Legal Abuses and FBI's Data Mining

by D. Cupples  | Last year, we learned that the FBI had made hundreds of errors (i.e., violations of laws and/or regulations) when mining for data on us Americans.  The FBI has had at least 9 months to repair its system and stop violating rules or laws.

Today, the New York Times covered a recently released report indicating that the FBI is still gathering far more private data on us Americans than the laws or the agencies'  regulations allow.  House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers commented:

"At the same time the administration is trying to intimidate the Congress into giving it additional spying power, we find out yet again that it has abused its authority to pry into the lives of law abiding Americans.

"Although the FBI has taken important steps to repair the abuses identified in earlier reports, I remain disappointed. We will continue to hold the administration accountable for its actions and look forward to exploring the issues raised in this report at the committee's oversight hearing with the FBI next month." (press release)

Here are links to the (long) reports: 

- A Review of the FBI's Use of National Security Letters in 2006

-A Review of the FBI's Use of Section 215 Orders  

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other BN-Poltics Posts:

* Olbermann's Hillary Comments about Ferraro, Obama Campaigning 

* McCain Spiritual Adviser says "Destroy Islam"

* So, Let him Veto FISA (and "Protect Terrorists")

* Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11 & Money Changed Hands

* U.S. Intel Chief Made False Statements re: Domestic Spying

.

Comments

[Charles]

One must wonder whether one Elliot Spitzer was not one of those mistakes. The more we learn of how he ended up getting wiretapped, the less sense it makes.

[D. Cupples]

Charles,

How are you?!!!

I've been thinking the same thing. Given that he prosecuted all sorts of white collar criminals, I suspect that he was familiar with money transfers and what would (and wouldn't) raise law enforcement's red flags.

And yet, someone was watching his accounts. Kinda makes one wonder about "probable cause."

[Charles]

Are you following Scott Horton? He has new information on a daily basis that undermines the propriety of going after Spitzer. The latest: Roger Stone knew Spitzer would be indicted before the public announcement.

[D. Cupples]

HI Charles,

No, right now I'm not following Scott. I will after I finish grading papers (I was lazy this spring break).

I already have a good idea of how it's going to turn out, though: lots of evidence that official power was abused by someone(s) who wanted to go after Spitzer for political reasons.

It's a shame that he was actually guilty, which only clouds the issue for ordinary folks.