While I agree this level of surveillance is worrying since it's probably also being applied to normal people.... SBF has been charged and has been awaiting trial domestically since Dec 30, 2022. They are, from a spectator[1] point of view, quite clearly guilty of a lot of shady stuff and it would honestly be pretty bonkers if they had access to private communication for non-privileged conversations at this point.

1. Edited as per comment below.

I assume that they are paying special attention to his internet connection considering the extent of his fraud. While a VPN can hide your IP, your ISP can still tell when a connection is using a VPN so if the courts allow law enforcement to monitor his connection then they would know.

Now, if SBF connected through a McDonalds wifi somewhere and they somehow found out it was him using a VPN, that would be concerning because there is no way they should know that its his laptop unless they knew he was on his way there ahead of time and somehow got permission to monitor their public wifi. That feels very unlikely

> peanut gallery

I didn't know this until recently -- https://www.rwjbh.org/why-rwjbarnabas-health-/ending-racism/...

I was completely unaware as well - edited.

The article the other poster linked is making a category error, an unfortunately common one, of confusing something which has classist origins or connotations with being racist.

The term "peanut gallery" originated from vaudeville theater, and comes from the fact that unruly viewers who were not happy with the performance would throw their concessions at the performers, mostly roasted peanuts as these were the cheapest concessions. The attendees of early vaudeville were primarily immigrants, who would now be considered white, but were not at the time (scottish, irish, italian, and german immigrants).

There's nothing particularly racist about the term, never has been, and still isn't as it's used in modern parlance. Whether or not it's acceptable to use phrases with classist or class-based origins in your speech and writing is an exercise I leave up to you.

psh -- pleb. :P

I did share a bad article I didn't read. I will do some more research on peanut gallery specifically. In either case, I probably still won't use it since it has this connotation to some people.

That page also claims that "picnic" has a racist origin based on lynching, despite being derived from a French word from the 1690s:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/picnic

Their entries on "long time no see" and "no can do" seem pretty spurious as well, which undermines the whole page's validity. It's a shame TBH, those are really strange unforced errors to have included.

Oops -- I did the classic google, copy/paste, no read. Looks like I picked a bad source. Sorry!

That list is a bit absurd. Very USA-centric. And completely wrong in the case of picnic (pique-nique)

> probably also being applied to normal people....

What’s off many people’s radar is that hard drive technology is past the point where the surveillance doesn’t have the be selective or in real time: all metadata can just be collected all the time and stored indefinitely. For all citizens.

Even passive audio recording is within reach: 24/7 recording for 1 year takes less than 1TB. Video is not even out of reach for those with the money to spend.

Keep in mind, any 3rd party record is not covered by the 4th Amendment. There is no expectation of privacy nased on 3rd Party Doctrine.

Also, there is a forensics package that can be hot loaded on just about every router out there for law enforcement purposes.

Warrants that mandate a monitor of a specific email address are not "mass surveillance".

Warrants that are granted by no grand jury, nor a judge? are these even valid warrants at this point?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena

I'm not defending SBF. The man needs to be charged and be put behind bars for the crimes committed. I'm just stating that this article was eye opening to me.

Mass surveillance is out of control as you say, and I am a strong proponent of reigning in warrantless wiretaps and governmental overreach. However, as many people have stated, a pen register (which requires a warrant) against a specific individual suspected of a crime where there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence suggesting that the suspect is guilty has nothing to do with mass surveillance. This is targeted, narrowly scoped surveillance of a specific suspect and is precisely what law enforcement should be doing.

> granted by no grand jury, nor a judge?

Pen register orders require court approval [1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3123

An administrative subpoena under U.S. law is a subpoena issued by a federal agency without prior judicial oversight.

I didn't say a court wasn't needed; I implied that this is a Kangaroo Court

Sorry, I’m not seeing the part of the law that allows an ALJ to permit this (which makes perfect sense - title 18 is the criminal code and crimes can not be prosecuted in administrative proceedings generally). The statute seems to contemplate only district courts and state courts, neither of which are “administrative.” Where are you seeing a reference to an ALJ being able to issue one of these, particularly in a criminal case?

[1] Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - FTC v. Innovative Marketing, Inc., the court allowed the FTC to use administrative subpoenas in a criminal case involving fraudulent business practices. The court found that the information requested by the FTC was relevant to the criminal case and that the use of administrative subpoenas was an appropriate means of obtaining that information.

[2] Department of Justice (DOJ) - In United States v. Parris, the court allowed the DOJ to use an administrative subpoena to obtain information from a bank in connection with a criminal investigation. The court found that the DOJ had the authority to issue administrative subpoenas under the Bank Secrecy Act, and that the information requested was relevant to the criminal case.

[3] Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - In the case of SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, the court upheld the SEC's authority to issue administrative subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation. The court ruled that the SEC could use administrative subpoenas to obtain information that was relevant to the criminal case.

[1] https://casetext.com/case/federal-trade-commission-v-innovat...

[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...

[3] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/467/735.html

These cases do not say what you think they say. Please cite to the actual parts of the decision that discuss the legality of administrative subpoenas issuing for a criminal case rather than the admissibility of information provided in response to a civil subpoena by a third party. Recall that we are talking specifically about the use of a pen register in a criminal case brought by the DOJ, not random regulatory compliance required in highly regulated industries.

The FTC case is a civil case. The DOJ case does not even mention the word subpoena as far as I can see. The SEC case is a civil case.

He's been arrested and charged, and he had been specifically ordered to not use encrypted communications methods by the court as a matter of his bail.

It makes perfect sense that they'd be monitoring his communications to ensure he was in compliance with that order.

EO12333 permits warrantless monitoring of people operating under a government background investigation for employment. 4 million+ people are subject to mass surveillance.

Of course, anyone can not apply to work for feds to avoid this.

And bail terms for SBF seem too lenient. Restriction on all computers and phones would seem appropriate.

What makes you assume no warrant in this case?

The Wikipedia page on "Pen register" suggests you don't need a warrant.

The Wikipedia page talks about the history of pen registers over the last 100 years.

It's a lengthy, complicated page, and I'm not a lawyer... but I think the relevant section that describes their current use is this one, which suggests to me that you do need a warrant:

> For law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. According to 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1), the "court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation".

As I understood it, a court order is not a warrant. A warrant requires probable cause, a court order does not? I may be wrong.

The dude is under several investigations, including a criminal one. I'm pretty certain one of them mandates the monitoring of his internet use. Not that the info you provided is not disconcerting.

> one of them mandates the monitoring of his internet use.

Is that in bail conditions?