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."
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.'"
And the moral of the lesson is? Don't give your government an inch, because they'll take a mile.
"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.
"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?
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.
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...)
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?
That was my initial reaction, but it caused me to wonder why these exemptions for jounalists exist in the first place. I assume that the main reason is that it could discourage free speech in the press. Could someone with more knowledge (or imagination) than me give some examples/ situations of how this this would stiffle free speech?
The other side of the story is the bad effect that it has on the court. Like where he mentioned how a bunch of the "evidence" was siting newspaper articles! Because we all know that if it's in the newspaper it must be true. What evidence can journalists collect that the FBI can't? The FBI should have no need for this, and should not be presenting second hand information in court, unless they absolutely must.
Why, exactly, do you (appear to) believe the journalists should be punished?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Now, we all get to live under totalitarian regime that trounces the freedoms and protections at its whim.
yay. =P
-- TMK"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."
I think that in the case of some information, more then probable cause is needed. I remember at some point in history, people were presumed innocent till proven guilty. Did that go the way of new coke and parachute pants?
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.
Actually, the courts have ruled repeatedly that journalists have an exception that allows them to keep confidential all their notes and research for their stories. Most recently, the ACLU helped student Jason Kitchen keep his notes that he made for a documentary about a death row inmate. The idea is that, unless the government has a very compelling reason to acquire those notes, they aren't allowed to get them. It prevents the government from conducting a "fishing expedition" based on reporters' confidential research.
Hopefully, we still have to prove that someone did something illegal before they get punished.
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.
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.
The point of this article isn't about the rights of the accused (which is an important, but separate discussion), it's about the rights of the press.
If the press can't keep their sources confidential, they won't be able to report on many critical issues. Especially with the rapidly-expanding use of "anti-terrorism" legislation to prosecute virtually anything, potential sources will simply be too afraid to give any information to journalists.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
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.
Actually, it is more than one amendment it is trashing. Press, speech, and search/seizures.
It is rather disgusting at what the powering bodies(government/big companies) gets away with now because people are lazy.
America was founded in such a way as distrust for the government is strong, but now days you?re a terrorist if you don?t agree with the current tyrants in power.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
> 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.
I put the emphasis on a critical point.
The task of the police is to find a suspect, but the juidical system will determine whether he is guilty or not. You grant them the power a priori.
And given the right power, the police most certainly find a perpetrator. The question is, is it the right one?
The part "abridging the freedom of [...] of the press" of the First Amendment is there for a reason.
Free press is there to uncover the wrongs of the goverment/society. If their notes and conversations are not the matter of adequate discretion, they can't uncover anything, because they either cannot make records or noone will speak with them.
Of course, I won't say that this protection is worthy of ultimate protection and has to be compared to the severness to the crime.
In the case of murder, I'd tend to favour the prosecution of the murder, but he did not commit murder.
It is a story. IRC, the reason the PATRIOT act was enacted to counter the threats of terrorists and not to erode the rights laid down in your foundation.
To paraphrase a quote:
When they came for the terrorists I didn't speak up, because I am no terrorist. When they came for script-kiddies, I didn't speak up, because I write no viruses. When they came for me there was no-one left to speak up for me.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Did you read the article? Do you understand the implications?
Sure, it would be nice for law enforcement to be able to do anything they wanted to aprehend a criminal, and prove his/her guilt. It would make society a lot less dangerous right? And it would clean up the streets, and lower the burden on the court system, and criminals would tremble in their boots. All of this is great if we lived in a perfect world where power doesn't corrupt, and money isn't the supreme ruler.
Unfortunately we live on planet Earth, where it has been demonstrated a billion times that men (humans for the politically correct) are fallible and are consumed by power and greed. It has been the downfall of civilization after civilization. We today are no different, no matter what some may argue. Give a man the power to do anything he wants, and he will do anything he wants, even at the cost of society or humanity.
The point of Rasch's article is that the FBI is beginning to excercise its imagined "do anything you want" card, and putting several constitutional freedoms at risk.
I suppose that everyone has their opinion, and I do not mean to belittle your views, but I feel very strongly that we should have a society that has freedoms allotted to everyone without discrimination, and is governed by laws that cannot be broken even by law enforcement.
To demonstrate, imagine that you are sleeping in your home with your wife and kids, and at 3:00am a team of FBI agents storm into your house, rifle through all of your documents, terrorize your family at gunpoint calling you a traitor or something, take half of your financial records, and your firstborn son... for evidence.
This example is extreme, but by letting them get away with little illegalities, we are paving the way for them to commit more egregious acts.
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?
If privacy invasion is punishment, this has never been the case. If the law enforcement agencies have reason to believe you've committed a crime, they can generally get whatever permission they need to prove you've done it. That's when they're allowed to invade privacy.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
He's an alleged criminal. So far that claim has not been proven in court, and from the sound of it the FBI can't prove it. They're hoping the court will believe hearsay evidence coerced out of a reporter.
"Yes, he told me he did it."
"There, your Honor, what further proof do you need?"
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
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...
It seems that we don't have any rights in the US either, so don't feel bad, lol.
The FBI could be going after pedophiles and rapists, or missing persons with the money we (US Citizens) have paid to have them around - this guy was doing companies HUGE favors by helping them patch holes in their systems as he discovered them.
They need to offer him a job and put him in the Defense Department - use his skill 'for' us, instead of putting him in jail.
Somehow I expect there to be a FREELAMO site up soon that the Gov't will ignore just like they did FREEKEVIN's site.. lol
I guess Companies would rather find out their expense reports and payroll are accessible through the internet when a 14 year old skiddie posts the exploit to haxor groups globally instead of telling the company - stupid move.... Companies need to consider what holes they have left open - heck pay to have your network tested against exploits and talk to one of the groups (including Mitnick's now that he's out) before they complain about a LOT more than a white-hat helping them...
Sad...sad...sad
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Instead of pushing for this sort of draconian system why don't you save yourself some time and trouble and move to a country where it's already like that? Saudi Arabia comes to mind....
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
Poppycock. I'm not against the death penalty, but lets not kid ourselves. The number of lives saved by the death penalty is very likely to be fewer than the number mistakenly murdered by jury. Death is a punishment, not a protection. Also, you need to remember that it is not just your life you are gambling with in this "acceptable" risk. Then too, you have to add liars to your list to cover the number of non-rapists murdered by a lie, non-child molesters murdered by a lie, and just how are you going to actually tell the difference between a "terrorist" and a revolutionary or someone seeking a little freedom? How will you decide? Are the Palestininans worse than the Israelis, say? How do you tell? Casualty figures? Last I saw the counts were from ten to six Palestinian deaths for every non-Palestinian. Does that make the Israeli military terrorists? If not, why not. A death penalty might make things simple, but that is no excuse for being simple.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.