the sort of legal and then there s the legal footing they re on. do we understand now what the legal footing that these local agencies are on? are they breaking the law? are they within the confines of the law, or is that undetermined? s there a federal regulation. 28 code of federal regulations, part 23, that says that law enforcement can t collect intelligence information to be put into a shared intelligence system absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. which is a very reasonable standard. you know, if you don t suspect somebody s doing something wrong, why in the world would a police officer want to go up and bother them, collect their personal information, and put it in a database that other police agencies are going to look at. but unfortunately, what they misname suspicious activity reporting, is actually behavior that is very innocuous and ubiquitous. it includes suspicious behaviors under these programs includes things like taking photographs and video, taking
guidelines limiting their behavior, and almost no oversight. so, you know, there is a long history of abuse of these kinds of authorities, and unfortunately, the environment is ripe now for abuse and we re seeing quite a bit of it. it seems like there s two issues here. one is just the massive data that s being assembled and the efficacy of assembling that and the sort of legal and then there s the legal footing they re on. do we understand now what the legal footing that these local agencies are on? are they breaking the law? are they within the confines of the law, or is that undetermined? there is a federal regulation. 28 code of federal regulations, part 23, that says that law enforcement can t collect intelligence information to be put into a shared intelligence system absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. which is a very reasonable standard. you know, if you don t suspect somebody s doing something wrong, why in the world would a
oversight. so, you know, there is a long history of abuse of these kinds of authority,ies, and unfortunately, the environment is ripe now for abuse and we re seeing quite a bit of it. it seems like there s two issues here. one is just the massive data that s being assembled and the efficacy of assembling that and the sort of legal and then there s the legal footing they re on. do we understand now what the legal footing that these local agencies are on? are they breaking the law? are they within the confines of the law, or is that undetermined? s there a federal regulation. 28 code of federal regulations, part 23, that says that law enforcement can t collect intelligence information to be put into a shared intelligence system absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. which is a very reasonable standard. you know, if you don t suspect somebody s doing something wrong, why in the world would a police officer want to go up and bother them, collect their
it was allowed and it was fully above board. the people in the government knew i was using that personal account. but it would have been better if i had had two separate accounts to begin with. and certainly i m doing all i can now to try to be as transparent about what i did have on my work-related e-mails. and i think, you know, they will be coming out. i wish tarp little faster. it s frustrating it is taking so long but there has to be a process followed. since 1995 the state department foreign affairs manual said that all e-mails, all records had to be preserved. in 2005 the manual was updated to say, quote, sensitive but unclassified information should not be transmitted through personal e-mail accounts. eight months after you took office the u.s. code of federal regulations was updated to say that agencies that allow employees to send and receive