5 ms·

Petraeus 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

Petraeus 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 ago
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.
- gojomo 14y ago
  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.
- addlepate 14y ago
  Exactly. Has nothing to do with this.
cypherpunks01 14y ago
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.
- gojomo 14y ago
  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).
- cma 14y ago
  Does Google actually require subpoenas?
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Yes, and Google fights them, and often wins.
epoxyhockey 14y ago
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/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443980457811...

Petraeus 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 ago

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.

gojomo 14y ago
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.
addlepate 14y ago
Exactly. Has nothing to do with this.

cypherpunks01 14y ago

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.

gojomo 14y ago
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).
cma 14y ago
Does Google actually require subpoenas?
- Evbn 14y ago
  Yes, and Google fights them, and often wins.

epoxyhockey 14y ago

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/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443980457811...