Skip to comments.
What the Petraeus Investigation Tells Us About Online Surveillance
Reason ^
| Nov. 13, 2012
| J.D. Tuccille
Posted on 11/15/2012 1:18:21 PM PST by neverdem
With regards to the David Petraeus scandal, as you dig through the very human details of a powerful man's dalliance with an attractive woman, an important question should occur to anybody with more than a National Enquirer-level interest in the matter: Wait ... The FBI did all of this digging over some bed-hopping? Yes. Yes, it did. And over at The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald wants to know why more people aren't concerned.
Writes Greenwald:
As is now widely reported, the FBI investigation began when Jill Kelley - a Tampa socialite friendly with Petraeus (and apparently very friendly with Gen. John Allen, the four-star U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan) - received a half-dozen or so anonymous emails that she found vaguely threatening. She then informed a friend of hers who was an FBI agent, and a major FBI investigation was then launched that set out to determine the identity of the anonymous emailer.
That is the first disturbing fact: it appears that the FBI not only devoted substantial resources, but also engaged in highly invasive surveillance, for no reason other than to do a personal favor for a friend of one of its agents, to find out who was very mildly harassing her by email.
Think about that. If an FBI agent can go digging through private emails over a friend's complaint about nasty-grams, doesn't that suggest that such intrusive snooping is pretty much old hat to the feds?
Greenwald points out that the FBI's digging into Paula Broadwell's nasty-grams not only took them into her email account and revealed her relationship with David Petraeus; it then revealed Jill Kelley's correspondence with General John Allen, including a truly awe-inspiring data-dump of emails between the two. Continues Greenwald:
So not only did the FBI - again, all without any real evidence of a crime - trace the locations and identity of Broadwell and Petreaus, and read through Broadwell's emails (and possibly Petraeus'), but they also got their hands on and read through 20,000-30,000 pages of emails between Gen. Allen and Kelley.
This is a surveillance state run amok. It also highlights how any remnants of internet anonymity have been all but obliterated by the union between the state and technology companies.
Online email services are especially vulnerable, with companies like Google and Yahoo essentially rolling over for the feds. As the Associated Press reported:
The downfall of CIA Director David Petraeus demonstrates how easy it is for federal law enforcement agents to examine emails and computer records if they believe a crime was committed. With subpoenas and warrants, the FBI and other investigating agencies routinely gain access to electronic inboxes and information about email accounts offered by Google, Yahoo and other Internet providers.
In fact, older emails those six months old or older don't require a warrant at all. Prosecutors can grab them on their own authority. Many companies will cough up detailed information without a formal warrant, anyway. "Google, which operates the widely used Gmail service, complied with more than 90 percent of the nearly 12,300 requests it received in 2011 from the U.S. government for data about its users, according to figures from the company."
Some email providers have been so eager to comply that they actually surrender more information than the FBI requests and more than it is legally authorized to seek. One such high-profile incident occurred in 2006.
A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network perhaps hundreds of accounts or more instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.
F.B.I. officials blamed an apparent miscommunication with the unnamed Internet provider, which mistakenly turned over all the e-mail from a small e-mail domain for which it served as host. The records were ultimately destroyed, officials said.
So remember ... Your online privacy isn't so private.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fbi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
11/15/2012 1:18:27 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
The dog is in the tree. The dog is in the tree.
Uncle Steve bought a wrench. Uncle Steve bought a wrench.
John Kerry is a twit. John Kerry is a twit.
The first two get them looking and then they read the third one.
2
posted on
11/15/2012 1:32:58 PM PST
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: neverdem
It tells one never ever put anything on a computer,in Email or on the net that you do not want some one else to see.
To: neverdem
4
posted on
11/15/2012 1:34:40 PM PST
by
two23
To: neverdem
This article is absolutely ridiculous.
A woman who knows several prominent generals and the director of the CIA personally (it's troubling that she does, but those are the facts) gets anonymous threatening emails which involve the director of the CIA.
She informs a friend who is an FBI agent, who then escalates the inquiry.
This makes complete sense - this clearly touches on national security. What if the agent ignored the emails and something happened to the CIA Director?
This is not "snooping into someone's private emails."
This article is beyond stupid.
5
posted on
11/15/2012 1:34:40 PM PST
by
wideawake
To: neverdem
I did some attorney work reviewing e-mails for discovery in several large cases. Bottom line ... if you put something in writing on company e-mail, some lawyer somewhere is going to read it.
I’ve seen it all. Emails between a guy and his mistress. E-mails between two closeted gay dudes. Arguments between spouses. Drama between coworkers. Mangled limbs from industrial accidents. Porn. E-mails to an executive at a major company from his wife ... that attached extremely personal and close-up images of every last inch of her.
Don’t e-mail it if you’re not prepared to have somebody read it. Even if it never becomes public ... if your company ever get sued and e-mails are a part of discovery, a lawyer will have to review them just to make sure they’re not relevant.
You don’t want some lawyer somewhere getting paid $40 an hour to review naked pictures of your wife.
SnakeDoc
6
posted on
11/15/2012 1:34:51 PM PST
by
SnakeDoctor
(Texas survived one Obama term, and we'll survive another. The rest of you are screwed.)
To: neverdem
The FBI story that they investigated only after Broadwell sent harassing emails to Kelley smells like a coverup. I think the REAL fact is that the Holder Dept of inJustice was monitoring Petraeus, digging for dirt and came upon the juicy tidbits of the affair. 0bama and Holder probably have a lot of people under their thumbs in a similar manner. Think about those that suddenly switched steadfast positions and backed something the kenyan wanted, or think of how the RINO population seems to have increased. Being blackmailed will do that to you.
7
posted on
11/15/2012 1:35:26 PM PST
by
The Sons of Liberty
(Remember the Heroic SEALs of Benghazi and DEMAND a Full Accounting!!!!)
To: blueunicorn6
There's that ~ guns bullets terrorist attack alqaida barking dog meowing cat ~ and then there's this problem that most of these guys are just government employees and most everybody thinks neither they nor their friends should have normal Constitutional privacy rights.
But you notice the gub'mnt used their access to an employee's accounts to nail 2 people who are NOT government employees and who'd NOT used government computers to do anything.
Have you ever sent an email to a gub'mnt employee? If you have, and even if it wasn't over a government net on government equipment THEY ~ the FBI ~ got you!!!!
8
posted on
11/15/2012 1:38:08 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
9
posted on
11/15/2012 1:47:10 PM PST
by
neverdem
( Xin loi min oi)
To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
10
posted on
11/15/2012 1:47:36 PM PST
by
neverdem
( Xin loi min oi)
To: SnakeDoctor
“You dont want some lawyer somewhere getting paid $40 an hour to review naked pictures of your wife.”
If you know a good lawyer who works for $40 per hour, let us know. In the corporate world more likely $400+ per hour.
To: Soul of the South
LOL auto mechanics charge 80-100 an hour.
This guy must be living in the 70s.
12
posted on
11/15/2012 1:57:50 PM PST
by
nascarnation
(Baraq's bankruptcy: 2016)
To: Soul of the South
I haven’t done that kind of work in a long time. Did a bit between jobs a few years back. Attorneys doing document review work usually get paid about $40 an hour through an agency. They’re basically temps with law degrees. I’ve heard of some as low as $25 an hour.
The law firms usually bill them out at more, pay the lawyers $25-40/hr., the agency another $25-40/hr., and keep the difference.
These days, I bill out at $250/hr.
SnakeDOc
13
posted on
11/15/2012 1:58:39 PM PST
by
SnakeDoctor
(Texas survived one Obama term, and we'll survive another. The rest of you are screwed.)
To: wideawake
Evidently one of the emails Kelley showed the FBI agent she went to was one forwarded from Gen. Allen (where ‘KelleyPatrol’ was warning him about Kelley). SO, the FBI knew immediately that Allen was somehow involved, plus, they could tell that the movements of Petraeus & Allen, nonpublic information, was known by somebody. This was enough for them to look into it - makes sense to me.
14
posted on
11/15/2012 2:01:49 PM PST
by
MissMagnolia
("It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains" - Patrick Henry)
To: nascarnation
I was talking about temp lawyers that work in these document review mills, not actual practicing attorneys. Litigators and corporate attorneys bill out at far more. These temp kids -- mostly recent law grads -- usually make quite a bit less than $40/hr.
Here's a blog where temp attorneys bitch about the whole thing ...
http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/
SnakeDoc
15
posted on
11/15/2012 2:03:01 PM PST
by
SnakeDoctor
(Texas survived one Obama term, and we'll survive another. The rest of you are screwed.)
To: wideawake
Whole careers can be destroy by invasion of privacy. The Watergate break in is thought to be illegal gathering dirt on a Democrat who was having an affair. That was before emails.
16
posted on
11/15/2012 2:03:56 PM PST
by
wmp46
To: neverdem
I give it about 30 days until the naked pictures of Broadwell and the Tampa Kardashian sisters come out.
17
posted on
11/15/2012 2:06:08 PM PST
by
Newbomb Turk
(Hey Newbomb, where's your brothers ElCamino ?)
To: wideawake
A woman who knows several prominent generals and the director of the CIA Several generals and high ranking officers of CENTCOM.
That same woman also could sail in and out of MacDill whenever she wanted and has shown an amazingly bizarre behavior.
Troubling? VERY troubling.
18
posted on
11/15/2012 2:06:53 PM PST
by
ladyjane
To: riverrunner; neverdem; ShadowAce; Marine_Uncle; TigersEye; onyx
Actually things are now much easier with everybody putting there daily doings on Facebook.
19
posted on
11/15/2012 2:39:56 PM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
((The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?))
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Agree. People broadcast pictures of their little children for instance without thinking of the ramifications. For the whole world to see. Then they tell the world their exact home addresses. World full of dopes at this point.
20
posted on
11/15/2012 2:44:24 PM PST
by
Marine_Uncle
(I'm going John Galt.... But. Honor must be earned.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson