JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SURVEILLANCE Archives


SURVEILLANCE Archives

SURVEILLANCE Archives


SURVEILLANCE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SURVEILLANCE Home

SURVEILLANCE Home

SURVEILLANCE  November 2012

SURVEILLANCE November 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Should there be a policy of openess regarding maritial indiscretion along with other kinds of transparency?

From:

Matthew J Rippon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Matthew J Rippon <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:10:02 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

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
****************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
June 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager