BRENDAN SMIALOWSKIIf Republicans have any appetite for reining in domestic surveillance that they describe as a massive violation of the civil liberties of Donald Trump’s associates, it wasn’t on display when FBI Director Christopher Wray made his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the damning Justice Department inspector general’s report into the Trump-Russia investigation.
In an announcement of the seizure of the domain posted Thursday by the US Justice Department, the DOJ alleged that WeLeakInfo allowed its users to access "a search engine to review and obtain the personal information illegally obtained in over 10,000 data breaches containing over 12 billion indexed records—including, for example, names, email addresses, usernames, phone numbers, and passwords for online accounts."
The Justice Department’s No. 2 official, who spoke after Wray, took a swipe at Apple Inc, which already uses end-to-end encryption on its messenger, saying the company reported only 43 tips to law enforcement last year about child exploitation.
The investigation comes as Google and other Silicon Valley giants face increased scrutiny from government officials and regulators.The Justice Department in July announced an antitrust probe into the tech industry more broadly, targeting Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon.
In recent weeks, Mr. Hughes has joined two leading antitrust academics, Scott Hemphill of New York University and Tim Wu of Columbia University, in meetings with the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and state attorneys general.
As shown by a newly released report from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Department of Homeland Security, specifically Customs and Border Protection, can share social media data with federal, state and local government agencies, along with law enforcement and even multilateral governmental organizations and foreign states.
videoGoogle has fired several of its largest lobbying firms and shuffled lobbyists and other political consultants amid a possible antitrust probe by the U.S. Justice Department, a Wednesday report said.
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) met in recent weeks and agreed to give the Justice Department the jurisdiction to undertake potential antitrust probes of Apple and Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, the sources said.
This, said the Justice Department at the time of his arrest, meant that their "unauthorised disclosure could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the US".The vast pile of information was built up over the 20-year period that Mr Martin worked at the NSA and other US federal agencies.
The motion also wants to know what legal grounds the Justice Department had to compel Facebook to undermine the security in its own product — and for what reason the court pushed back.
What is clear is that the public has a right to know the legal reasoning that decided this case — namely, what authority the Justice Department thought it had to force Facebook to undermine its security infrastructure and why the court determined that the government was wrong.
The confidentiality of census information came up after Rep. Jimmy Gomez — a Democrat from California who serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform — asked a follow-up question after the acting head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, John Gore, appeared at a congressional hearing in May. Gomez requested a written response on whether there are any laws that could compel the Census Bureau "to disclose confidential census data for law enforcement or national security purposes."
In an attempt to learn about Defendants’ use of these devices, EFF sent a request for records relating to six cell site simulator warrants that precisely identified each warrant using the information on the Department of Justice’s OpenJustice website, including the date range of the authorized search, the nature of the investigation, the items to be searched for, and the exact date and time Defendants electronically provided information about them to the Department of Justice.
One email from Kavanaugh, who was working at the White House at the time, to John Yoo at the Justice Department in September 2001, appears to directly contradict Kavanaugh's claims (made under oath) not to have heard about the warrantless surveillance program known as Stellar Wind until it was exposed in an article in 2005.