Slashdot Mirror


Petraeus Case Illustrates FBI Authority To Read Email

An anonymous reader writes "Back in April, we discussed how the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act says email that has resided on a server for more than six months can be considered abandoned. The recent investigation of General Petraeus brings this issue to light again, and perhaps to a broader audience. Under current U.S. law, federal authorities need only a subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor — not a judge — to obtain electronic messages that are six months old or older. Do you know anyone these days who doesn't have IMAP accounts with 6+-month-old mail on them?"

44 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Joke's on you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have a useless IMAP account - I keep all my valuable messages on Hotmail

  2. Don't keep old email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why I delete my old emails every 3 months.

    Of course, when you're living in "The Cloud©," who's to say that the "Delete" button really deletes your email, and doesn't just shift it off to some secondary storage cache where it sits undisturbed for years until the FBI decides it wants to read it?

    1. Re:Don't keep old email. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Once lost account settings in Netscape and re-entered everything, the ISP dumped 4 years of e-mail from POP3 back down. Stuff I didn't want my parents to see, I got in a lot of trouble.

    2. Re:Don't keep old email. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      TLS doesn't take care of shit. It gets encrypted, goes to your ISP, gets decrypted, gets sent, gets encrypted, goes to you, gets decrypted. TLS doesn't encrypt messages with your secret key (like PGP) so that intermediate parties can't read it.

    3. Re:Don't keep old email. by SilentStaid · · Score: 2

      I could never get off on ASCII art, the kerning was always off.

      Give me something steamy typed in a lovely Comic Sans font and what that does to my eyes won't be the obscene act.

  3. On Dropbox by zerosomething · · Score: 2

    "Rather than transmitting emails to the other's inbox, they composed at least some messages and left them in a draft folder or in an electronic dropbox, AP said" http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/13/petraeus-broadwell-email/1702057/ Yea some of them may have been in the drafts folder. Sending email to your secret lover is old school and gone to get you caught. OOPS maybe it did.

    --
    It all starts at 0
  4. Public servants by bhlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Patraeus is a public servant. The military and public servants agree to adhere to a higher standard of ethics when they take their jobs. Patraeus is said to have sent 20 to 30,000 pages of emails to this lady.. What on earth was he sending her?

    While its probably a good idea to erase your personally incriminating emails that you wrote 6 or more months ago (or a week ago!), at some point we want our CIA personnel to not be acting like idiots.

    1. Re:Public servants by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      That wasn't Petraeus, it was John Allen, who was Petraeus' successor, and until a few hours ago was on track to be the Supreme Commander of NATO.

      Holy fuck, what is the matter with these people?

    2. Re:Public servants by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patraeus is a public servant. The military and public servants agree to adhere to a higher standard of ethics when they take their jobs.

      IMO, that isn't even the real problem. The CIA, in particular, doesn't care two squats about your dirty secrets, as long as you don't care about them either. The problem with a long-term affair, relative to the CIA, is that the people involved (by the very nature of having gone to those extents to keep it a secret) are now potentially able to be compromised by someone via blackmail.

      You could have a long track record of photos of you snorting blow off a shaved donkeys ass while giving it a reach around, and the CIA won't care as long as you're not embarrassed about it.

    3. Re:Public servants by Revotron · · Score: 5, Funny

      You could have a long track record of photos of you snorting blow off a shaved donkeys ass while giving it a reach around, and the CIA won't care as long as you're not embarrassed about it.

      Wait, how did you get a hold of my family Christmas photos?

    4. Re:Public servants by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Patraeus is a public servant. The military and public servants agree to adhere to a higher standard of ethics when they take their jobs.

      Making them easier to blackmail. I'd rather have a public servant agree to adhere to the letter of the law (as applicable to the rest of us) and not be put in a position where his/her behavior, acceptable for the general public, would put his/her job in jeopardy.

      Patraeus is said to have sent 20 to 30,000 pages of emails to this lady.. What on earth was he sending her?

      Probably a lot of copies of his military and CIA correspondence and reports (sanitized of course) for her use in his biography.

      What others have said about the head of the CIA not being able to conceal an affair: This guy is an idiot for not knowing that his life is under scrutiny as a condition of having a secret clearance. Heck, here in Boeing territory, we all know that the DIA contacts our neighbors periodically to see if we (those of us with secret clearances) have 'unusual' lifestyle patterns that might signal possible compromise by foreign intelligence.

      Funny anecdote: When conducting interviews, they ask my friends and neighbors not to discuss it with me. But their kids come over and say, "Hey mister! The FBI was asking my dad about you. Are you some sort of criminal or something?" [Yeah, I bury pesky kids in my back yard. So stay off my lawn!] So its pretty easy to find out when they do their rounds.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Public servants by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      So what's the difference between a law and a regulation - aside from the juridiction of the court that hears the complaint?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. Moral of the story by dywolf · · Score: 2

    Don't leave behind incriminating evidence!
    News at 11.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  6. No Crime here by NinjaTekNeeks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing about it is that Petraeus likely won't be charged or prosecuted for anything. So basically the FBI was "just checking" to make sure no law was broken. If they can do it to the CIA director they likely can do it for anyone they damn near please. Anyone suspected of cheating on their wife is fair game apparently.

    1. Re:No Crime here by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      He wasn't just any guy cheating on his wife. He was name-dropped as Mitt Romney's VP (around the time the FBI started investigating him... imagine that). He also refused to be thrown under the Libya Terrorist bus and was slated to testify about that... just days before he resigned. Yet that information wasn't leaked until after the election.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:No Crime here by Eevee · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's just the opposite. If you have a security clearance, you have less privacy because you give the government permission to investigate you.

    3. Re:No Crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone suspected of cheating on their wife is fair game apparently.

      No. Just people with security clearances who might be blackmailed as they try to hide their behavior, or people with security clearances who demonstrate that their promises are not kept.Secret affair = not worthy of public trust.

    4. Re:No Crime here by alen · · Score: 2

      part of being named a VP candidate is the FBI does a VERY THOROUGH background investigation on you. except for Sarah Palin which explains all the allegations about her

    5. Re:No Crime here by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My 1 year old daughter can be deceitful. He did nothing wrong in the course of his duties. The only semi-plausible argument is that the situation could have put in in a position to be blackmailed; which, incidentally was the logic used to deny homosexuals security clearances for decades, effectively blacklisting them from several lucrative industries.

    6. Re:No Crime here by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with cheating on your wife implies that you can be deceitful. In a position where he stands as pretty much the highest man on the pole, you wouldn't want him to deceive you.

      It's more than that, if you're in any job that requires security clearance and you are keeping secrets from your employer then you can probably be blackmailed by foreign interests. One step in getting clearance is to spill EVERYTHING that can be used against you so that it can't be.

      Here we're talking about the director of the CIA who is a former senior military officer having an affair. So VERY high level clearance and VERY big secret. Petraeus was an international incident waiting to happen because he's walking with untold numbers of Top Secret info in his head and lying to the CIA.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    7. Re:No Crime here by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      For example, some dead people won in the most recent US elections, and Marion Barry continues to be reelected despite being a putz and a crackhead.

      Isn't democracy wonderful? Even idiots get to vote.

      Voting for a dead guy doesn't make a person an idiot; it just means they'd rather be led by a corpse than the still-living alternative.

      If I were running for office, I think losing to a dead guy would be the second worst thing that could happen, next to being beaten by Hitler as a write-in candidate.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:No Crime here by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone suspected of possibly presenting some kind of unknown, unnamed threat, that may or may not challenge the status quo, or even exist for that matter, is fair game apparently.

      FTFY.

      Brave new world, Freedom == Slavery, all that jazz.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:No Crime here by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      the director of the CIA is SUPPOSED to be deceitful... that's the PRIMARY job duty. If anything is a fail, it's that the FBI agents involved weren't killed off... or that they are STILL breathing. KEEPING secrets is the job... if that means cold blooded murder, then it's his job!!!

      The CIA and NSA are the two agencies where "rule of man" is more important that "rule of law". Because ultimately dirty, immoral, illegal things have to be done and loyal men have to do them. That's also why those agencies traditionally have no standing in the US legal system.. because their "loyalty oath" to the job has a higher clearance than 99% of judges ... they CANNOT be held (or expected) to tell the truth in a court of law.

  7. I have a bigger problem with this story . . . by mmell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Petraeus was the head of our CIA and couldn't keep his own affair secret? If he can't camp a little action off on the side without getting caught, I sure don't want him in charge of our country's Department of Spies.

    1. Re:I have a bigger problem with this story . . . by houghi · · Score: 2

      The real issue I have is that having an affair is even an issue. The obvious answer should be: So?
      Next they will go after people who masturbate and lie about that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:I have a bigger problem with this story . . . by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Petraeus worked mostly as a military administrator, and I doubt the CIA Director is ever ranked in the Best Spies List. I'll grant that if he's smart enough for the job he should have been less traceable, but he probably didn't really care, and the only way to control Broadwell would be to arrange for her to suffer an "accident". It seems more worrying that the affair wasn't discovered sooner. An attractive woman working with the Director on a book about his career should already have been under 24-hour surveillance. Really I hope the CIA was aware of the situation and is only pretending to be surprised

  8. Re:Who I know by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

    I don't think I'm an interesting party (what a setup), but I'm glad to hear POP3 is safe ;)

  9. GPG by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For anything interesting - enough said.

    1. Re:GPG by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      For anything interesting - enough said.

      Using it isn't the problem. Getting your friends, colleagues and family to is.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:GPG by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Yes, try getting your psychotic estrange mistress to use GPG and let us know how that goes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:GPG by segwonk · · Score: 2

      Don't you mean PGP, as in Pretty Good Privacy?

      Otherwise, let me know what GPG is...

      --
      - ------ Go 'til ya know.
    4. Re:GPG by segwonk · · Score: 2

      Don't you mean PGP, as in Pretty Good Privacy? Otherwise, let me know what GPG is...

      http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=gpg

      Sorry, you're right - I was being lazy. I did look on Wiki for GPG, but not closely enough. The GNU Privacy Guard entry didn't jump out at me.

      --
      - ------ Go 'til ya know.
  10. Any employer can do it by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind that if you read your email using your work computer, then your employer can read it too - don't trust SSL to keep it private, your employer can transparently decrypt the SSL stream and re-encrypt using their own cert which your (well, your employer's) computer will trust.

    If you want to keep your private email private, only read it on your own device, don't trust anyone else's device.

  11. GPG to the rescue by scanman1 · · Score: 2

    I don't understand why GPG is not baked into everyone's mail client by now. All my geek friends have my public key.
    You should be using 4096 bit encryption and a public key server.

    For someone in his position, he should know better than that.

    Even an idiot can install Thunderbird and then put the Enigmail plugin on top of it.

  12. Re:30,000 pages might be about right by Ollabelle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm thinking that the these emails are long strings of replies back and forth, with each email repeating the stuff already sent previously. What with all the blank spaces, headers, wrapping of text, I can see how that the page count gets inflated by quite a bit.

    --
    Ibid.
  13. Re:Uh, wherein is it legitimate to do this... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    You only have rights if you're beligerent and EXPLICITLY demand them. Quit presuming that the government has any obligations to give you your rights. They do their level best only because of the consequences of them not doing so and somoene calling them out on it. What we're being presented here is explictly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Yeah, yeah, it costs all sorts of money and effort to stand up for your rights. Freedom's NEVER free.

    It's come time to decide, people... Are you slaves? Are you free men? If you're free men, that comes at a price- and you've got to be willing to PAY it.

    Firstly, "Freedom's Not Free" as a slogan is already taken, and sadly I report it doesn't mean what you and I would like it to.

    Secondly, as the great George Carlin said: "This country is finished, it has been for a long time, but everyone has a cell phone that makes pancakes and rubs their balls, so they dont wanna rock the boat."

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  14. US Constitution... by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They do not have authority that is approved by the guidelines the Founders of this country created.
    What it means is they are violating the founders intents and any supposed law in violation are not real laws but fabrications of distortions backed by nothing more than brute force using abstract words to make themselves feel better about it.

    There are many violations of the founders intents. The Declaration of Independence even acknowledges the probability of corrupt government and the founders in doing so gave us recognition of our rights and duty to put off bad government and replace it with what the founders intended. They even provided us with real life example.

    So No they do not have the Authority to try and take advantage of the short comings of technology that they perceive. Especially when the Email account is still actively being used. Being used does mean clearly that it is not an abandon mail.

  15. Re:This is exactly why... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    I have wondered about this. I would hope that, if you have your own virtual private server, you could argue that it was analagous to renting an office, in which case, 4th amendment protections would apply.

    I think that the argument for goverment snooping on email is that the ISP manages the email, thus you have already given access to a 3rd party. If you host it yourself, on a machine that is not managed by an ISP (beyond providing the virtual machine), there is no 3rd part involved in processing your email.

    Of course the email may still be available at the other end of the conversation, because it may originate or be received by a traditional ISP that must manage the email.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  16. That is why.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    When I worked at AT&T it automatically deleted ANY email older than 30 days. Deleted for you. plus they scanned for and deleted any PST files found on any computer.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  17. Gmail is the weak link by GODISNOWHERE · · Score: 2
    From a New York Times article about this:

    "In a parallel process, the investigators gained access, probably using a search warrant, to Ms. Broadwell’s Gmail account. There they found messages that turned out to be from Mr. Petraeus." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/david-petraeus-case-raises-concerns-about-americans-privacy.htm

    The only reason that the FBI was able to gain access to her e-mails was because Google complied with FBI's request. So it seems that the real question is not about how vulnerable your email is to "hackers", but whether your email provider keeps your communications private.

  18. Stop bragging about running your own mail server by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    Seriously, its not impressive. Hasn't been for at least 15 years.

    Second ... NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR MAIL. You are not a former high level military officer or high level politician. You are in fact nobody, just like me. How do I know you are nobody? Cause you have the spare time to dick around on slashdot and ... run your own mail server for no reason other than to wave it around like an epenis. Hell, most of you would be bragging up a shit storm if you had an affair.

    All you do by bragging about running your own personal mail server is prove that you have more time than money ... and probably brains since you can get any of several places to host your mail for free and without ads if you don't use their web interface, so the end result is pretty much 0 cost hosting.

    What do you do that someone cares about? Why is the government going to want your mail? Because you act like a bad ass on slashdot? I think not.

    No one cares about your mail any more than they care about mine. Okay, so maybe a handful of people here have a reason to be concerned, I'm sure there are a few, but they aren't the ones bragging about running their own mail servers either. They are the ones that keep their head down and mouth shut ... hence why they haven't already been handled.

    The more you go on and on about how you stick it to the government, the more you make it clear that the government doesn't give a shit about you and that you really don't actually know what you're doing ... or at the very least, why you are doing it.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  19. GMail is an interesting answer... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nobody keeps lots of mail there for longer than six months.

    In fact, people do. However, corporate email accounts at Google auto-delete email after 180 days because of the 1986 act. There was much grumbling when this came about, and there are exceptions for people with an email "litigation hold", but for everyone else, it's part of normal operation that it's deleted.

    I believe that this is a settable option for corporate managed accounts (i.e. hosted domain email for commercial companies which pay Google to manage their companies mail).

    I know that most other public corporations, such as Penton Media, have similar 6 month deletion policies. IBM's policy when I worked there (circa 2001) was 1 year, and switched to 6 months while I was employed by them.

    Apple had a two year policy because it was difficult to establish separate policy for the US vs. Europe for compliance with Directive 2006/24/EC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive and Apple conservatively classed itself as an ISP. I don't know what their current policy is, given that the U.S. equivalent H.R.1076/S.436 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFETY never made it into law.

  20. Nothing. by raehl · · Score: 2

    Holy fuck, what is the matter with these people?

    Nothing.

    All Petraeus did was have a girlfriend. So at worst he was a dick to his wife, which is not a crime.

    Allen might be in real trouble if he was sharing classified info. 20,000-30,000 is a LOT. That's over 60 a day for a year.

    1. Re:Nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      More importantly, he broke the chain of command. A general shouldn't be taking orders from his privates.