united-states privacy digital-forensics
Peter Strzok&#39;s Text Messages
<p>Strzok indicated in testimony that he did not think that his text messages would become public.  I realize that FBI agents give-up a certain degree of privacy and rights (admirable).   That being said, under what line of reasoning and authority were the Strzok-Page texts acquired?  I wonder if the messages 'swept up or netted' by a computer and then pushed to a human analyst?  Politics aside, I am trying to understand how these messages become national news.</p>

<p>This truly reinforces the notion of once it is sent, it is there forever and that one should carefully consider the optics of a message, because the mens-rea is always debatable (sarcasm, hyperbole vs a serious threat).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I realize that FBI agents give-up a certain degree of privacy and
  rights (admirable).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That has nothing to do with privacy; Strzok used his <em>work</em> phone for those texts, which means his texts are subject to FBI data storage and overview.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I wonder if the messages 'swept up or netted' by a computer and then
  pushed to a human analyst?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The FBI could possibly have technology that searches all employee texts for keywords. Or when rumors of his affair became known, it would be simple for his supervisor to ask for his phone and review the texts.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Politics aside, I am trying to understand how these messages become
  national news.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They became news because the texts were the subject of interest (and were subpeoned by the House Judiciary Committee) after it became known to the public that Strzok had been removed from the investigation, and some members of the House Judiciary Committee were looking for the reasons and possible conflicts of interest.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This truly reinforces the notion of once it is sent, it is there
  forever...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely not. It's just as naive to think that everything is recorded forever as it is to think nothing can disappear. Strzok could have used a cheap burner phone and discarded it; he could have used a personal phone (not work phone) with any number of phone Apps that delete messages after a certain time.</p>

<p>The authority would be the Records Act of 1950 and the Presidential and Federal Records Acts Amendments of 2014 (which modernized the 1950 act).  It should be noted that these records were recorded on FBI computers because they were made on the pairs' work phone.  Typically, issued phones from the Government are to be used only for official government purposes and political conversations are not permitted on these devices.  The Hatch Act (1939) limits employees of the Federal Government from certain campaign activities (excepting those paid by the Executive Office of the President OR holding job that requires Presidential Appointment).  Different agencies are restricted differently, but the FBI has some of the strongest restrictions placed against it.</p>

<p>From a general law enforcement standpoint, this is also extremely bad form for an investigator to show bias against a suspect he or she is investigating.  While there is nothing wrong with not voting for the person you are investigating, having expressions of personal biases on public record could potentially compromise the case at trial because it calls into question every piece of evidence that could be used against the suspect as it was potentially handled by the biased investigator.  The rules of criminal prosecution in the United States require the prosecution to turn over all evidence they produced to the defense for their own review even evidence that makes their case look weak.  Backing up data on an FBI work issue phone is a step that would make this easier for the FBI to find discussions made the investigators with respect to how they found evidence.</p>
