Senators question FBI’s legal reasoning behind cell-tower spoofing (Washington Post, 2 Jan 2015) – Two U.S. senators are questioning whether the FBI has granted itself too much leeway on when it can use decoy cellphone towers to scoop up data on the identities and locations of cellphone users. The lawmakers say the agency now says it doesn’t need a search warrant when gathering data about people milling around in public spaces. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee respectively, have written a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson about the use of the surveillance technology called an IMSI catcher, though also referred to by the trade name “Stingray.”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/KROMKRATHOG

Tech firms tussle with DOJ over the right to say ‘zero’ (WaPo, 16 Dec 2014) – A growing number of technology companies seeking to promote transparency have been testing the limits of new government guidelines on how they can disclose national security orders for their customers’ data. Over the past year or so, about a dozen online and communications firms have reported that they have never received such a request, effectively breaching the spirit if not the letter of government guidance issued in January intended to make it more difficult for would-be terrorists or spies to identify services that could be used to evade detection. Their decisions have frustrated U.S. officials, even as they privately acknowledge there is little they have been able to do about it. In October, Twitter sued the government , charging that its First Amendment rights were squelched when the Justice Department blocked it from publishing a transparency report that sought to disclose the specific number of orders it had received and the fact that the number was limited. The firm also alleged that preventing a company from reporting “zero” national security requests is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The guidelines take the form of an agreement reached with five major tech companies that allowed for reporting of government national security requests in broad ranges, such as 0-999. There is no “zero” option. Some firms began issuing warrant canaries shortly after the first disclosures by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, who revealed a National Security Agency program to gather data about millions of Americans’ phone calls (though not the content) from phone companies. Wickr, a San Francisco-based company that provides an encrypted text message service to more than 4 million users, planted a warrant canary in its transparency report in the summer of 2013, becoming the first company, it said, to do so. The report said, “If the canary flies the coop, the tone of this report will change as well because things will have shifted.”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/jscreationzs

British intelligence spies on lawyer-client communications, government admits (GigaOM, 6 Nov 2014) – After the Snowden leaks, British lawyers expressed fears that the government’s mass surveillance efforts could undermine the confidentiality of their conversations with clients, particularly when those clients were engaged in legal battles with the state. Those fears were well-founded. On Thursday the legal charity Reprieve, which provides assistance to people accused of terrorism, U.S. death row prisoners and so on, said it had succeeded in getting the U.K. government to admit that spy agencies tell their staff they may target and use lawyer-client communications “just like any other item of intelligence.” This is despite the fact that both English common law and the European Court of Human Rights protect legal professional privilege as a fundamental principle of justice. Reprieve noted that the government had previously claimed three times that it could not disclose the information it has now disclosed (PDF) in heavily redacted form. According to that information, the acceptability of spying on lawyer-client communications is largely backed up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which was recently revised to allow surveillance of all sorts of online channels , as well as of phone calls and emails.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/StuartMiles

Amnesty releases anti-spying program for activists (BBC, 19 Nov 2014) – Amnesty International has released a program that can spot spying software used by governments to monitor activists and political opponents. The Detekt software was needed as standard anti-virus programs often missed spying software, it said. Amnesty said many governments used sophisticated spying tools that could grab images from webcams or listen via microphones to monitor people. “These spying tools are marketed on their ability to get round your bog-standard anti-virus,” said Tanya O’Carroll, an adviser on technology and human rights at Amnesty International. The makers of spying software did extensive testing to ensure that the way they infected and lurked on a computer did not trigger security alerts, she added. Detekt has been developed over the past two years to spot the few telltale signs spying programs do leave. The intense scan it carries out on a hard drive means a computer cannot be used while Detekt is running. Four separate rights groups – Amnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy International and Digitale Gesellschaft – have worked together to create the spyware spotter, which is available free of charge. The first version of Detekt has been written to run on Windows computers because the people most often being monitored use that software, said Ms O’Carroll.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/worradmu

British intelligence spies on lawyer-client communications, government admits (GigaOM, 6 Nov 2014) – After the Snowden leaks, British lawyers expressed fears that the government’s mass surveillance efforts could undermine the confidentiality of their conversations with clients, particularly when those clients were engaged in legal battles with the state. Those fears were well-founded. On Thursday the legal charity Reprieve, which provides assistance to people accused of terrorism, U.S. death row prisoners and so on, said it had succeeded in getting the U.K. government to admit that spy agencies tell their staff they may target and use lawyer-client communications “just like any other item of intelligence.” This is despite the fact that both English common law and the European Court of Human Rights protect legal professional privilege as a fundamental principle of justice. Reprieve noted that the government had previously claimed three times that it could not disclose the information it has now disclosed (PDF) in heavily redacted form. According to that information, the acceptability of spying on lawyer-client communications is largely backed up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which was recently revised to allow surveillance of all sorts of online channels , as well as of phone calls and emails.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/renjithkrishnan

Florida Supreme Court rules warrants a must for real-time cell location tracking (SC Magazine, 20 Oct 2014) – In a ruling that Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Hanni Fakhoury believes will be “cited a lot by EFF” and other privacy advocates, the Florida Supreme Court has said that law enforcement agencies must have a warrant to obtain cell phone location information that they need to track a user’s location in real time. The decision by Florida’s highest court adds to the “growing chorus of courts” finding that location information is private, Fakhoury told SCMagazine.com Monday. The case, Tracey vs. Florida made its way to the Supreme Court after police obtained cell tower data from a provider without a warrant to track the movements in real time of suspected drug dealer Alvin Tracey and used that information to illicit a conviction from a criminal court. Officers “obtained an order authorizing the installation of a ‘pen register’ and ‘trap and trace device’ as to Tracey’s cell phone,” which records outgoing and incoming telephone numbers, respectively, the Florida Supreme Court decision noted. But later, without obtaining a warrant or providing additional “factual allegations,” the officers “used information provided by the cell phone service provider” under an earlier order. The information provided “included real time cell site location information given off by cell phones when calls are placed.” * * * Citing Fourth Amendment protections as well as Supreme Court precedent in several cases, including Katz v. United States , the Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District Court ruling, noting that many of smartphone “are ubiquitous and have become virtual extensions of many of the people using them for all manner of necessary and personal matters,” which makes a “phone’s movements its owner’s movements, often into clearly protected areas.”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/phanlop88