FBI Used Best Buy's Geek Squad To Increase Secret Public Surveillance

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: bknapple32

From the article:

One agency communication about Geek Squad supervisor Justin Meade noted, "Agent assignments have been reviewed and are appropriate for operation of this source," that the paid informant "continues to provide valuable information on [child pornography] matters" and has "value due to his unique or potential access to FBI priority targets or intelligence responsive to FBI national and/or local collection."

So... some guy at Best Buy is getting "paid" to find stuff on a computer.
What prevents this guy from putting the files there himself, in order to get "paid"?

Why am I the only one staring you?
second line.

Hah, yeah I know!?
That simple statement was my main point.
And somehow it has gone over some heads.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: BlueAjah

Your baseless bashing of specifically bestbuy puts me to sleep.

Have you never heard of circuit city?

Do you understand how many shops are guilty of this that aren't Best Buy?
zzzz......z.z.

The articles were to prove my point that not all Geek Squad are good guys or trustworthy, as you seem to think.

And of course any technician with access to a computer could violate that trust.
But the FBI is PAYING the Geek Squad to dig up stuff.
There are ways to manipulate metadata and logs.
And not all Geek Squad people are trustworthy.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: BlueAjah

It's paranoia because you believe the person you're paying to fix your computer will instead 'snoop'.

You seriously underestimate people snooping. If you hand your computer over to someone, they will do it. Just look at how many petty people snoop through a SO's text messages. Going through computer files is 100x worse.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That's what most are looking for. They're just being nosy. Few people in Best Buy even know how to commit identity theft, those aren't the documents they're looking for. They're generally looking for stupid things like naked pictures of the owners.

Wait until this dragnet style policing is extended to copyrighted pictures of random things you have stored. I save all kinds of interesting artwork, who knows if it's somehow copyrighted???









or offensive in some way...





or both...

Two relevant points.

1. Just weeks before his arrest, federal judges ruled in a notable separate matter that child porn found on a computer's unallocated space couldn't be used to win a possession conviction because there is almost no way to learn who placed it there, who viewed it, or when or why it was deleted.

2. The lawyer then questioned agent Tracey L. Riley, who retreated from her original, case-launching stance that the image—known as "9yoJenny"—was definitely child pornography to "not exactly" child porn.

One single alleged picture, in a inaccessible location could destroy this medical professional's life.
As well, this has been in litigation since 2011.


A little input if I may
If more resources were properly allocated to catch traffickers and pornographers there wouldn't be many pictures or videos available to anyone.