Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Reporter Refuses To Testify Against Crackers
The first paragraph of the Media Notes column in today's Washington Post says, "Reporter Adam Penenburg is quitting Forbes magazine to protect Slut Puppy and Master Pimp." This pair is accused of having defaced the New York Times Web site. Penenburg wrote about them, and now Federal prosecutors want him to testify against them or at least affirm the truth of what he wrote, which Penenburg feels could open him up to further questions. It's a murky situation. What would you do if you were in it? What do you think Slashdot should do if faced with that kind of choice?
While the law does not provide any "confidentiality" between a reporter and a witness, many reporters act as if it does. I've had a little journalism training, and the basic idea is a journalist has a moral obligation to protect his or her sources, even if that means jail time for "contempt of court."
I think it's his moral obligation to protect the hackers unless he believes them to be a danger. Many reporters have spent time in prison for practicing this kind of integrity.
Matthew Miller,
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Jeez I wonder if the Crackers even care that he quit his hob to protect them.
(read before moderating) I think Slashdot would testify. Why? Because I think they've already caved to Microsoft.
That's a big accusation, where did I get it from? Well, if you'll recall we never heard anything more about the Slashdot vs MS thing. Surely MS would have responded by now. But even more damning is this: About a week ago I was reading at -1. There's some troll at that level who keeps cut 'n' pasting various texts (porn stories, howto's, etc). In one story I found he had posted an entire MSDN "Q article". When I refreshed the page, that post was GONE.
So Slashdot is removing (MS only?) copyrighted materials. Fine, that's their right, after all reproduction of copyrighted material is against the law. My point is not that they shouldn't have done it (although I don't like it). My point is that Slashdot HAS bowed to "the man" before and would therefore probably do it again.
And, either way, I think we'd ALL appreciate an update on the MS story....
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
If they trusted him not to testify against them, then he should not testify against them, it's that simple. He entered into a deal, and it would be morally wrong to testify against them. He couldn't be trusted by anybody to be tipped off if tipping him off meant jail time.
Besides, this will get him an even bigger media position. The media loves people who are in media, and this will shoot him right into it.
We're all different.
Eh...
Congratulations to the reported for having the integrity to protect his source. The media may be a festering pile of scabs, but there are a few respectable and honorable persons left in the business.
I'd be curious to see Slashdot interview him.
---
seumas.com
I remember a case from a while back where a reporter was actually jailed for obstruction of justice because he was protecting a confidential source. While this story is now making headlines and generating positive publicity for Penenburg, he is able to be principled. Let's see what happens when he is threatened with jail time, though.
I find it odd that Roblimo would ask whether Slashdot should go to the same length to protect sources (presumably ACs) who indulge in criminal behavior. Slashdot is now part of a public corporation and some would argue that it would be unethical for it to jeopardize the interests of its shareholders in order to protect its members/customers. Note that Forbes cannot condone Penenburg's actions for the same reason. When the interests of shareholders and customers collide, one must tread lightly.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
This, my friends, is the best journalism we can ask for. America's Bill of Rights claims the right of the freedom of the press, and I firmly beleive this extends to protecting ANY source, regardless of any crimes or grimes they may have committed. Whether it's a high profile web site defacement, attempting to force a small web writer to reveal the source of a major crack, or protecting the source of a serial killer interview, the right to protect a source should not be violated. The failure of Justice to see this would spell the end for true to life, hardcore reporting. Who wants to speak out when their reporter could be forced to snitch on him/her?
I laud that reporters ideals. People like that are the ones who truly deserve medals and laurels in todays world.
Since I beleive Slashdot has a decent amount of journalistic integrity, I sincerely hope they give those on the shadier side of life the protection they deserve. And post their responses, so we can comment on them, and send neat little ascii character "F$-K YOU" signs to the bastards. (Maybe we can even re-route all the first post messages to THEIR website? HMM...)
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
As a former journalist, I used to wonder if this would ever happen to me. Never did, but I did have laws on my side. Tennessee as what's known as a Shield Law, which protects journalists from having to testify. The basis goes like this- if reporters turn in everyone who talks to them- no one will talk to them, and the public goes uninformed. So shield them from talking to police/authorities. All of this started in the early 70s with investigative reporting about drugs in Louisville Kentucky, and a reported who refused to reveal his source.
Tennessee's shield law has never been successfully challanged, and a reported has never been drug in to court and forced to reveal his/her sources. I don't know if there is a law like that in this case. Probably not, as most of the laws protection would evaporate if you quit the news organization.
The reporter should not testify. There's more at stake than corporate ire. A newswriter with integrety is admired in this day and age. It's pretty rare. The paper may not like it, but the reporter is doing the right thing. It always costs to do the right thing, but a new job shouldn't be too far off. Like they say, a good writer can always find work.
Linux Guy/Wandering Bard/Resident Kilt Wearing Whisky Swiller
If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's people who live in their own idealistic little worlds and think that protest actions and their lofty goals make a damn bit of difference in this world.
I've got news for them: if they're not rich or running the government, they can take their principles and shove 'em for all the good it's going to do anyone. These kiddies are going to get busted no matter what happens (just ask Kevin Mitnick), and the only person who's going to gain anything by this is the lucky bastard who gets his job.
If Slashdot were in the same situation? Hell, it wouldn't just be acceptable for them to comply, it would be inexcusable for them not to. I've lived in China for several years now, and I think I've seen enough to say that I can really see the benefits of taking a stronger stand towards the criminal element than we do here in the States. The destructive ("hacker") proportion of the Chinese computer-using population is far lower than in the States, not even mentioning the drug-dealing and drug-using populations, and the violent criminals, and all the rest.
If you have this choice, you have one simple decision to make: your lofty goals which won't win anyone anything except another five minutes to cause mayhem and destroy others' lives and livelihoods, or the simple duty of building society, which carries its own rewards.
And this Forbes idiot chose wrong.
I've worked at a number of major market newspapers and the policy has been the same at all of them.
We won't do anything without a subpoena. We will fight all subpoenas even if the request is harmless just to be consistent.
Once in court, we will only testify to things we put in print. We will not, under any circumstances, turn over reporter's notes or unpublished photographs. Folks I know have gone to jail for contempt.
Journalists protecting sources have repeatedly been protected by the court system and that is how it should be. If subjects knew that everything they said could be turned over to the police, no one would talk to reporters. Thus, the courts have found that in order to have a free press, it is necessary for journalists to have the same sort of confidentiality protection that doctors and priests have.
At a time when journalists are taking hits for their ethics, I'm glad to see Penenburg putting his job on the line for the Right Thing.
InitZero
It is also illegal for government employees to attempt to find out who an anonymous source is.
This is *very* good laws, as people are more likely to go to the press when they have less reason to fear they will get in trouble for it. Which leads to more bad guys having their dirty business being exposed.
Is there something like a press association that could pay for his legal counsel ?
That would be seem to be the way to remove any possibility of his employer having a vested interest.
I assume that he claims to be a 'press professional', and therefore would claim to uphold standards of ethics and rights that an association would put forward. This is what happens with other professions, such as engineering.
The association would be in the best position to represent him, and part of their existance would be to ensure the standards and ethics of its members.
If he is being asked to testify about the validity of his information -- i.e. that he did not invent the story, then there's a slight problem - this would be like an engineering consultant being asked to testify that he followed known standards and approachs in a design issue. In this case, the court has every right to question his working _practices_, but not to question his working _material_ (there's an important different there - the concern with the process of his work, not with its product).
The court should have no place in questioning his sources, and he should stand firm on that, and his assocation should back him. But if he did not follow accepted codes of practice - that's a different matter.
Basically: it doesn't matter what you say, you should be allowed to say it - but, that doesn't give you the right to lie and misrepresent.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
The first thing to do, then, is to check the appropriate state Shield Laws to see what protection they may apply. (As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.) Even if the law does not provide protection, is is a fairly long and well-established tradition among journalists to protect their sources. Part of this is a moral obligation, part is the practical consideration that if a reporter burns one source, word will get out, and that reporter will find it increasingly difficult to work with other sources who want confidentiality.
If the law does not provide protection, it is a tough choice for the reporter or publisher to make; but the reality is that the percentage of incidents when a reporter or publisher actually is jailed or otherwise punished is quite small, though more than -0-.
It may be noble, but it certainly leaves him open to accusations of making up his stories and sources, doesn't it?
It's not as simple as you portray.
It's very easy to make a logical case for strong, even totalitarian government. In theory it can deliver many things that are often considered worthwhile goals, like efficient organization, reduced crime, and long-range planning.
Unfortunately, other worthwhile goals like individual freedom and diversity are sacrificed when you go down that road, and more often than not it's a road that you cannot easily leave.
That's why you're misguided in supporting the status quo in its headlong rush towards total population control. Those easy wins against crime which you so appreciate do not come free, and in due course, you will regret choosing to cut down those messy rain forests to make way for efficient modern living and industrialization, to make an analogy.
Individual lofty goals may seen incongruous and ineffective against power politics, but they're the only things that stand between our current relative freedoms and the state-corporate totalitarianism that's just over the next hill. I'm just glad that there are still people around with the personal integrity to continue the fight for lofty intangibles like freedom of the press, despite the odds against.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Do you think Slut Puppy and Master Pimp had to register with the nytimes before defacing it?
The New York Times on the Web is free of charge for hackers worldwide.......
The 5th amendment only prevents a person from being forced to testify against himself (or a spouse). You can be legally compelled to testify against someone else, or face the charge of contempt of court.
In the case of Andover it is in the intrest of shareholders to LAY OFF...
Andover isn't Forbes...
Slashdot and other websites must remain indupendent if Andover is to continue....
If Andover pressured CmdrTaco to turn tell the corts who posted a message CmdrTaco (and staff) would most likely quit.. Why? Becouse at that point it's not CmdrTacos Slashdot...
People like you fear this allready... if it were ever proven true Slashdot would die and CmdrTaco wouldn't want to be part of it.
But thats not where the story ends...
Scoop of FreshMeat wouldn't stick around eather.
He also operates under the idea that HE runs FreshMeat not Andover and if that were to change he'd walk.
This gose for vertually all the websites Andover aquired...
There are far to many compeating websites that wouldn't give up sources. Quite a few would make a big deal if Slashdot had.
I think Slashdot should stand on princaple and Andover stockholders would stand behind it.
If Andover didn't stand behind it.... there would be no Andover...
It is as simple as that
I don't actually exist.
(As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.)
What is with the notion that an "internet reporter" is any different than a meatspace reporter?
The so-called "internet reporters" are physical people, not some sentient piece of software. As physical poeple, this makes them physical reporters, therefor the law should apply equally, qed. Or are we now assigning different laws to people of different professions, or who use different tools for the same profession?
Must we subscribe to the same flawed logic that allows a company (whome we won't mention *cough* Amazaon *cough*) to patent obvious activities, simply because they are being conducted on the net instead of in meatspace?
We do not need special laws for the internet, nor do we need special court cases and trials. Existing law is more than sufficient, perhaps even too much. We certainly do not need to keep adding feces to the pile.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's not like they are accused of murder or spying or something.
No, they are accused of something far worse: being smarter than corporate AmeriCa and the government, and rubbing their collective nose in it.
Remember meatnik? He did more time than many rapists and murderers, and while he cracked a lot of systems and was privy to a lot of confidential information, he never actually stole a single penny. In addition, contrary to official Corporate Myth,[1] he never even caused any damage -- he simply revealed security flaws (which needed to be fixed regardless) in an inappropriate manner in order to feed his own information fetish.
I suspect that these crackers could expect the same level of justice, i.e. none to speak of.
[1]In the typical fashion of our times, lawyers and accountants are cooking up numbers claiming absurd damages because now they have to fix their broken security, as if leaving a safe unlocked and open, on a busy public street (or even an open private driveway) would be acceptable practice under any circumstance. "If the messanger is an annoying punk, shoot him" seems to be our credo these days.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
article that adam penenberg (sp?) is being asked to verify is here:
As a Journalism graduate who ended up writing code, I have seen the lack of trust given the writing community by the coding community from both sides. I feel much of the criticism is warranted.
On the journo side of things, a journalist is taught that he can NEVER reveal sources. Besides in Forbes case, apparently, quiting a job on ethical grounds is seen as a rite of passage for newspapermen and magazine writers. It is a badge of honor.
Adam Penenburg is doing the right thing. He is doing what is slowly disappearing in the journalism community: He is ignoring the fear of unemployment (remember- coders have a much easier time finding jobs than writers) and standing up for his sources. He should be applauded for keeping true to his ethics.
"These are the days that must happen to you." -Walt Whitman
You can't seem to tell the difference between the ideal and the implementation. Even if all of your accusations are true, these have no bearing journalism as an ideal. First of all, journalists are not one whole entity. Journalists are individuals - maybe most have sold out, but some have not. It does no good for your arguments to tar them with the same brush.
And if this are as bad as you say, It is your duty to remind journalists of their non-adherence to their ideal. Tearing the ideal down just seems to me that you don't understand the balance of power in the American institutions.
It is one thing to criticise American institutions for not living up to their ideals, it is quite another to criticize it for not implementing your ideal, American or not that you happen to be. Let the Americans decide what they want. If you hate it so much, you are free to leave - I've never heard of the US government clamp down on its citizens leaving emigrating - I have, on the other heard of lots of people who cannot leave their own country, and have to do it illegally.
Journalists with integrity aren't quite as rare yet as honest lawyers or honest politicians. I tend to be pretty cynical about the journalistic profession but you really have to be pretty dedicated to put up with the crap that they do -- the job is even more of a shit job than teaching is. While there are a lot out there who are uninformed or go for for the sensational stories, there are just as many who at least try to get it right.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, read it or not, this reporter, or you or I cannot be compelled to testify to the truth of anything. As a former Journalism student, I am quite aware that, in Canada at least, there is a presumption that the news is true. It is only false when it is proved false. This is just like the presumption of innocence - I don't have to do or say anything on my own behalf, since it is up to my accusors to prove my guilt.
What is the point? If this story is true, getting the report to testify that it is true will be redundant and not prove anything. If it is false, he will testify that it is true to save his job and possibly his bottom line(you can have your arse sued off for knowingly reporting false news - ask that Washington Post Reporter who won the Pulitzer prize for a story about a drug addicted 9 year old that she just made up).
The only reason they want him in to testify about anything is to try to get him to reveal his sources. In that case, he is doing absolutely the right thing.
If this guy has to reveal who "Slut Puppy" et al are then Woodward and Berstien would have to reveal who Deep Throat is...
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
This seems to me to be a breach of his duties to his reader . . .
"Is what you wrote true?"
"I won't say."
I fail to see any legitimate interest of anyone being protected by this.
You are supposed to report it, legally. Not doing so makes you accomplice.
Of course, I wouldn't talk either, as for this 'defacement' these kids would be treated like hardened criminals, when really it's a harmless prank.
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Back in '95 the University of Minnesota school paper was ordered to give up unpublished incriminating photos of an assult on campus. The editor in chief believed that the press should not become an extension of law enforcement and should be trusted by the public. The editor faced contempt of court charges, but in the end the courts sideded with her. See the full story
Most seriously, the government; They made a mockery of "due process". I do agree that Kevin must be pretty retarded for not stopping after getting caught, canned, and released so much, but, if the government wanted to lock his ass up for a few years, least they could've done is come up with a way to do it without violating the Bill of Rights
I would be interested in reading how Kevins's rights were violated. Contrary to the cracker-public opinion, Kevin didn't just sit in jail for a number of years awaiting his trial... he plead guilty to the cell phone fraud stuff and was serving that sentence.. somthing like 3-4 years if memory serves me. I also read quite a bit about how bad Kevin's laywer was... so he might have played a part in the whole mess. The governmet was interested in locking him up for crimes committed and nothing else as far as I can tell.
It's nice and easy to say they will bend over because they are a corporation and have shareholders.
You apparently don't know that many many newspapers, incorporated newspapers in fact, have refused to bend over. Reporters have gone to jail and the newspapers have paid the legal fees to get them out. All while having shareholders to answer to.
Here's another way to think of it. Slashdot's value to Andover would plummet if all ACs knew that Andover owuld not shield them. Indeed, it is not impossible that shareholders would sue for not defending their sources.
--
Infuriate left and right