The FBI Can't Find 'Missing' Records of Its Hacking Tools (404media.co) 53
The FBI says it is unable to find records related to its purchase of a series of hacking tools, despite spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on them and those purchases initially being included in a public U.S. government procurement database before being quietly scrubbed from the internet. From a report: The news highlights the secrecy the FBI maintains around its use of hacking tools. The agency has previously used classified technology in ordinary criminal investigations, pushed back against demands to provide details of hacking operations to defendants, and purchased technology from surveillance vendors.
"Potentially responsive records were identified during the search," a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request I sent about a specific hacking tool contract says. "However, we were advised that they were not in their expected locations. An additional search for the missing records also met with unsuccessful results. Since we were unable to review the records, we were unable to determine if they were responsive to your request." In other words, the FBI says it identified related records, then couldn't actually find them when it went looking.
"Potentially responsive records were identified during the search," a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request I sent about a specific hacking tool contract says. "However, we were advised that they were not in their expected locations. An additional search for the missing records also met with unsuccessful results. Since we were unable to review the records, we were unable to determine if they were responsive to your request." In other words, the FBI says it identified related records, then couldn't actually find them when it went looking.
The Agency (Score:5, Insightful)
For a profession intelligence and law enforcement agency the FBI sure does lose a lot of stuff.
It is almost like they lie and don't comply with records laws..
Re: (Score:1)
It's probably in the records, they just couldn't find in a timely manner. Somebody probably indexed it under the wrong category(s).
With enough people and time they can probably find it, but I believe FOIA specifies "reasonable efforts" be devoted to answering. If it's inadvertently categorized into a black hole, it may not be "reasonable" to hunt it down.
In CA, some state departments charge the requester past a certain amount of time and resource
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the conveniently lost the records in question, but to be honest, a few hundred thousand dollars is the petty cash from the donut fund jar in the break room.
It's not like we don't know the FBI has all manner of spying tools. Gee, I wonder if the CIA has anything like that too?
Yep. (Score:4, Interesting)
The news highlights the secrecy the FBI maintains around its use of hacking tools.
Nah, it highlights the FBI's communications strategy.
Re:The Agency (Score:5, Insightful)
They follow the example set by their boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Bosses. And they were a corrupt bunch.
The new boss just not be much different, but it's to soon to tell.
Re: The Agency (Score:2)
He's been their boss for like 120 days you dumb fuck.
Re:The Agency (Score:5, Funny)
Files are unrecoverable - happens all the time (Score:2)
For a profession intelligence and law enforcement agency the FBI sure does lose a lot of stuff.
To be fair, corporations do so as well. Ever get notice some old data is getting moved to tape, here's where to request access.
A couple of years later you ask for something, and a couple days later receive a notice that the files are unrecoverable.
Happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably lost them in the same place where they lost the Epstein client list, all of the Epstein video tapes, and the Diddy records.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right. The FBI has proven itself to be an honest and forthright institution. Now they will be subject to ridicule and their embarrassing audit failures might be made public! It might be safe to assume malice if the FBI were ever proven to have become politicized.
Re: (Score:2)
> The FBI has proven itself to be an honest and forthright institution.
I assume that's sarcasm. Sure, they have bad apples like any large org, but I haven't seen any reliable evidence of large-scale plot to be dishonest or partisan in the last few decades.
Strong claims require strong evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
> The claim is "infested with (rogue) partisans"
Cliques are as old as the hills. Checks and balances can be added to reduce their bias influence, but heavy C&B requires money.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need the sarcasm flag, it's not very good sarcasm.
And you do not and did not need the sarcasm flag.
Re: (Score:2)
"Come on man" this isn't like misplacing some stuff from the 60s or something. We live in the era of digital record keeping.
In this case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases and NOTHING? where are the POs, nobody closes them out? So We are to believe someone authorized a payment for software. The FBI took deliver, and there is no ERP entry that sows Agent such and such acknowledged receipt? Nobody can ask Agent such and such what he did with software after receiving it?
If he put it on the depar
Re: (Score:1)
Please see this hypothetical question. [slashdot.org]
Re:Conspiracy fuel (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, no; they do not get the benefit of doubt.
They are a huge federal agency, funded by public funds. They have a legal obligation to account for their actions. Any discrepancy is to be thought of as malicious first and only, unless proven otherwise.
Re:Conspiracy fuel (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think would happen if you could not find the records needed to complete you tax return ? Do you think that the tax man would tell you that you will be let off as it would cost you too much ?
Re: (Score:1)
Occasionally people do get screwed by IRS. Shit happens. If you want super-reliable then tax-payers need to pay for super-reliable. You can't expect Lexus quality on a Chevy budget. In the USA, tax-payers are historically cheapskates and go for the Chevy.
Re: Conspiracy fuel (Score:2)
Do you agree whoever let it happen should be fired?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever allowed this to happen should be arrested or fired.
Re: (Score:1)
Human error happens, so it depends. If you fire every clerk who makes an occasional typo, you'll run out of clerks. If somebody didn't follow written procedures, then yes, they are directly at fault and should be fired.
Often such things are a "teamwork" of institutional bungling. For example, they may have a rickety old software system that's past due in being replaced. Using it requires convoluted work-arounds that often result in human error getting magnified.
Re: Conspiracy fuel (Score:2)
I'm taking about the manager with responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
If IT systems are involved, there is probably more than one manager involved. And if a manager can justify that they were understaffed and/or underfunded (which often the case), then the fault could fall on the budgeting process, which is usually a group effort because it's a negotiation between department heads.
I've worked in bureaucracies; finding a single point of blame is often unrealistic. If the place becomes fire-happy, then people crank up their CYA efforts and require every little thing to be signe
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to be held responsible when The People's money is spent spying on The People and then they cannot even find the fucking receipts.
Re: (Score:1)
A forced scapegoat might make you personally feel good, but may not solve any real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those responsible for record retention should be fired and charged ( obstruction? ). They should lose their retirement, as well as any and all privileges that come with the position.
Basically, hold people accountable for their "incompetence", if that truly is what it was. Given the agency in question, I have my doubts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you people don't seem to understand how bureaucracies operate, you are just doing cartoonish knee-jerking. Naivety mixed in with too much caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, sure, keep on believing that. Nevermind my years of experience working in government, assisting at some of the highest levels.
I know what goes on, I've seen it first hand. What I lack is the instinct to defend the malicious incompetence. I think it should be demonized and prosecuted where ever possible.
The question is, why don't you? Too much to lose? See too much of yourself in the fuckups, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are putting words in my mouth. I did NOT claim they should be let off the hook, only that a mistake is more likely than intentional malice in this case.
Punishment for the error is a later step.
You would think that the NSA (Score:2)
Sprawl (Score:2)
The FBI paid ... (Score:2)
Broken Arrow (Score:2)
In about 20 years we will call this a cyberweapon broken arrow event.
Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
While it certainly seems convenient that the FBI would "lose" this particular document, it's also incredibly plausible that they actually did lose it.
They didn't deny the existence of the contract... they even admitted that these were probably the correct things needed to satisfy the FOI request. They just couldn't find the contract itself. That's not terribly surprising. There are good reasons why government bodies routinely fail audits.
Keep the tinfoil hat on... but let your scalp breathe a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Like most, if not all, auditing, there may be reasons, but they are not good.
Failing your audit is not good ever. Causes are many. Reasons are inexcusable. Blame to be laid where it's most appropriate, or the failure extends beyond your business unit.
Re:Hanlon's Razor (Score:5, Informative)
By "good", I actually mean systemic and commonplace. The reasons are easily identified.
The GAO was tasked with auditing the federal government budget about 15 years ago, but you can go back and look at the yearly report, and each one starts with. "Yeah, can't sign off. It's a disaster again."
https://www.gao.gov/federal-fi... [gao.gov]
Yeah, failing an audit isn't good. But it is routine.
Re: Hanlon's Razor (Score:2)
Yes, failing audits is routine. Most always result in corrective action to both resolve the errors and presented audit which describes or offers a complete and accurate view of the situation. But sometimes the corrective action is more profound than at other times. In this case, when government fails an audit, nothing much really happens because there's no accountability. And that should change of course. And the bigger the organization, the bigger, the tolerance for errors etc. In this instance, we're not
Re: Hanlon's Razor (Score:2)
One might almost believe a radical house cleaning is in order, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
The Department of Redundancies Department (Score:2)
The FBI Can't Find 'Missing' Records of Its Hacking Tools.
If the records are missing, then they can't find them; and if they can't find them, then the records are missing.
then you must AQUIT any case that used them! (Score:3)
then you must AQUIT any case that used them!
FBI (Score:2)
What does the "I" stand for in "FBI"? But they can't find what?
When you dont want to be accountable (Score:2)
FBI cannot do tech (Score:2)
- Virtual Case File (VCF) 2005: $170M blown with nothing to show for it
- Sentinel Project 2006-2012: Eventually did ship for $600+ million
- Cases are still often paper only
Ask their mother (Score:4, Funny)
It is a known fact, if you couldn't find something, you asked your mother. She could tell you exactly where you left it.
The same FBI ...? (Score:2)
It's a shame... (Score:4, Funny)