Skip to main content

FBI quietly changes rules on how it handles NSA data, to the benefit of privacy

government anti surveilance email online privacy
Image used with permission by copyright holder
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly changed the rules on how it deals with data procured from the National Security Agency and stored in the NSA’s database.

Papers have surfaced about the changes, explained in a report from The Guardian, and while details on the changes remain extremely unclear, it seems as though they move to enhance privacy.

The new rules were reportedly approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and they specifically are about how the FBI handles the information it is able to get from the NSA. The NSA itself is mainly aimed at surveilling communications with foreigners, however, because of how wide the NSA casts its net, plenty of data is collected regarding U.S. citizens as well. It seems as though the FBI has able to search through that data without “minimization” from the NSA – basically, the NSA couldn’t redact identifiable information, which previously would only have been obtainable through a search warrant.

The FBI in general has very privileged access to NSA data, and the Obama administration recently announced that it was working on new laws that would give similar access to other U.S. agencies.

A privacy watchdog called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), however, took issue with how the FBI was able to access NSA data back in 2014. This group was organized by President Obama following the Edward Snowden leaks, and noted that the FBI didn’t even have to log when it was accessing NSA information, nor did it have to disclose how much of that information had to do with U.S. citizens.

These new rules, it seems, will address some privacy concerns, and offer some limitation on the FBI, according to a recent report from the PCLOB.

“Changes have been implemented based on PCLOB recommendations, but we cannot comment further due to classification,” said Christopher Allen, an FBI spokesperson, in an interview with The Guardian. A spokesperson from the PCLOB also discussed the issue, saying that while the matter is classified, the changes improve citizen privacy.

Details on the changes are unknown, and while the FBI says that it is considering releasing information about the new rules, that has yet to happen, and there is certainly no guarantee that it will happen.

Of course, the report comes at a sensitive time for the FBI as its battle rages on with Apple over the creation of backdoors in the iPhone. It’s certainly interesting that at the same time as making moves against user privacy, the agency is also making moves for privacy.

Christian de Looper
Christian’s interest in technology began as a child in Australia, when he stumbled upon a computer at a garage sale that he…
Facebook teaches us all how web privacy works with Messenger Kids
facebook messenger kids privacy education how your info is used 1

Facebook -- the network that paid a $5 billion fine over privacy violations last summer -- wants to help teach kids about the lack of privacy on the internet. In a slew of new features to Messenger Kids, Facebook is launching a tool that uses simple, kid-friendly language to detail how user information is used. While Facebook is hardly a role model on user data, the rundown on data use is, frankly, something some adults could use, too.

Facebook says the in-app tool aims to inform kids on what types of information others can see about them -- which is more restricted in Messenger Kids than any other Facebook-owned app. The in-app tool reminds kids that names and photos are visible to other people, parents can see messages, messages can’t be deleted, and Facebook saves user information.

Read more
Would you trust Verizon’s new privacy-focused OneSearch to protect your data?
OneSearch

Verizon is looking to put some major security breaches behind it with a brand-new, privacy-focused platform called OneSearch. Built on a model that involves encrypting search terms, leaving results unfiltered, and not storing or transferring of any user information whatsoever, it's going after the privacy-conscious web users of the world.

In 2020, the search engine market is both hotly competitive and not even remotely so. Google controls almost 93% of all searches, with Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Yandex, and everyone else battling it out for scant shares of the remainder. Some of those, like DuckDuckGo, Qwant, and StartPage, hope to attract an audience by putting privacy first. They don't track users, don't sell their data, and don't filter search results. Those are all features of Verizon's new OneSearch platform as well, but it's hoping that its polished product, and a few more features, will be enough to draw the privacy conscious away from their established searching patterns.

Read more
Freaked out by the FBI’s smart TV warning? Here’s what you should do
smart tvs not enough to protect us from hackers tv security hacked feature

On November 26, the FBI's Portland, Oregon, office issued a warning about the security risks associated with buying a smart TV. The timing was no doubt meant to offer up some helpful advice right before the American public entered its annual TV buying spree for Black Friday/Cyber Monday. Ironically, the warning wasn't picked up by many news outlets when it was originally issued, which means some consumers may be looking at their new purchases and wondering if they've made a terrible mistake.

At first glance, the concern seems warranted. The FBI warning uses some pretty scary language to describe the potential risk:
Hackers can also take control of your unsecured TV. At the low end of the risk spectrum, they can change channels, play with the volume, and show your kids inappropriate videos. In a worst-case scenario, they can turn on your bedroom TV's camera and microphone and silently cyberstalk you. -- FBI Warning
But before you go rushing to read the fine print of your retailer's return policy, take a breath. Despite the dire nature of the FBI's warning, your actual risks are probably quite low.

Read more