Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Security quotes of the weekSecurity quotes of the weekPosted Feb 1, 2013 19:37 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)In reply to: Security quotes of the week by giraffedata Parent article: Security quotes of the week
How did the FBI get access to Petraeus Gmail account without a criminal investigation or warrant? ISTM that a merely curious FBI agent can get into pretty much anything they want without any meaningful oversight.
(Log in to post comments)
Security quotes of the week Posted Feb 1, 2013 19:49 UTC (Fri) by mgb (guest, #3226) [Link]
NSLs are for fishing expeditions where there is no evidence of a crime and no judge will issue a subpoena.
No sane informed non-US person keeps proprietary information in the US (e.g. Gmail).
Google, search warrants, and National Security Letters Posted Feb 2, 2013 22:45 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] How did the FBI get access to Petraeus Gmail account without a criminal investigation or warrant? That's a good point. In fact, I recall now that a government employee can be considered a security risk just because he is in debt (because it makes him more susceptible than the average employee to bribes and extortion). So I agree - a national security matter doesn't have to be a criminal matter and an NSL could be used in a non-criminal investigation. From what I've read, I believe Google would not comply with an NSL demanding user information. Google's position is based on the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence over the act of Congress that created NSLs.
Google, search warrants, and National Security Letters Posted Feb 3, 2013 4:06 UTC (Sun) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I should point out that they didn't know who the accounts belonged to until after they searched them. Could have been you, me, any bodies.
|
|||||||||||||