"Broadwell is a private citizen, and she was not engaged in any criminal activity."
I believe that she had classified information on her computer and or in her posession that she wasn't cleared to have. Also, I think that she is an officer in the reserve which isn't exactly a "private citizen."
It has been known for years that the government collects absolutely all information on everyone, whether humans physically read it or not. Look up William Binney, former NSA agent and a hot search topic this week.
Google has proven time and time again that it doesn’t care about freedom or privacy. It likes to play the “against internet control” game to woo its users now and again but it is always willing to comply with out-of-control governments reaching into private lives. This is Google, a company that can afford to fight for users’ privacy in court, constantly giving people up to the feds.
As the article stated, people may feel “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what does it matter?” It’s a matter of principle. Ordinary people with special costumes and badges have access to private information. Nope, nothing could possibly go wrong here.
With NDAA effectively destroying the bill of rights, anyone could be kidnapped by men in costumes with badges – without a warrant – for being “connected in four or five links to any high-ranking federal official.” At that point there are much worse things to worry about than private emails being made public. Or, just imagine being tied through one or two links to someone’s fragile old grandmother who sent money in the mail to Nigerian scammers that were placed on a terrorist watch list for funding some rebel organization in Sudan. Any number of connections can be made between any two people in the world. It’s a slippery slope that never ends.