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."
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.'"
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?
I'm feeling better and better about being an American every day. $^(
When do we fire up the ovens?
"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?
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
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.
We should just give the FBI all possible power. After all, they are above reproach. They would never abuse the system anymore.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
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.
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...)
...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.
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 :)
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.
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.
.. 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.)
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
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"
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.
"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?
Irrelevant. This article does not go into whether he is guilty or innocent. It is the process by which the prosecution is going about collecting and controlling evidence/information that is at issue. Allowing the FBI to manhandle reporters is just another step towards creating the corporated sponsored police state the powers that be want. The patriot act needs to die a quick and painful death...along with its supporters.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
No, but they are issuing a blanket supeona for all TIVO's that recorded the show. Hell, this might even bleed over to the other TechTV show and they'll get a court order for a full body cavity search of Martin Sargent.
<sig>no sig</sig>
...that every time the Feds go after "terrorists," all their guns are aimed at innocent citizens?
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.
I wouldn't give the FBI any power at all until they figure out what happened to their 317 laptops and their 450 firearms.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
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
> 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.
Why, exactly, do you (appear to) believe the journalists should be punished?
Withholding evidence and hindering a federal investigation, if my TV Court Drama Memory serves me correctly.
By and large, officers of the law, including members of the FBI, want to catch criminals and get as much evidence as possible towards making sure they are prosecuted for their crimes. They have a new tool for use in getting that information, and they are going to use it as frequently as possible for as long as the laws are around.
Think of it this way: people have collected a lot of information that will help determine if this person is truly a criminal and the FBI couldn't otherwise get to it. That would be very annoying. If you want to be more cynical, then you can say that people have collected a lot of information that can be used to prove his guilt, and it annoys them that they can't get to them.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that, as things stand now, it's the law (or a reasonable approximation of the law). Before, Journalists have been, by and large, protected. Now they aren't necessarily as much.
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
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.
> 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
...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.
IANAL, but 42USC2000aa protects the reporters against this sort of thing. Patriot Act or no, the subpoenas are illegal under that provision.
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...
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.
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) 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
The Register has a good article related to this whole mess. Granted it's obviously got a heavy liberal slant, but it raises some interesting points. People have already pseudo-jokingly asked this question, but how IS the weather in Canada? Each day I realize my neighbors up north live in a country that's currently less scary than the great US is.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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/
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
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.