

FBI admits to using Carrier IQ data - adeelarshad82
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/fbi-inadvertently-admits-to-using-carrier-iq-data-20111213/

======
frankc
This is being wildly overinterpreted. It could just as well mean that the FBI
is investigating CarrierIQ for misconduct. You can't FOIA this stuff during an
active investigation for obvious reasons. I'm not saying this is necessarrily
what's going on, but we shouldn't be jumping to the worst conclusions either.

~~~
ajross
It could, but that seems awfully naive. Is there any precedent for the justice
department pursuing a civil privacy case via secret (!) FBI investigation? As
opposed to, you know, just filing a suit and getting the relevant documents
during discovery?

~~~
evgen
What makes you think this is a civil privacy case? It is quite possible
carrier iq was violating federal wiretapping statutes, which will put people
into prison for years if convicted. In a criminal investigation you need to,
you know, gather sufficient evidence and justification to get a search warrant
so that you can dig into bits that are not out in public; a manual describing
what the software actually does is one piece of data that would help in this
case.

~~~
ajross
I don't buy it. I'm not aware of any similar investigation of a corporate
entity like that, are you? What would be the point when you could just
subpoena the relavant documents? Why must they have secrecy? I'm no law
enforcement expert, but the kind of scenario you posit just doesn't seem to
happen in the real world.

On the other hand, the FBI has been repeatedly caught with its hand in the
surveilance cookie jar.

Seriously, given the available evidence you can't honestly say you find it
more likely that the FBI is secretly investigating an existing company than
that it's using that company's data for law enforcement surveilance. Can you?

~~~
evgen
Let's posit three possible situations:

* FBI Digital Forensics Agent: "Hey, did you guys see all of this data CarrierIQ is dumping to the phone unencrypted? Gold mine! Where is that manual?"

* FBI Wiretap Expert: "So these idiots are doing our work for us and sending it to people we already have a open subpeona with for cases X and Y. I wonder what else they are sending that the AD wants in those cases? Where is that manual?"

* FBI Field Agent: "The director just sent me this memo that Senator Franken included two queries about these CarrierIQ clowns in the last packet from the committee. Time to prioritize the investigation! We do have the manual and copies of that web site in our subpeona request file, right?"

All three are possible. All three could be happening concurrently. None of
them are illegal and only one is ethically questionable. You have no idea what
kind of scenarios happen in the real world, but in your world it seems that
questionable surveillance is the only possible justification. I have provided
alternatives and if I had to give an honest guess I would probably say that
right now all three are ongoing, forensics probably noticed it first and told
the wiretap guys while at this time the political/legal case probably has more
agents working on it than the other two.

------
Kylekramer
As much as it gins up page views, denial of access isn't proof of existence
(you know once you are citing X-Files as your proof, you've gone off the deep
end). I can easily see denying a FOI request on the grounds of "could
reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings" as a
simple rubber stamp way of avoiding to have go through the process of looking
for the information that may not even exist. Not that it is less alarming, but
I hate hazy conjecture boldly presented as fact.

------
jolie
I've been in touch with CIQ and have written about both sides of the story.

CIQ told me that if the FBI got CIQ's data, they got it from carriers, not
from CIQ. It kinda makes sense, since law enforcement work with carriers _all
the freakin time_ anyhow.

Full statement is here: <http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/13/carrier-iq-fbi-
rebuttal/>

~~~
revscat
While this might shift the blame, it does not in the least change the
outrageousness of the facts.

~~~
jolie
That the FBI gets data about supposed criminals from mobile carriers? That
they usually have something like a warrant or probable cause to do so?

I'm all about carrying a torch & pitchfork when it's necessary, but I find
other government-sponsored BS (SOPA, for example) a bit more compelling &
troublesome at the moment. From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides,
it seems unlikely that the government is watching your every move if you're
_not_ doing something wrong or at least suspicious. It's not a perfect system,
but it's not something to put Carrier IQ out of business for, either.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
_"From everything I've seen in corporate spy guides, it seems unlikely that
the government is watching your every move if you're not doing something wrong
or at least suspicious."_

Ah, the old "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"
argument...

------
JadeNB
I'm with frankc (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347998>); much as I
suspect that nefarious goings-on are, well, going on, this seems more like
evidence of over-reaching reflexive secret-keeping than of the FBI using CIQ
data. (That's not to say that I don't believe it's happening, just that I
don't believe that the FBI was 'tricked' into revealing anything here that it
didn't want to reveal.)

Is there anyone out there with more experience of FOIA requests who can
indicate whether this response (which the article itself calls a 'canned
denial') actually indicates anything substantive, or is just boilerplate?

------
revscat
And just like that, NFC was killed before it ever even had a chance to mature.

Also -- and it pains me to say this, because until now I have considered him
to be a nutcase -- but RMS was right.[1]

[1] [http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallma...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallman.html)

~~~
cq
If you considered him a nutcase, you might want to reassess the methods which
you use to determine if someone is a nutcase.

I'm not really surprised by this. The FBI is a horrible organization, just
like most wings of the US government.

~~~
Karunamon
Complete abstention from modern methods of communications because "zOMG
GOVERNMENT" puts one squarely into nutcase territory.

And I'm not even going to get into his behavior and demands at talks. RMS is a
well-intentioned nutcase, but a nutcase nonetheless.

~~~
revscat
That's my point, though. He is not a nutcase, and his warnings were spot on.
Since 9/11 this nation has descended into an oligarchical police state,
wherein all federal policies serve either national security, which more often
than not means "protect the wealthy from the middle- or lower classes."

This is not crazy talk. It might have been 30 years ago, but it is no longer.
RMS is NOT a nutcase. He's spot-on.

~~~
roc
It can be both.

Only a very few people are willing to adhere as tightly to a set of ideals as
RMS, despite the severe personal hassle and time/energy expenditure. Perhaps
'nutcase' is unnecessarily pejorative but his behavior places him well outside
the bell curve under which the vast bulk of humanity falls. Regardless of
whether those ideals are correct/justifiable/etc.

------
privacyguru
No, the FBI did NOT admit to using Carrier IQ data.

[http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-
not-p...](http://www.securityweek.com/fbi-carrier-iq-foia-denial-not-proof-
software-being-used)

