
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back - lotusleaf1987
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/
======
zacharypinter
The nerve of these people amazes me. They're caught red handed, probably never
had a warrant (with the law shaky on if they need one), and they probably
didn't have a very solid lead to start with (how convenient that he was
reported by an "anonymous" tip).

In the middle of all this, they still had time to try to bully him into
getting back the surveillance equipment from their botched attempt, with lines
like "We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t
cooperate."

Just reading the story sickens me.

~~~
roel_v
The 'warrant' part is unrelated to the ownership issue of the tracking device.
Even if it was used under unlawful circumstances, the FBI remains owner of the
device. To take an extreme example, if I throw a brick through your window
with a note attached to it 'this brick is owned by jimmy jones and I have no
intention of relinquishing ownership', I remain owner of the brick. That I'm
liable for the damage caused by it is self-evident. (the note is to preempt a
digression into 'apparent abandonment of property' or whatever the exact
wording it is in the appropriate jurisdiction)

'Ownership' of something, and 'committing a crime' with that something are
orthogonal. Apart from some specifically designated by law items (drugs,
weapons), committing a crime with something does not change its ownership
status. I don't quite see the controversy here (that is, after one steps back
and looks over the 'oh my god! big gubmint is spying on us!' knee-jerk
reaction. Let's not forget the kid (from what I gathered...) was apparently
connected to organized crime, even if only through blood).

~~~
jacquesm
If you attach it to my property, I just might feel the need to discard it.
Good luck suing me for losing your shit. And in the case of a GPS unit I'd be
making very sure I discarded it far away from the place where it was last
functional.

You (as in you the law enforcement agency) might be in the right to attach
stuff to my car, but I as the owner of the vehicle am not responsible if your
stuff goes missing in action.

And if you do it without a warrant I'll make sure you have bigger problems.

~~~
roel_v
You don't seem to understand.

"You (as in you the law enforcement agency) might be in the right to attach
stuff to my car, but I as the owner of the vehicle am not responsible if your
stuff goes missing in action."

Wrong, If the owner of the car on purpose destroys the agencies property, he
is legally liable for those damages. How could it not be so? How could the
fact that a tool is used unlawfully detract from the ownership? When the
agency attaches the tool to the car, there is no transfer of ownership.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you are imagining that the absence of a warrant
means, in theoretical and practical terms. In our country, illegally obtained
evidence will usually cause at most a small reduction of the sentence. A
complete dismissal is quite rare.

~~~
jacquesm
> If the owner of the car on purpose destroys the agencies property, he is
> legally liable for those damages.

Prove it.

> Secondly, I'm not sure what you are imagining that the absence of a warrant
> means, in theoretical and practical terms. In our country, illegally
> obtained evidence will usually cause at most a small reduction of the
> sentence. A complete dismissal is quite rare.

That is a structural problem with your legal system. Besides that, I've done
nothing wrong as far as I know (other than maybe dropping your GPS unit on the
back of a truck bound for Afghanistan) so much good luck in prosecuting me.

Here (.nl) cases that rely on evidence gathered in illegal means get thrown
out with some regularity, even if the rest of it is ironclad.

Not that long ago a bunch of car thieves was apprehended and in a first
sitting convicted based on information taken from a license plate scanning
experiment. The case was rock solid, except for one little detail, that data
should not have been in the hands of the police, so the whole thing was thrown
out without a chance for a 'do-over'.

Tainted evidence is the last thing the police here wants in their cases, and
throwing out the whole case keeps them sharp.

~~~
roel_v
"Prove it."

What? You're the one with the extraordinary claim. I've already repeated
several times in this thread that unlawful use of something doesn't change the
ownership of that something. Someone who, on purpose, destroys or damages
other people's property is held to compensate for it. What's the incredulous
part in that?

"That is a structural problem with your legal system."

Well I on purpose used "our", since "my" legal system is also the Dutch one.
Also, I'm one paper away from finishing my degree in Dutch law - not to argue
by authority, and I'm certainly no expert on criminal procedure, just pointing
out that I do have some basic knowledge of Dutch criminal and property law.

Anyway, "Here (.nl) cases that rely on evidence gathered in illegal means get
thrown out with some regularity, even if the rest of it is ironclad." is, to
put it mildly, open for debate. Sure, blatant violations like fishing
expeditions (which was the case in the license plate scanning) will be
dismissed. Smaller infractions (like retroactively applying for a warrant)
much less. And don't forget that the Dutch 'reasonable suspicion' threshold is
quite low. An anonymous phone tip will do. And hey, if that phone call happens
to come from a phone booth across the street from the police station, who
cares.

~~~
jacquesm
> What? You're the one with the extraordinary claim. I've already repeated
> several times in this thread that unlawful use of something doesn't change
> the ownership of that something.

No extraordinary claim involved, prove that I'm the one that 'illegally
disposed' of your or someone else's property that you attached surreptitiously
to my car.

I'm not claiming I own it, I'm just making the point that if I destroy
something that I'm not supposed to even know I've got then I don't need to
prove that I own it, I can just conveniently lose it or destroy it in a way
that would make it very difficult for you to prove that I did so. If only
because you'd have to prove my possessing it in the first place, which does
not mesh well with a device attached to follow my whereabouts in an
unobtrusive way. Unless you plan on sticking a watch team with cameras on me
as well, but in that case you wouldn't need a GPS unit.

A GPS unit is basically a way to track someone without further surveillance.

> "That is a structural problem with your legal system." > Well I on purpose
> used "our", since "my" legal system is also the Dutch one.

Ok, so that makes it a funny situation then, two Dutch people arguing US law,
personally I wouldn't have any compunction dealing with such a device in a
very destructive manner on the premise that I don't know who _does_ own it and
if someone 'loses' their stuff under my car they only have themselves to blame
if it gets lost or damaged.

> Also, I'm one paper away from finishing my degree in Dutch law - not to
> argue by authority

No, but you do mention that to bolster your argument.

> and I'm certainly no expert on criminal procedure, just pointing out that I
> do have some basic knowledge of Dutch criminal and property law.

So do I. So what. Transfer of property requires in most cases a consent on
behalf of both parties and preferably a bill of sale or a deed of gifting.
Other than that ownership is a pretty murky business from a legal point of
view, I could make the case that if you attach something to my car that I
assume possession of it, and if you don't agree with that you'd have to sue
me. But first you'd have to get me to agree that I acknowledge that the device
was there in the first place, but my whole argument rests on the fact that I
have absolutely no intention to do so.

So the proof that I had your goods in my possession would have to come from
you, and that might be a very difficult thing to do. After all, if I didn't
know about it but you and your buddies did then why should I be the one to be
held responsible for loss, damage or theft by some unknown third party.

> Smaller infractions (like retroactively applying for a warrant) much less.

Cite a case please, and name the defendants lawyer, that way I can be sure to
avoid them.

retro-active warrants are very much frowned upon here, prosecuting party would
have to meet pretty stringent levels of proof that there was an element of
speed involved of such magnitude that the normal procedure could not be
followed. In any case a competent lawyer will use that to his advantage.

> And don't forget that the Dutch 'reasonable suspicion' threshold is quite
> low. An anonymous phone tip will do. And hey, if that phone call happens to
> come from a phone booth across the street from the police station, who
> cares.

I agree that anonymous tips are not good enough to meet the standard, but from
what I've seen of the Dutch legal system the police is not in a habit of going
across the street phoning in illegally obtained evidence in order to 'launder'
it.

If you have any evidence to the contrary then I'll accept that as incidental,
not as structural. In other words, no doubt that there have been such cases
but I do not feel that this is a thing that happens with great regularity, and
I would hope for those cases where it did happen to be exposed and the
responsible police officers to be removed from service.

~~~
jacquesm
Too late to add this, but it is funny to see this in the news today:

[http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/7882974/__Hennepteler_ont...](http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/7882974/__Hennepteler_ontsnapt_aan_boete__.html?sn=binnenland,buitenland)

Hemp growers acquited after police enters their house after anonymous phone
call.

------
mike_esspe

      One of the agents produced a printout of a blog post
      that Afifi’s friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple 
      of months ago. It had “something to do with a mall 
      or a bomb,” Afifi said*
    

The nickname of the friend of this student, who posted the story on reddit is
"khaledthegypsy", and he posted this comment couple of months ago:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_de...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q)

Seems like FBI didn't bother to check the context of that comment.

~~~
rtra
The comment doesn't justify any sort of spying. It's not a threat, but a
seemingly true observation. Schneier has said essentially the same.

------
ck2
NEVER have a "conversation" with law enforcement if they are questioning you
about ANYTHING, regardless how casual it seems.

In court, law enforcement is allowed to testify to whatever they "recall"
during conversations with you. And you won't be able to challenge it
whatsoever. You are testifying against yourself when you do this, even if you
are 1000% innocent - they might "recall" differently. And then you are
screwed.

Everything from "do you know how fast you were going" to something much more
extreme like this case.

~~~
mootothemax
It's not so much lousy memories, it's that law enforcement are compelled to
give evidence against you (as Miranda and various worldwide cautions spell
out) _but_ they do not legally have to say anything that proves your
innocence.

At least that's the bit that convinces me there's no good to be had in talking
to law enforcement.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I'm not sure about the rules for the cop himself.

However, the _prosecution_ , meaning the DA and his office, are required to
disclose to you and your attorney anything that would support your innocence
(known as _exculpatory evidence_ ).

I'm not a lawyer, so it's not clear to me how this interacts with the cop's
role. As a witness, I guess he wouldn't have to offer anything. But as the guy
who arrests you, I'd think that he's part of the "prosecution team", and thus
would be covered by the rules of exculpatory evidence. Anybody know more than
my supposition?

~~~
wnoise
In theory they do. In practice, there's no consequence if they don't, and it
might gain them more convictions.

------
kjhmkghn
Funnier famous example in Britain from the 60s/70s.

The communist party HQ found a bug and removed it, and were subsequently
prosecuted for destroying government property. While the government denied in
court spying on them, and even denied the existence of MI5, the agency
involved.

The case succeeded on the basis that those being spied on believed the
government were responsible and therefore intended to destroy government
property.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
Any links? I am curious how they would go about prosecuting for this if they
did indeed destroy the device, which would presumably be the evidence.

~~~
arethuza
Apparently the bug is on display in the "People's History Museum" of the CPGB:

<http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/0505cpgb.html>

Can't see any reference to where this is located on the CPGB website:

<http://www.cpgb.org.uk/>

------
bl4k
_"One of the agents produced a printout of a blog post that Afifi’s friend
Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of months ago."_

Is it really that easy to tie up so many federal resources? They knew
everything about this guy and dedicated a team to him just because he was the
blog posters friend (edit: a _Reddit commentors_ friend). Amazing and
inefficient.

The real terrorists can drown themselves in noise by flooding the intel
agencies with fake posts from real people and real names. I wouldn't be
surprised if they are not already doing this.

Dedicating entire teams to follow all the friends of every semi-threatening
blog post doesn't scale.

~~~
jrockway
_Is it really that easy to tie up so many federal resources?_

Yes. The Secret Service came to my house, with guns, because of a one-sentence
Slashdot comment I wrote.

~~~
jacquesm
You'd expect the secret service to be more discriminating when it comes to
spending their time, there are quite a few presidents that you could have
picked from.

I'd be a lot more worried about people that are not posting unspecific threats
openly in nerdy forums. And if they would then 'watch' would be a much more
appropriate response than 'alert to being noticed'.

"Secret service" apparently means do things without much secrecy.

For the record, I'm going to kill the president too. But to make it a bit
harder I'm _also_ not going to claim of which country.

~~~
jrockway
I also never claimed which country, and I didn't even capitalize the P.

If people were better at grammar, the taxpayers would have slightly more money
:)

~~~
jacquesm
Hah, score one for the ambiguity of the English language, I meant 'also' as in
'just like jrockway'.

------
CWuestefeld
_one of only a few people known to have found a government-tracking device on
their vehicle_

I think all citizens need government-tracking devices.

(if it's not immediately clear, the writer misused that hyphen, which changes
the meaning into something that might actually be more appropriate, given the
story)

------
Pyrodogg
A black, unknown object that looks like it could be a pipe is attached to the
bottom of my vehicle. I'd just call in and report a bomb.

See if the authorities can figure it out.

On a more serious note, California is in the 9th Circuit which recently ruled
you have no expectation to privacy regarding your car parked in your driveway
or an open lot.

I doubt the FBI agents had a warrant.

~~~
brlewis
They would take the object away, blow it up, and hold a press conference to
say that nobody is safe, and more government power is needed to meet the
threat.

~~~
khafra
Probably do a controlled detonation of your car.

------
jrockway
_Don't worry, you're boring._

Seems like a waste of my tax dollars to put a tracking device on his car
then...

~~~
nkassis
My first reaction to that quote was, get a lawyer now and never speak to them
again.

------
DevX101
In his original post on reddit, the guy admitted to having a supply of weed in
his apartment along with the GPS tracker.

This could have went south pretty quickly.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
If him having weed is his biggest crime then I would hope the FBI would have
bigger fish to fry than catching a college stoner. What a waste of resources.

~~~
rdl
Tell that to weev. (Raided by the FBI over the ATT iPad/goatse thing, and then
prosecuted over small quantities of drugs found in his apartment)

------
superk
Is anyone else surprised at how _huge_ that thing is? I would've expected
something around the size of quarter... not a walkietalkie connected to a
clarinet...

Guess I watch too much (70's era) James Bond...

~~~
harry
I was! That's the first thing I thought: "I could make a way smaller one of
those with a GPS shield on an arduino."

<http://www.ladyada.net/make/gpsshield/>

I figure the bulk is in the battery pack. Altho that baffles me, if I was
tasked with building one I'd make it splice into to the tail lights power like
a cheap tow adapter kit.

edit: Damn, I had to add "make a lojack style tracker for my truck" to my
project list. Just seems too easy to create something that updates truck
location to a private twitter account whenever the engine is started/brakes
applied.

------
marcusbooster
This is what a police state looks like.

~~~
jscore
Coming from someone who lived in one, trust me when I say - you have no idea
what you're talking about.

~~~
jacquesm
A 'police state' is not a binary proposition.

There are elements to it and one of those elements includes the arbitrary
tracking of citizens without warrants.

------
jseifer
_Afifi’s encounter with the FBI ended with the agents telling him not to
worry.

“We have all the information we needed,” they told him. “You don’t need to
call your lawyer. Don’t worry, you’re boring. “

They shook his hand and left._

Yep, don't worry, no need to call a lawyer everything's cool. High five?

~~~
dpatru
Yes, isn't this the best time to call your lawyer (when you're innocent and
want to protect your rights?) Or should the fourth amendment only be invoked
by criminals?

------
justinph
The kid sounds like he is indeed boring, but also not the sharpest crayon in
the box. It's too bad, really, because it would be great to have someone that
was a little more aware of his/her rights to try to take the .gov to task for
this kind of shenanigans.

~~~
chmike
I don't get it. 9/11 was a disaster and humiliation for security agencies. Now
they just do their job in the best way they can and their job is to ensure the
security of US citizens. Why making their job more difficult ? I would
cooperate and help them focus on real potential threats.

Are we talking about torture ? About secret detention for months ? About
deprivation of elementary defense rights ? Organization defending citizen
rights should be helped to focus on real threats and problems too, like this
fishy 9/11 event.

I'm not US citizen, don't live in the US and have no particular connections or
interests in the US. I just wanted to let you know that the reactions to this
incident where it seem defending peoples own right has priority over defending
peoples security gives an impression of selfishness and short sighting.

The other thing I don't understand is why the discovery and the device wasn't
immediately reported to the police. It could have been put there by black hat
people on to something on his behalf. According to his profile, this would be
very plausible. Something like turning him into a terrorist, or whatever.

~~~
loewenskind
There is no security threat. It's almost all nonsense. 9/11 was a legitimate
terrorist attack just like the previous world trade center bombing was but
there is no global terrorist network and there never was. It was just a tool
to get more control of society. Look at what laws have changed since 9/11.
Have you ever noticed these things get passed by people saying "don't worry,
it's just to fight terrorism" but it's always actually used against citizens
for non-terrorist activity?

If there really _is_ some global terrorist network I think it's safe to say at
this point that they're so hopelessly incompetent as to not be worth worrying
about. There are countless vulnerabilities in the US [1], why would terrorists
be so stupid as to only attack our hardest point? Criminals don't act that
way. A mugger doesn't walk past 100 old ladies with gold jewelry to rob the
most dangerous looking person he can find.

[1] For example, US sea ports. They check every hundredth container if that
(Walmart wont tolerate delays on shipping).

~~~
lzw
Not only is there a global terrorist network, they are so elite that they
broke into CIA head quarters, rifled all their files until they found one
market "Top Secret" that was a list of mujahadeen fighters in afghanistan in
the 1980s that were on the CIA payroll, and decided that this was really cool.
So they looked on the file and saw that the code name for this list of
fighters was called "Al Queda" and so they decided to name their own
organization using this top secrete CIA code word for mujahadeen fighters!
Aren't they so elite, to have done all that?

Their very name is proof of their eliteness! (or the gullibility of
americans.)

~~~
loewenskind
Haha.

Or they could have just listened to the first WTC bombing trial where the
prosecution _made up the name_ "Al Queda" so they could charge Osama bin Laden
In absentia under the RICO laws.

------
parfe
_Afifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in
Egypt whom he supports financially._

And that right there explains the entire story. He's being investigated
because he's sending money into Egypt.

~~~
sdurkin
Sending money to a foreign country is not a federal crime.

~~~
parfe
No kidding. He wasn't charged with a crime. He raised the suspicions of the
FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job.
Investigate and if evidence of a crime is found, to pass it off for
prosecution. I'm not really seeing anything wrong here, other than the fact
the tracker may have been placed without a warrant.

And even that is currently legal.

~~~
sdurkin
Sending money to a foreign country is not probable cause to investigate a
federal crime.

"He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime.
That's pretty much their entire job."

Statements like this evince a complete misunderstanding of the role of law
enforcement in a democratic society.

The FBI's job is to respond to proper complaints of violations of the law, and
to investigate where there are clear and articulable facts that lead them to
believe a crime has occurred.

Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior._

So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen
as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach.

For example, CCTV at a gas station shouldn't be installed until after the
place is robbed.

I'm expecting the come back to be "Oh, but that's a private business, it's
only bad if government do it?". Why is it bad if the government (ie the people
working _en masse_ ) try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for
individual or small groups of citizens?

~~~
sdurkin
"So practically then you're saying most crime should just be allowed to happen
as it can't be detected without taking a proactive approach."

Where any approach to law enforcement conflicts with the fundamental
principles of ordered liberty, including privacy, that approach is improper.
If we attached video cameras to all citizens that would prevent a lot of
crime, but it would be a tremendous violation of privacy rights.

"Why is it bad if the government.. try to prevent harm to private citizens but
not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?"

Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on
the use of force. If a gas station uses CCTV cameras, and I feel that violates
my privacy, I can choose not to use that gas station. If the government
decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living
room, you can't refuse.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV
cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.

Unless you live in a democracy.

>Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on
the use of force.

In a democracy of course the government is the combined (in some way) will of
the people. It bemuses me when people rail against "the government" and forget
that means "the people's expressed (in some way) demands" in a democracy; I'm
not saying that you're forgetting that part about democracy BTW.

------
pbhjpbhj
_Afifi [...] asked a series of questions – did he know anyone who traveled to
Yemen or was affiliated with overseas training? One of the agents produced a
printout of a blog post that Afifi’s friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of
months ago. It had “something to do with a mall or a bomb,” Afifi said. He
hadn’t seen it before and doesn’t know the details of what it said. He found
it hard to believe Khaled meant anything threatening by the post._

 _“He’s a smart kid and is not affiliated with anything extreme and never says
anything stupid like that,” Afifi said. “I’ve known that guy my whole life. “_

 _The agents told Afifi they had other agents outside Khaled’s house._

 _“If you want us to call them off and not talk to him we can do that,” Afifi
said they told him. “That was weird. [...] I didn’t really believe anything
they were saying.”_

 _When he later asked Khaled about the post, his friend recalled “writing
something stupid,” but said he wasn’t involved in any wrongdoing. Khaled
declined to discuss the issue with Wired.com._

So Afifi was completely wrong about Khaled, he did write a post, clearly views
he was hiding (or Afifi would have guessed it to be true) and he wasn't
prepared to answer for it to the press.

My leaning is with the spooks on this one - but we need more details to know
anything substantial.

It amazes me that people are so negative about those who take on the task of
covert civil protection.

~~~
dlytle
I don't think there are many people on the internet who haven't written
anything "stupid" at one point or another. Especially when involved in
commenting on a social news site.

I wonder what percentage of Digg/Reddit/Slashdot/HN readers have made at least
one comment that could justify investigation? Keeping in mind that even a
vague statement like "I wish someone would kill (x)" has been considered
justification for some police departments to investigate the author. Probably
a nice big percentage.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _even a vague statement like "I wish someone would kill (x)" has been
> considered justification for some police departments to investigate the
> author_

In limited circumstances I'd think that does call for investigation. Have you
ever made a post like that, asking for someone to be killed? In what context?

------
oozcitak
Is giving back the device the right thing to do in this circumstance?
Shouldn't FBI produce proof of ownership of the device? What if sometime after
FBI leaves, CIA shows up and says it was their device and they want it back?

------
julianz
The same thing has happened in New Zealand, I can't find a reference right now
but it was last year/year before and drug squad police who attached the
tracker.

~~~
khafra
Is that the case where the police said it wasn't theirs, then complained when
he put it up for sale on Ebay?

------
tibbon
I'm unsure about the 'ownership' of such a device.

If someone denies ownership of something, do they loose all rights to it? "Is
that your $20? No? Ok, must be mine."

Furthermore, if you trespass upon someone's property and leave something that
you feel is important ($20) while trespassing, can you demand it back?

Also proof of ownership is something I wonder about. Surely the FBI has serial
numbers, but the person with the 'device' could deny them to enter their
private property to inspect such. If i haven't done a crime, then you can't
get a warrant to search my place for such a device.

Should i find such on my motorcycle, I'll simply attach it to the nearest
18-wheeler I find, or mail it around the country.

------
mcdowall
Reminds me of an episode of The Wire with Herk trying to recover his camera.

------
motters
I went for a job interview about a year ago - one of the strangest I've ever
had - in which precisely such a secret vehicle tracking device was described.
Apparently they broadcast at a very low baud rate in order to reduce the
amount of energy emissions which could be detected by counter-surveillance
operations.

------
notyourwork
Does anyone else hate the following transpiration:

Afifi asked, “Are you the guys that put it there?” and the agent replied,
“Yeah, I put it there.” He told Afifi, “We’re going to make this much more
difficult for you if you don’t cooperate.”

------
runjake
This story has a positive side. It inspired me, and probably many others, to
renew their long-expired EFF (<http://www.eff.org>) memberships. They and the
ACLU have expressed interest.

------
16s
He only found the big one. That was the one they wanted him to find.

------
AndrewS
I would find it quite tempting to destroy it, but I guess that satisfaction
wouldn't be worth the opportunity cost.

~~~
loewenskind
I would report it online and then "lose" it on a Greyhound or something.

------
Estragon
So, what would it take to detect such a device?

------
kahawe
I am not from the US nor am I a lawyer but what were his rights in such a
situation?

Could he have decided not to hand over the device immediately and ask for
proof of ownership and ask to see a warrant or whatever-else is needed for the
FBI to track him?

Feds telling him "you don't need a lawyer, you are boring" sounds a lot like
they actually did something incriminating, he caught them and now they are
worried about legal actions against them. This seems to fit with the
threatening to get the device back - no device, no evidence, no case in court,
government will deny knowledge.

When the feds or the police come knocking on your door, do you have the right
to NOT let them inside without a warrant? Do you have the right not to answer
any questions and immediately get legal help, thus creating legal documents
which might serve as evidence later on?

Really, what rights and freedom do you people in the USA have against the
"terrorism" witch hunt or do the feds practically have "carte blanche" now?

------
maeon3
He should have gotten a lawyer when the FBI said: "your fine, nothing to worry
about, don't get a lawyer".

