US Government Loses Bid To Force Facebook To Wiretap Messenger Calls (techcrunch.com) 40
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: U.S. government investigators have lost a case to force Facebook to wiretap calls made over its Messenger app. A joint federal and state law enforcement effort investigating the MS-13 gang had pushed a district court to hold the social networking giant in contempt of court for refusing to permit real-time listening in on voice calls. According to sources speaking to Reuters, the judge later ruled in Facebook's favor -- although, because the case remains under seal, it's not known for what reason. The case, filed in a Fresno, Calif. district court, centers on alleged gang members accused of murder and other crimes. The government had been pushing to prosecute 16 suspected gang members, but are said to have leaned on Facebook to obtain further evidence.
A reversal of precedent (Score:1)
What, is "wiretap, but on a computer" any different than "wiretap on a physical phone line"?
Re: (Score:3)
What, is "wiretap, but on a computer" any different than "wiretap on a physical phone line"?
The difference is in the law. There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant, but there is no similar law covering software based messenging applications.
Re:A reversal of precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
There are laws that require telecommunications companies to allow law enforcement wiretaps with a warrant
The law is CALEA, and it requires Telecom companies when requested to technically Facilitate wiretapping communications flowing through the Telecom by providing lawful intercept access.
If a messaging application provider such as Facebook is delivered a warrant for information, then they have to comply, BUT there's no law where Facebook can be ordered by a warrant to modify their systems to facilitate a wiretap ---- Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do: it would be totally legal for Facebook to have a non-wiretappable application and CALEA doesn't require them to modify it to help law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, choke your pride and thank Pai, because net neutrality, Obama style, brought CALEA to your ISP.
ISPs have had to abide by CALEA and facilitate lawful intercept access since 2004; it has been a major pain for small ISPs. Bill Clinton signed CALEA into law in 1994.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.
If Facebook convinced a judge that it was unreasonably difficult to provide a live tap of the conversations, that may explain why they won this court challenge.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.
Not so! While it’s true that that’s normally the case, CALEA specifically precludes law enforcement from demanding changes. All they can do is demand that telecommunications services make use of their existing functionality.
Wiretapping was already possible with POTS due to the way that switchboards operated, but Apple was able to push back with CALEA when the FBI demanded a backdoor after the San Bernardino shooting. Because Apple’s system was designed to prevent their own access to that d
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.
If Facebook convinced a judge that it was unreasonably difficult to provide a live tap of the conversations, that may explain why they won this court challenge.
A warrant by itself cannot require Facebook to do anything other than collect and turn over data. Absent some other statute, the All Writs Act might be used to force Facebook to change their systems but the government so far has not wanted to risk an adverse decision on that.
Re: (Score:2)
...Facebook is not required to have or provide access to systems to technically facilitate a wiretap like a Telecom provider would be required to do...
Though speaking of Telecom, I'm particularly curious about a recent court ruling [theregister.co.uk] that decided VoIP was an "information service" not a phone service. Sort of curious if this means VoIP companies like Charter as mentioned in the linked article, or say Vonage, can now have their systems set up so as not to be able to "technically facilitate" a wiretap. I mean if Facebook isn't required to, and VoIP providers aren't providing Telecom anymore..
Re: (Score:2)
"It's only different when they want it to be..."
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Does the audio go through FB servers or do the FB servers just set up the call and the audio is P2P?
Zuck stands up for the undocumented immigrants! (Score:1)
MS-13 just come here for a better life!
fake news (Score:3)
OF COURSE everything you say on Faceboot Messenger is snooped. You have to be pretty credulous to believe otherwise.
Yes! Cause national security letters don't exist. (Score:1)
And the NSA leaks never happened. Three letter agencies are your best friends. No total surveillance of everything is happening. XKeyScore is imaginary. FiveEyes are your band of brothers. The camera is only for your safety. Believe in the democratic republican party. Sing a happy-clappy song about how all is well. Smile and cheer with that big banner, to support the carrot cause in front of you. You're not like the bum on the street corner. Your conspiracy theory is pro-establishment! That means it must be
So They Claim (Score:2)
So it's safe to assume (Score:2)
They probably actually have the cooperation of Facebook and did this whole case to make criminals think that it's safe to use facebook calls to communicate about their criminal enterprises :P