How Much Did The FBI Snoop On Email Messages To Uncover The Petreaus Situation?

from the all-for-what? dept

Tue, Nov 13th 2012 10:27am — Mike Masnick

As you're probably aware since it's "the big story" right now, General David Petreaus stepped down last week after an FBI investigation turned up an affair he'd been having. It seems that every few hours more news "breaks" on the story, and it keeps getting more involved, with a growing number of players (and with each new revelation the story gets more and more bizarre). However, some have started wondering how and why the FBI was snooping on various emails. The original story was that it came about after Petreaus' mistress allegedly sent threatening (anonymous) emails to another woman, who reported them to the FBI. From that came a wider investigation, which supposedly may involve another General and a variety of other players. But some are realizing that this seems to show how the FBI has pretty free rein in terms of snooping on email accounts hosted online:

Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 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. To get more recent communications, a warrant from a judge is required. This is a higher standard that requires proof of probable cause that a crime is being committed.

But even that isn't entirely clear. Folks like Julian Sanchez have been puzzling through the timeline of events and wondering how a simple investigation into a small number of "rude" (but not illegal) emails then uncovered thousands of questionable emails involving a different general as alleged in the news that broke last night. It feels like the FBI may have taken a simple report of misconduct (which may have been driven by another love triangle issue involving an FBI agent who seemed to take the whole thing a lot more personally than makes sense) and turned it into a massive fishing expedition.

Given how fast new parts of this story keep breaking, I'm sure there are still a number of other dominoes to fall, but hopefully this actually gets people to pay attention to just how easy it is for law enforcement to snoop on people's emails these days based on next to nothing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: david petreaus, email, expa, fbi, snooping, warrants

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris ODonnell (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:36am

You'd think the head of the CIA would be familiar with the acronym PGP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jessica, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:38am

Is any email sacred?
If this is the case, are there any free email accounts that don't easily bend over (or troll your email to target ads) or are more encrypted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Is any email sacred?
If your email is sacred shouldn't you be willing to pay for it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jessica, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Is any email sacred?
touchee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:43am

Typo
'free rein', not 'free reign'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:49am

No one is safe
NO ONE. If this isn't a wake up call to Congress... they are next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:52am

Petraeus isn't a "people", he's a public servant.
And if you don't know that the surveillance state mainly watches its own evil minions, you're a simp.

A must-read:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-sins-of-general-david-petraeus
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:53am

Re: No one is safe
Exactly. This is the ultimate wake up call for the need for privacy and oversight of government snooping. When a few top dawgs fall to this kind of thing you will suddenly see congress putting a stop to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 11:23am

I bet the Postmaster General behind this. In a twisted sort of way to discredit email and get Americans to use good ol' fashioned letters again.

Wow, I had to tie the tinfoil hat on real tight for that one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 11:29am

Re: No one is safe
The lesson learned by voters is that snooping is necessary to get criminals.

The lesson learned by congress is that the FBI probably already has their resignation on file, so don't speak up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 11:45am

Re:
What really made my head hurt is that your theory is the most sensible one out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 11:51am

I don't see anything wrong with the FBI reviewing every email sent to or from anyone involved in this. If that happens to dig up other stuff, so be it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
avitarx, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:07pm

I hate to call conspiracy
But I'm pretty sure this has more to do with finding dirt on someone that they wanted to resign for not towing the party line when he was going to be a witness.

The FBI has played this role in government in the past it's not shocking that they'd do it again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:14pm

Why do Americans consider this a "normal" thing to happen and allow FBI to snoop on e-mail messages when they want to? Do they expect them to do the same with real mail? I would assume not. But then they should treat e-mail exactly the same, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:22pm

Tenuous rules?
Under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 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. To get more recent communications, a warrant from a judge is required. This is a higher standard that requires proof of probable cause that a crime is being committed.
Given that many if not most people keep all their email in 1 big inbox going back probably years, how exactly does one get access only to the "old email"?
Off the top of my headI can only see two ways:
1/ Get the email provider to pre-filter the inbox and olny hand over the allowed bit... Which seems unlikely since it then costs the provider more in man-hours to action and besides what the hell are they doing snooping through a private inbox?
2/ The ISP hand over the lot and the FBI promise faithfully to not look at anything they shouldn't without a warrant... (Boy, that was hard to type with a straight face)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re:
But how many hops away do you have to be to not be involved? Is Kevin Bacon's email getting dredged on account of this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris ODonnell (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re:
Only if your Kevin Bacon number is <=3.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: No one is safe
Countess helped cause this...

Because of the partisanship of our Congress, Eric Cantor tried to user this in October to affect the election.

I find it amazing that Republicans would stoop so low but they hanger always tried to sabotage elections for personal gain since Nixon sabotaged the 68 elections by destroying the Vietnam peace accord.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:55pm

Re: I hate to call conspiracy
Anyone who thinks you are not correct has simply put their blinders on.

I would say there is a 50/50 chance that the FBI was simply fed information to lead them right where certain people wanted them to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 1:01pm

Re: FBI reviewing every email

I don't see anything wrong with the FBI reviewing every email sent to or from anyone involved in this

Why the shortcut? What is wrong with asking a judge for permission before snooping on God knows what? Why do you accept violation of your privacy for someone else's indiscretion?

You may not realize it, but you are arguing for a police state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Edward Teach, 13 Nov 2012 @ 1:03pm

Re: No one is safe
"Wake up call to Congress" - don't make me laugh, mate!

One of the interesting things that came up in the Jane Harman AIPAC thing a few years ago (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/the_harman-aipac_story_a_timeline.php) was that the DoJ apparently held a wiretap recording over Jane Harman's head, to get a key vote.

The FBI has compromised the US Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 1:10pm

Re: Tenuous rules?
Who said they get the email from your Inbox?

With a well placed server or two they can easily collect, filter, and store all email for many, many domains.

Starting in 1997 you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)

Followed by NarusInsight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight

And those are only a couple of the ones we KNOW about. It would not surprise me to learn that nearly all email is scanned, and much of it stored, as those ones and zeros go zipping down the line.

Don't want your email to be spied on? PGP or GPG

No I don't wear a tin hat but I do work in IT. Where I work all email is copied off and 'archived', most users know nothing about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
Who said they get the email from your Inbox?
Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have.
If they need a warrant to look at something they already have that raises a whole bunch of other questions doesn't it? Not to mention making it even harder to keep a straight face when saying they won't look at anything they're not allowed to...

And those are only a couple of the ones we KNOW about.
Indeed... I believe GCHQ do a good line in that too. I can never make head or tail out of the conflicting jurisdictions of the ludicrous amounts of federal agencies in the US, but I'd understood that the FBI technically was supposed to get a warrant to spy on americans and most of the rest supposedly "aren't allowed" (though getting the info from a friendly government that did it for you works I suppose)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:09pm

Re: Re: FBI reviewing every email
I didn't say there shouldn't be warrants or court orders, even if they are FISA court orders. And I'm not happy about the distinction between communications older or newer than 6 months. I just think when it's the director of the CIA, a fast and thorough investigation is in order, and if that means they drag up thousands of emails to see which ones matter, that seems normal and it's the way I'd do it.

There's an important difference between surveillance of the CIA, including people who hang out with CIA personnel, and wholesale surveillance of our entire society.

So, no, I am not arguing for a police state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr. Applegate, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Tenuous rules?
"Well since it was talking about subpoenas one assumes it's something they have to get rather than already have."

Maybe the subpoena is from the prosecutors office to the FBI, or some third party "shell agency".

Then again, it could just be to make it all nice and 'legal' since the government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. They already have the information, but they subpoena the information so it is in a nice neat package.

It is easy enough for an email provider to do a date range or any other filtering.

I have been asked on more than one occasion to filter over a half million emails down to a few hundred (This was a corporate email dump). It doesn't take long. From who, to whom, Before Date...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:42pm

Misspelling of "Petreaus"
This article misspells Petreaus-- should be "Petraeus", with 'a' before the 'e'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:27pm

Tin Foil Hats
For years I alway thought that the Tin Foil Hat crowd was just a bunch of wackos...now not so much.

Do you suppose the end of the world crowd may be right too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:38pm

None
I find it hard to believe that the director of the CIA doesn't know how to keep this kind of thing private.

If he doesn't know how then why is he in charge?

This is a scam to keep him from testifying and to redirect media attention.Just the kind of thing the CIA excels in.

I mean come on...using gmail and expecting privacy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2012 @ 7:24pm

Re: Mail Drop
this is a common method for clandistine communication, remember some ranting from U.S security services about how hard/difficult it was to monitor some years ago. Seems the Security services solved that problem, and didn't bother to inform anyone, guess that is why the general used this technique for his affair, there was no memo sent round saying the classic webmail, mail drop was compromised for everyone.

How-ever, Why did the FBI compomise this Intelligence source on such a trite matter, do they want to justify new anti-privacy laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]