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."

Comments

FBI == Federal Bureau of Intimidation

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never spoken to Adrian Lamo, but I am sure that by writing this article, I am making myself a target for subpoenas, search warrants (government, take note that the law prohibits search warrants for reporter's notes) and demands to preserve evidence. All I have to say is, quoting President George W. Bush, "Bring it on."

Mark Rasch has got some balls!

Get the EPIC newsletter...

[Dave21212]

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):

The White House's push for greater Patriot Act powers follows in the wake of allegations that law enforcement agencies increasingly use Patriot Act tools to capture and punish run-of-the-mill criminals rather than terrorists. The Justice Department concedes that it has applied its expanded powers to smugglers, defrauders, bookies, con artists, and drug dealers.

What I'm worried about...

[Unknown Kadath]

...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

Journalists' rights not unlimited

[Stickster]

The courts, not the FBI, determine to what extent the interest in a free press outweighs the interest in bringing criminal suspects before the justice system. Journalists' right to keep their sources secret has not been found to be one that is absolute. For instance, check out a quick syllabus on the matter at this link. (That's only the first one I happened upon in Google. Doesn't anyone STFW before they write anymore?)

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.)

Re:Great journalist acid test

[TygerFish]

The result of this of course is that every journalist sued for not turning documents over as a result of the unconstitutional subpoena...

I think that there is a measure of confusion in the above statement which needs immediate clarification. The reason that the (mis-) use of provisions in the Patriot Act, to demand that the reporters in question preserve their notes, communciations etc. preparatory to turning them over has nothing to do with a lawsuit. Lawsuits are the results of 'Torts', acts of commission or omission where one party or another suffers some damage and seeks redress in a court through legal means.

What is scary about the article, if it is true, is that the FBI is using the Patriot act to demand that the journalists preserve their information to hand over to the Department of Justice and threatening them with prosecution for obstruction of justice if they refuse to comply.

Obstruction of Justice is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.

In a tort, you pull out your checkbook to satisfy a judgment against you. 'Satisfying the judgment' in a federal criminal proceeding more often than not requires that you surrender your person for use by the federal corrections system. In other words, you go to prison.

The thing that makes this ugly, shocking, egregious and a good reason to vote out the current administration A.S.A.P. is that the article demonstrates that the Patriot Act is living up to the worst nightmares of its detractors by having its broad application effect things beyond its scope (i.e., journalists treated as ISP administrators) while it is used as an end-run around the Constitutional protections afforded the Press which allow Americans access to information without government interference; this system allows journalists to access individuals without their being forced to aid in criminal investigations regardless of the severity of the individual's alleged crime.

The real problem here is that by using the patriot act to tunnel under the constitution and demand Journalist's records, the FBI is doing what they simply should not be able to do in the United States: they are threatening reporters with imprisonment for not turning over constitutionally protected information.

This could be ugly. If the Patriot Act can be used to turn news sources into nothing more than an advertisment board for Georgie's trips in flight suits we should all look up the procedure for asking Canada for asylum.