4 ms·
No, the biographer also had a clearance. They were actually within their rights. Whether it was a gainful use of resources given the origin of the tip is dubi
by Vivtek 14y ago
No, the biographer also had a clearance. They were actually within their rights.
Whether it was a gainful use of resources given the origin of the tip is dubious, but they weren't actually violating the judicial oversight requirement, as far as I understand it.
- pyre 14y agoThey didn't know who it was connected to at all before getting information from Google. Claiming that they both had clearances, and gave up a right to private email is trying to forgive these things after the fact. Unknown individuals should be assumed to have privacy rights. You can't break into someone random person's house, then find out that they committed a crime, and say that the warrant-less search was now a-ok.
- Vivtek 14y agoI'm pretty sure (but I don't know absolutely) that the fact that she had clearance means, effectively, that the breach of privacy was her transgression, not the government's. It's effectively as though the police have a warrant to search your house - any conversation with a person with clearance is subject to surveillance, and if they screw it up, that's no protection of your privacy.