FBI Recording Private Conversations In Public Places With Hidden Microphones

I really don't see how this is possible legally but the FBI says it is:


what ever version of the patriot or sunshine and kittens or what happy but totally terrible act that passed lets them do this in the name of "security"

This 'news' story is completely slanted - and just plain wrong.

The reporter says the actions of the FBI in this case were 'legal' - even though the court case to decide this had not even happened yet (at the very end they mention that the case is set for May 25th).

This case involves the FBI planting bugs around a courthouse in Alameda County to try and catch real estate investors colluding and rigging bids in bank foreclosure auctions.

"Federal agents planted hidden microphones and conducted secret video surveillance at Alameda County’s Rene C. Davidson Courthouse for ten months, despite having no court warrant. The surveillance operation was part of an investigation into alleged bid rigging at foreclosed property auctions where thousands of houses and apartment buildings were sold by banks. But defense attorneys for some of the individuals accused say the FBI's surveillance tactics violated their clients' constitutional rights, and everyone else whose conversations might have been captured on tape."

That is from this story - which contains the full details of what the FBI did in this case - including how the FBI did the very same thing in San Mateo County prior to this (which is a separate, but obviously similar case).

This 'news' story is completely slanted - and just plain wrong.

Which way is it completely slanted and why is it just plain wrong?

The reporter says the actions of this case were legal.

Sure, only in the hyperbolic American news reporting style. Stick around a couple seconds and you hear the classic "and the FBI says they don't even need a warrant."

Moreover, to be "plainly wrong", wouldn't it have to be false? Which as you admit was/is not known. If I say, "It will rain in San Fransisco tommorow.", can you say I'm wrong today?

As for the slant, it seems biased to the left, not to the right, as one might expect if they were truly trying to convince us that it was legal.

Hey, it's not winning a Pulitzer for sure. Are there other factual errors?

Anchorwoman: "We are exposing a surveillance program operating all around the bay area. Federal agents planting microphones to secretly record conversations. KPIX5's Jackie Ward is at the Oakland Courthouse, now Jackie, can they legally do that?"

Jackie: "Yes - they can - which may surprise a lot of you out there..."

What's surprising is that her statement is demonstrably false. Whether or not what the FBI did (in the past) was legal had not been adjudicated when she said it.

The slant (yes to the left, we agree) gives the impression that the practice the FBI used in this case is common place - or accepted as legal. No mention that the FBI was investigating a specific thing (bid rigging at bank foreclosure auctions around courthouses).

For the record, I think what the FBI did was wrong - and I also think the defendants will prevail in the cases currently being contested.

What's surprising is that her statement is demonstrably false. Whether or not what the FBI did (in the past) was legal had not been adjudicated when she said it.

Its NOT false, it's just unknown. And LE's position is its legal, so it's not totally without support.

If the judge ultimately rules that it IS legal will you still insist she made a false statement?

I say the Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl next year. Is that actually false (or just wishful).

I agree with you though, it better be ruled illegal, or we're in for some bad times.

This is my stop, conductor.

As I disembark your circular logic semantics train, I will continue to maintain Ms. Wards statement was factually incorrect.

Lol.

I'm bailing as well. Let me make it up to you by buying you a purely hypothetical stout ale. :)