Friendswood Police Dept. emails leaked

[Medic624]

For those who are ready to end a man's career if not string him up, what proof do you have that he committed a crime?

If he did not commit a crime, what offense against morality or human decency did he commit?

How do you know this?

Hint: Blogs in and of themselves prove nothing.

- Jim

If I personally go straight off the excerpts annotated in the story then I would surmise he has some racial and insensitivity issues that may or may not need to be addressed. (they're his personal feelings and potentially a nearsighted interpretation of the general public) but based on what I read there was nothing illegal or that would warrant disciplinary action unless there is a policy that he specifically (knowingly) violated. Is what he "allegedly" wrote in an email bigoted and insensitive?... Sure, but it's his prerogative to have those feelings and thoughts. Do I agree? In general, no...but again... It's his right to be close-minded.
How many times have any of us thought, after knowing someone was incarcerated or killed for committing a crime thought or said to a friend, Well, they got exactly what they deserved. Just not dumb enough to say in in a company email.

IF... BIG...IF he wrote those things then he was basically stupid for doing it on a work server and work email. Being stupid usually isn't a crime... Although it sometimes precludes the behavior but in this case with limited information it just doesn't appear he did anything other than be VERY non P.C.

As an officer of the law (if this is his personal views) who knows how this effected the arrest and prosecution of suspects.

But that is something that is not anything that is measurable.

*EDIT* the better half just informed me ... In the article she read there is some belief that the emails in question may be from his private Yahoo acct that he accessed from work. If this IS the case it changes the whole deal...

[seamusTX]

I think the most even-handed opinion about this kerfuffle is that the situation needs to be investigated by those who are capable of establishing facts—whether that is the Galveston County DA, DPS, or federal authorities.

E-mail can be faked. I could do a passable job of it if I had one genuine e-mail message from the person whom I was (hypothetically) trying to spoof.

Also note that the hackers had access to the e-mail server itself, not just intercepted messages. That would allow them to commit mischief that would be difficult to trace.

Do I get another "also"?

If there is a man alive who has not at some time held a negative stereotype or made a crude joke based on race, sex, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, or appearance, I have not met that man. I don't see him in the mirror. I try to be open-minded, but I would cringe to have everything that I said in my entire life played back to me. (I think someone said this already.)

- Jim

[Heartland Patriot]

I think the most even-handed opinion about this kerfuffle is that the situation needs to be investigated by those who are capable of establishing facts—whether that is the Galveston County DA, DPS, or federal authorities.

E-mail can be faked. I could do a passable job of it if I had one genuine e-mail message from the person whom I was (hypothetically) trying to spoof.

Also note that the hackers had access to the e-mail server itself, not just intercepted messages. That would allow them to commit mischief that would be difficult to trace.

Do I get another "also"?

If there is a man alive who has not at some time held a negative stereotype or made a crude joke based on race, sex, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, or appearance, I have not met that man. I don't see him in the mirror. I try to be open-minded, but I would cringe to have everything that I said in my entire life played back to me. (I think someone said this already.)

- Jim

AND, the biggest issue here is somehow being missed: THESE FOLKS GOT HACKED! A crime was committed. Its the electronic version of Breaking and Entering. Aren't there some sort of Fourth Amendment standards that play in about what kind of evidence is admissible? Yeah, I know, the court of public opinion doesn't care about rights...but for some who have all but called for the man's head on a platter, if charges are going to be brought to remove him from office, don't you think him and his legal team would get some say first?

[VMI77]

Some are, some aren't, but the way to get them is by way of an Open Records Request; not by hacking into the computer system.

I agree with you that is the best way.

Let me ask you, however. If an open records request was made, just how many of those emails would have actually seen the light of day?

I promise I'm not attacking you, just wondering if you have ever vented to one of your buddies via email? If you haven't, I guess you are really good at managing stress. But if so, should YOUR emails be public knowledge? Yeah, I know you are going to say that they were on a "government system" (which shouldn't have been hacked in the first place, its a bunch of punks doing this stuff for political reasons)...but I would wager the bulk of the emails weren't "official", just correspondence between two officers...people cannot live their entire lives under a microscope...not saying folks in power should get away with doing dirty dealings, but there has to be SOME sort of a line...

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

That said, I wouldn't expect to see my emails published in the newspaper; and even though I'm somewhat careful, knowing everything I say is potentially subject to review, I also know that emails are easily taken out of context, and what someone may say in an email is not necessarily a reflection of their character or beliefs. However, as a practical matter, if the emails in question are subject to an open records request, then like it or not, you have to be careful what you say in your emails. Even so, even when we thought we were being careful I'm sure every one of us has said something in an email we wouldn't want to see dissected in public.

[VMI77]

I believe if an email is not an official communication, his/her email should generally be private. Most people only have one email address or only access work email at work and personal email at home. Right or wrong, I think many people think their private conversations (though on a government email server) are just that, private conversations. What if this was carried to it's logical conclusion: the government should also retain a record (and recording) of all government phone and cell phone conversations as these devices are owned by the people and easily could be done to keep accurate government records, just like emails. Should every conversation that someone has on a government phone also be subject to FOI requests? An email is written conversation whereas a phone is verbal. But both are conversations. If one is subject to FOI, should not both be?

Ron

Regulators don't necessarily see it this way. In my industry the regulators have claimed the power to review your personal emails on the basis that knowing business emails are subject to review, personal accounts will be used to escape scrutiny. I don't know if companies are complying with this or if when challenged the regulating agency has just backed off on their demands to avoid having this power tested in court. And yeah, they'd love to have every phone conversation recorded, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

[sjfcontrol]

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I would simply lie and not divulge that I have a personal email account...... Or.... I would set up a hotmail account that I never use and give them that address. Then I would forward all copies of SPAM that I receive to them, with the explanation that I am trying to comply with the law.

[seamusTX]

And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

The fourth amendment does not define reasonable.

Regulatory issues generally are considered to be voluntary. IOW, if a company wants to provide insurance, telephone or electric service, medical care, etc., they consent to state regulation.

On a personal level, this is why you are subjected to search and seizure when flying. You don't have to fly. You are perfectly free to paddle your kayak to Hawaii.

Also, several amendments mention due process, which is not strictly defined. It means defined legal procedures must be followed, and official cannot act on whim. (This was a big issue in the revolutionary period. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.")

- Jim

[sjfcontrol]

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I would simply lie and not divulge that I have a personal email account...... Or.... I would set up a hotmail account that I never use and give them that address. Then I would forward all copies of SPAM that I receive to them, with the explanation that I am trying to comply with the law.

You could even subscribe that account to all the hair-growth, male enhancement, work-at-home etc. scams in order to increase the amount of spam. A honey pot!

(Oops, hope I didn't hit to close to home... )

[sjfcontrol]

And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

The fourth amendment does not define reasonable.

Regulatory issues generally are considered to be voluntary. IOW, if a company wants to provide insurance, telephone or electric service, medical care, etc., they consent to state regulation.

On a personal level, this is why you are subjected to search and seizure when flying. You don't have to fly. You are perfectly free to paddle your kayak to Hawaii.

Also, several amendments mention due process, which is not strictly defined. It means defined legal procedures must be followed, and official cannot act on whim. (This was a big issue in the revolutionary period. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.")

- Jim

It's not the company's 4th that is being violated here. It's the employees. So, is the argument if you want to work here, you'll open up your personal email to scrutiny? How about the email of your relatives? You might have access to their computers, too. How about the email accounts of your neighbors? How about the email accounts of everybody at Starbucks at the same time you were? You might have access to email from any number of other people/locations.

[seamusTX]

I'm not defending the status quo; I'm trying to explain it. If you don't like it, you need to lobby the legislature or Congress, depending upon which regulations you are concerned about.

Most regulatory issues are not criminal. They are civil matters where the same level of due process is not required.

BTW, if you don't know already, the people at the SEC who investigate insider trading will look at the stock trades of your relatives, in-laws, barber, doorman, fellow members of your country club, college fraternity members, etc. Facebook has been a godsend to these people. They don't need probable cause to develop a case. When they have probable cause, they get the subpoenas and indictments.

- Jim

[VMI77]

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

It's a little more complicated than that. For one thing, strictly speaking, it's only a quasi-government agency. While the rules are ultimately dictated by FERC via NERC (a quasi-governmental agency), they're enforced by proxies. For another, this is kind of information I understand they have demanded -- because the process basically happens in secret I don't know if anyone has given them all such data or if they've been challenged and then backed off. As a practical matter, they probably can't get my email sent from or downloaded to my home computer, but as I understand it, they have requested personal internet based email like Hotmail, Yahoo mail, and Gmail accessed from an office computer. Again, it gets a little more complicated when some people have personal computers and devices they may also use for business purposes. I'd be more forthcoming but frankly I'm prohibited from talking about some of this.

I saw Seamus's comments after I wrote the reply above --I'd echo those aspects of the situation as well. So far anyway, there is no criminal liability, and there is a presumption that those affected have "consented" to the process. There are good reasons why I consider the supposed "consent" aspect more or less a sham, but it's complicated and I won't go into it here.

[VMI77]

I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I would simply lie and not divulge that I have a personal email account...... Or.... I would set up a hotmail account that I never use and give them that address. Then I would forward all copies of SPAM that I receive to them, with the explanation that I am trying to comply with the law.

I think lying could get you into trouble --from what I've seen of how this particular system works so far, it would be better to not divulge unless directly asked and then refuse to provide the information (assuming we're talking about a home computer). However, if you ever accessed something like a hotmail account from the office you wouldn't have a choice unless your company also refused because they'd be demanding the relevant information from the company itself (of course this assumes that the company has the information demanded and will divulge it). I'm speaking more to what they want and try to get; I don't really know how successful they've been in getting it.

[sjfcontrol]

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

It's a little more complicated than that. For one thing, strictly speaking, it's only a quasi-government agency. While the rules are ultimately dictated by FERC via NERC (a quasi-governmental agency), they're enforced by proxies. For another, this is kind of information I understand they have demanded -- because the process basically happens in secret I don't know if anyone has given them all such data or if they've been challenged and then backed off. As a practical matter, they probably can't get my email sent from or downloaded to my home computer, but as I understand it, they have requested personal internet based email like Hotmail, Yahoo mail, and Gmail accessed from an office computer. Again, it gets a little more complicated when some people have personal computers and devices they may also use for business purposes. I'd be more forthcoming but frankly I'm prohibited from talking about some of this.

I saw Seamus's comments after I wrote the reply above --I'd echo those aspects of the situation as well. So far anyway, there is no criminal liability, and there is a presumption that those affected have "consented" to the process. There are good reasons why I consider the supposed "consent" aspect more or less a sham, but it's complicated and I won't go into it here.

Well, this thread has wandered off the subject of the Friendswood PD, but since we've gone this far...

Also, none of this is intended as any kind of attack against you. But the situation you describe is frightening.

First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not. The "quasi-govt." part is just a method to use public money and governmental power, while walking around the governmental limits and oversights. Then to operate in secret makes it even worse.

[seamusTX]

First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not.

Welcome to the future. This kind of thing has been proliferating for decades. Privatized prisons probably are most obvious example. Also there are privately operated alternative schools, which are the functional equivalent of what used to be called juvie hall.

In the CHL world, we have seen CADs trying (successfully) to call themselves private organizations.

- Jim