FBI Is Buying Location Data To Track US Citizens, Director Confirms (techcrunch.com) 114
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The FBI has resumed purchasing reams of Americans' data and location histories to aid federal investigations, the agency's director, Kash Patel, testified to lawmakers on Wednesday. This is the first time since 2023 that the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people's data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information -- including location data -- from ordinary consumer phone apps and games, per Politico. At the time, then-FBI director Christopher Wray told senators that the agency had bought access to people's location data in the past but that it was not actively purchasing it.
When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans' location data, Patel said that the agency "uses all tools ... to do our mission." "We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us," Patel testified Wednesday. Wyden said buying information on Americans without obtaining a warrant was an "outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment," referring to the constitutional law that protects people in America from device searches and data seizures.
When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans' location data, Patel said that the agency "uses all tools ... to do our mission." "We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act -- and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us," Patel testified Wednesday. Wyden said buying information on Americans without obtaining a warrant was an "outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment," referring to the constitutional law that protects people in America from device searches and data seizures.
Excellent news, I guess (Score:3)
Now you know who is the enemy that has to be monitored constantly. And if you have nothing to hide, well, what's the difference, right?
Re:Excellent news, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your grandparents knew all this from Dulles and Hoover themselves, but they at least put up some sort of a fight.
Today the subjects of trumpistan vape and scroll Tiktok.
Low energy.
Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
Today the subjects of trumpistan vape and scroll Tiktok.
BARB LEFT ME PANTS SHID GOBBLESS
Re: (Score:3)
All of this was revealed by Snowden, and by others lot earlier if you paid attention. If you watched the defunding of the TIA this was revealed. At least congress cared enough about our rights back then to defund the TIA. Trying to make this a partisan issue is missing the point.
Re: (Score:2)
that's exactly what will happen, they'll turn it into a partisan issue and have 1/2 of the country rallying in support of spying on them, even if it doesn't serve them and is against the beliefs of just about everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Excellent news, I guess (Score:1)
I think you mean from data brokers...
Re: (Score:2)
The fascinating thing is that there are still actually people that think they have nothing to hide.
Re:Excellent news, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't. These who claim to think so actually think they're not at risk to be spied on.
Re:Excellent news, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe it's not worth wasting your mental energy on because there is pretty much nothing you can do short of not carrying a cellphone, paying only cash, don't drive, etc. Feel free to do all that but I'm not wasting my time. Ironically, by doing all that, you may well stick out more then me who just looks like 100s of millions of others.
We live in a surveillance society. The best you can hope for is electing privacy conscience politicians and hope they can get something passed that favors it. Obviously this require eternal vigilance because nefarious actors are always present and trying to find ways to exploit the systems we put into place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting that one thing AI is actually very good at is finding needles in haystacks. being one in a million isn't much of a defense these days
Re: (Score:2)
With LLM-type AI, a single "bad" statement made online is enough. And LLMs are also able to identify statements made under different aliases. Not 100%, but if you have no legal recourse (such as at the US border), that does not matter.
One reason I will not travel to the US in this lifetime again unless they adopt a policy of not checking social media of travelers ever. Fat chance of that, and a full cycle of Fascism, collapse and some insight into what was done wrong may be needed to fix things.
Re: Excellent news, I guess (Score:2)
I've accepted that hiding my 6.2in boner is rather difficult to do anyway. :shrug:
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
my 6.2in boner
Dyslexia strikes again!
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy are companies making money of your data; business models championed by the likes of Google and Facebook. You could argue that they're just exploiting weak privacy laws and enforcement. The FBI aren't at fault for accessing publicly/commercially available data, unless there's some American law that forbids even this. Stop giving your data to companies. Stop supporting these businesses that don't respect you, your data or your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... Make it illegal for companies to market this data or sell it to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Ultimately the only way to fix this is strengthen privacy laws and enforcement. The tech bros have a lot of influence; their brown nosing and corruption was really on display when the orange manbaby came back to power.
Re:Excellent news, I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
Tech bros offer an extraordinary way to end run around our Constitution and government folks lean towards authoritarianism. It would be nice if we could get strong privacy laws but even then, do you still trust there won't be a loop hole put in specifically to allow companies to collect data just for government? I don't trust that at all.
With that all said, it helps if you follow the laws. Sure, that's not a surefire way to avoid problems, but it does help.
Re:Excellent news, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wyden Siren has gone off a couple of times recently. What the FBI and CIA are doing is almost certainly far worse and intrusive than this news.
Its time to repeal EPIC (Score:1)
Nothing good has come from it.
No shit sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
It would actually be news if they *weren't* buying the location data openly available on the market.
The only way to fix this massive privacy problem is to make it illegal for companies to collect this information in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban the user tracking to eliminate the drive for data collection. That way, there isn't a whole load of exceptions needed on why data can still be collected for legitimate reasons.
Another side effect of banning tracking is the ad industry reverts back to a level playing field for the non-Internet ad markets.
Re: (Score:3)
This is all news to a lot of slashdotters who love to say "I don't care if China tracks me, I'm worried about my government, not some other government"
Re: (Score:2)
Their mistake is that they think letting a Chinese commercial app spy on them will cause that info to be kept to the Chinese government rather than sold on the open market where the US government can get it too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the only way to actually fix this problem is to make it impossible for parties to collect this information. Making it illegal will work about as well as making drugs illegal worked.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the only way to actually fix this problem is to make it impossible for parties to collect this information. Making it illegal will work about as well as making drugs illegal worked.
Depends on what you're trying to prevent. If your goal is just to prevent the government from misusing location information in ways that could lead to the wrong person being arrested for a crime because of coincidence, you can solve that by simply passing a law that declares all location information gathered in any manner other than direct surveillance by law enforcement to be hearsay, and thus inadmissible in court. That would still allow limited use, so long as you end up with enough evidence without th
Re: (Score:2)
How would you make it impossible? I was thinking that outlawing closed-source software would be a good first step, but that's relying on laws again...
Re: No shit sherlock (Score:1)
The only way to fix this massive privacy problem is to make it illegal for companies to collect this information in the first place.
Or, you know, stop just accepting EULA that tell you they will sell your location data, and occasionally review which apps on your phone track your location?
Just a thought...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure and we'll solve all labor issues by just having people quit jobs with bad working conditions, solve car safety by having people just not buy cars that aren't safe enough in crashes, water safety by having everyone boil and filter their own water, and food safety by having everyone conduct their own restaurant inspections. All people have the resources and education to take part in these highly practical and efficient solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
stop just accepting EULA that tell you they will sell your location data, and occasionally review which apps on your phone track your location?
Then many apps don't work or won't install. For example, there's an app to troubleshoot problems with my refrigerator (LG), but it requires access to precise location in order to operate. I just want the app to interpret the error code, not tell LG my location within a few meters. But precise location is *required* or the app won't work. Deleting it is not a solution because then I have to call the repair guy for a minimum $90 visit charge.
What I would like is the ability for my phone to spoof its locatio
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct; however, what you are missing is that the people in charge who are doing an end-run around the Constitution need to be tried for treason. Same with every State legislator who voted for the Ten Commandments in schools.
If you go against the Constitution as a lawmaker/law enforcer, it is treason. It really is simple, and yet nobody seems to care. Weird.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the legal definition of treason in the US is something about giving aid and comfort to an enemy in war and doesn't include defying the constitution.
trump supporters speak up. now is your chance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: trump supporters speak up. now is your chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Droves of peole telling you how this isn't worse than the alternative in 3... 2... 1...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't listen to Trump all day, so why would I listen to Harris all day? Maybe y'all need to get a life and stop treating politics as your religion or something. I think you'll find the romance one-sided.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
anyone who voted for trump please tell us all how this is ok
It's more candor than we've ever gotten from any FBI director, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more candor than we've ever gotten from any FBI director, ever.
"candor"? I think you mean: arrogant, incompetent, macho, and unqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean
I mean what I said. We've had decades of obfuscation, lies and demurring bullshit on domestic surveillance by FBI and others. Now, the FBI director has committed a little candor and confirmed what we all know. This takes away a fig leaf that surveillance apologist's hide behind.
I'm sure this is frustrating for you: crediting an appointee of the big orange Nazi and all... but there you go. Guess you'll just have to tough it out.
Re:trump supporters speak up. now is your chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is okay for them. They think that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
They will never learn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't vote for trump but the article doesn't say they are getting mass surveillance records on everyone. It says they are buying data on specific people that relates to ongoing investigations, and there is no expectation of privacy on this information in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
anyone who voted for trump please tell us all how this is ok
Blaming Trump for the state of the digital surveillance industry requires ignoring a tremendous amount of history. Trump's a giant asshole and always has been, but he's simply the goon in the chair today, taking advantage of what's existed for decades prior to him taking office even the first time around when it comes to this particular subject.
Trump supporters stick to safe spaces (Score:3, Insightful)
You see it over on the Reddit conservative forum where there are very few actual posts anymore because the Trump supporters kn
Re: (Score:2)
.
because the Trump supporters know they got tricked
NOBODY was tricked. It was his second term; everyone knew exactly what they were going to get. For shame.
Re: (Score:3)
For the ultra low information swing voters the basic problem is we have spent decades saying that all politicians are liars and imp
Re: (Score:2)
At this point after literally every single promise was broken
Except for the promises about racist policies.
Re: (Score:2)
For the actual Trump supporters I really do think they should know better because they are much more politically aware than most people. For the swing voters it gets tough because there is so much propaganda and misinformation. They really should become more politica
Re: trump supporters speak up. now is your chance (Score:1)
It's OK because you chose to use cell providers, app developers that got you to agree they. Old track and sell your location information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And a war with Iran, right?
You trumptards surely love projecting.
Re: trump supporters speak up. now is your chance (Score:2)
I have no chips in that discussion but I'll give it to you, you're excellent at straying off-topic instead of answering the question. I think the term is whataboutism.
BUT BUT..... (Score:2)
China...
Where do I start? (Score:2)
The FBI has resumed purchasing reams of Americans' data and location histories to aid federal investigations
Hmm... That sounds like vacuuming up data preemptively. That gives J. Edgar's surname a whole new connotation.
It sure sounds as though they're working in the Minority Report spirit of pre-crime. What are the chances they'll use this info to blackmail people, to entrap them, and to fabricate evidence? Not to mention analyzing, refining, and packaging the data to sell back to the private sector. (Is there even a meaningful distinction between private and public sectors anymore?)
At the time, then-FBI director Christopher Wray told senators that the agency had bought access to people's location data in the past but that it was not actively purchasing it.
Those sound to me like weasel w
Re: (Score:3)
had bought access to people's location data in the past but that it was not actively purchasing it.
Parse carefully..
'had bought' -> we did purchase location data, how much and for how many years worth going into the future I am not saying..
'not actively purchasing' -> we don't have an contract out for bid at this moment; mostly because I already bought what I need thru remainder of the current administration and will put of engaging in this controversial activity that might leak until there is a very good chance it will be someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks - I had totally missed that.
Do you think Patel's handlers fed that to him, or is he smart enough to have come up with it on his own? I still think it's the former, but I'm starting to doubt my own impressions because the bullshit is flying so thick and fast it's hard to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but If they did buy this information, and its not legally a search because there is no expectation of privacy, and they did it not as part of an ongoing investigation, and they got it from the open market, there would be no carve-out for this data in the FOIA, just like the flock cameras.
Surveillance Capitalism (Score:2)
You know it has been firmly established when the Government does not even drive surveillance data collection anymore, but simply is just another customer of the surveillance industry. Have fun with the upcoming fascism.
Law enforcement - the caped heroes (Score:3)
buying information on Americans without obtaining a warrant was an "outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment"
Exactly. If law enforcement has reason to investigate you, they can and should get a warrant. If they have no reason to investigate you, WTF are they doing, buying data about you?
It's like the continual attempts at "chat control" in Europe: Law enforcement sees themselves as the caped heroes who do not need to respect individual rights or due process. It would be so much easier if they could just keep everyone under surveillance 24/7.
Re: (Score:3)
To play devils advocate
Getting a warrant requires establishing cause. Using public information can certainly help with that. If you have location data that places someone at the scene of a crime, that is going to help you establish cause and convince a judge to grant you a more intrusive search of your person/effects/property
Even if we take for granted that privacy is right, is worth having, should be respected etc, what is the benifit to society in denying law enforcement the ability to do anything Googl
Re: (Score:2)
A warrant is required for them to violate your privacy, but are they really violating it? If your location data were private, then I'd think it wouldn't be for sale to the public. There wouldn't be anyone to buy it from, or at least not on a consistent basis.
I think if We The People are ok with our location being constantly available to the public, then it's ok for government to be one of the dozens of consumers of that data. OTOH if we're not ok with the government being one of the dozens of consumers of t
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if it's truly private, then the data-eating consumers aren't even the real problem, the leakage is.
This.
Ask the FBIs counter intelligence unit how happy they are having foreign agents buying the list* of everyone reporting for work at a secure facility.
*Oh, thats right. Having OPM contractors "lose" that list on several occasions was no big deal. The contractors being owned in part by certain members of Congress.
Escuse me, Kash? (Score:2)
Gee, I guess Kash assumes all the bad practices he uses will not also be used by a Democrat administration. You can recognize Kash in any crowd, he's the one with the "kick me" sign on his back.
Re: (Score:2)
It was used by a Democrat administration. Though, it may be more accurate to say that the FBI has been using it for some time regardless of who sat in the White House.
Questions to ask yourself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because government types lean towards authoritarianism and authoritarians want to know everything and control what we say, how we think, etc.
Oh, a big nit to pick (Score:2)
"and did not provide answers to questions about the agency’s purchase of commercial data, including how often the FBI obtained location data and from which brokers."
So, it may or may not be "reams" of data, they do not and can not know, but they're sure happy to claim it's "reams"? It's bad reporting to contradict yourself. How competent are the editors who let that through? Not very.
Don't insert unsubstantiated adjectives to support an
Re: (Score:2)
If they won't answer reasonable questions about the scope, the only reasonable assumption is that it is overbroad. I would say don't be a clueless cuck or a gormless idiot, but I know you've never known anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a reporter's job to make assumptions, but to investigate them. Stating one's assumption as fact is an absolute no-no for journalism.
And in the absence of data, the only reasonable assumption is none. Instead of asserting as fact something that the reporter could not know, they should have said nothing. Just drop the adjective. I think that in general, reporters should use as few as possible.
to rephrase (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is what five eyes has been for decades, except they were trading data for data. Now the only difference is they're trading our tax money for our data.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, government exist because we pay taxes for them to use. So, really, we've ALWAYS been paying government to spy on us.
Fruit of the poisoned tree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
their location data was harvested illegally by a third party
Better re-read that agreement you checked before running that CandyCrush game. And check the crib to see if your first-borne is still there.
Re: (Score:2)
Parallel construction is not in itself illegal or grounds for dismissal of evidence.
How much per head? (Score:2)
When the FBI buys data like this, it obviously comes at a price. I'm just curious what that price is.
You know, for when consumers get fucked over with obvious 4th Amendment violations targeting many other Rights (1st, 2nd, 5th, etc.) and they fight back in a class-action suit where lawyers argues those records are "only" worth 7 cents each.
When the Government pricing comes back, consumers will at least know a price they should argue for.
"Reams" of Data? (Score:2)
The FBI has resumed purchasing reams of Americans' data and location histories to aid federal investigations
Do we still use this term? Are people seriously delivering 500 million stacks of paper with dot-matrix-printed text noting who showed up at which Starbucks and when?
No. They're not. We could just ballpark the data in GB/TB/PB.
I'm okay with that. (Score:3)
Controversial as it sound, the older I get, and the more I realise how omnipresent crime is, the more I'm okay with this sort of tracking.
I'd rather have the police catch that drug dealer racing, speeding every night past my house, even if at privacy cost to myself.
Makes me sleep better at night.
Re: (Score:1)
So, tell us you only watch Faux Noise without saying it.
Crime stats, according to the pre-Kash Patel FBI, have been dropping for 20 years.
Re: I'm okay with that. (Score:2)
That's what they've always said. I don't believe those stats for a moment. They're there to make the police look good, not to provide the real picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Those stats come from the police, so, if you don't believe the police, we should let everyone out of prison, right?
Or is it that you only don't believe the police when the information doesn't agree with your ore-conceived notions [actually, notions from Faux News]?
Re: I'm okay with that. (Score:2)
I believe the police, just not statistics.
Re: I'm okay with that. (Score:2)
As I said, you believe them when they say something that agrees with Faux News.
Fake outrage (Score:2)
Fake outrage by Senators over bad faith actions by the FBI. The only purpose of the outrage is to show that they are "doing something to fight for regular people's rights!" (VOTE FOR ME!)
If the Senators wanted, they could pass a law specifically prohibiting the FBI (or any government agency) from buying this information.
If the Senators cared about protecting American's privacy, they could pass a law prohibiting the collection and retention of this information beyond what is necessary for providing service.
Kash Patel is a cuck baby (Score:2)
with a tiny, defective penis who has always been an incompetent lawyer and leader.
And the FBI are a bunch of useless circle jerkers sniffing each others taints.
So let me understand this... (Score:1)
I buy a smartphone,
I install an app that tracks my location,
The app developer sells my location information to a data broker,
The FBI buys access to my location data from the data broker,
And I'm supposed to get mad at the FBI for "tracking" my location?
If this upsets you, uninstall the location-tracking app.
This is fundamentally different from getting tracking location information your smartphone vomits out all on its own.
Learn to read EULA, and if the app developers violate their term sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be illegal to sell any kind of data about other people collected from personal devices - anonymized or not - that wasn't actively agreed to. And it should be two separate agreements. One to collect/use the data internally and one to sell it.
EULAs are not enforceable contracts on the end users, especially for paid software because you cannot view the terms of the contract before making the purchase and you can almost never get a refund for the purchase just because you don't agree to them once pres
allow me to be the idiot (Score:2)
Let those flames rip.