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."
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.
uh, yeah...when you get a subpoena you are allowed to consult your lawyer. Under the patriot act you are not allowed to tell anyone that you were subpoened. They are threatening reporters to not tell anyone, not even their lawyers, that they are being subpeoned. there is more to it but i don't have time to post.
This 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.
We still have high standards for journalists, and I want to maintain them. Where can I get some of what you're smoking? Very few journalists have any integrity whatsoever.
> 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.
Because they are not getting gag orders.
i eld.htm )
Nor, if you read the article, have they even been following the letter of the law by having the attorney general sign off on these before they get sent.
The simple fact that there are laws in place to protect sources of information that real journalists have relied on for years to report the truth are being trampled by the FBI's 'out of the box' thinking when mis-applying laws.
Currently, journalists materials are even exempted from a search warrant:
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978)
U.S. law prohibits search warrant for journalist's materials unless:
there is "probable cause" to believe the journalist has committed or is committing a crime to which the materials relate, or
seizing the materials is necessary to prevent the death of or serious injury to a person
(www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/w/b/wbt3/sh
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.
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.
Especially not when he uses his access to run thousands of dollars in bills using that network to, basically, ego surf (he accessed the Times' Lexis account to lookup references to himself).
They have a flat-rate account with N-L. It didn't cost them anything more than it would have normally.
Haida Manga
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