Slashdot Mirror
Online Journalists are ISPs?
MFS! writes "Long-time C|Net reporter and Politech operator Declan McCullagh has been contacted by the FBI, according to his most recent article. The FBI requests that he retain all records regarding his talks with Adrian Lamo. The problem? The FBI's letter was sent under the auspices of a law which applies only to internet service providers. Says Declan, "Perhaps I'd be immune from the FBI's demands if I used an Underwood No. 5 typewriter instead." Does writing online now qualify one as an ISP?"
The journos could claim indemnity by way of being a mere medium ;-)
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
ISP = Internet Service Provider. Providing a website with content on the Internet is a service.
We've always associated ISP with Internet Access Provider, but is that really accurate? How is it defined withing the law?
Prosecuting a meth maker under weapons of mass destruction. Forcing online journalists to disclose under as if they were ISP's..
At least they weren't wasting any time before they obviously started bending the law..
they could have at least waited until the Patriot Act was permanent before they started pulling this sort of stuff.
On the bright side maybe the Patriot Act *won't* become permanent because of these kinds of actions.
They *provide* a *service* on the *internet*, ergo are an ISP, right? Let's forget that ISPs have always been people that provide an internet connection as a service.
This sig no verb.
It seems that the DoJ under Ashcroft is sneaking through all these hard-core bills because everyone thinks that it won't apply to them, only to find he's turned around and "broadened" the definitions a bit. He is actually encouraging LEAs to get common criminals classed as terrorists.
I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I really don't care much for John Ashcroft.
-- james
Seems to me like the FBI is simply trying to see how far they can go with this. IMHO, they won't get away with it, it's quite a strech to define a journalist as an ISP but who can blame them for trying?
I just read the article, about the reply from their First Amendment Department, and all I have to say is, "Oooo, Smackdown."
ISP does not mean Internet Service Providers. When talking about online journalists, ISP means I Spell Poorly.
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Blow some more smoke up my ass.
The FBI should target itself over drug charges, because it is the only way this could happen:p
-Seriv
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the First Amendment allow journalists to keep their sources, records, notes, interviews, etc. confidential?
Last time I checked we still had a Constitution.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
With Patriot Act 2 he would be a terrorist and lose his american nationality.
I didn't read the article ,but I did hear about this in the register.uk a week ago. The FBI have since stopped it. Acording to what I read it was a lone agent acting without athority. I will believe it when I see it.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Gads, with all these revelations about abuses originated by Ashcroft's own directives, one has to wonder which Constitution he was pledging to when he took his oath.
More than ever now, I shudder to think what will happen if America lets GWB get a second term in office. It's getting bad enough to make one become religious and start praying for his defeat.
Please God, why don't you put an end to America's misery and get rid of this administration for us... please please please please...
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
It is the singular focus of the current Administration, and it seems to have percolated down the whole law enforcement system - to decide first what to do and then figure out how to Bend and Twist laws till they have a fig leaf of a defense .... As the Justice Department Spokeswoman put it in a different situation, but relevant to what is happening " Our policy is to use all legal tools available ... meaning, we will throw the book at you if we could just find something that .... We know what we want to do with your sorry a*** and if you give em a few moments I will find something the the law book that I can intrepret to justify what I have already decided to do ...
From NY Times article archived http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0603-10.ht m
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Is it just me, or is the claim: "Land of the Free" becoming more and more ironic as time goes by?
Or am I using the wrong definition of the world "free"?
Or, perhaps it only applies to the FBI:
Free to bend the law...
Free to ignore official guidelines...
Free to act in a heavy handed manner...
Free to trample all over the public...
Free to revoke personal freedom on a whim...
Free to do whatever we see fit..
Ah yes, that works... Still the land of the free.
In theory, the fact that he is providing a service - of journalistic sorts - here could be a loophole that the FBI could jump on. I don't know what the smallprint is in how an ISP is defined by law, but it's name is misleading currently
Internet Hosting Provider (IHP) is a much more apt name for the kind of things the FBI needs to look at. Service is now too generic a term to be used to define supplying an internet connection.
Surely a little onconvienence and loss of a tiny it of liberty for a few people is worth it is we can stop terrorists. Wont somebody think of the children?
This law, really, REALLY needs to be revised. This was NOT an intended consequence of the law, AFAIK. I thought it was so that Internet connection providers would be able to provide information about internet access to the FBI. Anyone else know more details?
no, the fact is that FBI are getting lazy in evidence gathering and they ask people to keep record of what they do. "Please tell us what you did or face perjury!". Somebody needs to give them a good-old fashioned spanking.
This
The relevant code describes "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service." Does that describe Declan? If it comes to that, only the courts can provide the legal answer. He does have a mailing list, so maybe so (somehow that factoid didn't make it into his column).
I don't know how far the reach of the relevant code extends. If I run an ISP and an ice cream store, can they subpoena records from my store? What if it's an ISP and a computer repair service? Anyway, it probably doesn't matter that much. If the justice department decided that under some other bit of code he was an "exotic dancer," and could find a court to agree, he would be an exotic dancer for all practical purposes.
Of course I'm not a lawyer. Nothing in this message should be misconstrued as legal advice or information. Actually, I'm against misconstrual in general.
Your mangina is an open target if you don't repost it!!!111111111
On the other hand, unless this is really being hyped on CNN and the networks, most people probably don't even know this is happening.
Sigh :(
There is no spoon or sig.
They can do this with a computer crime, yet they can do it with something that threatens national security. Something is very wrong with this picture.
revised sentence: They can do this with a computer crime, yet they can't do it with something that threatens national security.
again I say that I welcome such anal attacks.
this is a treat, not a punishment
In the UK, terrorism legislation is very broadly defined and has already been applied to peaceful protestors.
y /0 ,11026,1038891,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/stor
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
And not liable for the content they transmit. They are however liable for content they host on their servers, but only once they are notified and given a reasonable amount of time to remove it.
The powers the FBI has been granted to boss around ISPs does not apply to content providers (like web sites).
I suspect what the FBI tried to do was demand logs and other information from Declan's, perhaps even demanding they look through his web space. Either they refused, had nothing useful, or maybe he handles his own hosting, the last one which may be grounds for the FBI to call him an ISP (which is probably enough to get a judge to grant the power, but not enough to stand up in court).
This is my best guess as to what happened, and I don't know anything about his situation and IANAL.
Ah, the Underwood No. 5 typewriter...
It weighs as much as a refrigerator and can build up the muscles in your forarms until you look like Popeye in short order.
My mother rented one for me to learn to type on back around '74 or so and, even today, I still pound on my computer keyboards waaay too hard.
The harrassment of this reporter points to a larger and more fundamental problem. In the US, law enforcement takes a "creative" approach to applying law to specific cases. (An abstract of the original NYT article, and the option to purchase is here.)
Law enforcement is charging manufacturers of illegal drugs, and others, under provisions in the Patriot Act -- stretching the law to appear "tough on crime."
When law can be interpreted "creatively" and made to apply in cases for which it was not designed, and for which there are already applicable laws, we are on the path to a government not of laws, but of men! It is anti-American, and moreover anti-liberal.
If the law can be made to mean anything, then it is worse than having no law; worse because the unthinking still give such a government the respect due a lawful society. It's a sham!
Everyone in government, law and society who supports this philosophy -- from ambitious proscecutors, to shyster lawyers, to every last office worker and housewife who couldn't care less as to how criminals are caught and convicted -- is guilty of destroying this country.
We need a push to get honesty back into law enforcement. The alternative is to have draconian laws on the books that can be used to oppress whoever is at the moment among the despised and unpopular.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Remember the writer who was sent to jail because he linked to a protest guide on another site?
1 year in federal prison.
For being a writer and writing things the govt doesn't like.
The government wanted to send him away for 20.
Hammer of Truth
As a 20 year member of the Republican party, this is just too kind:
An apology is too much to ask for. An unequivocal statement from the FBI and Ashcroft that this will not happen again and no subpoenas will be forthcoming--even if proper procedures are followed--is not.
An apology, immediate removal of all parties involved, and a pledge from my party to directly not only remove the mis-named 'Patriot Act', but to apologize en masse for having thought of such a dreadful, stupid, and intellectually void piece of legislation like this, is in immediate order.
Perhaps I'm too vague, but let me, as one of those responsible for voting said representatives into office, be the first to offer my humblest apology for what can only be termed a complete cluster fuck of an idea. In my own defense, they didn't dress like S.S. Wafen, and therefore fooled the shit out of me.
When the wanna-be storm troopers in my party finally realize that long standing members of good repute (great, there goes that) won't vote for invasions of civil liberties any more than we'd vote to re-institute slavery, apparently they'll be out of office. You Democrats will have to handle your own ranks, I've got enough trouble already.
History, read it and remember, you pathetic morons. Zieg Heil!
--
"I am not a crook!" -- Another paranoid Republican doomed to ignominy. Wait, where is that? Iowa? That'll do.
PS: No, I have no intention of stopping these types of diatribes until my elected officials at least pretend to want more freedom for all peoples, journalists, and innocent ISP's.
this entire thing with journalists being asked for records about Lamo was written off as one agent acting without proper authority or authorization. thus, the point Declan is trying to make is a moot point.
It was discussed in this Slashback.
What's a moot point, you ask? Think of a sports match where a bad call or decision is made against you or your team, but you still win at the end of the match. The blown call is now a moot point.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The problem as I see it is that people do not see the law as something to follow, but as an obstacle to go get around.
Evidence can be seen from people trying to find IRS loopholes to get out of paying taxes, to finding ways to abuse the DMCA or the constant attempts by the Justice department to subvert our civil liberties.
There is such a thing as ethics and the spirit of the law and once we decide ignore that we are lost.
due to the FBI's recent actions, throwing subpoenas willy nilly, it might be time to reevaluate the bureau's effectiveness and worth.
This guy is more of an Internet Content Provider. For the FBI to classify him as an ISP and therefore hold him to the same regulations for providing information is ridiculous, but not surprisingly, expected.
Watch out Insane Clown Posse. The /. crowd are about to infringe on your copyright.
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Resistance is futile
- Bush & Co
IIRC, some years ago, tourists with a camcorder in Washington DC accidentally captured some bad guys getting away from a crime while taping monuments, statues, etc. on their vacation. When they realized this, they gave the videocassette to a TV station in Washington, DC.
/end rant)
Police demanded not only the part of the tape that aired on the local news, but also any other footage that didn't air. Police surrounded the TV station and wouldn't let anybody leave. (Is that kidnapping or illegal detention? Doesn't matter, everybody knows the laws don't apply to police.
Eventually a court ruled the police demand was not allowed.
Anybody remember this incident? John Ashcroft seems to have amnesia.
Also, quoting the article: "An apology is too much to ask for." Not if we stick together and demand it! You bring the torches, I'll bring some pitchforks!
Here's a link from Declan's Politechbot archive.
For those too lazy to RTFL, the FBI is now dropping the threat of obstruction of justice charges and asking reporters to voluntarily hold on to any notes they may have, saying they hope to come to an agreement later on access to their notes.
If I were a journalist my reply would be, "Um, yeah, I may keep them, but you'll be in touch with my organization's First Amendment lawyer, and you'll see my notes over my thrown-in-jail-for-contempt-of-court body."
Someone you trust is one of us.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Text & Description
A strict definition is the government shall not pass any law that restricts the content or distribution of information via the press. Last time I checked, online journalists (who you might say provide press services on the internet) are not restricted what they are or are not allowed to publish. In this case, the government is exploring their legal rights to determine the source of the material that is being distributed.
I mean, he's not just trying to shame the FBI into backing off, while at the same time preparing to bend over and touch his toes when they do actually subpoena the information, right? I mean, that would be cowardly and hypocritical, right? Right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It is hard to get good help these days. While I decry the apparent metamorphosis of the U.S. into a police state, I'm not so sure this is an example. I think this incident is a mistake by the FBI agents handling the case, plain and simple.
Unless John Ashcroft or an FBI official says so, I won't assume that this letter represents justice department policy.
TechTV's The Screen Savers had two live conversations with Lamo when he was on the run, and they sent contributor Kevin Rose to walk with him all the way to the door of the FBI offices.
Initially, fans were concerned that they were not discussing these over-the-line subpeonas because of the threats contained within. They since declartively said on the air that the reason they haven't been talking about this story is because they have never seen such a subpeona.
If TechTV had the absolute most access to Lamo in the hours before turning himself in, how could they have been left out of the FBI's threatening spree?
Dear Sweet Jesus,
I humbly beg of Thee,
Protect me from Thine Followers.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Can't this guy just say, "oh, I don't think so, see #5."
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
I'd apologize as well, but I haven't voted with my party since it was taken over by power mad lunatics during the 90s. I was a Clinton Republican (and yes, I still fear for my life, should the OC RP find out.)
You're one Republican I've got respect for. Now get out there and help us with some good old fashioned regime change.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
If the DOJ is so keen to use this law to acquire journalist's sources regarding Lamo, why are they not doing the same thing to figure out who exposed Joseph Wilson's CIA wife?
I suppose that the "threat" of hackers requires more jurisprudence then the violation of a federal statute designed to ensure national security.
(For those unaware of the story; "someone" in the white house exposed the CIA credentials of the wife of the man who revealed the lack of uranium purchases by Saddam, check out this link for details. )
I'm not exactly holding my breath to see if Ashcroft subpoena's Novak's notes regarding THAT incident.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
...goes something like "we'll only use these new laws and powers to go after offender type [x].." Its absolutely hilarious every time the public falls for it. You put these 'powers' on the books, the feds *will* use them as they find convenient, with every county dog catcher eventually wanting to apply these new /anti-terrorist/drug lord/$whatever/ laws to your mother-in-law.
Hide & Watch.
DC
In Malta, ISP's have to pay thousands to the communications authority which regulates them.
It would be expensive for journalists, no doubt.
I presume ISP's don't pay license fees in the USA.
This is done locally to prevent Momma and Poppa shops becoming ISP's and to keep the 'few' select who can pay the fees as the local ISP's.
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
"Does writing online now qualify one as an ISP?"
By writing online, authors are providing content, therefore surely would be more aptly defined as content providers, if indeed author isn't enough of a title for them. If someone writes something that goes into a newspaper or magazine, they're contributing to the content. Why reclassify them because their content lives on a server?
A book author isn't the same as a book publisher, though the author could be considered both if he or she were to go to the lengths of printing and distributing the book.
I certainly wouldn't call an author or content provider an Internet Service provider. Content and the medium or process by which it is delivered are two separate things.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
It seems to me as if the government is using the internet as a way to undermine all of the judicial precedence (not to mention the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) that have been hard fought for over the past two centuries.
I can't understand how anyone who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States can in any way perceive freedom of the press and the protection of sources to not apply in the case of the internet. All of the young soldiers who died for our freedom are spinning in their graves with every nail this administration puts into the coffin of the Constitution and the Internet.
This is a dark day for freedom - in a year of dark days.
I feel like Alice, having dropped down the rabbit hole; everything I understood to be right and wrong is turned on its head - and no one seems to give a damn.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
There need to be some penalty on the FBI. Just sending the letter is a violation of their constitutional rights.
An Ooops, we are Soooooo sorry and no internal reprimands just does not cut it.
Remember this shit at election day and ask your reperentative what they have done (not going to do) to fix this abuse. If no good answer. boot the incumbent, regardless of party.
Help fight continental drift.
Cops lie. Its their job to get results without breaking laws and there is NO law against them lieing to the general public or to suspects.
They also lie while under oath and judges turn a blind eye, but that is breaking the law and thus another story altogether.
A rather interesting article from the NYTimes covered some facts on a journalist's ability to protect sources:
Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order (reg required)
I'd agree with the poster above that this was a "creative" use of the Carrier law by an FBI agent hoping to bully the guy into complying, with little actual legal ground to stand on. However, the reporter is definitely going to get a request for the full notes and info from the interview.
As the Times article points out, a reporter has no LEGAL means of keeping these away from the FBI, if really pressed to present them. We'll see if it gets that far.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
The US PATRIOT act can be used to go after journalists going after some goofy hacker pulling pranks, but it can't be used to go after Novak and the leakers in the White House who are putting our nation's security at risk by leaking classified information?
In truth, neither situation warrants intrusion into journalists' records.
In practice, One gets a free pass to endanger lives if one is doing it to hurt the wives of the White House's political enemies.
The US PATRIOT Act is being abused.
evanchik.net
Does anyone else miss the old days, just a few years ago, when discussions about freedom of speech generally had to do with rap and obscenity, not journalists and researchers?
...
..."
The grip keeps tightening
What was that song in Pump Up The Volume? Oh, yeah. Freedom of Speech -- Above the Law.
"I thought this country was based on freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to make your own religion, freedom to make your own decision, but that's balony, cuz if I have to play by your rules I'd be a phony
-monique
This over reaching by Federal Law enforcement is just the latest in a long line of obscene offences against the bill of rights. Journalists are not ISPs and the FBI lawyers know it. They are just pushing the limits to see how compliant the target will be in hopes they can get away with a fast one. If anyone doubts that the government is in radical need if being put on a short leash and reminded who they work for this is just one more proof. Half of the laws on the books shouldn't be there. We have a government that think it's job is to lock up as many of the citizens as possible and will distort law if thay can get away with it to do it. Screw the Feds.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
News from the US reads like an off the wall Tom Clancy novel nowadays, scary!
The Underwood No. 5 was the typewriter that Steven King used when he was first starting out as a writer. Feel free to mod me down to oblivion, but it's an interesting bit of trivia.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Surprise! A government that corrupt through and through uses the laws corruptly. I'd almost have been more surprised if they acted honorably.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Finally somebody speaks some sense when complaining about the Patriot (a Newspeak name if I ever heard one) Act. Poeple need to realize that they will only suffer because of the idiocy of this regime that is controlling our country illegally. They aren't any safer when their liberties are systematically destroyed. I would laugh greatly if the white house were attacked by terrorists after all the B.S. security measures put in place.
There I said it, now when is the black helicopter going to whisk me away to Gunatanamo?
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Yeah, it's an ISP in the same sense that "internet explorer" is "my internet" and "outlook express" is "microsoft internet express" and the CPU tower is "the boxy thing" and the mouse is "my clicky dealy" and AOL is an "ISP"
In other words, if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, yes, journalists are an ISP.
Have these journalists NOT been paying
attention? Even (and particularly)
Microsoft says that anyone using a MS OS
newer than Win3.1 AND Internet Explorer
ARE ISPs (albeit inadvertently).
Therefore, under the US PAtriot Act, any
person or organizational unit that uses
MS Operating Systems AND Internet Explorer
AND make occasional or fulltime connections
to the internet may come under the perview
of HSA.
All of us patriots need to get off of our
collective duffs and switch from IE (thanks
Eolas) AND that insecure MS XP over to *bsd
or linux or *nix, right?
signed
IANAT (I Am Not A Terrorist)
Well check again. You might want to start with the article:
That sounds like a restriction to me. If Mr. McCullagh had obeyed the letter, this very report of government abuse would have been censored. One must wonder how many times the Justice Department has already pulled this shenanigan.
In this case, the government is exploring their legal rights to determine the source of the material that is being distributed.
The government has no such right. Freedom of the press protects a reporter's right to keep their source confidentional. Again from the article:
Freedom of the press is meaningless if reporters can be compelled to act as government informants. Imagine if the publisher of the Federalist Papers were compelled to reveal his source. The very constitution Ashcroft swore to uphold may have never been ratified.
From your own source:
...That is SUCH a funny and insightful sig! Damn, I wish there were moderation points for "Insightful sig". Not to say that your post wasn't good either, but...
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Now it seems to me that US laws and rights apply to such territories like Guam which, strictly speaking, isn't US territory either. Hell, is Puerto Rico really considered US territory? So do I become a non-person whenever I travel there?
And it seems to me that US army bases, which Gunatanamo is, are like US embassies. Which have traditional been consider US territory, at least when it was convenient during the Cold War.
I'm just thoroughly disgusted with the perversion of logic by this administration. Can anyone play Devil's Advocate and make a case as to why Gunatanamo is "beyond the pale"?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"