Slashdot Mirror
FBI Investigating Lamo Via Patriot Act Provision
umm qasr writes "Mark Rasch, a columnist for SecurityFocus wrote in his Register-reprinted column that the FBI has sent a letter, invoking provisions of the Patriot Act, to journalists reporting on the Adrian Lamo case: 'The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.' Good to see that our First Amendment rights are being upheld by the FBI."
Illegal duplication of this post
Good to see that our First Amendment rights are being upheld by the FBI. :/
I'm from England, therefore don't have any rights
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Mark Rasch has got some balls!
I'll take "Documents You'll Never See Again", for $500, Alex.
The result of this of course is that every journalist sued for not turning documents over as a result of the unconstitutional subpoena can be considered to have integrity, and is someone that you will want to watch in the future.
Anyone who hands over their documentation is obviously a ratfink and every time a paper carries one of their articles, it should be deluged with letters to the editor letting them know just what kind of asshole wrote the stories.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe the real problem that the New York Times has with Lamo is that he was able to read stories without having to register for a free account. (Hell, that stupid registration requirement make me want to hack them too.)
AYE a thousand times.
I like things that are sweet and not things that are lame. --
Thank U. I'll be here all week.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
they're sending subpoenas, not going in and demanding all the info without. that means that they dont' need the patriot act at all! wtf!?!?!
am I missing something here?
If they've got probable cause, they can do just about anything. If you've murdered someone, I want the government to be able to find out how long it takes for you to shit if it will help them any.
He shouldn't have done anything with that virus. Period. Nobody should have. And if all his personal information will help them confirm that he did it and/or find leads to others that did, I say more power to them. They've got cause to believe he did it, they've got cause to be on his case. This isn't a story.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
And the moral of the lesson is? Don't give your government an inch, because they'll take a mile.
I'm feeling better and better about being an American every day. $^(
When do we fire up the ovens?
FREE KEVIN LOL
Adrian : Rule #1 : If you seek credible, first hack your own personal details to requisition a new surname.
Thats why I would use an exosketch for all my interviews.
"The Journalist of the 21st Century" will need to know how to:
use PGP.
use encrypted virtual partitions they can burn to CDR.
destroy information off a hard disk (not "trash, empty trash")
use PGP-Phone or other encrypted VoIP system.
stand up for what is right.
The brownshirts are chipping away your rights under the guise of "security". Remember who supported these fascist laws when you vote.
Trolling is a art,
Remember, it's the job of the courts to interpret the laws and determine what is constitutional and what isn't. Congress granted these broad new powers to the FBI, and you can't really blame the FBI for using what's given to them. What we can hope to come from this, though, is that eventually the provisions of the PATRIOT Act will be challenged in court cases and will be ruled unconstitutional. Blame Congress if you want. Blame the counrts. But don't blame the FBI for using the powers legally granted to them.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
I wonder how many pedophiles read Slashdot?
First subpoena!
WhatMeWorry
"Good to see that our First Amendment rights are being upheld by the FBI."
Technically the FBI doesn't "uphold" our rights. They should *respect* them, but right now the reason our rights are on this slippery slope is because of the politicians we have in office (and to a lesser degree the judges we have in the courts, although that results from the former). Dare I suggest we try and find some new folks to put in office?
They have a good overview of the USA PATRIOT ACT on their site and in the most recent EPIC Alert newsletter, there is this interesting paragraph (item 4):
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Does anyone ever bother reading the constitution? Your claim is a fourth amendment issue, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses... against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated..." I know this is slashdot... but please.
I wonder how many pedophiles read Slashdot?
None. They're too busy editing slashdot to read it. [rimshot]
Trolling is a art,
even when it violates journalistic "ethics" and previously established law just because of some notion that the rapid not-officially-terrorist expansion of the Patriot Act into every nook and cranny that we can possibly jam it is somehow eating away at sacred "Constitutional protections" like a hungry dog smack dab in front of a t-bone steak, means the terrorists have won. Terrorists commit crimes: ergo all criminals are terrorists and should fall under the Patriot Act umbrella. Not assisting in any form of investigation that the selected President has declared valid indicates that you are in fact an enemy combatant. Step away from the computer and prepare for your Guantanamo relocation expert who will be by shortly.
Here's a link to The Screen Savers (on Tech TV) that has some information about what Adrian had to say when he called in live to speak with Leo.
About 700,000 and change last time I noticed.
All of those so called represntatives up on capitol hill that pushed this thing through should be ashamed of this abomination they have helped create. The only thing it's done to my patriotism is weaken it.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
because the media has deep pockets and can fight this shit (PATRIOT act); whereas, the little guy who's busted for whatever reason doesn't have the money, time, or other resources to fight for himself. Yes, he may get lucky and have the ACLU or some other organization with some money, but when it comes down to it, they don't have the resources that some large media company does. And hopefully, their civil rights will trickle down to us little people - I hope!
The FBI now watches you.
They have your IP address. They have your ISP records, and have now tracked down your address. In just that instant, you are now on a list maitained by the FBI. Enjoy reading the posts here.
<sarcasm type="maybe"/>
...are the instances of similar government overreaches that we *aren't* hearing about.
Transparency, tranparency, transparency. When a government, especially one theoretically existing by permission of the governed, can do things in secret and without accountability, be afraid.
Be even more afraid when your fellow citizens don't rise up against it.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Would be a good time for him to transfer his assets offshore and quietly leave the country.
I don't know about you, but I say Adrian Lamo should be next in line for a Slashdot interview...I can see the justice department now trying to subpeona Slashdot users from around the world who submit questions :)
Quit with the kneejerk "that violates our first amendment rights!" responses already. The FBI isn't preventing speech here, it is subpoenaing evidence for use in a trial, just as (SHOCK!) happens in every other criminal trial. Did you complain last time you heard about a corporation's email being subpoenaed to investigate massive fraud?
Where the anti-terrorism act (which needs to be voted on regularly to remain enabled) is used to hold people who might be terrorists, or at least have dodgy accents.
Don't forget about the 4th Amendment, regarding unreasonable search and seizure.
While designed to protect an individual from having their person/place free from intrusive searches, I certainly think a mass wave of subpoenas to every journalist who has written a story about someone qualifies as such.
Here's a link to The Screen Savers (on Tech TV) that has some information about what Adrian had to say when he called in live to speak with Leo.
Because the PATRIOT act will only be used to go after terrorists, and will never be used against rank and file US citizens! I know this, because Mr. Ashcroft promised us this! Why in the world would he lie?
The FBI and other police agencies have _always_ had the power to subpoena all that kind of information from journalists. If you'd paid attention in your highschool government class you might be aware of similar incidents which occurred long before the Patriot Act was ever passed. In the past, the FBI haven't always provided advanced warning, they sometimes just walked into journalist's offices with a subpoena and/or search warrant. Likewise, journalists have been able to challenge the subpoenas and search warrants on various constitutional grounds, and sometimes won and sometimes didn't. This was all before the Patriot Act. The Patriot act hasn't changed the constitution, or repealed constitutionally based case law.
I fucking hate script kiddies and hackers. The government cant do enough to this douchebag.
All of you fucking tools keep your grubby fingers off of other people's property, online and off.
Cocksmoking teabagging cum swappers.
Now, we all get to live under totalitarian regime that trounces the freedoms and protections at its whim.
yay. =P
-- TMKThis is where you are wrong. The courts have ruled previously that freedom of the press requires that journalists have a reasonable requirement for confidential sources and meetings. For example, without whistleblowers, it is difficult to fight government corruption. Therefore, under the First Amendment, the press has some protection against being forced to divulge sources and information.
is it time to invoke our god-given right to overthrow the government which has become destructive to the ends for which it was created, namely the preservation of life, liberty, and property? UP THE PROVOS!!!
You fail it! Your yahoo goatse redirect does not work!
Please use the preview button on your next troll attempt.
This was posted in the previous article (CID LINK) and is PLAGARISM. Please mod it down.
Oh yeah, and IANAL, but let's be clear that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the law. (Or be a lawyer, for that matter.)
Um, yeah, it's easy to put the responsibility on someone else whilst we sit back in our comfy chairs.
This journalist should break the stupid law that elected officials signed in, and the general public has done very little about?
PATRIOT Act is the law, as dumb as it may be. And it is the citizen's of this country that allow it to exist in the books, not just the journalist.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
This is the most blatant uses of unnecessary brute force I have ever heard of ... besides the war. Had the FBI just asked, they would have gotten cooperation from most of relevant news outlets. But by invoking the PATRIOT Act, all they did was cause a lot of people to call their lawyers, and make an enemy out of the people you need help from. And in the end when the Federal Judge see that that this was an abuse of the PATRIOT Act, they will have to ask for News outlets for volunteers and now they will MUCH less likely to comply.
We're criticizing the FBI etc, but the truth is, they probably could have done all this without the Patriot Act.
The group we should be criticizing is the NYT. Aren't these the same guys that endlessly bitch and whine about freedom of speech? Aren't these the same guys that decried the Patriot Act as a neo-fascist con job? What about THEIR hypocrisy?
These guys are a private business which depends upon people buying their product every day. If you want to help out, all you have to do is let those jackasses at the "Paper of Record" know exactly how you feel. Hit them where it really hurts - their pocket book.
-ron
Reporters aren't little tin gods. They are the same as the rest of us before the eyes of the law. If you're upset about this (and I find it vaguely scary), blame it on laws that give the lawyers the ability to subpoena just about everybody.
I believe the reference is more to the german state police just prior to and in the rise of Hitler and Nazi-ism, an indirect attempt to invoke Godwin's law and end this foolish discusion. The use of a subpeona for this means the patriot act part is irrelevant. That is the standard means to try and acquire evidence. It is the same method they would have used in 1986 or 1956....
Patriot Act 1, Society 0.
and you thought it was only to fight terrorists.
Your argument assumes that what is legal is what is morally right. The PATRIOT act is a huge mistake and we need to repeal it, but the people that have that act as an option need to make the moral choice to not do it.
If somebody made it legal to steal, then, the person that stole would still be a thief. That everyone seems to think this Congressionally concocted tyranny lets the FBI off the moral hook says miles about how low this country has become.
This is my sig.
What does the first ammendment have to do with anything mentioned in the article or summary? There is no restriction of free speech by Congress, nothing about peaceful assembly, establishment or exercise of religion, or freedom of the press. Perhaps the editors might try reading the Constitution before throwing it around in pissy anti-government tirades.
In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.
...that every time the Feds go after "terrorists," all their guns are aimed at innocent citizens?
It's one thing to have a fight over journalists' notes, typically it's something that the court can legally demand and the journalist who refuses goes to jail for a few days until the whole thing becomes moot anyway by getting the info another way or caves in their integrity.
But, what does the Patriot Act change about things here? Is it just me, or are they trying to scare journalists into giving up their notes, because they're that desperate for any leads?
Many Americans are leaving the U.S. for Canada because of what's happening. In fact, for the first time in history, more Americans are moving to Canada than vice versa. I personally moved to Mexico, not really because of what's going on with the rights of citizens under the guise of "patriotism", but it certainly wasn't an incentive for me to stay in the States.
The sad truth is that the U.S. is quickly turning into a country that people don't want to live in. And it's happening in a single presidential administration. People aren't as afraid of more terrorist acts as they are of what's happening to their rights. At least the educated people aren't.
I'm definitely still going to vote in the next election though, 'cause I may want to return to the States someday, and I'd really hate to see the Mexico bordered by a police state.
More like the "Investigation and apprehension policy unification act"
For all the whining going on here, most people can't see the forest from the trees. This law is not a bad law. It just makes the application of long-standing law enforcement investigation techniques more uniform over existing crimes, with the inclusion of terrorism.
So what if now the same standard applies to terrorists that formerly applied to drug dealer and racketeering investigations? So much the better. There is still a required judicial oversight, as a judge still has to sign warrants. This law probably reduces the paperwork required by not having to list a myriad of unrelated laws when applying for a warrant. USA Patriot Act, catchall, done!
Really, the supreme irony here is the fact that a "press" agency is getting the government to invoke this law against other "press" entities. If I didn't know any better, I would think that Lamo is just an excuse to give a court room test for this law.
The NY Times is run by a bunch of asshats, and now they are proving it by going after a nobody who was trying to help them. Real class acts.
-- Len
I hope they invoke Masonic Rituals on his skript kiddie ass.
Time for people to deal with responsibilty. Time for the press to be responsible too. Want us to feel bad for this dipshit? Fuck you. The US Gov't wants you to feel bad.
This
...before the government started treating computer crime as a danger to national security. This seems to be a heinous misuse of that power, but in the case of worm and virus creators it was inevitable that they would call in the Patriot Act. With power plant outages and last weeks problems with State Department server infections, should these be treated as real threats to national security?
Worst. Sig. Ever.
"Oops! sorry, I accidentally threw that stuff out, sorry about that!"
well its a story which has a relationship with NYT so "plagarism" is accepted
> That's why you're reading about the letters for the first time here
I read this article last week.
Rasch didn't even add anything new.
I tire of the "FREE KEVIN" attitude towards computer hackers prevelant on Slashdot. You do the crime, you do the time. I can't wait to read the coming stories about how Lamo is assaulted and brutalized in prison. That should teach him to keep his nose clean.
Most here are missing the point. What this does is make life difficult for anyone that wants to do a story on Lamo. Lamo hasn't a chance as long as people don't rally behind his cause. He needs to get his story out. But now anyone that does an in depth story on Lamo will be strip searched and probed. On top of that anything interesting that might help Lamo will be dug up and handed to the FBI. Now, who wants to do a big story on Lamo?
I really doubt anyone can say right now that USA is the Land of Freedom anymore. How can it be that people don't understand that giving away rights for security doesn't work. You loose rights AND security, with freedom also in the pack.
Creepy vision of the future, the nation that says it will "defend freedom anywhere" is not free, how can it "save" the other nations from not beeing free? Really weird.
Having been the victim of some of Lamo's friends, I can assure you Lamo is getting what he deserves.
"Dare I suggest we try and find some new folks to put in office?"
I recommend we draw from the same pool of people that said "Voting? What's that?" and "I'll be safe if I give up this right." Double bonus if they think New Mexico is a foreign country.
To me this means that the FBI is having trouble proving their case. When Adrian surrendered to the FBI he wasn't so stupid as to bring any electronic equipment with him. He said he left his laptop and other personal belongings in a 'safe place'. Without his laptop and given the fact that he is "homless" and accessed the internet through many and unknown public access points I bet they are having trouble connected him and his alleged actions with any computer logs that they may have. They cannot at this point connect Adrian with any action in the server logs because they have no idea where he was, or have any of the equipment he may have used to do it. They are hoping to find a smoking gun confession that he made to a reporter, and/or track his movements and find out where he hacked from or where his computer is. I hope he has a good public defender.
-Matt
Now, iirc, the Patriot ACT's sole purpose was to combat terrorism.
That's how it got through the US legal system without due process (ie congress people weren't allowed to read it until an hour before they had to vote on it...this is a true fact which still shocks me) and got passed unanimously (or near enough not to matter).
Now isn't this a mere case of fraud (aka impersonating a legal user of a computer system) or plain braeaking and entering? Isn't this a case of misuse of a tool? And please screw the Al Capone stories...this kind of 'request' by the FBI is plain misuse of power, period.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Sometimes being bold is fashionable. Other times, only the brave dare to be bold. . -- Donald Kingsbury Courtship Rite
I think that we are fast approaching the latter time.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
your humor, that is.
...and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo. I wonder if these expenses will be included in the list of "damages" caused to various organizations.
Did anybody read that story title as "FBI Investigating Lame-O Patriot Act Provision"? It's just as accurate a title, really.
IANAL, but 42USC2000aa protects the reporters against this sort of thing. Patriot Act or no, the subpoenas are illegal under that provision.
WTF is america becomming? And why is nobody trying to stop it? The media needs to report these things to the common people, but why aren't they doing so?
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
There are certain kinds of relationships that are specifically exempt from being used to get evidence.
Attorney-client priviledge exists because a fair trial depends on the defense lawyer being trusted by the defendant.
Doctor-patient priviledge exists because if we'd rather sick people seek treatment than be affraid to due to risk of incrimination.
Journalist-source priviledge isn't quite as strong, but it does exist in some cases, where the annonymous source would be in danger if their identity was revealed, and their credibility isn't really important because what they tipped off lead to other undeniable truths. It really doesn't matter who called the local TV reporter to say that the factory was dumping illegal chemicals in the river if the reporter caught factory employees on tape dumping the chemicals. The fact they were caught in the act is good enough for proof, why the reporter decided to look is not important.
I think the difference here is that Lamo worked closely with his favorite reporters to put out word of his successful hacks, so they might have some evidence from the man himself that the feds want. If they were just asking for that I'd be fine with it... but why do they want so broad of a fishing net?
Part of the provisions of the allow for detaining indivuals without legal counsel, without speedy trial, etc. It makes it a little hard for cases to get to the courts, if they do at all...
I happened to be watching a program on PBS last night about "accidents" involving nuclear weapons. What i learned scared the shit out of me. Since world war 2 there has been a degree of tranparency with regards to information released to the public on the issues of airplane crashes with LIVE nuclear weapons. They also had a MinuteMan that went live for no apparent reason and was going to lauch itself. With all the safegaurds this was NEVER supposed to happen. I think with missile incident the onsite people parked an armoured personel carrier over the silo. What scares me the most is a policy change in 1980 that got rid of that transparency by not reporting these types of accidents under the guise of national scurity. This is just plan bullshit. I think we as americans need to change some things and give the government back to the people.
Patriot Act will now be challenged by one or more of the larger press companies on the grounds that asking for such information is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
And, the press, IMHO, will win, finding the Patriot Act (or a number of provisions of it) extremely unconstitutional.
Regards,
Fredrick
Really?
They aren't being threatened. The stuff that is being requested isn't that "private". It's not a search warrant is being held over their head.
Sorry gang, no violation of the 1st here. Move along.
Lamo commited crimes. He broke the law and cost businesses considerable damages. In that light, I have no problem if a journalist turns over his or her personal notes to the FBI if it will help them in their prosecution.
Lamo's guilt or innocence has no bearing on the legality or morality of the tactics being employed by the FBI.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
The NYT has in the past been very supportive of freedom of the press in many respects, as should be expected from a major US newspaper.
Could we see the situation where the NYT is attacking the means used to prosecute someone who they had charged with a crime in the first place?
Anyway, as is painfully obvious, I didn't read a word of anything. It's also a bit too late for me to try to retract this coherently. But if I pissed you off, cool :)
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
Under the patriot act you can get a free trip to Guantanamo Bay (sp?) without even consulting your attorney, held indefinitely, and no one would be able to find out what happened to you because all records of your arrest and processing would be classified in the interest of National Security.
So how are we going to have a case go to through the legal wranglings to get to a Federal Court?
Welcome to Orwell's world. All we need now is some guy with a helmet shaped rat cage.
I maybe overreacting, but my God someone has to.
Remember you can't kill a martyr but you can keep one from becoming.
Oh give me a fucking break! Such circular reasoning is like saying that all dipshits are people, therefore all people are dipshits. Although it may be true in your case, it certainly is not true in the general population. You're welcome to hand over your constitutional rights, but the rest of us will hold onto them, thankyouverymuch.
hello. [rimjob]
I wonder if these same Patriot Act provisions would be used to get Novak's notes. If you read the news today, journalist Novak quoted two senior Bush adminstration officials who apparently disclosed the name of an undercover CIA agent (against the law). They allegedly did this to get back at her husband (a former diplomat) for his anti-administration WMD objections. Traditionally, Novak wouldn't be forced to spill the beans, even for quoting administration criminals. But since the crime of disclosing a CIA agent's identity (and one who's an expert on WMD) is also an issue of national security, let's see if the Justice department has any notion of consistency (none expected).
What virus?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
from my cold dead hands...
I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.
I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.
I will work for federal legislation to restore the right to vote in any federal election for ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.
I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not just as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together.
I will nominate federal judges with outstanding legal credentials, records of professional excellence, and demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles of equality, liberty, and privacy. [emphasis mine]
[Note: platform points editted down and re-ordered]
It makes a difference. Dean didn't even get into this race so he could win; but he is personable, compelling, and doesn't seem to play games. I don't agree with some of his platform, but I respect a straight-talking former doctor who seems wonderfully out of place among slick career politicians.
If you think voting for Dean vs. voting for Bush doesn't make a difference, then you're insane. We know Bush will get the Republican nomination. So register as a democrat NOW and back Dean in the primary.
It looks like the NY Times is trying to imprison fellow writers. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Weekly World now ranks above the screwballs at the NY Times.
A while back, one of the US T.V. Stations (ABC, CBS, NBC...don't remember which) ran a movie called "Hitler: Rise of Evil" (or something like that). The movie focused on Hitler's rise to power in Germany just before WW2.
The scary similarity comes from this: in the movie, a prominent Germain government building came "under attack" from a "terrorist" group (unknown if this was true or not). So, in order to stem any future "terrorist" attacks, Hitler drafted an act that proposed drastic measures, effectively limiting the freedoms people in Germany enjoyed. The act included (among other things) a ban on demonstrations, limited freedom of the press, and the right to be arrested without a warrant or evidence to support a crime being committed. Even "Hitler" himself said that they "would only be temporoary", and that anybody who was opposed to these new measures was "against Germany".
We all know what came out of that. The abuse of this power led to Hitler's WW2 and the attrocities he committed.
I saw this in the movie and immediately thought of the Patriot Act. I am not suggesting we would see a WW2 type atrocity happening in America. What I am suggesting (and seeing) is a slow erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Should we be concerned? I would say yes.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
that it puts the reporter in a difficult position - in order to challenge these potentially unconstitutional laws the reporter has to put themselves in harm's way - they can't just say 'courts please check and make sure these are OK before I hand over all the stuff I got in confidence' - instead they have to say 'no I wont', have a judge rule them in contempt and then appeal that ruling .... with a jail sentance hanging over their heads
1) Anyone is guilty until proven innocent.
2) All criminals are now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
3) Anyone related to a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
4) Anyone who's friends with a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
5) Anyone who's ever talked to a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
6) You are probably a terrorist. Turn yourself into your local DHS, FBI or CIA office immediately. You do not have the right to remain silent. Anything you say, and anything you do NOT say, will be used against you.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
that teh Dark Tipper, aka Kevin from TechTV will be questioned as well about his private interview with lamo before he turned himself in. i bet d-tip's freaking.
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
Nope, although a reference was made, the 'n-word' was not.
Currently it is legal for the FBI to do this.
The constitutionality is in question, but they are legally obligated to comply or face fines/jail/detainment/investigation.
I don't believe they can refuse questioning its constitutionally, however they could file a complaint with the court AFTER the documents a returned over.
Someone needs too.. its already getting out of hand... someone with the $ to be able to fight it. Before we loose it all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Keep that integrity son. We need more of you in this wretched world.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
I hold all three branches of government responsible for upholding the Constitution. That's why we have a separation of powers, so we don't have a single point of failure. Even if Congress passes laws that blatantly defy the Constitution, and a corrupt judiciary claims they're okay, the executive branch can stop it by refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. And they are sworn to do just that. Pay attention when the next President gets inaugurated, and you'll see what I mean.
We all know that what gets printed and broadcast in the news is just the tip of the iceberg of what we call reality. The rest of "reality" is still embedded in the journalist's notes and interview tapes. If it's about "truth", then I say "the more data, the better". For everyone. This is Slashdot, aren't we for transparency?
If a journalist's responsibility is to "the truth", what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation? (Or, for that matter, sending copies of those same notes to the lawyer for the defendant, should a case come to trial? They're the journalist's notes, he can send copies to whomever he or she damn well pleases.)
The notes contain information. If the notes exonerate the defendant, the defendant is more likely to walk free or have the charges dropped before the case even gets to trial. If the notes confirm the defendant's guilt, the defendant is more likely to be tried and convicted. Both of these outcomes are Good Things.
The more information the FBI has, the more likely it is that it can make the correct decision about whether to press charges. And if a case comes to trial, the more information both sides have, the more likely it is that the judge and/or jury will come to the correct verdict.
Finally - is this precedent more likely to make "crackers" reluctant to talk to journalists, and thereby dry up an important conduit of information? Sure it is. But if you happen to be a "cracker", and "cracking" is illegal in your jurisdiction, perhaps telling a journalist that you're involved in such a thing is a dumb idea in the first place.
A law must be challenged in court to get it thrown out. Journalists working for large media corporations have the backing necessary to get this law overturned. The average citizen does not.
They also have the incentive to fight it - because it hits them where they live.
A journalist must protect his sources - because if he fails to do so even once, and it becomes known, his sources will dry up. (Without sources, all that's left for him in journalism is writing editorials.)
So professional journalists, regardless of their political leanings, will generally fight tooth-and-nail to avoid revealing the identity of their sources or content of their communications to the authorities. Occasionally this means going to jail - typically for contempt of court.
That the government was fool enough to activate the anti-journalistic-secrecy portions of the patriot act is encouraging - because it means that they are about to get a major test in court. That could mean they get struck down, putting the first major crack in the Patriot Act's edifice.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Remember that you can't avoid giving the Feds your keys, and scrubbing the disk is an admission of guilt. This is the really scary thing.
The above file system was designed for use by human rights activists in third-world dictatorships (or the UK). It now seems to be appropriate for the US as well. It seems particularly useful if you are a journo with stuff like the dirt on the whitehouse or no. 10 (i.e. a 'source') then given the access that governments have, you really don't want to store it anywhere where it can be got at.
It seems a shame that very little work has been done on this system in recent times, there may be others though.
The author explains why this is different.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
I wonder what their take will be on this. Normally I'd look for them to get an interview just so they could tell the FBI to fuck off with their anti-american PATRIOT act bullshit. But in this case, I imagine they have a conflict of interest that they won't be able to deal with. I hope they are advanced enough to seperate wanting to press charges from agreeing that the PATRIOT Act should be used or is valid in this case.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
You won't vote for George W Bush next Fall.
Well, yet again we see that the attention goes to those that have the $$$. See, NY Times gets hacked by Lamo (did he actually do any *damage* or was the "financial loss" just for cleanup/etc?) yet we've seen 3 RBL providers DDoS'd off the face of the earth while the FBI does absolutely nothing.
An RBL operator had a hard time even getting anybody to answer the phone about it.
But, DDoS Yahoo and you're a felon. *sigh*
I just hope that all of these journalists remember that when they were granted their Journalist Superpowers, they all swore the Journalist's Holy Oath to get assraped in federal prison in preference to compromising their principles and choosing to remain employable and so keep paying their mortgage and their kids' orthodentistry bills.
No... wait... that's in Bizarro World. On Planet Earth, journalists are just working joes, working long hours scraping a living selling the stories that the paying public (which by and large doesn't include Slashdot readers) want to read.
Before anyone gets confused over this, remember that the Slashdot editing team are technically journalists. If the FBI ever come a-knocking around here, you can bet the farm that each and every one of them will be pissing their pants in their eagerness to hand over the goods. In best Slashdot editor tradition, they'll probably even dupe the submission.
On this specific issue, which law did Congress pass that abridges the freedom of the press? That would be the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Alien Registration Act of 1940. The PATRIOT act is amateur hour stuff by comparison; it places no restrictions on journalists' freedom to publish whatever they like, and that's all that the first amendment requires.
I've always found the argument that a free press requires anonymity to be highly spurious. If you're getting your stories from unverifiable sources, then you may as well get your bullshit from your tax funded officials rather than from a freelance reporter who's selling you what you want to hear.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Funny how they're treating the suspects in that case with kid gloves, even though quite a few journos know exactly who the leakers are.
for having a last name like Lamo (pronounced lame-oh?)
Error 666 - Satanic SCO code found in your Linux kernel.
The truth is that we live a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Anonymous Coward? The FBI has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lamo, and you curse the Patriot Act. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what the FBI knows -- that Lamo's indictment, while tragic, probably saved lives; and the Patriot Act's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the FBI on that wall -- you need the FBI on that wall.
The FBI uses words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a person who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that the FBI provides and then questions the manner in which they provide it. They would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, they suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, they don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
if everyone who gave a journalist leads and tips could later be identified by supoenas, there wouldn't be very much whistle blowing, etc. now would there? Fucking watergate would never have been exposed. Don't just isolate this to "crackers"
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Yes, I probably should have listed that as well... silly me. Thanks dude.
Oblig Simps ref. But seriously...
This guy broke the law. Maybe in a way that entertains and interests us, sure, but he broke the law. So the FBI wants to subpoena documents related to the case. From journalists. And?
Imagine this was an investigation about an Enron exec; would all you Slashdotters be gladhanding each other like this? Or, heaven forbid, the Microsoft anti-trust proceedings?
But back to my main point, this looks like a prosecutor playing hard ball. Paper the world with subpoenas, expect the judge to throw some of them out. That happens all the time. In any event, I don't have a problem with reporters' notes being used in criminal proceedings. Gag rule, sure, maybe even kept in chambers.
Begun, this flame war has.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Concerning my parent post quoted here:
If they've got probable cause, they can do just about anything. If you've murdered someone, I want the government to be able to find out how long it takes for you to shit if it will help them any.
He shouldn't have done anything with that virus. Period. Nobody should have. And if all his personal information will help them confirm that he did it and/or find leads to others that did, I say more power to them. They've got cause to believe he did it, they've got cause to be on his case. This isn't a story.
This person expressed a valid point of view. Just because you disagree with a post does not mean you should moderate it down. In fact there were a couple good people who took the time to write insightfull responces explaining why they disagreed with the post. You moderators could have moderated those up, benifiting all of us with a better understand of the issues, but instead you abused your powers to censor an opinion you didn't like.
They are. And the techniques they use to enforce the laws are as varied as you can imagine. This is why there is a saying, "throw the book at them." There are so many laws that each of us break everyday (probably, who can keep track?) that the punishments can always legally range from letting you off with a wrist slap to researching every applicable law to make sure you are convicted of *some*thing. This is always the case, is built into the law, and is a valuable negotiating tool. But make no mistake, they aren't required to use PATRIOT any more than meter maids are required to subpoena your driving records. But they could.
So the question to me isn't whether the PATRIOT act is a good one or not, since that hinges too much on opinion, but why Lamo is having it invoked in his case. Is it a tacit admission of domestic terrorism? Is it because manipulating the NYTimes puts egg on the faces of too many important people? Why not use PATRIOT for that SoBig chump too?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
It really is a shame for me, as an American, to see such abuses of power. Ever since the Sep. 11th incidents, the U.S. Government has constructed a pattern of actions - under the guise of protection from terrorists - that creates a much stronger government at the expense of the rights of its citizens.
And here I thought "Penis Mightier!"
I think the parent is being facetious, but somehow it got modded insightful... this confuses me greatly. How this could be taken for anything but sarcasm is beyond me, so I guess I have to hope that the moderators were being sarcastic as well. Otherwise I think we're in real trouble.
As a former tech worker turned journalism student I'm appalled at the actions of the FBI in this case - if it turns out to be true. Until I can see one of these alleged letters I'm inclined to reserve judgment on the issue though. We have very little to go on at this point. But I can tell you from personal experience that courts and government agencies often have a difficult time forcing journalists to reveal their sources or notes on their stories. There's a huge presumption in US law that the press does not have to willingly share information with the courts or government investigations and there are statutes, called shield laws, in many states that exempt reporters from revealing information.
A case in point: About a year ago, I had the privilege of sitting next to a friend of mine in court as he tried to keep the identity of an anonymous source out of the hands of the defense attorneys during the sentencing phase of a murder trial. My friend, a working journalist for San Diego Magazine, wrote a story on the Danielle van Dam murder case in which he quoted a police source saying, 'he hit her, and that was it.' The defense argued that this quote might mean that the victim died before the accused took her out of her home. Why might this be important? If true, the prosecution's argument for a death sentence would not have held up since it was the kidnapping charge that put the death penalty on the table in the case. You can't kidnap a corpse, or so the defense argued.
So what happened with my friend? The judge in the case threw out the defense motion, stating that the one-line mention in my friend's article didn't really say much about what might have happened in the home to the victim. The judge also explained that the California Shield Laws protected my friend from having to reveal his sources anyway. It was an interesting experience though, and I'm glad that I got a chance to see the First Amendment at work. But I think it also shows how difficult it is to get information out of a reporter if they don't want to voluntarily share it. Personally, I think the FBI is going to have an uphill battle in the Lamo case.
If you're interested in similar First Amendment issues and how they relate to the press try the First Amendment Project, an organization of attorneys and other interested individuals that works to ensure freedom of expression for artists, activists and journalists.
First, it's called "collection of evidence." That's what lawyers and prosecutors and detectives do for a living.
Second,
Good to see that our First Amendment rights are being upheld by the FBI.
A suponea from the FBI in no way affects a person's First Amendment right to free speech. I don't see any mention that the FBI tried to keep any of the reporters' information from publication.
that my initials aren't A Lamo.
Actually, according to the article, the Patriot act claims ISPs must keep records of e-mail, ip addresses, etc., but doesn't say anything about journalists needing to take these steps. So it looks like the FBI is overstepping their bounds and using the patriot act as an excuse.
So, if I can cut to the chase, the *MOST* that was done here under the provisions of the Patriot Act is that some people were told, in advance, that the FBI was going to try to subpoena their records, so they should take care to make sure they're not destroyed before the subpoena actually happened.
Nothing has changed with regard to the government's ability to get the subpoenas or their ability enforce those subpoenas. They're just giving fair notice "Hey... I'm going to try to get these things. Please make sure that they're not destroyed."
I fail to see how this is a big deal. Similarly, they could go to a gun dealer and say "Hey. I'm going to try to subpoena records about this one guy, Bob, who bought an 'assault rifle' here. Please make sure that you don't inadvertantly allow those records to be destroyed."
The need for secrecy is pretty obvious -- if you were telling 30 people the same thing, and the first guy blabbed, then the next 29 could destroy their records before the request came in.
As soon as you add 'under the patriot act...' to a sentance, people have a knee-jerk reaction, even if the controversial provisions of that act aren't invoked.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles! [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
The reason democracy works is that it's one hell of a lot easier to vote a government out than it is to revolution it out. If you can't get people to show up at a voting booth to get rid of the government, how are you going to get them to obtain military-quality firearms and ammunition, organize into a fighting force, and survive carpet bombing?
You're not. If you can't vote the government out, you're stuck with it. People too lazy to vote are going to be too lazy to join your revolution.
paintball
As for the NYT, I don't even think they would make any good type of hat, so I'll just consider them complete asses :) I don't think they have any control of the case now that the FBI is involved though. Just like the Adobe/Skyklarov (sp?) DMCA case, once the enforcement genie is out of the bottle, it's hard as hell to get it to go back in.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I am in strong agreement with the mods on this one. I'll file under flamebait/troll. The War on Terror is an excuse for America to cover up it's diplomatic screw-ups. God, I'm happy I'm in Canada, with no so-called "Patriot Act" to damper my freedoms.
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
So much for those who have claimed that our law enforcement agencies can be trusted to reserve the extraordinary powers granted by the Patriot Act solely to defend the nation against extraordinary terrorist threats such as those posed by al-Qada. Even if one agrees that Lamo should be prosecuted for his allegedly benign hacking, he hardly falls into that category.
Get with the program people, times are a changing. Love America or leave it. I need to get my brownshirt starched and my boots polished, there's a book burning tonight with a Dixie Chick CD crushing as an opening act.
the US Military would not go along with carpet bombing its own country. Many a soldier realises that the US Govt. is not out for his/her best interest after a tour of service. I know many, many ex-military, and not a one of them stayed 'patriotic' in the sense of loyalty to the establishment (true, tho' that many of them were in the Nam, but take a look at one Timmothy McVeigh, a nice, bright, Irish-American Catholic. HE loved his country, but was intelligent enough not to care for his government).
People don't go out and vote because they don't think that it matters. even after 2000 when people were saying 'hey, look! your one vote could have been the one that mattered!' , well, popular vote didn't matter anyway, and probably turned a lot more people off from giving a shit about voting. it just proved that it doesn't matter who you vote for because you're going to get ripped off either way. I used to hate the democratic party thinking that they were communist thought poliice. now i hate the republican party, too, because they are fascist thought police. it doesn't matter who i vote for because the totalitarian government is going to be installed either way. it's just a matter of the speed at which it is achieved. fascism is just socialism with a better economy. and that doesn't even look to be true. So, I left America to work on my studies here, returning to my roots, where my people were forced to leave, starving and poor because of the facist, racist policies of the British govt. The economy is faltering here in Kerry, too, and I'm going to have to return to America after Christmas because I can't find a job doing anything. I'll be back next fall perminantly to study, which will be 20.000 cheeper, and so my parents will be able to throw me some cash. I don't want to be an American anymore. It's just as bad as the UK. 'No Irish Need Apply' a hundred and fifty years ago, and it may as well read 'No Catholics' a year or two ago were I grew up.
America claimes a 'freedom from religion' these days, which is inconsitant with the language of the first amendment. either way, freedom of or freedom from, it's no secret that America is a Protestant country for all intents and purposes. the UK is officialy protestant. what is the difference, really? either way, Catholics are shut out. remember the huge hup-dy-doo when Kennedy was running? 'oh my god! the pope will be running the country!!!' 'Home Rule means Rome Rule' -- Ulster Unionist slogan. the UK banned guns. a mass uprising there isn't possible now. the US keeps trying, ever so slowly. Stalin did it, Hitler did it.
survelance, secret police, claimes of a secret enemy from within. America is no longer a land of freedom and prosperity. soon it won't be a land of opportunity either. how long until we have to be assigned tasks so that we can be more easily identified if we do anything 'abnormal' which may mean that we are terrorists? rfid chips with our personal data and designated job, telling the DHS where we are and what we are up to? don't think it can't happen, because that is the first step to it becomming a reality.
1)Make a numbered list.
2)Make up some convincing 'facts'.
3)Make fun of bush/microsoft/sco/gnu.
4)Call somone a facist or a luser.
5)Spread FUD FUD FUD and more FUD.
6)???
7)Profit.
How can you say Democracy works in a nation like this affected by and act like the US PATRIOT?
That's too specific of an example.
Around the world, government policies are still dominated by the few, not the many. It's dominated by rich families. By coporate lobbiests. By insane dictatorial families. By religious leaders. Generally, though, not the will of the people.
In fact, it is that the will of the people is so underwhelming that these things happen in dictatorships, democracies, republics, mob-states, communes and the like. The will of the people generally involves: "does my car work?" or "are the trains on time?"
As long as these things continue to be unaffected in day to day life for the common man (and by that I mean everyone who's life isn't involved in the goings on of D.C., or your respective nation's capitol), then people will tend to still not care about what goes on there.
If the change in government types happens gradually enough, people will not notice. We are gradually becoming more and more fascist, arguably. Ask your friends and family. Chances are most of those whom you ask won't see it that way. Show them how the government is becoming fascist thru things like the patriot act and other recent developments like this, and they might agree with you.
Will they do anything about it?
Probably not.
goto http://rizzn.com
As geeks, we are probably not able to act as a united block and get the US Congress to repell the PATRIOT Act. I mean, c'mon, what are *you* gonna do? Vote for the Democrat candidate at the next election? Suuure, dude, like it's going to change things. Remember, the thrice accursed DMCA is a parting gift from a Democrat president. Or ask the orphans in Waco how good it is to enjoy freedom under a Democrat administration.
But on another hand, who started this mess in the first place? That's right, the New York Times. This paragon of virtuous indignation and dignified moral authority has thrown the book on Adrian Lamo after a harmless whistle blowing. After all, the idiots had an open proxy making their editorial contributor's SSN and personal data world-readable. It's not like Lamo did a Watergate on them. But the people who pose as the intelligentsia's moral authority (albeit slightly decrepit) cannot be caught with their pants down, now, can they?
So punish the morons who pretend to oppose Bush's policies and then yell "Terrorist!" at a harmless guy. Punish the bloody hypocrits who kill trees to pretend they oppose excessive freedom-smothering laws and then file lawsuits that make use of these very laws.
Boycott the New York Times.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
..cus they can subpoena Slashdot to tell who I am. Therefore I will not comment, but it is already too late as I have posted and they probably have machines that can tell what I think. George Orwell, Franz Kafka where are you guys when I need you?
There have always been very important restrictions placed upon law enforcement with regard to how they acquire information and what information they may acquire. See the fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution for more information.
If a journalist's responsibility is to "the truth", what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation?Well, for one thing, the FBI and the current justice department have a history of abusing investigatory power; most recently, using anti-terror legislation to go after just about everyone. Do you really want the FBI data mining the work notes of every journalist in the country?
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
What is it? Are you all in such a hurry to crucify the Administration, the FBI, and everything right of center that you have to jump to the wrong-headed conclusions that you have? Or do you just not care about the truth?
According to the article 'The Letters' aren't subpoenas, threats, or lawsuits (don't know where that one came from, but it's platered all over the comments here). They are notification of INTENT to GET a subpoena. This means that the FBI *thinks* that they can get subpoenas for this information, and they don't want the journalists destroying it to avoid turning it over if and when they get them. This is COMMON practice to prevent the intentional destruction of evidence.
It's important to remember that journalists do not have limitless rights to protect their sources, in fact they never have. There is nothing in the posted editorial that shows how any journalists rights have been trampled on, or even reduced as a result of the Patriot act - it's merely conjecture.
IF the courts issue the subpoenas based on the FBI's requests, and IF the journalists feel the subpoenas are in fact unconstitutional or innapropriate, then the legality and constitutionality of the issue SHOULD be visited. However, until you have the facts before you, don't throw around words like Facist, Nazi, etc. It just makes you sound ignorant..
D
now you may mod me down - I've got Karma to burn...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Does that mean the FBI are taking the unprecedented step of paying the journalists for expenses incurred in doing their investigative work for them?
In order to prove the nonviability of life on Mars, I am asking you to please kick me in the nuts
A law must be challenged in court to get it thrown out.
Actually, the normal way for it to be thrown out is for the legislature to do it. Which they will if enough citizens pressure them to.
What are odds that Novak is never given a secret command about his notes? After all in that case it was top buds of Dubyah breaking their sworn oaths to lean on a non patriot and his wife. No SS tactics needed - any violation was simply a patriotic act of the ruling class to silence an enemy of the administration - a non person.
Ok it took until 2004 - only 20 years off George.
Excuse me, but why the fuck should the FBI be wasting time and money going after pedophiles?.
It seems you are clueless as to the definition of a pedophile. Being a pedophile is little different than being heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or whatever. Molesting children is a crime, but a pedophile who never molests a child should no more be pursued than should you or I for that rape we might commit.
When you move criminality from acting to simply being you have taken one giant step toward tyranny. It's quite ironic you should be responding in a thread about our collective loss of rights and, in that very same breath, show how you have swallowed the very kool-aid that is being used to brainwash the public into willing giving up those rights.
The FBI has already admitted to several cases of using the PATRIOT (a.k.a. TREASON) act to prosecute mundane crimes with no relation to terrorism.
In fact, they run seminars for prosecutors to tell them how to subvert the intent of the law.
Time to call your reps and make sure TREASON II isn't passed.
Oh wait, I forgot Im living in the Bizarro world!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Seems pretty simple to me.
It's not illegal to destroy personal email/notes/etc. before you get subpoenaed.
The Feds made a mistake by letting people know it was going down.
Even better than that, don't destroy the documents, just place them somewhere secret.
It is not the Patriot act! It is the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" or USA PATRIOT Act, or PATRIOT Act for short.
Congress chose this misnomer acronym for a reason, so that whenever people referred to it, they'd think patriotism, as in saving our country from the bad guys. Of course it's really just a laundry list of powers that the DOJ has been drooling over for years ("Hey, dictatorships have them, why can't we"). I'm sure John Ashcroft is poring through his cum-soaked copy daily looking for new ways to use it.
Anyway, this patriotism theme is somewhat perpetuated when people write it "Patriot" (as if it had anything to do with patriotism) instead of the colder, more severe PATRIOT acronym. Actually, probably should write it P.A.T.R.I.O.T.
It's working on us here, too, because it's referenced as "PATRIOT" 30 something times in the discussion, and "Patriot" 50+, including the title of the article.
>> ..this guy was doing companies HUGE favors by helping them patch holes in their systems as he discovered them.
That's simply just stupid nonsense. Criminals don't do their victims a favor by assaulting them. Criminals don't draw a pass because they "discovered" a vulnerability in their victim.
Would you excuse a bank robber because he helped the bank uncover a new way into the vault?
The rules don't change just because it's the internet.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I did.
The prominent building was the parliament ("Reichstag"). I suppose you could draw parallells to the 9/11 events if you were so inclined. Both events were followed by harsher laws to stop such horrible events.
It was generally assumed that the Nazis lit that fire themselves, but I hear that the latest historical findings are that the Dutch Communist punished for the fire actually did it.
Unfortunately, in this case, Lamo pissed off the NYT, and in "protecting" them, the FBI is willing to be sloppy about procedure and start threatening lots of journalists who aren't the NY Times. Some of them may have the resources to fight back, some don't.
Today we're the internet, and we're all journalists. The good part is that it's clear that we've got responsibilities and legal protections; the bad part is that there are now lots more journalists who don't have the legal resources to fight a heavy attack.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
let's gas 75% of all newborns to prevent "possible "terrorists" " while we're at it, why dont we get some swastikas as well? I hear those are coming back into style. also, ban technology from the common person. in seriousness, this is getting out of hand and it only proves that these people are liars, if you watched a nightline special they aired a while back talking about the patriot act and how it steps on our rights, john ashcroft and his cronies were saying "this cant ever be used against americans, because that would be highly illegal" one term for that. BULLSHIT. I mean, seriously, obvious lying too, they shifted a lot while talking, blinked, looked around, never made eye contact with the interviewer, etc. if anyone hasnt listened to the george carlin skit about "american bullshit" I suggest you do. The reason why they want Adrian Lamo's blood so badly is that he's a "terrorist" to them now, technically, we all are to them, becuase we still hold more power (legally) than the government, however, they know they control us through media and other shit, so, passing some acts that will rip apart the constitution and the ammendments wont be noticed because people dont pay attention to anything but the mainstream. so, do that, take away our guns, we're no longer a threat. My US History teacher used to serve in the California senate, She understands the rights we have, that the second ammendment isnt some law that was made back in the days when we "needed" guns. it was on of those laws that was generalized. Second Ammendment (1791) Weapons and the Militia A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. basically, even though we have a military, that doesnt mean the people dont need guns. look what happened to poland.. and look at switzerland; switzerland, it's required you have a gun. and look at them, they're the only country that hasnt been taken over yet. The point is, the government has no right to do this, and since it's an act, not a bill, people do not have to follow it, if they get arrested, they can take it to the supreme court. (depending if they get locked away for life or not, thanks to the second revision of the patriot act, which is about to get passed as an act.) too many people do not realize what freedoms they have, and the ones that do, are made out as lunatics, anarchists, traitors, or terrorists. it's a sad fact. Oh great land of the free. I love this country but I dont love the government. Sadly, Canada will prolly become the new land of the free, that is if america doesnt do a political takeover of canada first and force our terrorism laws onto canada and make them follow them, etc. who the hell knows?
that I don't live in the U.S. of fucking-rip-you-a-new A.
As a citizen, I've got a lot of problems with the Patriot Act - like the fact that almost none of the Congresscritters who voted for it had actually read the whole thing, as opposed to voting the way they were told by their party leaders and the Bush League. The two procedural ways to get rid of it (either in part or the whole thing) are for Congress to rescind it or for the courts to invalidate it. On the other hand, this appears to be a case of the FBI pretending it gives them authority they don't have, and that's a different kind of problem to fight.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If our problem is at this level, then any comment written by any citizen about Lamo, Zimmerman, Stallman, Bush (father or sons), Ashcroft, Falwell, ... can potentially expect subpoenas for all documents.
In other words folks, what I have written, what you have written, what others will write can be used as evidence for the Capitalist Republic inquisition of those that are unacceptable.
I mean, someone in the Bush Whitehouse has already exposed a CIA agent, a felony, to potentially prove their immunity to the US public and prosecution. Many of US here on "/." may already be on an inquisition list.
I cannot believe this is all true. It must be a Happy Halloween story by Steven King.
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
For all its faults, the FBI is a lot less obnoxious than Britain's MI5. The FBI has to at least pretend to operate openly, and can get in trouble if they're caught ignoring people's rights. MI5 operates in secret, and can suspend people's right by administrative fiat.
Erm, just wondering if your ethics and civics teachers were Joe McCarthy and John Ashcroft?
Civil rights don't go away just because it's more convenient. Criminal defendants shouldn't lose their constitutional protections before being found guilty. And a journalist's responsibility is not just to the truth. Like any other person, they have a responsibility to others -- a responsibility written into the law by way of First Amendment protections afforded to the media.
If I was trolling, you'd know it. I never troll in oxygen deprived environments, like this article's thread (OK, maybe a little).
Don't mod me down because you haven't read the law and your friends tell you that it's evil. Grow up.
Anyway, there are armies of strawmen being constructed here, and somebody's got to have the courage to strike a match.
Yes the impetus for this bill was terrorism, but a lot of necessary modernization of investigative techniques were introduced by it. Here's a solution to avoid being victimized by the act, don't do anything illegal.
Again, Lamo and anyone he talked to wouldn't be dealing with these problems if the NY Times didn't press charges. It isn't Ashcroft, Bush, or Rumsfeld hunting anyone down here.
One other thing. All uses of the USA Patriot Act, have to be reported semi-annually to Congress. If there is any abuse, it becomes public record.
-- Len
By "sitting around thinking about children?"
Dude, it's thinking like yours that is steering this country straight to hell. If you think thoughts constitute criminal action, my only question for you is when are you going to turn yourself in? Don't try to tell us you never thought of doing something illegal - there's not a rational person on earth who would buy that bullshit.
A pedophile is a little more than someone who just sits and thinks about children.
Wrong.
Most of the time, they are in posession of child pornography (which is illegal), may have harrassed one or more children (which is illegal), and contribute to the delinquency of minors (also illegal).
Just like all those "homos" who do nothing but sit around and think about butt fucking each other? Or those mulsims who are all terrorists? Or those blacks who are always stealing shit to buy crack?
Do you have any proof that most of these people have, in reality, done any of that bullshit you just so ignorantly spewed into the ether?
All of this is regardless of whether or not they ever put a hand on that child. All child molesters were pedophiles at one point
This is so incredibly ignorant even you contradict yourself in a mere two sentences! You see, it is impossible to prove "most pedophiles" do anything at all, as the actual size of that population is, at this point, wholly unkown. It is, however, entirely provable that "all child molestors" (at least all convicted child molestors) are or are not pedophiles. And, if you have the intelligence to type those words into google you will quickly see that assertion completely rebuked by numerous studies - in fact, many convicted child molestors are not pedophiles.
And, on a personal note, I will add it is ignorance (like yours) to this fact (among others) that enables a great many children to be molested each year. I realize this is a lot to ask, but you might give that some thought (especially if you plan to reproduce).
and the laws of our country are designed to catch pedophiles before they become molesters.
And this is constitutional... how? Replace "pedophiles" with "men" and "molestors" with "rapists" and see how you like that. If you have any sense of history at all you will realize this is the door many radical feminists have been struggling to open since (at least) the sixties, and it doesn't take a genius to see how that notion of "preventative law enforcement" has encroached upon many freedoms in the decades since. Stick a frog in a pot, and all that...
The FBI isn't interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls, the FBI is interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls AND is in posession of (or distributing) kiddie porn, or one or more ILLEGAL things a pedophile does.
Throughout time it has variously been made "illegal" to be a christian, muslim, jew, homosexual - even artist or poet. And the "illegal things" these people have done is share belief, share written work (go to "re-education camp" for having a bible), share knowledge - or even for people who did NOT share these things to defend such "illegal acts." In fact, in the part of the country where I live, even being black was, for decades, a crime that cost a great many innocent people (even children) their lives.
The current hysteria surrounding "pedophiles" is little different. When you make it illegal to share beliefs or even thoughts, you make existence illegal. The government, however, will use any tool at its disposal to erode your freedom in the name of "stability and security." Are you really too stupid to understand the great societal dangers inherent to this very simple, historically proven, fact?
You're confusing the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department.
The one point you stupid cunts keep missing with your 'if you break the law you should be burned at the steak' nonsense and stupid fucking 'breaking into a house' annalogies is that you're fucking wrong. If you break into a house do you really think you're going to get into nearly as much shit as you'd get into for breaking into somebodys stupid fucking webserver? Hell no. If it was your first offense and you had no priors, you'd get probation.
Hell, if you CAUGHT somebody breaking into your house, you're in worse shape than the trespasser is in most cases. God forbid you do something stupid like break the bastard's head open, or worse, shoot him. If you do that you'll be sued by his family ( or worse, if he survives, HIM).
So yeah, either send the fucker who broke my car window open to jail forever OR let hacking go with a warning, a fine and some community service. The simple fact of the matter is that things are NOT similar. They are NOT equal. And your goddamn fucking over simplified worldview only shows how sheltered all your asses really are.
Fuck, people embezzle millions of dollars and dont go to jail. YOu'd spend longer in jail for having a couple grams of crank in your pocket.
Really you're just getting mad at somebody for being smarter than you and pulling your pants down in public. Get over yourselves. There's a serious dichotomy in the US between those who have $$ and those who dont. If you buy into this whole 'he hacked, he's a bad guy' rhetoric, you're part of the fucking problem. Use your brain cell. Stop eating the fucking shit that the talking heads on the idiot box feed you and try thinking for your damn selves.
God damn I love America.
The journalist's responsibility is not to "the truth", but to informing the public with truthful and important information. And confidentiality is an important tool to that end as it opens up sources of information to the journalist that would otherwise be unavaliable.
At the end of the article, it states that in law a subpoena cannot be used to access a journo's notes.
Therefore a communication from FBI or other agency threatening legal action to obtain those notes, and criminal action if thwarted to get those notes is unjustified harassment.
That's the point.
(subtext: if you don't hand them over, we suspect you are aiding a terrorist - and the Patriot act gives agencies heavy powers after that assessment)
I never saw the movie, but I remembering hearing about it over NPR. There was some backlash because in reality, Hilter was quoted as referring to the people who did the attack as "attackers," not "terrorists." The point one critic made was that it's fine if you want paint post-9/11 America as the next WWII Germany, but making little "tweaks" such as that is in pretty bad taste. Plus, it implies that their arguement wasn't that strong, as they felt the need to strengthen it. The reason you immediately thought about the PATRIOT Act was because that's exactly what the filmmakers were shooting for. Whether they're right or not is another topic, but they definitely skewed their version of history to make it better align with their views. Matt
This is Slashdot, aren't we for transparency?
That's transparency in the government, not transparency in your bedroom, in your discussions with your lawyer, in your credit-card transactions, whistleblowing, etc.
what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI
What if those notes contain information irrelevant to the crime but potentially damaging to the individual in question? Should the government have a file with any embarassing or repulsive action or character trait that may be detailed in those notes? Blackmail and extortion aren't out of the question, after all.
If the notes confirm the defendant's guilt, the defendant is more likely to be tried and convicted...[a] Good Thing
You're assuming the law the person being tried under is a just one and the likely punishment appropriate to the crime. For either of those situations, I think the defendants would prefer to get off on technicalities or for lack of evidence rather than rot in jail and hope the case winds its way to the supreme court or that more sensible legislation is passed by congress.
Mr. jerusalem, its gonna be a rough trip.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
We need to reach out and teach others how to use it, how to protect against government invasion of privacy. Teach others the politics behind crypto and teach others the practice of using good crypto and good key management. I'm making an effort to teach all people I correspond with and have been for several years. It's frustrating because most don't listen or don't want to listen, but in a few cases it really pays off. Crypto evangelism is now my evangelical topic over open source.
Imagine how much better of a state these reporters would be in if they kept all that they did not print strongly encrypted. Under the stress of the government questioning them, they may even forget their passphrase!
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
What a fatuous statement. Why not ten, or a thousand, or a million guilty men? You could as easily argue for dismantling the entire criminal justice system, lest there be one guilty man among the millions of imprisoned felons. It's all a matter of degree and not kind. Such moral preening belongs in college coffee-houses and has no legitimate place in the debate over public policy.
If we are to punish anybody for anything, we have to recognize that from time to time innocent people will slip through the cracks. So be it. Let us work to minimize such occurrences, but carry on with the procedures and institutions necessary to maintain peace and order.
And in case you're wondering, I do include the death penalty in that category. There are risks and trade-offs inherent in everything done by mortal man. Is there a miniscule chance that an innocent person might be put to death? Yes. But this risk pales in comparison to the number of innocent people who will die if we do not put dangerous criminals to death.
Criminals escape, serve out their terms, gain parole from soft-hearted judges, and kill other prisoners, guards and visitors while in prison. We need to kill them, lots more than we do now, with no more emotion than putting down a rabid dog. All murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, terrorists, and other violent criminals ought to be hanged in public on their first offense.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
This is the same organistaion that, depsite the costliest investigation in US history, hasn't managed to get one single suspect in the Anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001.
I don't know. I just don't know. They are either mindlessly incompetent, incredibly corrupt or a bit of both. Their being so efficient in catching some lone hacker and so inefficient in catching a very shadowy individual or individuals in the Anthrax case stinks of high level complicity and corruption. Hitler would have been proud.
I seem to remember Ashcroft telling a skeptical Congress that the PATRIOT act would be used to allow law enforcement agencies to root out terrorist threats against US interests.
Now so far we have seen it used against domestic narcotics manufacturers/dealers and now hackers. While there is no dispute that these folks were committing crimes, law enforcement agencies are using this anti-terrorist legislation and the stiffer sentencing and looser evidenciery rules that come with it against non-terrorists. Voters in the next election need to send the message to the current administration that this sort of behavior is NOT ok and will NOT be tolerated.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
I'm guessing not, seeing as how those materials would likely lead to the charging of one or two of Ashcroft's friends and/or colleagues with multiple felonies.
Aren't double standards wonderful?
fencepost
just a little off
Britain's enemy is a friend to the world, no matter who or what they are. Margret Thatcher was a worse human being than Adolph Hitler ever thought about being. Churchhill was a despickable, subversive, liar. He was an antisemite, too.
Wait until Bush gets his new Korean War next year.
After that chaos, you'll see laws being passed you won't believe. Or maybe not - most of them have already been passed, the government is just quietly ratcheting up the use of them.
I posted an article just yesterday at the www.iraqwar.ru site about how the US Justice Department is using Patriot Act provisions in a whole slew of cases including putting some lovesick twenty-year-old girl in prison for two years because she put threatening notes on a cruise ship she was on with her family so she could go back home to be with her boyfriend! This was prosecuted under the provision calling it terrorism to threaten commercial vessels.
You haven't seen anything yet. Like I said before, first it was terrorists, then it was drug dealers, then it will be drug users, then it will be alcoholics, then it will be gun owners, then it will be cigarette smokers, then it will be jaywalkers.
The State is a protection/extortion racket. Period. Until you idiots realize that, you are nothing but their slaves.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Sure, we Americans have more enummerated rights than you Brits, but we've also got a higher percentage of our population in prison than you. In fact, we've got the highest confirmed prisoner per capita rate of any country on Earth.
Numbers like that make me wonder if we're somehow missing the point here in the States. Rights on paper are nice, but they don't tell the whole story.
(Here's a big chart of imprisonment figures, if anyone wants details.)
Proud to be / Smiley-free / Since Nineteen / Ninety-Three
You, Sir, are full of it.
If a defendant thinks that any information in those reporters notes can come to his aid, he is the one to ask for them to be released to the authorities. But even then, it is the reporter who took (created) those notes to decide what he wants to do since they are his notes!
I see no reason at all, not in your arguments or anywhere else, for the governement to demand those notes contrary to all protections in place for such notes and the independence of journalism.
Karma? What's that again?
...I don't think so.
Actually, the CIA has sent a request to the Justice Department (of which the FBI is a part) that they look into a case where a journalist (Robert Novak) published a story in which he identified a woman as a CIA agent. The FBI has been asked to look into the matter. The journalist has said the source of his information was "two senior administration officials." If this is true, an important federal law against revealing the names of CIA agents has been broken. Since the person in question is reportedly a specialist in use of WMD by terrorist organizations, this would probably be the kind of thing the USA-PATRIOT act was intended to ferret out. And the kind of tactic being used against reporters who covered Adrian Lamo may well be appropriate against Novak (who may well turn out to be the only possible source, along with other journalists who were reported told the same thing, for the information).
Interestingly enough, in contrast to the FBI's enthusiasm in the Lamo case, the White House has been amazingly lackadaisical in the Novak case. Scott McClellan, the president's spokesperson, has said the president has not and doesn't intend to ask his aides if they were responsible for this leak. A more thorough examination of this matter is found at Josh Marshall's web site.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Hmm, which is more likely - a large media corporation fights for its employees, or they see a novel way to abuse a law, and start crafting ways to use it to their advantage.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Unfortunately, our nation has a long history of struggling with the (seemingly basic) idea of "separation of Church and State".
It's hard to make a good case for taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allgeiance when all the U.S. money still has "In God We Trust" stamped on it.
In the South, we've just now settled a dispute with a judge who was convinced it was the "right thing to do" to put a huge, granite copy of the 10 Commandments right in the court's lobby area.
(Personally, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable about that judge's ruling on anything. If he felt that strongly about bringing his Christian religion into the courtroom, why would I put it past him to do such things as rule against anyone who appeared to be gay/lesbian - simply because his religion says they're wrong?)
Again, I say - people need to watch more closely who they elect as judges in their district.
Digs into this question quite a bit. Well not so much the prison percantage, but the violent crimes envolving guns. They asked why americans have the most gun related crimes as any other nation in america...
I don't want to get into the NRA aspect and start a flame war, but it is a valid question.
the scary thing abou the patriot act, is if we have one more major terrorist attack here in the US, you KNOW the politicians will be on TV the very next day crying that the patriot act isn't strong enough, and those nasty commie terrorist-supporting Saddam-loving homosexual Democrats were responsible.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I happened to be watching a program on PBS last night about "accidents" involving nuclear weapons.
I think I saw this same show, but on cable. A multi-megaton warhead had fallen within an hour's drive of where I currently live (back in the 1950s, I think). Yep, makes me all warm and fuzzy.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Except that apparently she wasn't an agent, she was an analyst. Not a slight difference.