Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
hosted.ap.org
Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#2Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#3Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
Sounds like you missed the point of the article:
Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older.
Has nothing to do with what Patraeus signed.
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#4Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
As they looked further, the FBI agents came across a private Gmail account that used an alias name. On further investigation, the account turned out to be Petraeus's.
The FBI broke into the gmail account (or at least subpoenaed identifying information from google) before they knew whose it was. So no, it's not a non-story.
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#5Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
Agreed. The only interesting thing about this case is what will happen to the agent in Tampa who made it his personal mission to sack a 4 star general and CIA director. It's already starting to take shape: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443980457811...
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#6Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
Sounds like you missed the point of the article: Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older. Has nothing to do with what Patraeus signed.
The article speaks generally about when the FBI can access email. It doesn't have a source which says exactly which approach was used in this case. They may have used any of the methods mentioned -- prosecutor subpoena, judge, or even Petraeus' prior or current written authorization -- depending on the exact timing of when its contents were examined.
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#7Petraeus signed all kinds of paperwork that said it was okay for the government to go digging around in his personal life, including email. This is really a non-story.
As they looked further, the FBI agents came across a private Gmail account that used an alias name. On further investigation, the account turned out to be Petraeus's. The FBI broke into the gmail account (or at least subpoenaed identifying information from google) before they knew whose it was. So no, it's not a non-story.
That "on further investigation" could mean many things other than your presumptive interpretation that they accessed the account before they knew it was associated with Petraeus.
For example, they could have suspected it was his, and then asked him for confirmation and access. At that point, he would have had to yield, due to his role, his prior agreements, and the situation (including the inevitability of access).
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#8The most disturbing bit from the article:
"Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older."
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#9The most disturbing bit from the article: "Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older."
You beat me to the punch. That act is 26 years old, and I've never before heard about his little provision in all my reading of discussions on email privacy.
Time and time again, I think, "I should bite the bullet and register a domain name for 10 years to host my own email on, encrypting everything that makes it past the spam blocker."
I know, I know. I'm not that interesting a person, especially to the federal government. But it's the principle of the matter, you know?
I bought my first firearm 15 years ago solely because it was a right I considered as important as voting and free speech, and I wanted to exercise that right. (Yes, I know this is mostly an American sentiment.)
Re: Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
#10The most disturbing bit from the article: "Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor - not a judge - to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older."
You beat me to the punch. That act is 26 years old, and I've never before heard about his little provision in all my reading of discussions on email privacy. Time and time again, I think, "I should bite the bullet and register a domain name for 10 years to host my own email on, encrypting everything that makes it past the spam blocker." I know, I know. I'm not that interesting a person, especially to the federal gove…
How would that stop you from being required to comply with a subpoena to supply old email from sageraven.com (hypothetical)?