FBI admits buying Americans' location data and says it won't stop

[GeoffreyA]

The proper time to investigate crimes is when you learn they occurred. All Epstein's crimes took place 2003-2008, and the DOJ knew of all of them in 2008. Yet from 2009-2016, they took zero action, and worse: during that same time period, the media killed story after Epstein story, to keep the scandal out of the public eye.

Rightly so that is criticised and deserving of accountability; but the bottom line is, ScottSoapbox's comment was in reference to the FBI in 2026, the context being the recent releasing of the Epstein files, leading to a reckoning in Europe and the UK but hardly in the US.

Epstein files fallout: Muted US response vs political reckoning in Europe

The newly released Epstein files have triggered political fallout in the UK and parts of Europe, but far less in the US.

www.aljazeera.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/06/epstein-europe-america-fallout-00769506

Reed Brody, lawyer: 'The contrast between Europe and the US in handling the Epstein files is striking'

OP-ED. The former New York state prosecutor sees the fallout from the Epstein revelations under the Trump administration as a major 'institutional test,' revealing a troubling politicization of the American justice system by the executive branch.

www.lemonde.fr

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/14/nx-s1-5714609/epstein-europe-fallout

Heads roll in Europe over Epstein files while US justice declines to act

The arrest of Britain’s former prince Andrew underscored the stark contrast between Europe's response to the Epstein files and that of the United States, where only Ghislaine Maxwell is facing justice…

www.france24.com

Instead of addressing that valid point, your comment pushed the timeline to the past.

When Trump was elected, they took the blinders off ... but the moment Sleepy Joe stepped into office, the media put them back on. You won't find one single story criticizing the Biden DOJ for "slackness" in investigating Epstein. Nor will we find one single post from you on this or any other forum, criticizing him for the same. So stop pretending your synthetic outrage is anything but the worst depths of political chicanery.

For the record, I am not an American, nor would I support either party, red or blue, were I one. I have got no reason to back Biden, Obama, or the Democrats. Similarly, Trump. Both parties are jokes and corrupt; the only difference is, blue does a lot of virtue signalling. Ultimately, there is a major problem in how things work in America, no matter who is in the White House.

 

[Endymio]

, the context being the recent releasing of the Epstein files, leading to a reckoning in Europe and the UK but hardly in the US.

Nice try, but while Europe was busy ignoring all this, the US tried and convicted Epstein and Maxwell, seized Epstein's assets, and began doling them out to his victims. Meanwhile, the only remaining person in the files accused of raping these girls is your Prince Andrew. You've know of this for years, and yet all you've done is move him into a slightly-less luxurious palace. I'll also note the U.K. is where a large gang of Pakistani men were allowed to rape and sexually abuse hundreds of underage girls for decades while police intentionally ignored evidence against them -- a far larger scandal than Epstein -- and all in the name of not wanting to "appear racist" by charging these men with their crimes.

 

[Puiu]

You mean the Epstein that Obama shielded from federal prosecution for eight full years, despite the DOJ having the goods on Epstein back in 2008? Purchasing publicly available location data isn't a violation of either the Constitution or due process. But what WAS a violation was Obama's DNI James Clapper lying to Congress about NSA surveillance of US citizens:

User Clip: Disgraced Former DNI Director James Clapper Lies to Congress about NSA Surveillance

March 12, 2013

www.c-span.org

If you wish to be outraged about illegal government surveillance of citizens, you have to care when it actually happens.

Complete lie. Obama's first term started on January 20, 2009. It was during Bush that Epstein got his "get out of jail for free" ticket. Why aren't you attacking the GOP for enabling this to happen? It was Obama's fault for what the DOJ did under the GOP power?

Why are you so blatantly lying? What do you gain from spreading this much easily disproven disinformation?

 

[Endymio]

Complete lie. Obama's first term started on January 20, 2009.

And Obama's tenure ended eight full years later -- eight years in which Obama knew of Epstein, yet failed to instruct the DOJ to take action. That changed when Trump took office.

It was during Bush that Epstein got his "get out of jail for free" ticket. Why aren't you attacking the GOP for enabling this to happen? It

Glad you asked? Because Bush knew nothing of this case. SDNY -- the federal district that actually had full jurisdiction over Epstein, the district that produced dozens of fraudulent cases against Trump -- refused to take the case. Why? Because SDNY was full of Clinton insiders, and Hillary was a sitting Senator in that very district. And when Acosta in FL agreed to take the Epstein case, he encountered immediate pressure to "go easy" on Epstein from just those sources.

That same pressure -- we learned from the ABC "hot mic" moment -- that caused mainstream media to kill story after Epstein story. Once we saw the photos of Bill floating in Epstein's hot tub on Lolita Island, we knew why ... all to protect Hillary's chances at the Presidency.

Why are you so blatantly lying? What do you gain from spreading this much easily disproven disinformation?

My facts are easily confirmable. Learn to use Google.

 

[Puiu]

And Obama's tenure ended eight full years later -- eight years in which Obama knew of Epstein, yet failed to instruct the DOJ to take action. That changed when Trump took office.


Glad you asked? Because Bush knew nothing of this case. SDNY -- the federal district that actually had full jurisdiction over Epstein, the district that produced dozens of fraudulent cases against Trump -- refused to take the case. Why? Because SDNY was full of Clinton insiders, and Hillary was a sitting Senator in that very district. And when Acosta in FL agreed to take the Epstein case, he encountered immediate pressure to "go easy" on Epstein from just those sources.

That same pressure -- we learned from the ABC "hot mic" moment -- that caused mainstream media to kill story after Epstein story. Once we saw the photos of Bill floating in Epstein's hot tub on Lolita Island, we knew why ... all to protect Hillary's chances at the Presidency.


My facts are easily confirmable. Learn to use Google.

There are ZERO facts. You responded to none of my questions.

Why has the GOP enabled the DOJ to give Epstein a super deal? Why didn't Bush stop it when he was in power?

" Because Bush knew nothing of this case." - yes he did. the case was built during his two terms and ENDED under his term with the deal. do you think he lived under a rock all of that time?

The case was then reopened during Trump because of the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" series profiled victims and revealed how federal prosecutors allowed Epstein to avoid a life sentence in 2008 (under Bush and the GOP). Because of this article the media took the story to the skies again and victims came out and testified against Epstein after his arrest.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

Alex Acosta was the one who negotiated the deal. As a REPUBLICAN, he served under both Bush and Trump. In 2019 he had to resign from the role of United States Secretary of Labor (appointed by Trump) and he joined freaking Newsmax...

Epstein signed a non-prosecution agreement, a day before the prosecutor in the case was prepared to indict him.

You are literally lying and trying to gaslight people here.

 

[Endymio]

There are ZERO facts.You responded to none of my questions. Why has the GOP enabled the DOJ to give Epstein a super deal?

I answered all your questions, including this one. The Leftist SDNY -- under the thumb of Senator Clinton -- refused to take the Epstein case, so it fell to Acosta, who has testified as to the immediate pressure he encountered to 'go easy on Epstein'.

" Because Bush knew nothing of this case." - yes he did. the case was built during his two terms and ENDED under his term

Now you're outright lying. The FBI didn't even begin investigating Epstein until 2006, after the Palm Beach PD referred the case to them. After SDNY refused the case (thx, Hillary), it went to FL, where the first federal draft indictment against Epstein came in July 2007. The formal deal came a year later, as Bush was exiting office.

Now answer MY question. Why didn't Obama do what Trump did, and bring Epstein to justice?

The case was then reopened during Trump because of the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" series

Why didn't the media run that story in 2008? Or 2009? Or 2010, or 2011-2016? We know why .... because Bill had spent time on Epstein's island, and Hillary planned to be president.

"...ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic griping about how the network quashed her coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal before it exploded years later.

“I’ve had this story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts,” Robach says to someone off-camera, referring to Epstein’s most vocal sex abuse victim. “We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.

..She also says that Roberts’ interview included allegations involving former President Bill Clinton. “We had everything,” Robach says, shaking her head. “I tried for three years to get it on, to no avail. And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. Every day I get more and more pissed ’cause I’m just like, oh my god. What we had was unreal.”..."

 

[Puiu]

I answered all your questions, including this one. The Leftist SDNY -- under the thumb of Senator Clinton -- refused to take the Epstein case, so it fell to Acosta, who has testified as to the immediate pressure he encountered to 'go easy on Epstein'.


Now you're outright lying. The FBI didn't even begin investigating Epstein until 2006, after the Palm Beach PD referred the case to them. After SDNY refused the case (thx, Hillary), it went to FL, where the first federal draft indictment against Epstein came in July 2007. The formal deal came a year later, as Bush was exiting office.

Now answer MY question. Why didn't Obama do what Trump did, and bring Epstein to justice?


Why didn't the media run that story in 2008? Or 2009? Or 2010, or 2011-2016? We know why .... because Bill had spent time on Epstein's island, and Hillary planned to be president.

"...ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on a hot mic griping about how the network quashed her coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal before it exploded years later.

“I’ve had this story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts,” Robach says to someone off-camera, referring to Epstein’s most vocal sex abuse victim. “We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.

..She also says that Roberts’ interview included allegations involving former President Bill Clinton. “We had everything,” Robach says, shaking her head. “I tried for three years to get it on, to no avail. And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. Every day I get more and more pissed ’cause I’m just like, oh my god. What we had was unreal.”..."

"I answered all your questions, including this one." - you still answered nothing, you just deflected.

Again with the lies. Seriously dude, what exactly do you gain from lying this much. BTW I added more stuff to my previous comment, I don't have the patience to rewrite it here.

You talk about "allegations" and how the media did nothing under Obama as if somehow this excuses what the GOP did and how the GOP saved Epstein in 2008.

Like it or not, the GOP is the one at fault and Trump is a known pedophile. And you are defending him with lies and deflections. Yeah, Clinton is guilty too. Do you want a medal for saying the obvious?

 

[Endymio]

"I answered all your questions, including this one." - you still answered nothing, you just deflected.

I'm going to tell you one last time. There was literally no reason Obama couldn't do what Trump did and reopen the Epstein case. He refused. There was literally no reason for the media to spike story after Epstein story. They refused. No price was too high to pay to ensure Hillary -- the annointed one -- would win in 2016.

Like it or not, the GOP is the one at fault and Trump is a known pedophile.

Some people are lucky Trump doesn't sue Romanian vagrants for libelous nonsense like these. As we learned once the Epstein files were opened, Trump not only was utterly innocent of any wrongdoing, he literally thanked the PB Police when they arrested Epstein.

Compare that to Obama, who spent eight full years shielding Epstein from prosecution.

I'll also add the Biden DOJ -- which would try Trump for 34 felonies for spitting on a sidewalk -- spent four years trying to hang something on him from the Epstein files ... and failed miserably.

 

[MonicaPython2]

Location data in a smartphone can be turned off in case person does not want to share it as I believe.

 

[Northy]

Somehow the question isn't seeming to come up whether or not it's legal to breach peoples privacy and track them endlessly for profit, only whether the government should eat the pie too.

 

[acrossthestars]

According to Kash Patel, buying American's location data doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because it's coming from private and public enterprise. In other words, "it's not a violation of Constitutional rights, if the violation doesn't start with us."

This is no different than saying that a mafia boss can't be charged with ordering a hit, if he simply left a note on a table for a subordinate saying "it sure would be convenient for your elevation within this organization, if these people weren't around anymore." It's all about "plausible deniability".

Mr. Patel is clearly obeying the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Because when I hear him say “The FBI uses all tools to do our mission”, what he thinks he’s saying is “we are obeying our duty to the law of the land”, but what I and many other Americans hear is “the Constitution is a chronic pain in my behind. I spend most of my time, as Director of the FBI, trying to find ways to get around it, without blatantly breaking the law.” And you know what, he’s right. Governments hate the fact that they have to follow the Constitution, because it cripples their ability to wield absolute authority. If there weren’t a Constitution, they could stop engaging in this game of pretense, where they are "faithful custodians of justice".

If you think I’m being hyperbolic and factitious, prove me wrong. Explain to me how Patel is actually in the right and I’m just a dumb pleb, for thinking otherwise.

 

[hahahanoobs]

But, but I did all the privacy things!

 

[hahahanoobs]

Location data in a smartphone can be turned off in case person does not want to share it as I believe.

And people wonder how it's so easy to get their data.

 

[Endymio]

According to Kash Patel, buying American's location data doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because it's coming from private and public enterprise. In other words, "it's not a violation of Constitutional rights, if the violation doesn't start with us." This is no different than saying that a mafia boss can't be charged with ordering a hit, if he simply left a note on a table for a subordinate

Where do you people get these absurdities? This location data comes from nitwits freely consenting to give away their location through their phone apps -- not from government stormtroopers kicking down your door and searching through your private papers. Buying location data that you yourself consented to give away is not an "unreasonable search and seizure" under the 4th Amendment ... it's not a search at all.

If you think I’m being hyperbolic and factitious, prove me wrong.

Challenge accepted and won. You're wrong.

Now -- explain why you didn't care when Clapper was illegally wiretapping phones to spy on US citizens, and committing perjury by lying about it to Congress.

 

[scavengerspc]

I'm trying to keep a lighter touch here at Techspot for a year now, so I have stayed away from this thread.
Well that, and I really don't know enough about the many topics here to respond intelligently.
Add in the fact that I currently have a nasty case of the flu and a 103.5 temperature that goes with it.

But if I may ask, can everyone please put up some links to the things they post?
It really would help those of us that are half dead.
Funeral arrangements pending (if there is any mercy)

Great thanks to the living.

 

[onebignerd]

If the FBI wants my location and want to track it via my phone GPS, all they need to do is pay me. They should, shouldn't they? Be paying the actual person for their information? As it stands, it is my information, so why should some other corporate body get paid by the FBI for my information?

The FBI and the Government don't even have to pay for it, all telcos allow Government & Law Enforcement access to their records and have been in various forms for over a century. The FBI was caught harvesting drivers license pictures and information without a warrant in 2019, but no one at the FBI was charged. They don't care about our privacy!

 

[onebignerd]

Such false sincerity from the Congressmen, pretending to get all upset about fourth amendment violations over location data but they renew the NSA spying and call it Constitutional. Prove you care about the fourth amendment and warrants, kill the FISA court and all the domestic spying from 9\11!!

 

[onebignerd]

Where do you people get these absurdities? This location data comes from nitwits freely consenting to give away their location through their phone apps -- not from government stormtroopers kicking down your door and searching through your private papers. Buying location data that you yourself consented to give away is not an "unreasonable search and seizure" under the 4th Amendment ... it's not a search at all.


Challenge accepted and won. You're wrong.

Now -- explain why you didn't care when Clapper was illegally wiretapping phones to spy on US citizens, and committing perjury by lying about it to Congress.

They get free access to phone records and have been for more than a century. Even without GPS in your cell phone, there is GPS in your PC(s), car(s), tablets, smart televisions, Alexa, e-readers...etc.

 

[GeoffreyA]

Nice try, but while Europe was busy ignoring all this, the US tried and convicted Epstein and Maxwell, seized Epstein's assets, and began doling them out to his victims. Meanwhile, the only remaining person in the files accused of raping these girls is your Prince Andrew. You've know of this for years, and yet all you've done is move him into a slightly-less luxurious palace. I'll also note the U.K. is where a large gang of Pakistani men were allowed to rape and sexually abuse hundreds of underage girls for decades while police intentionally ignored evidence against them -- a far larger scandal than Epstein -- and all in the name of not wanting to "appear racist" by charging these men with their crimes.

Tu quoque, as well as another assumption. I never said I was British. In any case, you're referring to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor? I doubt whether many British folk would hold high sentiments for this disgraced man, and there are ongoing investigations into his misconduct in public office. As for the sexual allegations, I don't know if he's guilty or not, but if so, I'm sure he will be prosecuted if it can be proved.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/...-mountbatten-windsor-peter-mandelson-00835334

As for the rape of girls by gangs, of course it was heinous, as any thinking person would agree, but bringing this point up in a discussion of Epstein and his pals is a blend of tu quoque and relative privation as a deflection tactic.

 

[Endymio]

Tu quoque...

You failed your logic classes. Your original claim was that there had been "a reckoning" in Europe, while the US blissfully ignored Epstein's crimes. Yet while the US charged and arrested both Epstein and Maxwell, let's look at what the UK did, shall we? When Prince Andrew was first accused of raping underage girls, the British government threatened news organizations if they dared publish the allegations. Then they stood idly by for years as Andrew paid off one of the victims, forcing her to sign a nondisclosure.

While Epstein was killing himself in a jail cell and Maxwell adjusting to her prison digs, Andrew -- the only other person publicly accused of rapes on Epstein island -- continues to walk free, decades after the crimes, and a full decade after they became public knowledge, while Britain gives us mealy-mouthed talk of "investigations ongoing". My point about the Pakistani men allowed to rape hundreds of underage UK girls merely reinforces the flaw in your system -- appearances above retribution for victims.

Today and still the only living man known to have committed crimes on Epstein Island is currently in a royal palace in Britain.

 

[GeoffreyA]

You failed your logic classes. Your original claim was that there had been "a reckoning" in Europe, while the US blissfully ignored Epstein's crimes. Yet while the US charged and arrested both Epstein and Maxwell, let's look at what the UK did, shall we? When Prince Andrew was first accused of raping underage girls, the British government threatened news organizations if they dared publish the allegations. Then they stood idly by for years as Andrew paid off one of the victims, forcing her to sign a nondisclosure.

While Epstein was killing himself in a jail cell and Maxwell adjusting to her prison digs, Andrew -- the only other person publicly accused of rapes on Epstein island -- continues to walk free, decades after the crimes, and a full decade after they became public knowledge, while Britain gives us mealy-mouthed talk of "investigations ongoing". My point about the Pakistani men allowed to rape hundreds of underage UK girls merely reinforces the flaw in your system -- appearances above retribution for victims.

Today and still the only living man known to have committed crimes on Epstein Island is currently in a royal palace in Britain.

You ascribe wrong readings to my arguments. I set the temporal context as after the Epstein files, and linked references showing that the American response against people linked to Epstein has been weaker than that seen in Europe and the UK. It is not my claim but a straight reading of the media. This isn't about Epstein and Maxwell being convicted, but others.

If Mountbatten-Windsor is guilty, he should be locked up straight away. For all we know he is lying, but until it is proved or he admits it, they remain allegations.

Again, I never said I was British, but, for some reason, you call flaws in the UK's system, "your system," etc.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

You mean the Epstein that Obama shielded from federal prosecution for eight full years, despite the DOJ having the goods on Epstein back in 2008? Purchasing publicly available location data isn't a violation of either the Constitution or due process. But what WAS a violation was Obama's DNI James Clapper lying to Congress about NSA surveillance of US citizens:

User Clip: Disgraced Former DNI Director James Clapper Lies to Congress about NSA Surveillance

March 12, 2013

www.c-span.org

If you wish to be outraged about illegal government surveillance of citizens, you have to care when it actually happens.

I mean the Epstein shielded by Obama then Trump then Biden then Trump again.

Party tribalism is stupid when both are corrupt, pedo protecting, war loving, inflation creating parties that don't care about you at all.

 

[Endymio]

You ascribe wrong readings to my arguments. I set the temporal context as after the Epstein files, and linked references showing that the American response against people linked to Epstein has been weaker than that seen in Europe and the UK.

And that absurd remark was promptly, definitely, and irrefutably proven wrong.

If Mountbatten-Windsor is guilty, he should be locked up straight away. For all we know he is lying, but until it is proved or he admits it, they remain allegations.

And yet the British police refused to even open an investigation for over a decade, until the woman who accused him -- and the only other man who would know for sure -- were both already dead.

I rest my case.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Your car insurance company has been buying your location data and raising your rates for a few years now and that actually pisses me off more. Not too much more than this, but more.

We should be angry that our data is for sale at all times to anyone, not just this

I agree. It is already illegal for the FBI to use this data, but it should be illegal for all organizations: private, government, and otherwise to use this data.

 

[Endymio]

I agree. It is already illegal for the FBI to use this data

But it isn't. The Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that individuals have an expectation of privacy in location data collected surreptitiously by cell phone providers; they also explicitly recognized (both in US v. Miller and by reference in Carpenter) that this does not apply to records voluntarily given to third parties. It's the difference between the FBI searching your house (requires a warrant) vs. their searching your garbage (no warrant required). Or a closer analogy: their demanding you submit to fingerprinting, vs. their lifting a fingerprint off an object you voluntarily sold or gave to a third party.

As a privacy advocate, personally I'd rather use of this data **was** illegal. But since it's not, let's not spread disinformation that it is.

I mean the Epstein shielded by Obama then Trump then Biden then Trump again.

Eh? Talk sense, man. After eight years of Obama's inaction, Trump put Epstein in prison, where he quickly killed himself. That's about as far from "shielding" as it gets. And today, the only living person accused by Epstein victims is walking the fields of Britain, not the streets of D.C.