Categories: ControversiesFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) CollectionGovernment

CARNIVORE (DCS1000): FBI Files on Their Email and Electronic Communication Monitoring Software

June 27, 2024

The below documents began being published here on The Black Vault in 2018, as the FBI released them. The final response for this FOIA case came in August of 2024, with multiple updates through that timeframe. In October of 2024, The Black Vault added the August release for download, and since this is final release for the case, this page will likely not be updated again. All documents are available below this article.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the FBI’s Carnivore system drew considerable attention and debate. Unveiled during this period, Carnivore was a sophisticated email wiretapping system designed to intercept and analyze digital communications. The system’s capabilities and the implications for privacy and civil liberties were subjects of intense scrutiny and concern among privacy advocates, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the public at large.

Carnivore, officially known as DCS1000, was a network diagnostic tool utilized by the FBI to monitor and intercept email and other online communications. The system was installed at an ISP’s premises and was capable of scanning vast amounts of digital data passing through the ISP’s network. Carnivore specifically targeted communications of suspects under investigation, allowing the FBI to capture emails, chat sessions, and other forms of online interactions.

Continue scrolling for more...

The Carnivore system operated by tapping into the ISP’s network and filtering the data packets that flowed through it. According to an internal FBI document, the system was designed to “ensure that only the exact communications authorized by the court to be intercepted are what is intercepted”. This meant that Carnivore could be configured to capture only the communications of a specific target while excluding all other traffic.

The deployment of Carnivore was subject to strict legal guidelines and required a court order based on probable cause. The FBI had to demonstrate that the interception of communications was necessary for an ongoing investigation and that it would yield evidence of criminal activity. The court order specified the scope of the surveillance, including the types of communications to be intercepted and the duration of the surveillance.

Despite these legal safeguards, privacy advocates raised significant concerns about the potential for abuse and the broader implications for digital privacy. A key issue was the transparency and accountability of the Carnivore system. ISPs and privacy groups worried that the system could be used for more extensive monitoring than intended, potentially capturing the communications of individuals not under investigation.

In a letter to Congress, John E. Collingwood, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Office of Public and Congressional Affairs, emphasized that Carnivore was used “only when Internet Service Providers are unable on their own to restrict interceptions within the narrow confines of the controlling court order”. However, ISPs expressed doubts about their ability to verify that the FBI adhered strictly to these limitations once Carnivore was installed on their networks.

The reaction from the Internet industry was mixed. Some ISPs resisted the installation of Carnivore on their networks, citing concerns about the system’s impact on network performance and the privacy of their customers. In one notable case, EarthLink, a major ISP, refused to install Carnivore, arguing that it could cause disruptions to their service and compromise customer privacy.

EarthLink’s concerns were not isolated. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other privacy organizations filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover more details about Carnivore’s technical capabilities and its use in investigations. The ACLU’s efforts aimed to obtain the source code of Carnivore, which would reveal the inner workings of the system and potentially confirm whether it could be used for broader surveillance than officially stated.

The controversy surrounding Carnivore led to calls for greater oversight and transparency in the deployment of digital surveillance tools. Critics argued that without independent verification of the system’s operations, there was no way to ensure that the FBI’s use of Carnivore was consistent with legal requirements and respected individual privacy rights.

In response to these concerns, the FBI conducted briefings with industry specialists and members of Congress to explain how Carnivore worked and the measures in place to prevent abuse. However, skepticism remained, and the debate over digital surveillance and privacy continued to evolve.

By circa 2005, it was reported that Carnivore had been replaced by more commercially available software. This shift indicated an evolution in the FBI’s approach to digital surveillance, moving away from proprietary systems like Carnivore to leveraging advancements in commercial technology.

Carnivore represented a significant development in law enforcement’s ability to monitor digital communications. While it provided a powerful tool for investigating and preventing criminal activity, it also raised critical questions about the balance between security and privacy in the digital age. As technology continues to advance and digital communication becomes even more integral to daily life, the need for clear legal frameworks and robust oversight mechanisms remains essential to protect civil liberties while enabling effective law enforcement.

In June of 2018, The Black Vault requested all FBI documents about the system. In July of 2018, the first release of records was received. In June of 2024, a second batch of records were released.