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.'"
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
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.
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"
uh, yeah...when you get a subpoena you are allowed to consult your lawyer. Under the patriot act you are not allowed to tell anyone that you were subpoened. They are threatening reporters to not tell anyone, not even their lawyers, that they are being subpeoned. there is more to it but i don't have time to post.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.