FBI posted a perfect record on snooping requests in 2010

The FBI batted a perfect 1.000 in 2010 on its requests to electronically snoop on suspected foreign agents or terrorists in the United States, according to Wired.com’s David Kravets for Ars Technica.

A Justice Department report requested by the Federation of American Scientists states that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 requests in 2010 for electronic monitoring, which allows the FBI to secretly collect intelligence from electronic communications without the target knowing about the warrant, Kravets writes. In addition to electronic surveillance warrants, the FBI sent more than 24,000 national security letters to a variety of sources, such as banks, credit companies and Internet service providers, compelling them to provide information on more than 14,000 people, according to the report Kravets cites.

The FBI’s perfect record in 2010 followed its 2009 performance in which the court denied only two of 1,329 requests, according to Kravets. That high success rate has generated concerns that the court’s reviews are merely a formality, though Justice argues that the FBI knows exactly what the court is looking for and limits requests to meet those expectations.

About the Author

Connect with the GCN staff on Twitter @GCNtech.

Reader Comments

Thu, May 30, 2013 Dan Tennessee

No one died last year due to listening in to phone calls. How many deaths were arranged during calls that weren't listened to.

Wed, May 11, 2011 Benjamin Arizona

Our world has changed. Listening to a phone, is not a concern to me. Not listening when they have reason to do so would be tragic.

Wed, May 11, 2011 Chip Hollywood, Florida

Not sure if the FBI asking to surveil that many people is more or less scary than the Courts allowing them to do it apparently with little challenge to what they are doing or why.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above