It would be pretty bad if Huma Abedin let some third-party service like Conspire read and analyze all of her emails, if the address were used for anything of importance (which I'd presume it was, if it were to merit being used to sign up for Conspire).
"The man convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the 2011 death of a Chicago teenager in Long Beach, Indiana, was ordered back to jail Friday for 40 days for violating his sentencing agreement.
A judge said James Malecek repeatedly violated his G.P.S. monitoring agreement and even attended a Cubs game with his girlfriend in April, posting pictures on Facebook."
To Australian ABC's credit, looks like they've simply deleted their copy of the AFP article. (No correction, of course.)
The copy now on AFP's site http://www.afp.com/en/node/2458355 and elsewhere http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-seeks-asylum-sunny-brazil-044217236.html omits the earlier phrase "and is in possession of more sensitive documents," but keeps the other incorrect phrase: "However he said that he had more documents to release relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil."
Diagree, Joel. Giving cops the license to bother anyone with a camera is unacceptable. If someone is simply taking photos of a public area, there's not a sufficient likelihood that detaining them will uncover illegal activity. Cops have every right to attempt to talk to a photographer, and to look for illegal activity, as they do with anyone else. But they should have no right to detain a photographer (which I presume means that you're required to show ID, but I'd like clarification on this) merely for taking photos.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mike L.
"contracts that acquired the requested items"
I thought the request was for records of investigations. Cam anyone clarify the use of the word "contracts" here?
Interesting Privacy Questions, Like: Did Abedin Let a Third Party Access Her Email?
It would be pretty bad if Huma Abedin let some third-party service like Conspire read and analyze all of her emails, if the address were used for anything of importance (which I'd presume it was, if it were to merit being used to sign up for Conspire).
A recent one in Chicago
"The man convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the 2011 death of a Chicago teenager in Long Beach, Indiana, was ordered back to jail Friday for 40 days for violating his sentencing agreement.
A judge said James Malecek repeatedly violated his G.P.S. monitoring agreement and even attended a Cubs game with his girlfriend in April, posting pictures on Facebook."
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Man-Who-Threw-Fatal-Punch-at-Beach-Party-Ordered-Back-to-Jail-268613972.html
To Australian ABC's credit, looks like they've simply deleted their copy of the AFP article. (No correction, of course.)
The copy now on AFP's site http://www.afp.com/en/node/2458355 and elsewhere http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-seeks-asylum-sunny-brazil-044217236.html omits the earlier phrase "and is in possession of more sensitive documents," but keeps the other incorrect phrase: "However he said that he had more documents to release relating to US spying on countries that include Britain and Brazil."
Re: Joel
Diagree, Joel. Giving cops the license to bother anyone with a camera is unacceptable. If someone is simply taking photos of a public area, there's not a sufficient likelihood that detaining them will uncover illegal activity. Cops have every right to attempt to talk to a photographer, and to look for illegal activity, as they do with anyone else. But they should have no right to detain a photographer (which I presume means that you're required to show ID, but I'd like clarification on this) merely for taking photos.