5 ms·
Petraeus case shows FBI's authority to read email
- adestefan 14y agoPetraeus 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.
- jpdoctor 14y agoSounds 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.
- gojomo 14y agoThe 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.
- addlepate 14y agoExactly. Has nothing to do with this.
- cypherpunks01 14y agoAs 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.
- gojomo 14y agoThat "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).
- cma 14y agoDoes Google actually require subpoenas?
- Evbn 14y agoYes, and Google fights them, and often wins.
- epoxyhockey 14y agoAgreed. 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/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443980457811...
- sethbannon 14y agoThe 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."
- SageRaven 14y agoYou 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.)
- gknoy 14y agoHow would that stop you from being required to comply with a subpoena to supply old email from sageraven.com (hypothetical)?
- krickle 14y agoPresumably the Fifth Amendment, which still protects one from disclosing their password unless the prosecutors have a witness who has seen illegal material on your device.
- pyre 14y agoI imagine that it's easier to fight a subpoena directed at you than it is to fight one directed at Google (for example).
- Evbn 14y agoYou may be surprised. Google has more legal resources, and less fear off illegal imprisonment. The government had wide latitude for breaking its own laws against individuals.
- BlackNapoleon 14y agoThing is...do I really think that in using Google they won't read my mail?
- Evbn 14y agoYou should, as Google has perhaps the best privacy record in the Internet industry among remotely similar organizations.
- duaneb 14y ago> You should, as Google has perhaps the best privacy record in the Internet industry among remotely similar organizations. This means very little when Google still has to comply with subpoenas. They don't really have much of a choice, pressed up against the law.
- nitrogen 14y agoTo the average person, that is a very reasonable expectation.
- lukejduncan 14y agoWhen you join the CIA you sign a piece of paper that says "You have the right to access all of my personal accounts of any kind." Having gone through the process of accepting a job offer from the CIA (which I later declined due to the 2 year background check and a more fun job in the Bay Area) I can say this is an oversimplification. If you work for the CIA you explicitly agree to allow them to comb through any of your personal accounts at any time.
- ck2 14y agoIs everyone missing the fact the investigator who started this was corrupt? As an FBI agent he had full email access, as easy as could be. Gmail has a backdoor and it's what countries like China use for an attack point.
- smutticus 14y agoSo the head of the CIA can't think of a better way to securely communicate with his lover than draft emails. He's the head of the nation's spy agency and he's a terrible spy. Good riddance.
- sliverstorm 14y agoCome now, the President of the United States is head of the nation's military. He has no training as a soldier. Do you see where I'm going with this?