FBI and email privacy

[doom&gloom]

FBI's abuse of the surveillance state

I think this sums it all up quite nicely... Government spying and tapping government no less. whocouldathunkit?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ance-state-fbi




FBI's abuse of the surveillance state is the real scandal needing investigation

That the stars of America's national security establishment are being devoured by out-of-control surveillance is a form of sweet justice


The Petraeus scandal is receiving intense media scrutiny obviously due to its salacious aspects, leaving one, as always, to fantasize about what a stellar press corps we would have if they devoted a tiny fraction of this energy to dissecting non-sex political scandals (this unintentionally amusing New York Times headline from this morning - "Concern Grows Over Top Military Officers' Ethics" - illustrates that point: with all the crimes committed by the US military over the last decade and long before, it's only adultery that causes "concern" over their "ethics"). Nonetheless, several of the emerging revelations are genuinely valuable, particularly those involving the conduct of the FBI and the reach of the US surveillance state.

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. The emails Kelley received were, as the Daily Beast reports, quite banal and clearly not an event that warranted an FBI investigation:

*snip*

[cjppjc]

Re: FBI's abuse of the surveillance state

Thanks for that article. This was where I was hoping the direction of this thread would go. Nowhere in the MSM is this subject brought up.

[reggie]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING.

[Shakespear]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING.

I second that Nada !!!!

[cjppjc]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING.

I second that Nada !!!!

You know this how?

Or do you simply intuit that the real story is not this crazy mismash of human stupidity. Real life is always stranger than we think.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: FBI and email privacy

You know this how?

Or do you simply intuit that the real story is not this crazy mismash of human stupidity. Real life is always stranger than we think.

The director of the CIA quits the day after the elections. I'm going with cover up.

[Slimprofits]

Re: FBI and email privacy

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...eillance-bill/

After public criticism of proposal that lets government agencies warrantlessly access Americans' e-mail, Sen. Patrick Leahy says he will "not support" such an idea at next week's vote.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power -- including warrantless access to Americans' e-mail accounts -- than they possess under current law.The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception" for warrantless access. The remarks came a few hours after a CNET article was published this morning that disclosed the existence of the measure.

A vote on the proposal in the Senate Judiciary committee, which Leahy chairs, is scheduled for next Thursday.

The amendments were due to be glued onto a substitute (PDF) to H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the American Civil Liberties Union saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with more than 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!"A spokesman for the senator did not respond to questions today from CNET asking for clarification of what Leahy would support next week. (We'll update this article if we receive a response.)

[vinoveri]

Re: FBI and email privacy

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...eillance-bill/

After public criticism of proposal that lets government agencies warrantlessly access Americans' e-mail, Sen. Patrick Leahy says he will "not support" such an idea at next week's vote.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power -- including warrantless access to Americans' e-mail accounts -- than they possess under current law.The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception" for warrantless access. The remarks came a few hours after a CNET article was published this morning that disclosed the existence of the measure.

A vote on the proposal in the Senate Judiciary committee, which Leahy chairs, is scheduled for next Thursday.

The amendments were due to be glued onto a substitute (PDF) to H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the American Civil Liberties Union saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with more than 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!"A spokesman for the senator did not respond to questions today from CNET asking for clarification of what Leahy would support next week. (We'll update this article if we receive a response.)

This is a great example of a free press in action ..... CNET (not fox, cnn, abc, etc.). No wonder they want control of the internet

[cjppjc]

Re: FBI and email privacy

The director of the CIA quits the day after the elections. I'm going with cover up.

Sure the timing of the resignation is suspect.

The statement made by Reggie: "Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING." If this is true, what is the real story?

[reggie]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Sure the timing of the resignation is suspect.

The statement made by Reggie: "Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING." If this is true, what is the real story?

The bottom line is that we may never be able to figure it out. When you have agencies and think tanks that specialize in nothing other than crafting psychological warfare, it become extremely difficult for an ordinary, even highly educated, person to diagnose the agenda. We can certainly speculate, for example:

1. Perhaps this is merely an attempt to commence a dialectical discussion on warrantless electronic searching;
2. Maybe its a diversion for something entirely unrelated, such as in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair;
3. It could be an attempt to further erode American's general trust in what has previously been sold to them as a trusted American (Petraeus).
4.Or, as I suggested earlier, it's an even bigger attempt to begin a discussion about the trustworthiness of our domestic Intel agencies, with the goal of replacing them with supranational agencies.

It's hard to know right now where they are going with this. But the simulacra beeing produced by the contingent of media, nonprofits, pundits, bloggers and the like is nothing more than junkfood for a continually dumbed-down and confused American audience. It's simply the way the system works now. I guess I know this because I've seen it up-close.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: FBI and email privacy

The bottom line is that we may never be able to figure it out. When you have agencies and think tanks that specialize in nothing other than crafting psychological warfare, it become extremely difficult for an ordinary, even highly educated, person to diagnose the agenda. We can certainly speculate, for example:

1. Perhaps this is merely an attempt to commence a dialectical discussion on warrantless electronic searching;
2. Maybe its a diversion for something entirely unrelated, such as in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair;
3. It could be an attempt to further erode American's general trust in what has previously been sold to them as a trusted American (Petraeus).
4.Or, as I suggested earlier, it's an even bigger attempt to begin a discussion about the trustworthiness of our domestic Intel agencies, with the goal of replacing them with supranational agencies.

It's hard to know right now where they are going with this. But the simulacra being produced by the contingent of media, nonprofits, pundits, bloggers and the like is nothing more than junkfood for a continually dumbed-down and confused American audience. It's simply the way the system works now. I guess I know this because I've seen it up-close.

Seems pretty obvious to me. There have been a slew of high ranking generals removed in the last few days. Without looking too hard:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13...oper-spending/
http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-2...-army-generals

Looks to me like a power struggle about what to do in Iran. Petraeus was a noted hawk in Iran. Some hard liners pushed too hard. Maybe planned a military Coup d'état. Obama won and consolidated his grip on power by eliminating the opposition.

[shiny!]

Re: FBI and email privacy

Seems pretty obvious to me. There have been a slew of high ranking generals removed in the last few days. Without looking too hard:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13...oper-spending/
http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-2...-army-generals

Looks to me like a power struggle about what to do in Iran. Petraeus was a noted hawk in Iran. Some hard liners pushed too hard. Maybe planned a military Coup d'état. Obama won and consolidated his grip on power by eliminating the opposition.

Where? Iran or here? (There was a time not too long ago that I would have felt silly just asking such a question. Now? Not so much...)

[cjppjc]

Re: FBI and email privacy

The bottom line is that we may never be able to figure it out. When you have agencies and think tanks that specialize in nothing other than crafting psychological warfare, it become extremely difficult for an ordinary, even highly educated, person to diagnose the agenda. We can certainly speculate, for example:

So in other words, you're just spitballing. I think the charges are true. Sure Petraeus may have enemies. But that's a long way from "Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING."

[lakedaemonian]

Re: FBI and email privacy

So in other words, you're just spitballing. I think the charges are true. Sure Petraeus may have enemies. But that's a long way from "Nothing the public is being told about this story is true. NOTHING."

My thought is that the simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

While I don't think the Administration did anything premeditated and intentionally malignant....I strongly suspect their behavior would be borderline or over the line incompetent.

Borderline or over when it came to real time crisis management of Benghazi.

And over the line incompetent when it came to post Benghazi incident management..."not a terrorist incident....the video did it."

I don't go much for conspiracy theories........but I do believe some people like to build up karmic bank accounts(good thing) and some people unfortunately like to dig for dirt(bad thing)....and save it for leverage

Some of the questions I have include:

How long did the Administration know about Petraeus' affair?

How long did the Administration know about the head of AFRICOM's personal spending on the government dime?

To me it blends in nicely with EJ's previous example of how folks who reach certain levels of power and authority in the club are likely compromised in some way, shape, or form.

How does this differ from say the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal?

Play ball or you get the sack.

[cjppjc]

Re: FBI and email privacy

My thought is that the simplest answer is probably the most accurate.

Me too.