us marshals – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Stories filed under: "us marshals"

US Marshals’ Secretive Surveillance Wing Still Trying To Recover After Being Hit By Ransomware More Than Two Months Ago

from the inadvertently-open-secrets-operations-group dept

Money can’t buy you everything. Not even the kind of money that’s apparently infinite, if our current federal deficit is any indication.

The US Marshals Service was hit with ransomware in February. And, despite drastic measures being taken by the USMS, the breached system still has yet to return to service.

And it wasn’t just any part of the Marshals Service. It was its innermost sanctum, as Devlin Barrett reports for the Washington Post. Here’s what the hackers targeted:

The computer network was operated by the Marshals’ Technical Operations Group (TOG), a secretive arm within the agency that uses technically sophisticated law enforcement methods to track criminal suspects through their cellphones, emails and web usage. Its techniques are kept secret to prolong their usefulness, and exactly what members of the unit do and how they do it is a mystery even to some of their fellow Marshals personnel.

Sounds bad! Sounds like the sort of thing you’d want to keep ultra-protected to ensure the sort of thing that happened doesn’t happen. That’s where it gets even worse. This super-secret group (one not previously acknowledged or reported) had a bunch of its stuff left out in the open, an apparent oversight by the Marshals Service and one that went unnoticed until someone from the outside noticed it and decided to ransom the TOG’s data stash.

Rather than negotiate with computerrorists, the Marshals Service deployed the nuclear option, much to the surprise of many of TOG’s members.

To limit the potential spread of infected devices and systems, officials decided to wipe the cellphones of those who worked in the hacked system — clearing out their contacts and emails. The action was taken with little advance notice on a Friday night, meaning some employees were caught by surprise, these people said.

The exposed-then-ransomed-then-nuked system was apparently an essential part of the Marshals Service’s fugitive apprehension program. But the Service remains (perhaps a bit too) optimistic that 10 weeks without it (and no resurrection date in sight), it can still go about the business of rounding up bad guys. The statements provided to the Washington Post infer the Service still has plenty of fugitive-hunting options, which is, of course, the sort of thing people in the fugitive-hunting business would say when an apparent crippling of their offensive weaponry is made public.

But for it being so secretive and so high tech, a lot of the fugitive tracking work is still being done the old fashioned way: by grabbing third party records without warrants.

A great deal of the hunting is done through what is called pen register/trap and trace — a means of cellphone surveillance that has evolved along with phone technology.

This law enforcement tactic dates back to the days when almost all phone communication occurred via landlines. These orders can now be used to grab email metadata and cell phone communication data, including metadata on SMS texts. It’s also a handy way to hide Stingray deployments, something I’m sure the Marshals Service has never done. Some services are capable of providing this metadata in near-real time, which leverages the Third Party Doctrine to create ad hoc tracking devices — something that would seem to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision. And that appears to be the Marshals Service’s PR/TT bread-and-butter:

The Technical Operations Group does so many real-time PR/TT data searches that in many years, it collects more of that data than the FBI and DEA combined…

That’s insane. The FBI and DEA have more personnel and cover far more law enforcement territory (in terms of investigations) than the USMS. And yet, this is the agency that outpaces those agencies’ exploitation of third party records.

That’s a little strange. It’s also a little strange that something called a “Technical Operations Group” relies so heavily on a decidedly old school method of information gathering. Quite certainly it has better and more powerful tools. But its continued reliance on something decades-old suggests there’s still plenty of value in allowing old dogs to continue performing old tricks.

Even old bad dogs. Some within the Marshals Service think the TOG is a rogue unit — one rarely placed under direct oversight and prone to abusing its power. Others think this sort of thing is an ideal to be striven for: a powerful and unsupervised group of go-getters rarely bogged down by red tape or constitutional rights.

But this lack of supervision is likely part of the problem facing the agency now. Its most secret stuff was left exposed, inviting computer criminals to not only attempt to extort money from the government, but also dig through sensitive data pertaining to USMS personnel, its investigations, and the third party contractors it employs. This is an inadvertent plea for direct supervision, albeit one that has cost the Marshals Service some of its capabilities and, undoubtedly, a decent amount of taxpayers’ money.

Filed Under: computers, marshals technical operations group, ransomware, surveillance, tog, us marshals

Techdirt Has Been Released From A Gag Order Regarding A Federal Investigation Into A Silly Comment

from the don't-threaten-judges,-yo,-but-don't-over-react-to-comments dept

I’m going to start off this post with a note that, in general, you should not threaten federal judges. I do understand that people often take out their anger on decisions that go in ways they disagree with by insisting that a judge is corrupt or awful or that something ought to be done, and while I understand the impulse and the instinct to vent in that manner, it’s not very productive. Also, as you’ll see below, it creates something of a mess. Meanwhile, it’s only been a year since an angry party from a case showed up at a federal judge’s home and shot and killed her son (and shot and wounded her husband). There is now legislation being proposed to keep judges’ information more private to try to prevent such a thing from happening again.

So, again, don’t threaten a federal judge.

And given all that, it’s really not a huge surprise that the US Marshal service wants to take seriously any potential threats directed at federal judges. The problem, however, is that they aren’t always the best at recognizing what is an actual legitimate threat from some rando just venting about a judge’s decision.

Almost exactly a decade ago, the US Marshals Service reached out to us, asking us to remove a comment. The comment was a stupid comment. It was in response to what we felt was a dumb copyright ruling by a judge — and the (anonymous) commenter quipped “is it time to stop murdering the corrupt yet?” It was dumb, but it was clearly someone sounding off, not making any kind of actual threat. We refused to remove the comment, and we received no further communication from the US Marshals.

Six years ago, the US Marshals service went a step further with Reason. In a story about Silk Road creator, Ross Ulbricht, a bunch of commenters had started making angry comments about judges — including an infamous one about “wood chippers.” The DOJ not only issued a grand jury subpoena to Reason, but separately hit Reason with a gag order preventing it from saying anything about it (though it leaked out).

Over the last few months, we have been barred from telling you that we potentially faced a similar situation. I am now, however, free to tell you that the US Marshals, once again, decided that they wanted to investigate a comment made on our site loosely referring to a federal judge. This happened on a post we did back in April, regarding Judge Alan Albright and his increasingly infamous situation regarding all the patent cases that he has been actively soliciting and refusing to transfer to proper districts in a timely manner.

The first comment on that post wondered whether or not anyone was investigating the apparent “corrupted impartiality” of the judge. That spurred a reply comment stating:

Hell, eventually somebody might decide that it?s cheaper to pay a hitman to just cut a brake line or something than go through discovery in that judge?s court.

So. It seems fairly obvious to me (and hopefully to you), that this comment is not, in any way, advocating for such a thing to happen. Nor is it suggesting a plan to do such a thing. It is noting — as it says — that someone might make that decision. Frankly, this comment didn’t make that much sense to me. But, it’s pretty clearly not a threat.

However, the US Marshals decided to open an investigation into that comment. We received a phone call the morning after the comment was posted, asking to speak with “someone in your subpoena compliance section” of “your legal department” to handle an incoming subpoena. To be clear, we have no legal department, let alone a subpoena compliance section of it. However, what we thankfully have is a very helpful Ken “Popehat” White on speed dial, willing to handle these matters for us.

With help from Ken, we soon received a “preservation letter” demanding that we preserve for a period of 90 days “any and all records and other evidence, including, but not limited to, transaction logs, connection logs and electronic media (uploaded images), in [our] possession relating to…” that comment and the registered user who posted it. We were told to expect a subpoena, and that the US Marshals Service was “in the process of obtaining the appropriate court orders.” In addition, the letter effectively gagged us, saying that we were not to disclose the existence of the letter “in any manner that could alert the user” of the account.

We do not keep our log files for that long, so we actually had to make some temporary changes, and put in place a few technical things to make sure we complied as we awaited for the subpoena. We had every intention of fighting the subpoena, and pointing out just how ridiculous it was. Yes, it’s important for the US Marshals to investigate true threats on judges. But no one could seriously read that comment as a true threat. We ended up waiting out the entire 90 days, and no subpoena arrived. Again with the help of Ken, we reached out to the US Marshals, to note that the 90 days had passed and to let them know that we believed we were no longer bound by the letter. Thankfully, the US Marshals confirmed that they would not be seeking or compelling any information from us, and the preservation letter could be considered “lifted.”

It is a good thing that the US Marshals investigate threats against federal judges. I have no problem with them doing an investigation. And it’s good that they seem to have realized the nature of this comment and decided not to move forward with the subpoena (though, they could have told us earlier…). But, it sure seems like the investigation (and the conclusion that there was no real threat) could have been done relatively quickly without having us need to get our “subpoena compliance section” (thanks Ken!) involved.

Filed Under: comments, gag order, judges, subpoena, us marshals

Sheriff's Office Asks Court To Prevent A Different Gov't Agency From Releasing Records Related To The US Marshals' Killing Of An Antifa Activist

from the is-this-a-'tell?'-it-feels-like-a-'tell' dept

A controversial shooting that resulted in another controversial shooting is generating even more controversy.

Earlier this year, self-proclaimed antifa supporter Michael Reinoehl allegedly shot and killed far right counter-protester Aaron Danielson during a protest in Portland, Oregon. Reinoehl claimed the shooting was self-defense. Other witnesses claimed the shooting was unjustified. Neither assertion ever had a chance to be proven. Reinoehl was killed by US Marshals four days later — an extrajudicial killing praised by President Trump as good and lawful.

“We sent in the U.S. Marshals for the killer, the man who killed the young man on the street. He shot him… just cold blooded killed him,” Trump said. “Two and a half days went by, and I put out ‘when are you going to go get him?’ And the U.S. Marshals went in to get him, and they ended up in a gunfight.”

Trump called Reinoehl a “violent criminal” before suggesting that his extrajudicial killing was par for the course.

“This guy was a violent criminal, and the U.S. Marshals killed him,” Trump said. “And I will tell you something — that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution when you have crime like this.”

The Thurston County Sheriff’s Department was part of the Marshals’ fugitive task force. According to the department’s statements, the kill was a good one. Officers and Marshals claimed Reinoehl opened fire on the task force first. But there was no evidence of that at the time the department made these statements. A witness said Reinoehl fired first, but here’s all the Sheriff had in terms of actual evidence:

Lt. Ray Brady of the Thurston County Sheriff’s Department said investigators have not concluded whether Reinoehl fired any shots.

There could have been more corroboration of the officers’ statements, but no officer felt compelled to document the scene.

Brady said he did not believe the officers involved in the shooting had body cameras or dashboard cameras on their vehicles.

Investigations of the shooting are ongoing. But the immediate aftermath featured both the Sheriff’s Department and the US Marshals Service declaring the shoot justified.

CJ Ciaramella of Reason isn’t satisfied with the official statements. He went looking for documents about the shooting — one that might clear up whether or not Reinoehl produced a gun or opened fire on officers. Contradictory statements by non-law enforcement witnesses indicate this may not be as clean as law enforcement is portraying it.

But Ciaramella’s request for records from the Washington Department of Corrections (which also had an officer on the Marshals’ task force) is being blocked by an agency Ciaramella hasn’t approached directly. Inserting itself into this open records request is the Thurston County Sheriff, which believes it has a right to prevent Ciaramella from obtaining records from a completely separate government agency.

The Sheriff’s request [PDF] for a restraining order blocking the release of shooting records claims the release of these records will undercut its own investigation by [checks filing] giving the public access to information the Sheriff may later demand from the Department of Corrections.

The likelihood is high that the records DOC intends to release contain facts or statements that may be relevant to the Sheriff’s open investigation, and that could in turn undermine the Sheriff’s investigation. Release of these records could also undermine the exemption that the Sheriff properly claimed. Additionally, the likelihood is high that the records DOC holds may, even if redacted, contain information that the Sheriff’s investigation team is prohibited from seeing until its own investigation is complete; and the likelihood is high that such information could make its way back to the Sheriff’s investigation team if DOC releases its records before the Sheriff completes its investigation. Therefore, Thurston County Sheriff’s Office brings this action to preserve the integrity of its investigation and of its claimed exemption under RCW 42.56.240(1), as well as to ensure its efforts to meet its obligations under WAC 139-12-030 are not thwarted.

A cynical reading of this attempted intervention suggests the information held by the DOC isn’t completely exculpatory and — if that information becomes public — will make it difficult for the Thurston County Sheriff to clear the officers it’s investigating. That may also turn out to be the most accurate reading. But we’ll have to wait a bit longer. The restraining order has been granted [PDF]… but not with all of the Sheriff’s assertions intact.

Here’s the pertinent part of the order, with the judge’s modifications of the Sheriff’s request in [brackets].

A temporary restraining order is appropriate as it appears that disclosure of certain information requested by CJ Ciaramella concerning records related to an open and active homicide investigation led by Thurston County Sheriff’s Office (the Reinoehl incident) is [may be] exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.240(1), the non-disclosure of such records is [likely] essential to effective law enforcement, and disclosure would [likely] irreparably harm vital government functions…

This buys the Thurston County Sheriff a bit more time. The order is in effect until early next year, when the Sheriff will have to try to talk the court into delaying this release even longer. That it’s decided to insert itself into this case suggests it already has some idea it’s not going to like what’s in the documents it’s trying to keep from being released. This “clean” shoot may turn out to be anything but.

Filed Under: aaron danielson, antifa, foia, michael reinoehl, police, portland, thurston county, thurston county sheriff's department, transparency, us marshals, washington department of coorections

DHS Probably Didn't Clone Phones To Intercept Protesters' Communications

from the more-fuckedupness-from-the-feds dept

More information continues to leak out about the federal government’s ad hoc anti-riot strike force (or whatever) that made its nationwide debut in Portland, Oregon. The federal officers — composed of DHS components, US Marshals Service, and Federal Protective Services — made an immediate impression on the nation as unmarked officers hauled protesters off in unmarked vehicles to undisclosed locations for questioning.

The feds immediately made things worse, resulting in a restraining order being sought after federal officers refused to stop attacking journalists, lawyers, and observers present at the protests. The DHS also began compiling “intelligence reports” on journalists covering the Portland protests, as well as other journalists who had published leaks about the federal response in Oregon.

Information obtained by Ken Klippenstein for The Nation shows the DHS and other federal agencies acting like they were headed to a war with foreign combatants, rather than limiting themselves to protecting federal buildings in Portland.

A current DHS official described a colleague with expertise in electronic surveillance who was being deployed to Portland. But for what purpose? “Extracting information from protester’s phones,” the DHS official said. While in Portland, an interagency task force involving DHS and the Justice Department used a sophisticated cell phone cloning attack—the details of which remain classified—to intercept protesters’ phone communications, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.

Cell phone cloning involves stealing a phone’s unique identifiers and copying them to another device in order to intercept the communications received by the original device. The former intelligence officials described it as part of a “Low Level Voice Intercept” operation, declining to go into further detail—one of them citing the sensitive nature of the surveillance tool and the other an ongoing leak investigation within I&A [Intelligence & Analysis].

If this is accurate, there are some obvious First and Fourth Amendment issues here. Targeting protesters engaged in protected speech is already wrong, but seeking to intercept their communications is something that requires a whole lot of probable cause. Wiretapping requirements are more stringent (or at least, they’re supposed to be) than they are for other types of searches because of the obvious subversion of privacy expectations.

Beyond that, engaging in sophisticated cloning attacks is not “Low Level Voice Intercept.” This term — at least when used by the US military — simply means scanning airwaves to find radio and mobile transmissions. Once located, they can be listened to. This generally refers to radio chatter, not the cloning of phones to eavesdrop on private communications between individuals.

This suggests the use of Stingray device to snag device identifiers and (possibly) engage in call interception. Stingray devices are capable of intercepting communications, but we’ve never seen one used that way domestically. It may not have happened here either, but it certainly would have helped identify devices and locate surveillance targets. The DHS has a warrant requirement for Stingray deployment, but there’s no mention of warrants in this article. Some exceptions apply, but the DHS would still need a pen register order and that would also require a judge’s okay.

That this was used domestically to possibly spy on people engaged in peaceful protests is concerning. That it was used to try to find evidence to back President Trump and AG Bill Barr’s ridiculous assertions that “anitfa” is an organized terrorist group is even worse. And if this is indeed what happened, it seems unlikely federal officers (which may have included “volunteers” from the DEA) had the probable cause necessary to snoop on private communications.

Even former spies are uncomfortable with the tactics used here.

The former intelligence officers agreed that the Low Level Voice Intercept operation had been conducted on the ground, was far more invasive than aerial surveillance, and involved equipment that I&A did not have access to.

“[There were] at least two federal agencies and there was some spooky shit going on,” one former intelligence officer said of the Portland operation.

It’s still unclear what the DHS actually did here. The article refers to the same actions as both “intercepting communications” and “extracting information.” Undoubtedly, there’s some “spooky shit” going on, but none of the former officials were present for whatever spookiness the DHS engaged in. The DHS has Stingrays and could have used them illegally. But it seems more likely it sent out an expert to help federal agents pull information from devices seized from protesters. The “cloning” discussed most likely refers to cloning the device’s contents, rather than the device itself. This is common when phones are seized by law enforcement. Again, a warrant is required but the cloning often occurs before the warrant is sought to ensure law enforcement has access to it.

Then there’s this, which suggests a DOJ component brought in a phone-cracking device (GrayKey, Cellebrite, etc.) to make it easier to extract device contents.

A current DHS official described how a colleague who was being deployed to Portland had alluded to using the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), part of the Justice Department, for the purposes of accessing protesters’ phones. “He said he needed some sort of ‘special key’ in order to …He said that DEA has that capability and vaguely alluded to possibly borrowing or using one from another agency once he got to Portland.”

If the DHS actually engaged in the interception of cellphone communications, it would be breaking new domestic surveillance ground. But it seems more likely it accessed a bunch of devices’ contents and made copies of the data. Until more information surfaces, it’s probably safe to assume federal agencies weren’t listening in on private communications.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, federal protective services, portland, protests, stingray, surveillance, us marshals

DHS's Anti-Protest Gestapo Tactics Headed To Other Major Cities, Starting With Chicago

from the all-part-of-the-new-dissident-treatment-protocol dept

The tactics seen recently in Portland, Oregon — unidentified federal officers grabbing demonstrators off the street and hauling them away in unmarked vans — are apparently going to be deployed in other cities. The federal government’s response to ongoing demonstrations provoked by a Minnesota police officer’s killing of an unarmed Black man has been escalating in recent days. In cities like Portland — where protests have been a continuous fixture since early May — a blend of CBP, ICE, US Marshals Service, and Bureau of Prisons personnel have been brought in to, supposedly, protect federal property and investigate federal crimes.

But the tactics are disturbing. Dragging people off the street into unmarked cars and taking them to unknown destinations for questioning isn’t how America is supposed to work. There doesn’t appear to be much probable cause involved (simply being near federal property while protesting isn’t indicative of any criminal act) and the lack of identifying info on fatigue-clad officers just makes it that much easier for them to get away with rights violations. Detainees are being released without any paperwork, suggesting a lot of this federal intervention is off-the-books: undocumented and unsupervised.

The DHS likes its new Gestapo-esque tactics so much it’s taking them to other cities.

Chicago may see an influx of federal agents as soon as this week as President Donald Trump readies to make good on repeated pledges he would try to tamp down violence here, a move that would come amid growing controversy nationally about federal force being used in American cities.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, for example, is crafting plans to deploy about 150 federal agents to the city this week, the Chicago Tribune has learned.

Homeland Security Investigations — a division that includes agents from several components — will be heading to Chicago to “assist in crime-fighting efforts.” No details have been provided by the DHS, leaving it open to speculation whether this will be more spirited-away-in-unmarked-vans action or something more conventional that targets the non-protest-related crime that has been an ongoing issue in Chicago for far longer than the recent unrest.

Money is on it being more of what was observed in Portland. President Trump has already made public statements about sending federal agents to cities “run by liberal Democrats,” apparently with an eye on shutting down anti-law enforcement protests.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is one of the “liberal Democrats” Trump is referring to. That’s why Chicago is next in line for some secret policing. Lightfoot would prefer this didn’t happen.

“We don’t need federal agents without any insignia taking people off the streets and holding them, I think, unlawfully,” Lightfoot said.

But she’s not completely opposed to federal help — as long as it’s actual help rather than a show of force meant to intimidate people engaging in protected speech.

If Trump wants to help, she said, he could boost federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives resources and fully fund prosecutors.

Even the Chicago PD seems concerned about the DHS’s tactics. The department issued a statement saying it is “critical” that federal law enforcement officers “coordinate” with the PD to “fight violent crime.” There’s nothing in the statement that says the PD has any desire to deploy its force against peaceful protesters or be perceived as standing idly by while federal agents drag people off the street and into unmarked vehicles.

The city’s police union, on the other hand, is pleased with any law enforcement activity — local or federal — that gives it an opportunity to criticize the mayor.

“I am certain you are aware of the chaos currently affecting our city on a regular basis now,” John Catanzara, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, wrote in a letter that was posted on the FOP’s Facebook page. “I am writing to formally ask you for help from the federal government. Mayor Lightfoot has proved to be a complete failure who is either unwilling or unable to maintain law and order here.”

Catanzara’s opinion is not to be trusted. He runs an organization that helps keep bad cops employed. And he’s the best fit for the FOP, given its “no bad cop left behind” focus. Catanzara is one of the most disciplined officers ever to serve in the Chicago PD. He’s also the only one to be elected head of the union while stripped of his police powers.

If this is the blueprint for the future, it’s goddamn frightening. President Trump may not understand the implications of the words he’s using or how they sound to people listening to him, but this statement at a recent press conference appears to indicate Trump prefers martial law and order to regular law and order.

“We’re going to have more federal law enforcement, that I can tell you,” he said. “In Portland, they’ve done a fantastic job. They’ve been there three days and they really have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time, no problem.”

When the feds step in to do the local cops’ jobs, that’s a move in the direction of martial law. Trump’s pro-cop rhetoric — something that never lets up even when cops are at their worst — indicates he’d prefer cops to be making the laws, rather than simply enforcing them. His willingness to send federal agents to cities led by politicians he doesn’t like suggests he wants to run those cities by proxy. This is a federal police state in the making, one that’s going to be increasingly difficult to differentiate from martial law if the feds aren’t able to shut down protests quickly enough.

Filed Under: chicago, cities, dhs, federal law enforcement, hsi, ice, portland, protests, secret police, us marshals

Senate Committee Memo Details US Marshals Service's Long History Of Misconduct

from the outed-on-the-way-out dept

Senator Chuck Grassley is leaving his post as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, firing some parting shots at the US Marshals Service on his way out the door. His 20-page memo [PDF] detailing years of USMS misconduct comes with over 400 pages of exhibits — source documents, email chains, and other evidence backing up the disturbing narrative.

The USMS wasted taxpayer dollars, misused asset forfeiture funds, engaged in routine retaliation against whistleblowers, and — for an entire decade — forged a judge’s signature on more than 800 subpoenas.

A 2007 OIG investigation prompted by reports from a whistleblower uncovered evidence that a USMS task force there had been routinely customizing an electronic subpoena template and pasting in a digital image of a local judge’s signature obtained from legitimate court documents in order to give the appearance of official judicial approval. The OIG found that between the years 1995 and 2005, approximately 800 fraudulent subpoenas had been served by the task force.

A decade of fraudulent behavior was followed by a single written reprimand of a deputy marshal who was later promoted to Supervisory Criminal Investigator. Given this culture of unaccountability, it’s little surprise two high-profile incidents involving US Marshals and solicitation of prostitutes was greeted with minimal punishments for everyone involved.

There has been no improvement over the last decade.

Just last year, in what the DOJ OIG called an instance of “gross mismanagement,” a Chief Deputy United States Marshal who engaged in sexual harassment, misused his government phone and vehicle, obstructed an OIG investigation by threatening and retaliating against subordinates, and lied to the DOJ OIG, was allowed to retire with full benefits and without receiving any punishment whatsoever.

And, while the USMS was willing to blow funds on expensive, rarely-used ‘training centers’ featuring “high-end granite countertops” and “custom artwork,” it wasn’t so willing to spend money to keep its employees safe. After USMA testing determined body armor needed to be replaced every five years, Service management chose to address the impending purchase of 4,000 body armor panels by doing nothing. It finally secured a replacement contract in 2016, but the contract only provided for phased replacement, which would mean some vests would have been nearly a decade past their “expiration date” before being replaced.

When employees complained about using expired body armor, USMS was telling Congress (and USMS staff) that the 5-year lifetime estimate wasn’t accurate and that the vests were still safe to use. It made these statements while simultaneously asking Congress for additional funding in 2017, citing specifically the 13% failure rate in testing of older equipment.

In short, the USMS was representing to Congress that this study showed that expired body armor was dangerous and needed to be replaced while telling its own employees that the old armor was safe to use.

Acting Director Harlow’s email also raises serious concerns about the operational awareness of senior officials. Acting Director Harlow wrote, “if armor is in good condition and has been properly cared for…it retains its full ballistic capabilities.” This statement neglects to take into account that Deputy Marshals across the country perform their duties in the heat, cold, rain, and snow. Exposure to sunlight, humidity, or even excessive flexing or bending of armor can lead to degradation over time. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a Deputy Marshal would not expose their body armor to any of those factors on a daily basis.

Multiple whistleblower complaints — followed by multiple acts of reprisal by the USMS — paint a picture of an agency that is accountable to no one, not even the Judiciary Committee that is supposed to be overseeing it.

Throughout this investigation, the Committee has uncovered countless instances of mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of accountability. The OIG has confirmed many of the allegations the Committee has received, and identified multiple additional instances of misconduct and mismanagement—including by the most senior leaders in the agency. Those leaders set the tone for the entire organization, and their actions affect employees throughout their many districts and divisions.

Grassley’s memo is an extremely disturbing read. Given its contents, it’s hard to believe Grassley actually thinks installing a new director will root out the deep-seated problems detailed in his report. But I guess those are the things you say to the New Guy, especially when you’re no longer directly involved in keeping an eye on him.

Filed Under: abuse, chuck grassley, coverups, misconduct, us marshals

TSA Will No Longer Engage In Suspicionless, Cross-Country Surveillance Of Airplane Passengers

from the never-once-stopping-questionable-programs-BEFORE-they-start dept

Earlier this year, news leaked out about an unannounced TSA program. “Quiet Skies” was the TSA’s latest boondoggle, one that sent air marshals all over the US, tailing travelers just because. Things as simple as boarding too late/too early or using the restroom at the wrong time were designated suspicious behavior. It’s was such a shady program even the air marshals didn’t like it. Some felt it was illegal. Others found it ridiculous. But nearly every air marshal who spoke about the program called it as waste of time and money.

Following the Boston Globe’s exposure of the program, the TSA was summoned to a Congressional hearing to answer questions about “Quiet Skies.” The TSA admitted the program had caught zero terrorists but had managed to surveil nearly 5,000 individuals en route to this failure. The agency claimed the useless program was subject to “robust oversight” — a claim hilariously delivered to members of Congress who had first heard about the program from the Boston Globe.

The TSA refused to say it would end the program, even as the air marshals union publicly stated it did not support the program’s unwarranted surveillance or its waste of limited resources.

The Boston Globe has some good news to report: the TSA is apparently dismantling the program the paper exposed.

The Transportation Security Administration has curtailed its controversial “Quiet Skies” domestic surveillance program, following widespread criticism that federal air marshals were spying on thousands of unwitting fliers who are not suspected of any crime or on any terrorist watch list.

Agency officials told the Globe that air marshals no longer document the minor movements and behavior of these travelers, such as whether they fidget in the airport, go to the bathroom during the flight, or seem, according to the agency’s own checklist, to have a “cold, penetrating stare.”

The agency said it has also stopped following passengers through baggage claim and no longer compiles extensive reports on travelers who failed to rouse suspicions.

“Any routine passenger behaviors on a plane that would be seen as a normal behavior we are no longer capturing that,” said David Kohl, the new director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, in an interview.

“Quiet Skies” still exists, but without most of the stupid/unconstitutional stuff that made “Quiet Skies” shorthand for “Orwellian dystopia.” This may end the criticism but it won’t stop the bleeding. The Boston Globe reports both the Government Accountability Office and DHS Inspector General are investigating the program. Both entities want to know more about the “robustly overseen” program, especially in terms of cost effectiveness.

Even if the program was cost effective (the air marshals don’t believe it is — and they should know), the tactics deployed would not be any less questionable. The TSA engaged in direct surveillance of passengers with no reasonable, articulable reason for doing so. The program’s very existence is lawsuit bait, even if passengers and activists may have trouble showing they have standing to sue.

And the nonexistent “robust oversight” the TSA cited in defense of a program its oversight hadn’t heard of now actually exists and will be performing some actual oversight.

“We have conducted a bipartisan investigation over the past three years, and it is now time to convert our oversight findings into concrete reforms to help improve TSA’s ability to carry out its vital security missions,” Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told the Globe.

Representative Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, the incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said oversight hearings next year will aim to “ensure TSA meets all privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties requirements.”

The TSA is definitely still going to surveil some travelers. It just won’t be doing at the scale it was with “Quiet Skies.” And it will no longer be able to justify this pervasive surveillance with specious criteria like “passenger slept during flight.” It will have to show its work. Even better, it will have to show the work it’s already done to a number of agencies and government representatives. And it doesn’t even have a single win in the “busted terrorist” column to justify its actions.

Filed Under: air marshals, air travel, surveillance, tsa, us marshals

Remember How US Marshals Seized All Those 'Hoverboards' At CES In A Patent Dispute? The Company Has Now Dropped The Case

from the wait,-what? dept

Back in January, we wrote with some concern over the news that US Marshals had seized a bunch of one wheel scooters that everyone wants to call hoverboards, even though they don’t hover. The case involved a US company, Future Motion, that had gotten a lot of attention (and a utility patent and a design patent) on such single-wheel balancing scooters. Future Motion then sued a Chinese firm, Changzhou First International Trade Co., that was making a product that certainly looked similar. Changzhou was demonstrating its product at CES in Las Vegas, only to have the US Marshals raid its booth and seize all its products based on a 7 minute hearing in front a judge where Changzhou didn’t even get to present its side.

And now that Changzhou has attempted to present its side… Future Motion turned tail and ran, ran away. It flat out dropped the case once it was clear that Changzhou was going to challenge the lawsuit. In fact, Changzhou is so up in arms over this that it’s not accepting the case being closed and has asked the court to reopen the case so that it can seek attorney fees from Future Motion.

The filing by Changzhou is well worth reading. It accuses Future Motion of misleading the US Patent Office and the court, claiming that the lawsuit and the seizure were a combination attempt to stifle a competitor and get publicity for itself, and that this all helped Future Motion raise more money. It also says that Changzhou’s product, the Trotter, does not infringe on Future Motion’s patents. From the filing:

CES is the world’s largest electronics and technology show, and was a major opportunity for Changzhou to promote sales of its Trotter product. Instead, Future Motion orchestrated an effort to obtain a baseless TRO and to effect seizure of Changzhou’s products from CES. These acts caused Changzhou to lose sales and suffer public embarrassment at a critical juncture in marketing its new Trotter product. Indeed, Future Motion engaged in a significant media campaign to gain freee publicity from the fact that it wrongfully prevented Changzhou’s sales….

Moreover, Future Motion directly relied upon its baseless TRO to obtain additional financial backing for itself. On February 3, 2016, Future Motion announced that it had obtained $3.2 million in additional funding for its business…. One of the stated bases for obtaining that funding was that Future Motion “vigorously protects its Intellectual Property as it protects safety and a ride experience that cannot be replicated by knock-offs.”… Interestingly, Future Motion dropped this lawsuit against Changzhou on February 4, 2016 the next day after announcing it obtained the new funding.

It is now apparent that Future Motion’s actions were conducted with full knowledge that that the asserted patents… were non-infringed and invalid…. Future Motion undoubtedly sought the TRO and preliminary injunction with the expectation that Changzhou would not fight back in this litigation, and therefore would not discover the fatal flaws in Future Motion’s case. Unfortunately for Future Motion, Changzhou did fight back.

Changzhou filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion on January 29, 2016, explaining in detail that the two patents in suit were both noninfringed by Changzhou’s Trotter product and invalid in light of Future Motion’s own prior art (as well as the prior art of others), most of which was never disclosed to the United States Patent Office…. For example, with respect to Future Motion’s design patent, its “proof” of infringement consisted of a single sentence by the inventor, coupled with a few of the figures in the patent…. This was insufficient on its face, as a design patent must be construed and infringement evaluated based on all of the figures…. Further, with respect to Future Motion’s utility patent, the “proof” of infringement provided no claim construction analysis (which is required under Federal Circuit law) and relied on a conclusory claim chart…. Moreover, Future Motion baldly stated that it was aware of no anticipatory prior art to either patent, but it neglected to tell the Court about prior art disclosures of Future Motion’s own product and other similar products….

Upon reviewing Changzhou’s opposition and supporting declarations, Future Motion simply gave up, filing a voluntary notice of dismissal. Even then, Future Motion only offered to dismiss without prejudice despite the uncontroverted evidence that the patents in suit were non-infringed and invalid.

And this is why we’re supposed to have an adversarial process in court, folks. Whichever side you come down on, it’s ridiculous (1) that without even hearing the other side, the court simply ordered that the CES booth be raided and all products and other supplies be seized and (2) that the US Marshals got involved and seized the product.

Future Motion is claiming that it’s dropping the lawsuit because “it had been outgunned” and that following through on the court case would cost too much. But that’s ridiculous since it was Future Motion who filed the lawsuit in the first place. Those claims really do suggest that it filed the case for one reason only, which was to shut down a competitor, and then it also got a bunch of free publicity out of it. Maybe the company has a case, but if it wants to argue infringement it should have to make its case in court, not simply use the filing as an excuse to shut down and embarrass a competitor with no repercussions at all if the original claims were exaggerated or simply false.

Filed Under: ces, competition, hoverboard, lawsuits, patents, restraining orders, seizure, us marshals

Why Is The Federal Government Shutting Down A CES Booth Over A Patent Dispute?

from the how-is-it-their-concern dept

One of the big stories coming out of CES this week is the bizarre situation in which US Marshals showed up here at the event yesterday and completely shut down the booth of a Chinese company, named Changzhou First International Trade Co. This happened after a judge granted a motion for a temporary restraining order, filed by US company Future Motion, following a seven minute hearing about the matter, in which Changzhou was not present and had no say.

To be clear, it does appear that Changzhou is building a knockoff of Future Motion’s one wheeled self-balancing scooter thing — a device that got plenty of attention via a big Kickstarter campaign. And, Future Motion does hold both a patent on a self-balancing skateboard (US Patent 9,101,817) as well as a design patent (US D746,928), which was just granted a few days ago, on a device that obviously looks quite a lot like what both companies are selling:

In other words, there’s a fair bit of evidence to support that the patent infringement case is fairly strong. That said, it still seems quite troubling for US Marshals to then get involved and completely shut down Changzhou First International Trade Co.’s booth at CES right in the middle of the show, when the company doesn’t get a chance to present to the judge until January 14th, long after CES has packed up and left town.

If there’s a legitimate patent infringement case here, as there may well be (even though I’ll have some more to say about patents in this space in an upcoming post…), it’s still troubling that the company got shut down in the middle of the trade show and that it involved the US government intervening in what is a civil issue. This is certainly not out of the ordinary in general. Part of the job of the US Marshals is to execute seizures related to restraining orders that are ordered by federal courts. But it still seems like pretty massive overkill for a company that’s just showing some scooters at a trade show, and where they haven’t had a chance to present a defense.

Filed Under: ces, hoverboard, onewheel, patents, retraining order, seizure, us marshals
Companies: changzhou first international trade co., future motion

Sen. Wyden Introduces Bill Aimed At Limiting FBI, US Marshals' Flying Spy Planes

from the hacking-away-at-the-surveillance-overgrowth dept

It’s safe to say no domestic surveillance program will be escaping legislators’ attention in the post-Snowden era — at least not for the forseeable future. It’s only been a couple of weeks since news of the FBI’s secret spy plane fleet made national headlines and there’s already legislation in the works aimed at setting some… um… ground rules.

In a bill announced Wednesday, Wyden joins Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller on the Protecting Individuals From Mass Aerial Surveillance Act, which if passed would require warrants for the government to analyze and collect data gathered en masse via domestic airplane or surveillance drone.

“Technology has made it possible to conduct round-the-clock aerial surveillance. The law needs to keep up,” Wyden said in a statement. “Clear rules for when and how the federal government can watch Americans from the sky will provide critical certainty for the government, and help the unmanned aircraft industry reach its potential as an economic powerhouse in Oregon and the United States.”

It’s not just the FBI’s flying spies being targeted by this bill. It’s also looking to dial back the US Marshals Service’s use of airborne IMSI catchers, a.k.a. “dirtboxes,” as well as targeting surveillance drones, picking up where 2013’s stalled Drone Privacy Act left off.

Hopefully, the bill will force a bit more transparency about use of these surveillance techniques. A warrant requirement is a nice thought, although it’s hard to imagine what sort of warrant would cover a “search” that involves flying a plane in continuous circles over a small area of a city.

Considering the lowered expectation of privacy in public areas, the warrant requirement is going to be a tough sell. If it does stick, it will at least ensure deployments are targeted, rather than just exploratory. There’s an opportunity here to force better and more detailed reporting of deployments, as well as significantly limiting the use of flying surveillance vehicles by eliminating exploitable loopholes.

The bill also would prevent government agencies from running footage obtained by drones or planes through facial/pattern recognition software in hopes of stumbling across untargeted suspects. It also would forbid law enforcement agencies from bypassing restrictions and reporting requirements by hiring private contractors to perform their illegal surveillance for them.

Five years ago, this sort of legislation would be dead on arrival, with deferential nods to terrorism and the War on Drugs replacing any serious consideration of the public’s privacy. Thanks to the Snowden’s leaks, any bill seeking to limit domestic surveillance now has a fighting chance, with even the reluctant administration forced to make more concessions to privacy than it would under other circumstances.

Filed Under: fbi, planes, ron wyden, surveillance, us marshals