I blogged a couple days ago about the high school student whose blog entry had triggered a visit from two "FBI agents."

Eugene Volokh (whose web site has recently moved to volokh.com) has some comments, interspersed with comments from an anonymous reader.

I have absolutely no idea who this anonymous reader might be. However, were I to provide information supporting said reader's points, I might point out this passage from "The FBI has been reading my diary":

The two lawmen held a sheaf of paper. "They had my journal printed out," Carter says. "A good stack of it, and I could tell that there were a lot of things highlighted."

Now, assuming she's telling the truth, why would they highlight so much of it? I just scanned google's cache of her diary, and the hacking part isn't in there. But, besides her hacking comment, what else caught their eye? Her bad poetry? Her song lyrics? Her chat transcript? Her longing to finally "get some?" Why would they highlight something other than the hacking comment? Perhaps some of her leftie comments caught their eye.

Further defending the anonymous reader:

Who else did they interview? If everyone knew about the rumors, did they interview others about the rumors?

As for the bug, they should have investigated that at least a little first. I'm sure there have been several cases which were investigated as murders only to find out that the "dead" person wasn't really dead. Did they attempt to determine whether a crime had actually been committed, or at least there was a strong likelihood of it? Shouldn't they have, for instance, called in a computer expert to see what was going on? Maybe they did this, or maybe they just took the school administrators' word for it that the system had been hacked and jumped in with the questioning. Maybe this was just a dry run for when they were to become real FBI agents.