Slashdot Mirror


Why DOJ Didn't Need a "Super Search Warrant" To Snoop On Fox News' E-mail

awaissoft writes "If attorney general Eric Holder wanted to perform even a momentary Internet wiretap on Fox News' e-mail accounts, he would have had to persuade a judge to approve what lawyers call a 'super search warrant.' A super search warrant's requirements are exacting: Intercepted communications must be secured and placed under seal. Real-time interception must be done only as a last resort. Only certain crimes qualify for this technique, the target must be notified, and additional restrictions apply to state and local police conducting real-time intercepts. But because of the way federal law was written nearly half a century ago, Holder was able to obtain a normal search warrant — lacking those extensive privacy protections — that allowed federal agents to secretly obtain up to six years of email correspondence between Fox News correspondent James Rosen and his alleged sources."

6 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. What did Fox News do? by Nyder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:What did Fox News do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      rofl

      Funniest comment in years-
      "FOX News doing investigative journalism...."

      lmao

    2. Re:What did Fox News do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dear Numbnuts-
      I will never pass up any opportunity to bash FOX, even if the rare ACTUAL news item is reported by them.

      They are a joke.

      If you choose to defend them, along with all the other "Me Too! I LOVE FOX!" clowns out there, go right ahead.

      Fox IS a joke, end of story.

  2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm guessing this relates to some big news story in the US.

    Nah, it has to do with the Obama administration's gigantic overreach and efforts to stifle free speech by those in the media who would dare question his Obamaness, so it's therefore a very minor and unimportant story, like the Benghazi coverup, the illegal IRS profiling, and the AP wiretaps.

    It's not surprising you haven't heard of it, it's not about tornadoes in Oklahoma and how they're TOTALLY the fault of Bush's environmental policies.

  3. Re: Not News to Fox by Runaway1956 · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    "commander and chief"

    Don't we all hate when people use terms that they don't understand, trying to make other people believe that they are knowledgeable?

    Next time, try using a dictionary, or a thesaurus, or SOMETHING. Using such terms in such blatantly ignorant ways makes all the rest of your post suspect. Even if you're correct, you've made yourself look STUPID!

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  4. Re:Not OK No Matter What. by Uberbah · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Great way to be above the partisan ship. You can't even restrain yourself from the "Faux" talking point.

    Deal with it. Fox are a naked partisan propaganda outfit out to advance the agenda of the GOP and nothing more. Before anyone starts bitching about MSNBC, remember that they have Joe "dead intern" Scarborough on for three hours every day, and they didn't run banners saying "R-Spitzer" or "R-Wiener" after Dem sex scandals.