RECENT HEADLINES WARN that the government now has greater authority to hack your computers, in and outside the US. Changes to federal criminal court procedures known as Rule 41 are to blame; they vastly expand how and whom the FBI can legally hack. But just like the NSA’s hacking operations, FBI hacking isn’t new. In fact, the bureau has a long history of surreptitiously hacking us, going back two decades.
That history is almost impossible to document, however, because the hacking happens mostly in secret. Search warrants granting permission to hack get issued using vague, obtuse language that hides what’s really happening, and defense attorneys rarely challenge the hacking tools and techniques in court. There’s also no public accounting of how often the government hacks people. Although federal and state judges have to submit a report to Congress tracking the number and nature of wiretap requests they process each year, no similar requirement exists for hacking tools. As a result, little is known about the invasive tools the bureau, and other law enforcement agencies, use or how they use them. But occasionally, tidbits of information do leak out in court cases and news stories.
A look at a few of these cases offers a glimpse at how FBI computer intrusion techniques have developed over the years. Note that the government takes issue with the word “hacking,” since this implies unauthorized access, and the government’s hacking is court-sanctioned. Instead it prefers the terms “remote access searches” and Network Investigative Techniques, or NIT. By whatever name, however, the activity is growing.
1998: The Short But Dramatic Life of Carnivore
The FBI’s first known computer surveillance tool was a traffic sniffer named Carnivore that got installed on network backbones—with the permission of internet service providers. The unfortunately named tool was custom-built to filter and copy metadata and/or the content of communications to and from a surveillance target. The government had already used it about 25 times, beginning in 1998, when the public finally learned about it in 2000 after Earthlink refused to let the FBI install the tool on its network. Earthlink feared the sniffer would give the feds unfettered access to all customer communications. A court battle and congressional hearing ensued, which sparked a fierce and divisive debate, making Carnivore the Apple/FBI case of its day.
Police departments around the nation have taken predictive crime prevention to a new level by building fake user accounts, as well as posing as genuine people to gather information about local events, Tech.Mic reports.
Local agents put on a “digital mask” and pose as “members of the community,” allowing them to gather personal information about suspects they consider a high risk of being involved in a future crime or have existing charges.
In a social media guide for law enforcement officials published by the Justice Department, the document details, officers create fraudulent profiles even though Facebook officially bans the practice.
Departments are also beginning to use predictive analytical policing software, allowing authorities to patrol local neighborhoods based on social networking posts. If people are emotionally upset and publish it on social media networks, the software program labels the neighborhood high risk alerting law enforcement to occupy those area’s.
In a recent article published by Business Insider one police officer answered a LexisNexis survey that he “was looking for a suspect related to drug charges for over a month. When I looked him up on Facebook and requested him as a friend from a fictitious profile, he accepted,” and “he kept ‘checking in’ everywhere he went, so I was able to track him down very easily.”
Another respondent wrote, “Social media is a valuable tool because you are able to see the activities of a target in his comfortable stage. Targets brag and post … information in reference to travel, hobbies, places visited, appointments, circle of friends, family members, relationships, actions, etc.”
Out of 1,221 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that use social media today, more than 80% of the responding officials said social media was a powerful tool for crime-fighting and that “creating personas or profiles on social media outlets for use in law enforcement activities is ethical.”
The NYPD has even gone to the extreme to use photos of young attractive women on Facebook to spy on gang members, the New York Times reported.
No one seems to know if agencies use these photos with or without the consent of the person photographed.
Bradley Shear, an attorney and expert in social media and the law, is not quite sure how the justice system will handle challenges made to this style of policing. However, noting that “police often pose as prostitutes or drug dealers to catch criminals.”
We also know the government hires agents to sway political opinion under its notoriousOperation Mocking BirdProgram.
How to identify a fake user account on Facebook.
Account was made recently 2014, 2015.
Account has no history published for earlier years, but Facebook says they have been a member since 2009, etc.
Most fake accounts have 1 image or no real profile photo of the person. Some may only have a select few photos over a long span of time. A well seasoned user would have more photos posted over a long period of time. A fake account may have 7-10 photos posted on the same day.
User has very few friends in common and or friends in general.
There is little to no interaction on their page with friends, no comments, likes or responses over their long time line.
Profile picture seems to good to be true, that hot model added you today! They even messaged you and are interested in you!
When in doubt use reverse image search. Take their image and see if it is a real person or not.
Last summer the state of Texas was ablaze over concerns surrounding the Jade Helm military drills held across the state prompted some to speculate that the Federal government was preparing for either a local insurrection, secession planning contencies for the Lone Star state or even a “Texas takeover.”
Similar confusion returned earlier this week when dozens of McLennan Community College students posed as unruly protesters as part of a Federal Emergency Management Agency training program. This“first of its kind” three day exercise in Waco, Texas was overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, during which police officers from fifteen different departments took part in drills on how to deal with riots and conduct mass arrests.”
Officers from the Waco Police Department, McLennan County Sheriff’s Office, Killeen Police Department, Lorena Police Department, DeSoto Police Department and troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety, among others, participated in the three-day training program.
As Waco Tribune reports, citing training coordinator Jay Fonville, “this type of training has never been in Texas before.”
We’re all familiar with the Breathalyzer, the brand name for a roadside device that measures a suspected drunken driver’s blood-alcohol level. It has been in use for decades. Now there’s a so-called “textalyzer” device to help the authorities determine whether someone involved in a motor vehicle accident was unlawfully driving while distracted.
The roadside technology is being developed by Cellebrite, the Israeli firm that many believe assistedthe Federal Bureau of Investigation in cracking the iPhone at the center of a heated decryption battle with Apple.
Under the first-of-its-kind legislation proposed in New York, drivers involved in accidents would have to submit their phone to roadside testing from a textalyzer to determine whether the driver was using a mobile phone ahead of a crash. In a bid to get around the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the textalyzer allegedly would keep conversations, contacts, numbers, photos, and application data private. It will solely say whether the phone was in use prior to a motor-vehicle mishap. Further analysis, which might require a warrant, could be necessary to determine whether such usage was via hands-free dashboard technology and to confirm the original finding.
The legislation was prompted by intense lobbying from the group Distracted Operators Risk Casualties (DORCs). The son of its co-founder, Ben Lieberman, was killed in 2011 by a distracted driver in New York. The proposed law has been dubbed “Evan’s Law” in memory of 19-year-old Evan Lieberman.
“When people were held accountable for drunk driving, that’s when positive change occurred,” Lieberman said in a press release. “It’s time to recognize that distracted driving is a similar impairment, and should be dealt with in a similar fashion. This is a way to address people who are causing damage.”
Cellebrite already has roadside devices to scrape the contents of a phone, so this technology would just dial it back a bit. If the legislation passes, Cellebrite would have to bid on the project, as would other tech firms.
“Cellebrite has been leading the adoption of field mobile forensics solutions by law enforcement for years, culminating in the formal introduction of our UFED FIELD series product line a year ago,” Jim Grady, Cellebrite’s CEO, said in a statement. “We look forward to supporting DORCs and law enforcement–both in New York and nationally to curb distracted driving.”
The law, which is before the New York Senate Transportation Committee, would recast the motor-vehicle driving law to make it so that motorists give “implied consent” for “determining whether the operator of a motor vehicle was using a mobile telephone or portable electronic device at or near the time of the accident or collision, which provides the grounds for such testing. No such electronic scan shall include the content or origin of any communication, game conducted, image or electronic data viewed on a mobile telephone or a portable electronic device.”
Police will inform motorists involved in an accident that “the person’s license or permit to drive and any non-resident operating privilege shall be immediately suspended and subsequently revoked should the driver refuse to acquiesce to such field test.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each day in the US nine people die and more than 1,153 are injured because of distracted driving accidents. That’s roughly 20 percent of mishaps caused by distracted driving.
“The facts regarding distracted driving are startling,” said Republican New York Senator Terrence Murphy, who is one of the proposal’s backers.
The cause of the accident that killed Evan Lieberman was discovered after the Lieberman family subpoenaed the mobile phone records of the driver involved in the crash, which showed that the motorist was allegedly distracted while driving.
“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.'” –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”–Declaration of Independence, 1776
After President Obamas nauseating “Standing on the Caskets of Victims” speech yesterday, I came to the ultimate conclusion that part of Mr. Obama’s plan, just like every other tyrant in history was to make every action he does LEGAL and every action his opponents make ILLEGAL.
Let me give you a few examples so we can get on the same page:
1. If the proposed Assault Weapons Ban passes, it would be illegal for you to defend your home against an intruder with a so called “Assault Weapon” or Pistol that uses a high-capacity magazine…BUT it would be LEGAL for you to defend your home with a revolver or lever action gun (to name a few).
2. Taking this scenario a little bit further, if a door kicking burglar, high on PCP, enters your home and attempts to rape your wife or sodomize your 13 year old daughter using a pistol that has a high capacity magazine or “Assault Weapon” you must STILL remain LEGAL (although the criminal seems to not have got the memo about illegal guns)and take him down with the fore-mentioned revolver or lever action rifle..Oh, BTW, you also could also use a pump action shotgun, single shot shotgun, single shot rifle or black powder rifle too…although your odds have gone down tremendously against the intruders SEMI (OR FULLY AUTOMATIC) WEAPON…but congratulations, although you are dead and your family has been sodomized, you have remained LEGAL!!!
3. If any local state or federal Police Officer (or member of the military under martial law) attempts to go beyond his legal rights and tries to arrest or search me using unlawful deadly force or beyond what is deemed necessary I have the legal right to resist arrest, and use whatever force I deem necessary to resist (TX Penal Code 9.31, 9.32).
Yes, one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd Amendment is that citizens should have firearms (even assault rifles) to protect themselves against the tyranny of their LOCAL, STATE or FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This includes Police who go beyond their legal rights. Most Police agencies are issued fully automatic or semi-automatic AR-15 type rifles and hi-capacity sidearms..you wanna go up against that with a lever action 30-30? I don’t think so. For you tactical minds out there, this is called PROPORTIONAL (or OPTIMUM) ARMAMENT and is considered fundamental in winning the fight.
As my readers know, I am not a big “Conspiracy” guy, but I would be amiss here not to mention the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (a child of the Patriot Act) that Mr. Obama signed and ran thru the Senate with a vote of 98-0 (funny, I don’t remember the media talking about this??) that among other things, makes INDEFINITE DETENTION LEGAL FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS. This basically means, you can be held (without formal charges) AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, indefinitely in jail, while being “Investigated” for Terrorism or any other charges they choose to make up….I really wish I was making this up guys, but look it up for yourselves. It also has this nifty “sub-clause” that allows State Governors to call up Military Reservist (Weekend Warriors with “REAL” Automatic Weapons) as FIRST RESPONDERS to Natural Disasters and “Terrorist Attacks”….You can take this info as far as you choose, but at the VERY LEAST, I bet this makes you look at #3 above in a new light, huh? Yeah, it did me too.
I know this is dated, but Here is Senator Rand Paul (one of the only guys in Government btw that gets it!!) begging in vain the Senate to strike the above clauses from the bill..as a sidebar, 98% of the people I know meet the description he gives of “terrorist”..see where this is going guys??
BTW, before the hate mail starts, I am a huge supporter of LEGITIMATE law Enforcement agencies and in NO WAY am advocating RESISTING ARREST or NOT COOPERATING with law enforcement or the Government just for the sake of rebellion or riot…the essence of this article is OBEYING THE LAW, WHEN THE LAW IS (MORALLY not just LEGALLY) CORRECT.
Sorry Mr. Obama, but I choose to read and follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Penal Code AS IT IS WRITTEN, not your twisted version you have “concocted” to gain control over the masses. I will continue to FOLLOW the letter of the law, as long as it is not twisted by an illegal and immoral government system, which our founding father knew was a possibility, thus enter the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment. I realize that I will be considered an OUTLAW in your eyes… I guess (and I think I speak for the majority here) I would rather be “ILLEGAL”, ALIVE AND FREE than “LEGAL”, DEAD OR A SLAVE!!
