

However if you are Repub or Demo. Think back 30 years - did you really care about the good nice economic migrants who were illegal who helped fixed your lawns, cars , picked your fruit? - you took them as people - happy for the good ones- They worked for a lot on big corps and conservative businesses - Friendly people - maybe at your church , great food , good music.
Again to be fair it may just be a numbers thing

 

[Bullwinkle M]

I believe that some states, like California, have passed laws about selling data and giving people the right to opt of out of having their data sold. Not sure how universal that is.

Hahahhahhahhaaa

Thank you for making me laugh
That was a good one

We all know you were joking about people thinking they can simply opt-out
I mean. who would believe that nonsense

Oh, you were serious?
Bwaaaaahahahhahahhaaa
Good one

 

[waclark]

Hahahhahhahhaaa

Thank you for making me laugh
That was a good one

We all know you were joking about people thinking they can simply opt-out
I mean. who would believe that nonsense

Oh, you were serious?
Bwaaaaahahahhahahhaaa
Good one

Do you have a point to make or are you just trolling? The folks at Sephora who had to pay a $1.2M fine might not be laughing as hard as you.

 

[scavengerspc]

Everybody whines about privacy when something like this breaks, and they whine about safety when some nutcase that has lived among all of us blows something up or shoots up a bunch of their friends or family.

The only consistency is that without fail, they will b***h when one or the other breaks down.

 

[godrilla]

Everybody whines about privacy when something like this breaks, and they whine about safety when some nutcase that has lived among all of us blows something up or shoots up a bunch of their friends or family.

The only consistency is that without fail, they will b***h when one or the other breaks down.

I wonder how would giving up your privacy prevent a rando doing just that? This is how they do crowd control through fear, they don't prevent anything because they still don't have access to one's subconscious. Actually I would argue that they don't want to prevent anything from happening because it allows them to collect more data and grab more power and eventually it's too late. Did the FBI prevent Jan 6th? Or did they orchestrate it to grab more power? It's all unfolding in front of our eyes.

 

[scavengerspc]

it's our government that simply not keeping pace with our needs, wants, and moral reflection of who we as a people are today.

Remember that the next time some A*****e blows something up

I wonder how would giving up your privacy prevent a rando doing just that?

Honestly, I have little doubt that advanced surveillance has resulted in exactly that.

This is how they do crowd control through fear, they don't prevent anything because they still don't have access to one's subconscious.

Again. I very much believe that a plot to do harm that gets stopped before it even starts is often the result of advanced surveillance.

Actually I would argue that they don't want to prevent anything from happening because it allows them to collect more data and grab more power and eventually it's too late.

This I very much disagree with. Waiting for something to happen and then taking the bad guys into custody results in very little information. Following them for years, or decades, can lead to a lot of dirt, not to mention the branching dirtbags.

Did the FBI prevent Jan 6th?

No. I believe them when they say they thought the proper authorities and then the Guard could handle it. Not knowing they wouldn't even be mobilized for so long, of course.

Or did they orchestrate it to grab more power?

No.

It's all unfolding in front of our eyes.

It is, but with all respect, that is not going to help if the eyes aren't working together with our power of common sense. I guess that's why they are called "conspiracy Theories".
Theories, conveniently, require no proof.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Remember that the next time some A*****e blows something up

Honestly, I have little doubt that advanced surveillance has resulted in exactly that.


Again. I very much believe that a plot to do harm that gets stopped before it even starts is often the result of advanced surveillance.


This I very much disagree with. Waiting for something to happen and then taking the bad guys into custody results in very little information. Following them for years, or decades, can lead to a lot of dirt, not to mention the branching dirtbags.


No. I believe them when they say they thought the proper authorities and then the Guard could handle it. Not knowing they wouldn't even be mobilized for so long, of course.


No.


It is, but with all respect, that is not going to help if the eyes aren't working together with our power of common sense. I guess that's why they are called "conspiracy Theories".
Theories, conveniently, require no proof.

There's plenty of proof the Jan 6th pseudo insurrection was an FBI setup and thanks to Congressman McCarthy we've seen the tapes.

 

[scavengerspc]

There's plenty of proof the Jan 6th pseudo insurrection was an FBI setup and thanks to Congressman McCarthy we've seen the tapes.

I'm curious if you know that regardless of people like you spreading this bullshit all over the internet, have any of you not noticed that of over 1000 insurrectionist traitors arrested, and 400 convicted so far, not one of them claimed the FBI had anything to do with their actions?
Add that to the fact that there is NO PROOF the FBI set up your friends.

Please save it for your friends that wrap themselves in aluminum foil and duct tape. Or you could wrap yourself in aluminum foil and the tape from Tucker. It isn't worth as much as duct tape.