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."

32 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Great journalist acid test by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:Great journalist acid test by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, the words from an Anon. Coward cut me so deeply! Pay attention here son, because I'm not going to explain this to you twice. Being a journalist means you have to make some distasteful decisions. You must revere the truth above all else, because if you don't, you're just jerking off. If you're going to be a journalist, be a journalist, not a stoolie for the feds. If you can't handle that, find another job.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Great journalist acid test by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're going to be a journalist, be a journalist, not a stoolie for the feds. If you can't handle that, find another job.

      I'm afraid you still don't see where the true danger lies. A journalist facing this sort of dilemma will rather find another topic. If computers are your speciality you don't have to write about Lamo. Why not choose something safer, like what Steve Jobs said in his keynote or what will be implemented in the next Windows release. And this could be what FBI really is after - they are sending a message to the journalist community "guys, stay clear from this or you we will turn you into our informers". And this makes sense - they want to have more "what Steve said in keynote" articles and less "how to bypass security measures in computer network" features.

    3. Re:Great journalist acid test by untaken_name · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be nearly as fallacious as saying all politicians are corrupt regardless of their party affiliation.

      Nearly as fallacious? What, so there's something more truthful than Gospel truth? Because politicians are inherently corrupt these days. Any person seeking a career in politics has become corrupt. Politician as we understand it today would have been a laughable concept when our government was created. Our founding fathers had day jobs, which they returned to when not serving the public. It was never meant to be a career path, merely something that civic-minded, responsible citizens did as a service. Anyone who approaches it as a career, as personal betterment, or as a way to improve their standing/station is already corrupt. So sorry, but there are few statesmen left.

      On a side note, the OP did not say that all policemen have no integrity, merely that we don't expect all policemen to have it anymore. I would have to say, knowing things that have been done to myself and to others I know, that I would not assume a random police officer to have any regard for myself, my rights, my person, or my dignity. That statement does not mean that all police officers are bad, merely that at one time you could put your life into the hands of nearly any police officer without reservation, and these days it would be unthinkable by many people. Are you shocked, or even surprised, when a story of police corruption, police brutality, or police mistakes is broken? I'm always saddened, but rarely surprised. The OP did imply that most journalists had integrity, but a representative sampling of news stories from various sources on any given day should give the lie to that notion.

  2. Scum by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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,
    1. Re:Scum by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Remember who supported these fascist laws when you vote.

      Good luck, the previous administration did just as much damage under the 'War on Drugs' guise. One could say the Patriot Act stands on its predecessor's shoulders.

      Who ya gonna vote for next!? (Ghostbusters!!)

    2. Re:Scum by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember who supported these fascist laws when you vote.

      The problem is that virtually anybody supported them. The PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming majority - the Senate accepted it almost unanimously (with Sen. Russ Feingold as the only but notable exception), the House okay'd it with 357 to 66. Welcome to the hell of American politics - you can vote either Democrat or Republican which makes no noticeable difference. Or you can vote independent and then you might as well stay home, they probably won't even count your vote. And even if they'll count, it will make no difference whatsoever.

      And don't think it was any better in 1980's, 1940's, 1920's or in XIX century. It wasn't, even if Eugene Debbs and guys like him sometimes managed to get the whopping 10 per cent, it still changed exactly nada point zero.

    3. Re:Scum by Jameth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then, it is all the more important to actively support those who didn't back the PATRIOT act. They showed bravery under fire (honestly, they did). If they do not get re-elected, that says more against this country than that the PATRIOT act was passed in the first place.

  3. Can you blame them? by SoIosoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Can you blame them? by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather blame some of the private sector lobby groups who infleunced some of those provisions in order to 'protect' their position and powers in the marketplace.

      Here was a law, by all intents and purposes, created in order to deal with potential domestic terrorist-related threats, and here it is being used to go after a citizen in a situation that has everything to do with the domestic marketplace and damaging the image of a corperation.

      I don't condone what he did, but it is rather amusing to see the Patriot Act being used as a means of persecuting somebody that, by all accounts, could and should be prosecuted in a judicial system untainted by the broad powers of the Patriot Act.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Can you blame them? by TilJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tried, but I can't agree with you. A power granted does not need to be used. An example is the imposition of martial law. It could be used to "solve" all sorts of legal problems. Laws can be intended for use only in truly exceptional circumstances, after all. A government agency should be noted for it's commitment to serving citizens, it's ethics and it's restraint IMO. One could could argue that it's the fault of the lawmakers for not wording it correctly, but that implies that we expect government agencies to behave like out-of-control power-hungry caricatures. I don't think we (as a society) want to expect that.

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
  4. Not to get nitpicky but by Gogl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?

  5. Balking at providing requested documentation ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. What real use has this act been? by BrynM · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Other than holding a bunch of foreign nationals in Cuba without being charged with crimes, investigate Paypal and prosecute one domestic terrorist, has the USA PATRIOT Act (goddawful acronym) been used for anti-terrorism efforts at all? How has this helped us track down Osama? How about Saddam? How about busting up just one real terrorist cell? It would seem that it's abused more than it is properly used. Another Act to illustrate how we Americans deal with a problem by applying our ideas to other problems instead.

    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...)
  7. Re:First Amendment Rights by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Remind me, who (allegedly) committed the crime here, Lamo or the journalists?

    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.
  8. Re:Today's lesson. by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More like don't let your government become too dependant on private interests and lobbying, because then .. gasp, it ain't a (representative) government any more.

    One reason that the government is going after him is that private interests have lobbied to have laws set that make what he did a very severe crime under law. I recall reading that he committed the very same thing with a few other companies' networks, and they worked with him to correct what he found, not took a spazz and sic'd the FBI on him.

    For those who don't think the Patriot Act was influenced by private interests .. well, lets just say priotism was a very good smoke screen under which was slipped legislation that private sector lobby groups wanted. (The RIAA is a very public, obvious example of this.)

    Is the government people for the people, or is it people for the industry/economy? It's hard to tell anymore.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  9. How about "Great citizen acid test" by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    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
    1. Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh No.
      Part of the point here is that it's not a law the applies to anyone but an ISP.

      It's a strong arm that may be followed up with a legal document.

      The main thing to remember is that, it's an unlawful threat, so it SHOULDN'T be followed up.

      --


      "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    2. Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" by Electrum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This journalist should break the stupid law that elected officials signed in, and the general public has done very little about?

      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.

    3. Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Civil disobedience only works if you're dealing with essentially rational people; the assumption is that even if the law itself makes no sense, the people enforcing it can eventally be made to see reason. Otherwise, it's hopeless.

      When Hitler was coming to power in Germany, lots of German journalists thought that if they made enough noise, their fellow citizens would come to their aid and stop the Nazis before things got really bad. Those journalists died in the camps. Ditto for those Russians who believed the Revolution's promises of equality and freedom, and protested when Lenin started breaking those promises in rather dramatic fashion.

      Civil disobedience is an American tradition because, for most of American history, the assumption of rationality has been true. I'm not at all sure that's still the case.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. WHOOSH!!! there goes the baby by benking · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Yes, you can by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  12. I picked a nice time to leave by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Not a first amend issue by G00F · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:First Amendment Rights by sprekken · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Spoken like a true law enforcement troll...

    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.

  15. Re:Lamo is a criminal by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. Irrelevant by TamMan2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  17. Re:Hmm by Honest+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  18. The USA PATRIOT ACT has a Scary Similarity... by canfirman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...to a movie I once saw.

    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.
    1. Re:The USA PATRIOT ACT has a Scary Similarity... by maraist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am not suggesting we would see a WW2 type atrocity happening in America.

      I'll one further your general argument by disagreeing with this line.

      Though somewhat of a rambler, "Gore Vidal" has written interesting books on the imperialistic nature of the United states. "perpetual war for perpetual peace", for example, supposedly lists hundreds of "mini wars" that most American's aren't even aware of.

      WW2 was an issue because germany wanted to extend it's influence on neighboring countries. The only difference between the US and that is the size of the countries we "enforce control over". It's essentially 1700's imperialism all over again. We sophisticated Americans bringing "third world countries" (a more PC version of the old phrase "savages") back into alignment... Read: "You're either helping us prosper, or you're our competition".

      The sick irony is that this is exactly what we accused communist countries of doing throughout the cold war.. "We must fight this slightly immoral war, for fear that communism MIGHT spread"; pre-emptive killing being the letter of the day.

      It's only in high profile cases such as Iraq that any Americans ever care. Other countries (especially those affected by our policies) have been crying fowl about this for decades.

      Unfortunately I can't imagine any way of preventing this.. "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Even if we were to "shake things up" on capitol hill, the successors would faced with the daunting task of "giving up political influence". Would you be willing to give up your biggest bargaining chips merely for a good cause? Would you cast the ring into mount doom?

      The best I can figure is one of my favorite phrases, "A little revolution every now and again..." - Thomas Jefferson

      --
      -Michael
  19. Truth? Then why not turn over the papers? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > 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.

    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.

  20. Lame-O? What about Plame-O? by phr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Instead of going after some silly computer cracker, why aren't they using this Patriot act to find out who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, in retaliation for her husband criticizing Bush about lying in his SOTU address about uranium from Niger and starting a war?

    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.