He is not entitled to privacy if it means using his government Gmail account any more than I am entitled to it using my company account.
|
He is not entitled to privacy if it means using his government Gmail account any more than I am entitled to it using my company account.
Or was it his private g-mail (Google mail) account?
Seems I recall that what started this was a complaint against Paula Broadwell for "cyber-harassment" via email. You find it odd that emails were read? Bwa ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It was via Broadwell's account, she was the one being investigated for cyber harassment via email. If you don't want something to become public, don't send it in an email.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You are right... I just did some more research and it was accounts with Goggle G mail .
OMG! I was right about something! My eyes are now sparkly and my pearly whites show when I grin from ear to ear.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes it was Google Gmail, but if someone who files a complaint allows access to their email it's going to lead to other people's email, period. Like I said, if you don't want something public, don't send it in an email.
Why would they allow access to private email?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Follow me here, no one said "they." Paula Broadwell harassed Jill Kelley via email and Jill Kelley complained. To validate her complaint Kelley would have given the FBI access to some of her email. The rest is just following the tracks.
You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.
And to top it off Petraeus and Broadstone shared the same account (both under pseudonyms);and thought that if they left messages in the draft folder for the other one to read without sending that it would be more difficult to trace(a method called “dead drop,” ). Problem is the FBI knows about that trick since jihadists like the 2004 Madrid Train Bombers routinely use it and there is software to beat it.
It is also worth noting that Petraeus resigned . He was not fired ,and is under no charges that I know of. Like Speech said. The FBI was investigating a threat that Broadwell made against Kelly . As far as I can tell ,there were no 4th Amendment violations ;although there probably should be an updated version of the Electronic and Communications and Privacy Act,which has has some tinkering updates over the years ;but pretty much remains the same since 1986.
Actually it's about to get worse in the US concerning your privacy:Quote:
Why would they allow access to private email?
Senate Bill Rewrite Lets Feds Read Your E-mail Without Warrants - Slashdot
I said "why would they allow access." "They" is Petraus and Company. Why they were so stupid is beyond me.
Written by that Dem champion of rights Sen Leahey .
"They" didn't have to allow access since Kelley allowed access to hers. What are you missing about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Except that's not what they did:Quote:
You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.
Petraeus used Canadian navy spy's email trick - Technology & Science - CBC News
I read a summary that compared the email searches to a physical search of a home with a warrant let's say they were looking for evidence of theft, and "in plain sight" in that home they saw illegal drugs, the opinion stated that they could also prosecute the drug charge from that search.
But--the article went on to say- that didn't allow them to go next door and search another person's property, the point being that is what the writer compared what is being done with email searches.
I have a theory (this theory was not part of the article I described above) that emails have replaced a lot of conversations that used to take place on telephones. They couldn't tape phone calls in the old days without a warrant, but with emails it is comparable to there having been a policy that they could tape all phone calls but not listen to them unless someone was suspected of a crime and then they could listen to all the tapes they had made, and use them against the parties to the call.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense because I haven't expressed it very well I realize, but maybe I can find the article and post it.
This is the article I referred to, and a quote from the article below:
FBI investigation of Broadwell reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications - The Washington Post
"Law enforcement officers conducting a legal search have always been able to pursue evidence of other crimes sitting in “plain view.” Investigators with a warrant to search a house for drugs can seize evidence of another crime, such as bombmaking. But the warrant does not allow them to barge into the house next door."
Tom already covered that here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The FBI is going to investigate the person doing the harassing which would be Broadwell and her email messages, the method of harassment. You of all people should know that following her email tracks could lead to other things and smearcase is right, if it's in front of them in the process of another investigation they're going to look deeper.
Dems have a penchant for giving us exactly the opposite, a bill that's supposed to give us more privacy gives us less, kind of like the "Affordable Care" act makes health care more expensive. But I digress...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are not complaining about polispeak, are you? I didn''t hear you complaining when Romney outlined his ambitious program
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 AM. |