>Among the special powers granted exclusively to the FBI under a Reagan-era executive order (No. 12333) are authorizations to conduct “unconsented physical searches” and “physical surveillance” for intelligence purposes in the US. The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before searching cell phone data, but there is an exception for “exigent circumstances,” which is supposed to apply only to extreme situations in which lives are in danger.
It seems like a clear cut abuse of power. These aren't exigent circumstances, they're protests, and besides that it's not a federal problem. It seems like the 4th amendment doesn't have any power any more.
This journalist has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Executive Order 12333 grants authority to the FBI (among others, with few exceptions), specifically as it relates to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence (EO 12333 1.7(g)(1)).
I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from. EO 12333 specifically states, "Elements of the
Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical
searches, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with
procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department
containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director." It then goes on to infer the FBI is the only one who can conduct unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance on United States persons, except in specific circumstances.
In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations into the previously mentioned activities; and they are the only ones able to do so except in specific circumstances. Lastly, the protests in Portland would not be considered as part of literally any of the FBI's authorities in EO 12333, it would be from their authorities related to conduct of criminal investigations, which would require a warrant or consent to a search.
I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing.
I feel like programmers/engineers/technical-minded people have an easier time being terrified at this kind of "exception" for "exigent circumtances". Because that type of person is well aware that an "exception to a rule" really just means the rule is formally worthless, since it provides no guarantee whatsoever.
I completely agree agree with you on the 4th, it has become persona non grata to both parties. Republicans and Democrats are beginning to see the Bill of Rights as more "suggestions" than the actual foundation of our system of laws. I don't even think they consider it a "living Constitution" anymore and just consider it fodder for election speeches. Do not blame only Republicans for this, the Dems own it as well. Obama kept up mass surveillance and the unPatriotic Act as well as did Bush. They're all complicit. Sure Dems have a better record on progressive social issues, and some Constitutional "features" but so do Republicans with gun rights and religious rights. However both are ignore fundamental aspects of it that don't fit their narrative.
National security is used around the world to undermine basic laws and constitutions. This trend has to stop. Best start would be yesterday. Sensible constitutions have protection of privacy for a reason. Now we have old and slow people in power that sell it for a bit of profit.
This article seems highly misleading in its conclusions. For example, quoting, "initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices" without any of the context in the e-mail makes it appear far worse than what seems to have taken place.
The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.
Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...".
There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do".
The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials.
Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
> Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here:
> ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly”
So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist.
Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.
One of those "I wish you could tie a news event to follow ups" moments: does the alleged pipe bomb ever appear in court as evidence? What happened to the arrestee?
The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.
It’s worth remembering that some of these powerful green ‘laser pointers’ you can buy online can cause permanent eye damage or blindness in a fraction of a second. Sometimes even diffuse reflections of the beam can be hazardous. They’re a real danger to the genuinely peaceful protestors as well as the police that they’ve been aimed at.
If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.
I suppose you'd have to find a good argument for why the protester isn't exercising their Second Amendment right alongside you exercising your First Amendment right.
I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law.
I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry.
> carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly
All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion.
Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?
> Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.
No, the individual did not.
This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.
>The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative.
irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones?
"The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.
The FBI's job is to investigate crimes "in the United States". So far as protesters were engaged in crimes worthy of arrest the FBI is within it's pervue.
That said: if arrests were made outside of criminal investigation we would hope the data collected was not retained.
Understood that the portland protests are a politically sensitive topic... But the fact the FBI was using all of its capabilities in a situation that seems to have the hallmarks of one interesting to federal prosecutors is not surprising (to me).
I think you are wrong in general, though I am not an American and won't pretend I know about the US protests in portland or elsewhere...
Why do I think you're wrong?
The purvue of the FBI needs to be a lot more specific than any crime in the US. We've seen more than enough times that such a wide purvue leaves them ripe for abuse (look up their treatment of MLK).
The only practical way for this to happen is for the FBI to actively justify their decisions on what and who to investigate. "Why are these people being investigated?" is a very fair question to ask and one the FBI should happily answer.
The only alternative to this is that whoever is in charge (POTUS) gets to decide with no oversight, no checks or balances, and no accountability.
We've had that in the past. It didn't end well.
Respectfully "it's their job to do this" is a really bad defense, it's the opening line to basically every abuse of power and likely will be part of the defense for all future ones.
If the FBI have a good reason to spend time on this, they can tell us and I'll happily support it. If they don't, they need to stop. But either way, they should not get a blank cheque to use a huge budget and enhanced police powers without having to answer to "we the people".
This should be an apolitical position, whether you're right or left, extreme or centrist.
If you were arrested in Portland and the authorities had custody of your phone for any period of time, assume that anything “interesting” on your phone is in their database.
What’s interesting ... contacts, text messages, pictures/videos, email, ... everything.
...and then what? Do they have a massive database of phone images that they can search enmasse?
I've heard stories of DHS taking phones to make copies of them - so it seems like they have a process of taking phone images, and possibly scanning them on the spot.
...but then do they catalogue all these phone images somewhere and are they searched regularly?
It sure seems like both sides politically really hate the FBI. I ask, when are they going to be evaluated? We should be rethinking the Intelligence Community in America, it has failed us. JFK knew this all too well.
I guess that if you've got a lot of toys to use against terrorists, and there are no terrorists on the radar, you go out and see if you can find some. Or invent some.
And if the other countries won't let you in to play...
Now watch as scores of protestors are suddenly arrested for failing to declare gift certificates from their grandmother's on their taxes a decade ago...
> A lot of what happened was/is domestic terrorism
Check your facts.
This is so wildly off base I'm surprised this comment is still here. This is the pumped up FOX/alt-right narrative. Domestic terrorism is the alt-right creating militias to abduct governors (yesterday) or kill state senators (see: Oregon last summer). Smashing a Starbucks window or starting a fire in a garbage can (or a half-assed molotove cocktail) is faaaaar from opening fire nightly on thousands of protestors, gassing them with banned CS gas, and trying to disappear them in unmarked cars, done by unmarked goons with no badges.
I encourage all to look at the DNS hosting records for fbi.gov. They are bizarre. There is a big identity question with who the FBI is right now. I'm not confident any unit or person is from the FBI until I see strong evidence / identification they bring with them.
A good example is how more and more subdomains keep slipping behind CloudFlare. Those could be hosted anywhere.
Another example, which I spoke to the FBI Los Angeles office this morning about, is Infragard Los Angeles. They literally have subdomains hosted in mainland China. What is going on here? [1]
[+] [-] malwarebytess|5 years ago|reply
It seems like a clear cut abuse of power. These aren't exigent circumstances, they're protests, and besides that it's not a federal problem. It seems like the 4th amendment doesn't have any power any more.
[+] [-] bladegash|5 years ago|reply
I'm not even sure where they are getting the "unconsented physical searches" and "physical surveillance" line from. EO 12333 specifically states, "Elements of the Intelligence Community are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical searches, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the Intelligence Community element concerned or the head of a department containing such element and approved by the Attorney General, after consultation with the Director." It then goes on to infer the FBI is the only one who can conduct unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance on United States persons, except in specific circumstances.
In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; the FBI may use unconsented physical searches and physical surveillance to support their investigations into the previously mentioned activities; and they are the only ones able to do so except in specific circumstances. Lastly, the protests in Portland would not be considered as part of literally any of the FBI's authorities in EO 12333, it would be from their authorities related to conduct of criminal investigations, which would require a warrant or consent to a search.
I'm not a fan of all this necessarily, but the fact checking in this article is mind-blowing.
[+] [-] 2bitencryption|5 years ago|reply
or maybe I'm just projecting how I think.
[+] [-] jb775|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bladegash|5 years ago|reply
The context for that quote, is that an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly". Lastly, and likely most importantly, the individual consented to his phone being searched.
Now, to the original quote: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover the interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying. These Agents may uncover a situation like the one described in the previous paragraph...".
There is nothing in here that implies they intended to search the phones without a search warrant of consent. Law enforcement officals do not make it a routine matter to specify, "They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying once they have a search warrant or consent from the individual". That would be equivalent to me saying to a SWE, "I need you to go and complete X task", then qualifying it with, "and make sure you do x, y, z, a, b, c task that I already know you know and were taught to do".
The title of this article should really read, "FBI Team Sent to 'Exploit' Criminal's Phones in Portland". The fact that the individual(s) also happened to be protestors, is really irrelevant and highly connotative. There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives someone the right to threaten and/or carry out actual violence against another individual, nor should it allow for that. Not to mention, there are specific Federal statutes regarding assault against federal officials.
Frankly, if I was a protestor exercising my First Amendment rights, I'd be pissed that someone was carrying what appears to be a pipe-bomb to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
[+] [-] philwelch|5 years ago|reply
> Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Let’s compare that to your description of the suspect’s behavior here:
> ...an individual was arrested for Misdemeanor Assault on a federal officer, specifically due to shining laser pointers at their eyes. Upon physical search of the individual, it was found he was, "carrying a machete, a large mortar firework and a section of galvanized pipe with endcaps and fuze assembly”
So by the definition already established, either this person was just a criminal who was engaging in this premeditated, violent, criminal behavior for purely antisocial reasons, or he was a domestic terrorist.
Maybe you could argue that the definition of domestic terrorism is overly broad, but at that point you’re basically splitting hairs to pick and choose which forms of political violence are acceptable.
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
The entire point of the protests is to complain about the willingness of the police to lie and fabricate evidence to cover their misconduct.
[+] [-] bluescrn|5 years ago|reply
If it was a war (some argue that the unrest may be the start of a civil war), using lasers as blinding weapons is actually a war crime.
[+] [-] phobosanomaly|5 years ago|reply
I'm not going to be the guy who says it's ok to bring a pipe-bomb to a peaceful protest, but there are plenty of people bringing semi-automatic rifles and handguns out to the protests and for better or worse, that's legal depending on local law.
I'm not sure what the legality of a pipe-bomb is. For example, in some states Tannerite is perfectly legal for ordinary folks to possess and carry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite
[+] [-] newacct583|5 years ago|reply
All items that can plausibly be weapons, and used dangerously. As others have pointed out, though, had he been carrying a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine (an objectively more dangerous object) I can't imagine you reaching the same conclusion.
Why is a guy with a fused (but apparently not filled?) pipe bomb presumptively a "criminal" but a guy with a rifle not? Doesn't that have something to do with expression? Shouldn't that distinction be presumptively respected by law enforcement?
[+] [-] jtxx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maerF0x0|5 years ago|reply
He consented to it being searched once, not permanently exploited without his knowledge.
[+] [-] pnw_hazor|5 years ago|reply
Well within the law and normal.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gowld|5 years ago|reply
No, the individual did not. This is a police-state lie that needs to stop. There is no way to "consent" to anything requested by someone who has a right to kill you at any time if they feel you might be a threat, and who is allowed to lie to you about your legal rights.
[+] [-] trhway|5 years ago|reply
irrelevant? does FBI usually send such a team to exploit "criminal's" (until proven guilty blah-blah-...) phones?
https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi-counterterrorism-fl...
"The team brings the FBI’s strategic and tactical counterterrorism capabilities to bear in partnership with other U.S. government agencies and foreign partner-nation entities in critical overseas locations to detect, penetrate, and disrupt terrorist networks."
[+] [-] B4CKlash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] engineer_22|5 years ago|reply
That said: if arrests were made outside of criminal investigation we would hope the data collected was not retained.
Understood that the portland protests are a politically sensitive topic... But the fact the FBI was using all of its capabilities in a situation that seems to have the hallmarks of one interesting to federal prosecutors is not surprising (to me).
Hope the downvoters can see my point.......
[+] [-] LatteLazy|5 years ago|reply
Why do I think you're wrong?
The purvue of the FBI needs to be a lot more specific than any crime in the US. We've seen more than enough times that such a wide purvue leaves them ripe for abuse (look up their treatment of MLK).
The only practical way for this to happen is for the FBI to actively justify their decisions on what and who to investigate. "Why are these people being investigated?" is a very fair question to ask and one the FBI should happily answer.
The only alternative to this is that whoever is in charge (POTUS) gets to decide with no oversight, no checks or balances, and no accountability.
We've had that in the past. It didn't end well.
Respectfully "it's their job to do this" is a really bad defense, it's the opening line to basically every abuse of power and likely will be part of the defense for all future ones.
If the FBI have a good reason to spend time on this, they can tell us and I'll happily support it. If they don't, they need to stop. But either way, they should not get a blank cheque to use a huge budget and enhanced police powers without having to answer to "we the people".
This should be an apolitical position, whether you're right or left, extreme or centrist.
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
Using a bomb for political purposes... that's terrorism, not protesting.
[+] [-] doggydogs94|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
I've heard stories of DHS taking phones to make copies of them - so it seems like they have a process of taking phone images, and possibly scanning them on the spot.
...but then do they catalogue all these phone images somewhere and are they searched regularly?
[+] [-] waheoo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecommerceguy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8bitsrule|5 years ago|reply
And if the other countries won't let you in to play...
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
I'm not sure it doesn't fit the definition of terrorist.
[+] [-] fareesh|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LatteLazy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Oricle|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tijuco2|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rglover|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SoSoRoCoCo|5 years ago|reply
Check your facts.
This is so wildly off base I'm surprised this comment is still here. This is the pumped up FOX/alt-right narrative. Domestic terrorism is the alt-right creating militias to abduct governors (yesterday) or kill state senators (see: Oregon last summer). Smashing a Starbucks window or starting a fire in a garbage can (or a half-assed molotove cocktail) is faaaaar from opening fire nightly on thousands of protestors, gassing them with banned CS gas, and trying to disappear them in unmarked cars, done by unmarked goons with no badges.
[+] [-] rshnotsecure|5 years ago|reply
A good example is how more and more subdomains keep slipping behind CloudFlare. Those could be hosted anywhere.
Another example, which I spoke to the FBI Los Angeles office this morning about, is Infragard Los Angeles. They literally have subdomains hosted in mainland China. What is going on here? [1]
[1] - https://www.infragardlosangeles.org/
[+] [-] Der_Einzige|5 years ago|reply