http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/gmail-location-data-petraeus/
This indicates - to some degree - how the FBI was able to link a variety of
e-mail accounts to one person.
On 14/11/12 15:20, gtmarx wrote:
> *Colleagues --the recent U.S. case raises many issues for those of our
> scholarly perusaion. The exploding linkage quality of this might (ala 6
> degrees of freedom) end up in an expanding geometric net involving almost
> all users. This represents such a radical break with the plodding, labor
> intensive, disaggregated, chance nature of so many investigations before
> computers in which privacy (for both good and ill was protected as much
> by inefficiency as by principles). However, in this case at least there
> was a warrant and some modest grounds to pursue something. There is an
> inherent and uneasy dilemma in any investigation re when to wait for some
> reasonable suspicion and when to act. Guidelines are essential, as is the
> discretion of wise supervisors. *
>
> **
>
> *The case also involves the challenges of whistle blowing ala the agent
> who did an end run around the chain of command to report his concerns
> that there was politically inspired foot dragging by his colleagues.
> Another provocative (so to speak) thought is whether, as with the CIA’s
> policy of accepting homosexual employees who openly acknowledge their
> preference, is to apply the same standard to marital indiscretion That
> would avoid the issue of blackmail, but might not help the sanctity of
> traditional marriage which is much in the news these days.*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/david-petraeus-case-raises-concerns-about-americans-privacy.html?hp
>
>
>
> Petraeus Case Raises Fears About Privacy in Digital Era
>
>
> By SCOTT SHANE
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_shane/index.html>
>
> The F.B.I.
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
> investigation that toppled the director of the C.I.A.
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
> and now threatens to tarnish
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/top-us-commander-in-afghanistan-is-linked-to-petraeus-scandal.html?hp>
> the reputation of the top American commander in Afghanistan
> underscores a danger that civil libertarians have long warned about:
> that in policing the Web for crime, espionage and sabotage,
> government investigators will unavoidably invade the private lives of
> Americans.
>
> On the Internet, and especially in e-mail, text messages, social
> network postings and online photos, the work lives and personal lives
> of Americans are inextricably mixed. Private, sensitive messages are
> stored for years on computer servers, available to be discovered by
> investigators who may be looking into completely unrelated matters.
>
> In the current F.B.I. case, a Tampa woman, Jill Kelley, a friend both
> of David H. Petraeus
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,
> the former C.I.A. director, and Gen. John R. Allen, the top NATO
> commander in Afghanistan, was disturbed by a half-dozen anonymous
> e-mails she had received in June. She took them to an F.B.I. agent
> whose acquaintance with Ms. Kelley (he had sent her shirtless photos
> of himself — electronically, of course) eventually prompted his
> bosses to order him to stay away from the investigation.
>
> But a squad of investigators at the bureau’s Tampa office, in
> consultation with prosecutors, opened a cyberstalking inquiry.
> Although that investigation is still open, law enforcement officials
> have said that criminal charges appear unlikely.
>
> In the meantime, however, there has been an earthquake of unintended
> consequences. What began as a private, and far from momentous,
> conflict between two women, Ms. Kelley and Paula Broadwell, Mr.
> Petraeus’s biographer and the reported author of the harassing
> e-mails, has had incalculable public costs.
>
> The C.I.A. is suddenly without a permanent director at a time of
> urgent intelligence challenges in Syria, Iran, Libya and beyond. The
> leader of the American-led effort to prevent a Taliban takeover in
> Afghanistan is distracted, at the least, by an inquiry into his
> e-mail exchanges with Ms. Kelley by the Defense Department’s
> inspector general.
>
> For privacy advocates, the case sets off alarms.
>
> “There should be an investigation not of the personal behavior of
> General Petraeus and General Allen but of what surveillance powers
> the F.B.I. used to look into their private lives,” Anthony D. Romero,
> executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an
> interview. “This is a textbook example of the blurring of lines
> between the private and the public.”
>
> Law enforcement officials have said they used only ordinary methods
> in the case, which might have included grand jury subpoenas and
> search warrants. As the complainant, Ms. Kelley presumably granted
> F.B.I. specialists access to her computer, which they would have
> needed in their hunt for clues to the identity of the sender of the
> anonymous e-mails. While they were looking, they discovered General
> Allen’s e-mails, which F.B.I. superiors found “potentially
> inappropriate” and decided should be shared with the Defense Department.
>
> 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.
>
> Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy
> Information Center in Washington, said the chain of unexpected
> disclosures is not unusual in computer-centric cases.
>
> “It’s a particular problem with cyberinvestigations — they rapidly
> become open-ended, because there’s such a huge quantity of
> information available and it’s so easily searchable,” he said,
> adding, “If the C.I.A. director can get caught, it’s pretty much open
> season on everyone else.”
>
> For years now, as national security officials and experts have warned
> of a Pearl Harbor cyberattack that could fray the electrical grid or
> collapse stock markets, policy makers have jostled over which
> agencies should be assigned the sensitive task of monitoring the
> Internet for dangerous intrusions.
>
> Advocates for civil liberties have been especially wary of the
> National Security Agency, whose expertise is unrivaled but whose
> immense surveillance capabilities they see as frightening. They have
> successfully urged that the Department of Homeland Security take the
> leading role in cybersecurity.
>
> That is in part because the D.H.S., if far from entirely open to
> public scrutiny, is much less secretive than the N.S.A., the
> eavesdropping and code-breaking agency. To this day, N.S.A. officials
> have revealed almost nothing about the warrantless wiretapping it
> conducted inside the United States in the hunt for terrorists in the
> years after 2001, even after the secret program was disclosed
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all>
> by The New York Times in 2005 and set off a political firestorm.
>
> The hazards of the Web as record-keeper, of course, are a familiar
> topic. New college graduates find that their Facebook postings give
> would-be employers pause. Husbands discover wives’ infidelity by
> spotting incriminating e-mails on a shared computer. Teachers lose
> their jobs over impulsive Twitter comments.
>
> But the events of the last few days have shown how law enforcement
> investigators who plunge into the private territories of cyberspace
> looking for one thing can find something else altogether, with
> astonishingly destructive results.
>
> Some people may applaud those results, at least in part. By having a
> secret extramarital affair, for instance, Mr. Petraeus was arguably
> making himself vulnerable to blackmail, which would be a serious
> concern for a top intelligence officer. What if Russian or Chinese
> intelligence, rather than the F.B.I., had discovered the e-mails
> between the C.I.A. director and Ms. Broadwell?
>
> Likewise, military law prohibits adultery — which General Allen’s
> associates say he denies committing — and some kinds of
> relationships. So should an officer’s privacy really be total?
>
> But some commentators have renewed an argument that a puritanical
> American culture overreacts to sexual transgressions that have little
> relevance to job performance. “Most Americans were dismayed that
> General Petraeus resigned,” said Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U.
>
> That old debate now takes place in a new age of electronic
> information. The public shaming that labeled the adulterer in
> Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” might now be accomplished by
> an F.B.I. search warrant or an N.S.A. satellite dish.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> EPIC_Advisors mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailinglists.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/epic_advisors
>
> **************************************************** This is a message
> from the SURVEILLANCE listserv for research and teaching in surveillance
> studies. To unsubscribe, please send the following message to :
> UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE For further help, please visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
> ****************************************************
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
|