
FBI secretly collected data on Aaron Swartz earlier than was thought - ahakki
https://gizmodo.com/fbi-secretly-collected-data-on-aaron-swartz-earlier-tha-1831076900
======
zaroth
Bad headline to IMO a much bigger story. Aaron’s metadata was swept up in,
apparently, an NSL grab of a massive trove of email headers from the
University of Pittsburg.

A case ostensibly linked to “Al Qaeda” allowed the FBI claim they had a basis
to request a massive dump of email metadata from the University of Pittsburg
IT department. We don’t know exactly how much data was collected, just that
Aaron’s email happens to be on Page 27 of an Appendix.

All this metadata is stored indefinitely and is accessible in the course of
any unrelated investigation.

The legal standard the FBI has to meet to be able to NSL this information from
a target is described as “a hunch”.

~~~
skywhopper
The irony of the email header collection is that since this batch of headers
is associated with an "al Qaeda" investigation, then since the content of the
emails is unknown, suddenly anyone who shows up in the headers appears
suspect, especially out of context in a future datamine. Even though
presumably hundreds or thousands of email addresses were in this same dump,
and maybe one was of interest to the FBI at the time, but they cast the net as
widely as they're allowed.

~~~
mtgx
It's called "making the haystack bigger" in relation to finding the needle in
the haystack. In other words mass surveillance increases the noise rather than
the signal, which we've always know it does. The government just doesn't care
because in the end mass surveillance allows it to target anyone at will
without real judicial oversight for each person being investigated.

------
danharaj
Never forgive MIT

~~~
jstanley
It's not just MIT. The prosecutors are really the ones to blame.

~~~
jjtheblunt
Why does no one have the perspective that Aaron knew he was literally
stealing, according to the law, and that subverting the law, even if non
ideal, was HIS choice, and therefore the overly dramatic legal threats were
invited by HIS actions. It's his fault, and he didn't own up to it, even
though he meant well.

~~~
JohnFen
"Aaron knew he was literally stealing, according to the law"

He was? I may be misremembering, but I don't think that was the crime he was
accused of. I believe the crime was bypassing access control systems.

And even that accusation seriously stretched credulity.

~~~
ryanlol
>And even that accusation seriously stretched credulity.

How did that accusation seriously stretch credulity? The technical means may
have been simple, but it's unquestionable that he did so intending to
circumvent access controls.

~~~
JohnFen
Because he was not engaging in the sort of activity that the law was intended
to address.

------
dev_dull
One “great” thing about Trump taking office has been all of the sunlight on
the FBI/DOJ abuses. We already knew these surveillance systems would be
abused, and now we have many evidences of smoking guns. Unfortunately right
now the only places picking them up are conservative researchers. Don’t ask me
why.

This quote is a verifiable fact and should frighten everyone:

> _We know from Collyers report the FISA-702(16)(17) process was
> extraordinarily abused by verified “contractors” who had access to the FBI
> /NSA database. The rate of abuse was 85%. Meaning 85 out of every 100
> FISA702 database searches were unauthorized and outside of compliance._[1]

It gets worse. The data was used/sold for political purposes by opposition
researchers.

The whole thing stinks and it’s not a partisan issue. Anyone that cares about
this stuff should be rallying around this news and demanding more information.
Parties aside, this is serious.

[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/12/14/john-
solomon...](https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/12/14/john-solomon-
drops-a-tick-tock-bombshell-dia-holds-documents-that-can-exonerate-
flynn/#more-157749)

~~~
blattimwind
> all of the sunlight on the FBI/DOJ abuses. We already knew these
> surveillance systems would be abused

 _creates secret police_

 _secret police abuses citizens_

What a twist.

~~~
capulate89
What was the point of your comment? To be smug? You just posted the equivalent
of "hueh hueh and water is wet amirite?"

Let's have real discussions here.

------
mtnGoat
Wait, the FBI did something sketchy?

This should honestly come as no surprise to anyone paying attention. Protect
yourselves folks, no one else will.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
The more power an organization has the more scrutiny should receive. Power
abuses need to be brought to light. This is how democracy works.

We can't ignore a problem just because "everybody knows".

~~~
mtnGoat
100% agreed. i don't think anyone should ignore it by any means. it's just
that the FBI/NSA/etc seem to just keep doing it, which is why it shouldn't
come as a surprise, they've been caught many times doing questionable data
gathering.

------
8bitsrule
Threatening the status quo is a guaranteed ticket to that mad theater.

------
mtgx
Remember this article the next time the FBI argues for "more data access".

The FBI is already allowed to eat the fruit of the poisonous tree on a daily
basis thanks to its expansive surveillance powers, and the vast majority of
judges are clueless about it.

Obama's executive order days before he left office along with the recent
renewal (and expansion) of FISA 702 now also allows all 17 enforcement
agencies (including DEA, IRS, SEC, etc) to have the same type of access
without a warrant.

Who knows how many decades will pass until all of this will be _properly_
challenged at the Supreme Court. It's why I've argued here in the past about
US' necessity to create a "Constitutional Court" that wouldn't allow blatantly
unconstitutional laws to become laws after Congress and the president pass
them in their effort to gain more power and control over the population.

~~~
adonnjohn
How does that not just become another check to balance in this bipartisan
mess?

~~~
mtgx
And what makes you think that the checks and balances you have now are "the
right amount"? Does it feel that way to you right now or in the past few
decades?

~~~
adonnjohn
I really am open to listening if you have any tangible ideas on why more than
3 would fix or help deter bipartisanism overriding checks and balances

------
zozbot123
TL;DR: not so much "data on Aaron Swartz" as "metadata on Swartz's email
correspondence, as part of an unrelated investigation". The amount of email
addresses about which 'metadata' was collected was obviously quite large, so
it would be a mistake to read anything of significance into the fact that
Swartz's email was involved.

~~~
jstanley
> The amount of email addresses about which 'metadata' was collected was
> obviously quite large

This is the significance that should be read into it.

~~~
zozbot123
That's par for the course for the sort of investigation we're talking about,
though. It's not a 'fishing expedition', it's just a practice that's narrowly
tailored to try and figure out the structure of highly dangerous crime cells
and networks, as well as the possible perpetrators involved. There's a bit of
a scare about 'metadata' collection lately, but as a tool it does have its
narrow uses.

~~~
shkkmo
Do you have any basis for your claims of "narrowly tailored" or are you just
making up facts?

If it were narrowly tailored, the FBI wouldn't be able to access the
information when conducting an investigation that would not have otherwise
been able to obtain that information without a court order.

Additionally your attempt to justify why this is OK is also wrong, NSLs are
not supposed to be used to investigate organized crime, but to investigate and
prevent terrorist attacks.

