Trump Sets Up Members Of Congress By Releasing Completely Unredacted Epstein Files......And They Fell Into The Trap

[postman]

GOOGLE AI deep dive into the computer privacy issue.

When using a company-owned computer, you generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the IT department (and management) has the right to monitor, record, and review your activities, including emails, internet history, and file storage. While they can lawfully share this information internally with management or legal counsel, releasing your activities to the general public is generally not permitted and could constitute a breach of confidentiality or a violation of privacy rights.

What IT Can Monitor

Company Property: Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and other laws, computers provided by the company are company property, making monitoring of emails, downloads, internet browsing, and idle time legal.

Can They Release Data to the Public?

Legal Restrictions: Employers have an obligation to keep data collected from monitoring confidential and securely stored.

Breach of Privacy: Publicly disclosing an employee's personal information (e.g., personal browsing, private conversations found on a work device) is a violation of privacy and may lead to lawsuits against the company.

Legitimate Business Purpose: Information can typically only be released if there is a legal requirement (e.g., a court subpoena) or a specific, legitimate business necessity.

Data Protection Duties: Employers have an affirmative duty to protect employee data, and failing to do so could lead to liability.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is when there's an expectation of privacy.

The congressmen said that they didn't even log into the computers, that the FBI personnel logged in the computers for them.

Which means they didn't get the standard computer system warning

Warning! For official user only

All information on this computer system may be monitored, intercepted, recorded, read, copied or captured and disclosed by and to authorized personnel for official purposes, including criminal prosecution. You have no expectations of privacy using this system.

----------
I agree

[ OK ]

Somebody else at the FBI clicked the OK button.

Of course it was [OK]. Why would it not be?

Why would congressfolk expect privacy when conducting the people's business, in a federal building, using government-owned equipment, while being paid a taxfunded salary?

But hey!

Let them take the FBI to court. I'd pay good money to watch them explain why they want to be so secretive about the Epstein Files.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of searches would Democrats find embarassing to have voters know about?

 

[postman]

Congressmen may already be able to sue, for Pam Bondi releasing their browsing history.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, federal government employers generally cannot release personal records, including, in many contexts, browser history, to the public without the employee's consent,

While agencies can monitor and access employee browsing history on government equipment, they are prohibited from making it public. Court rulings have suggested that browser histories may not constitute "agency records" subject to FOIA requests, providing further protection.

 

[postman]

Of course it was [OK]. Why would it not be?

Why would congressfolk expect privacy when conducting the people's business, in a federal building, using government-owned equipment, while being paid a taxfunded salary?

But hey!

Let them take the FBI to court. I'd pay good money to watch them explain why they want to be so secretive about the Epstein Files.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of searches would Democrats find embarassing to have voters know about?

Releasing their browsing history is a violation of the 1974 privacy act.

It's illegal.

 

[postman]

Violations of the 1974 Privacy Act by federal employees or agencies can result in criminal penalties, including misdemeanors and fines of up to $5,000
per violation.

Criminal Fines: Employees who willfully disclose PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or violate agency record rules can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $5,000

Civil Actions: Individuals may sue the federal agency in U.S. District Court if an agency's violation has an "adverse effect".

Damages: If an agency acts in an "intentional or willful" manner, individuals can recover actual damages, with a minimum of $1,000
, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.

It is important to note that the Privacy Act of 1974 applies specifically to federal agencies, not private businesses.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

Congress should pass a law, like they did with the january 6th phone location searches, where congressmen could sue for $500,000 for each time they were tracked.

Original Provision: Allowed senators to claim $500,000
per violation if the DOJ obtained their phone records without notifying the senator's office, with retroactivity to 2022.

Bull Shit.

Everyone who uses any form of government communications has no guarantee for privacy from being monitored by the federal authorities.

This is specifically to prevent espionage, fraud or subversion.

 

[Blaster]

Releasing their browsing history is a violation of the 1974 privacy act.

It's illegal.

Bullshit.

 

[Seymour Flops]

In order to successfully sue, one has to show damages. What searches could damage congressfolk if released?

My guess is some of them lingered on the nekkid teen mall rats. But for most, they wanted to check their own names.

Either way, congressmen are not employees of the DOJ.

 

[mudwhistle]

Releasing their browsing history is a violation of the 1974 privacy act.

It's illegal.

Not if they're doing it on government computers.

I have 35 years of federal service and have had training on the subject on numerous occasions.

Even private companies monitor their Ethernet to make sure people aren't surfing porn.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Seymour Flops]

"Rubbing shoulders with people who are in the files," make you part of "the Epstein class?" Is he kidding, or is he really that TDS addled?

 

[postman]

Bull Shit.

Everyone who uses any form of government communications has no guarantee for privacy from being monitored by the federal authorities.

This is specifically to prevent espionage, fraud or subversion.

Read the 1974 privacy act.
The government can collect all kinds of information.
They are not allowed to publicly disclose personal information.
And browser history is considered persona information (PII)

 

[Blaster]

Massie's wife died last year. He should be investigated for her murder.

 

[Blaster]

Not if they're doing it on government computers.

I have 35 years of federal service and have had training on the subject on numerous occasions.

Even private companies monitor their Ethernet to make sure people aren't surfing porn.

Why do people even view porn? It seems like a waste of time.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Blaster]

This guy is a scumbag.

 

[mudwhistle]

Read the 1974 privacy act.
The government can collect all kinds of information.
They are not allowed to publicly disclose personal information.
And browser history is considered persona information (PII)

The privacy act doesn't apply to law enforcement.
And it doesn't apply to anyone using government communications.
It's why Hillary had a private server....to avoid detection.
It's why Obama continued to use his own personal Blackberry while POTUS.
To avoid detection.

"
Use of government computers is generally not protected by the Privacy Act, as employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy when using government-provided equipment, internet, or email
. Information on these systems is subject to monitoring, recording, and disclosure for authorized purposes.
Key aspects regarding the lack of privacy protection on government computers include:

• Implied Consent to Monitoring: By using government resources, employees consent to the monitoring of their web search history, email, chat, text messages, and other technology usage.
• System of Records Requirement: The Privacy Act of 1974 only protects personal information if it is part of a "system of records" as defined by the act. Most, but not all, of the largest agency systems are covered, meaning routine monitoring of daily usage often falls outside this protection.
• Data Vulnerability: Information on government computers may be disclosed in response to subpoenas, warrants, or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
• Strict Prohibitions: Although limited personal use (like checking personal email during breaks) may be permitted, accessing forbidden material—such as pornography, gambling sites, or engaging in illegal activity—can lead to disciplinary action, including termination.
• No Privacy in Personal Information: Employees who wish for their personal activities to remain private should not use authorized government resources to conduct them. "

What is NOT Protected:

• Internet Activity: Web browsing history and search history.
• Communications: Emails, chats, and instant messages.
• Files: Any files or data stored on the system.

If you use a government computer, you should assume that everything you do is being monitored and recorded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In order to successfully sue, one has to show damages. What searches could damage congressfolk if released?

Now do Trump

 

[The Irish Ram]

If only she used her brain to track down and prosecute the child traffickers, rapists and killers on the Epstein list

Frank, what makes you think they aren't?
While bitching about ICE in Minnesota, ICE was recovering over 3,000 missing children in Minnesota. We need to leave ICE alone and let them do their job. Getting rid of illegals is making us safer, finding the children is making them safer...