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?"

Comments

Define "Service"

[bwalling]

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?

Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he

[hype7]

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

Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he

[LostCluster]

Ashcroft's major malfunction is forgetting that in the American system, we'd rather make the mistake of letting the guilty go free than putting the wrong person in jail. As a result, we make it hard for law enforcement to arrest and hold people. We require that proof be presented to the public when they want to do so.

Now, this makes it difficult to have a "zero tolerance" policy on terrorism. Our justice system doesn't have anything we can do with the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, they're already dead. Our justice system doesn't quite have much it could have done much with the hijackers before they did it, it's very hard to prove somebody is going to committ a murder, and lowering the standards of proof just lets mistakes of capturing the wrong people happen.

If we didn't hold our justice system to such high standards of proof, we would risk people within the government abusing their power. That's exactly what the terrorists want in their governments, and exactly why we're happy with ours just the way it is... we can't let the government just point the finger at people without proof, that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he

[mpe]

Ashcroft's major malfunction is forgetting that in the American system, we'd rather make the mistake of letting the guilty go free than putting the wrong person in jail. As a result, we make it hard for law enforcement to arrest and hold people. We require that proof be presented to the public when they want to do so.

But somehow the US has managed to wind up with a higher proportion of its residents in jail than any other country on the planet.

Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he

[MisterMook]

Nobody at 6 years old wants to grow up to be a criminal. They all want to be one of the good guys.

I believe that if we continue with our current Justice Department trends we can rest assured that all the six year olds will all be safely defined as criminal before they have a chance to mislead themselves with hopes and dreams.

"Creativity" in government

[mariox19]

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.

Your 1st Amendment is already gone...

[smack_attack]

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.

Re:No.

[Politburo]

Funny, I don't see them attempting to use illegal trickery to get Bob Novak to reveal his sources...

Re:No.

[aussersterne]

But of course "free speech" is worthless if you believe that your speech may lead to your own, or someone else's, prison time.

That's the same sort of "free speech" that citizens it totalitarian states have. "Yes, you are 'free' to use your voicebox at any time. Then we are 'free' to nail you and/or your associates to the wall."

Do you really believe that was the spirit and intention of the U.S. Constitution? It seems that recent generations of American citizens have gone from believing that the U.S. Bill of Rights exists to protect the unpopular and the underrepresented, to believing that it exists to preserve the American 'right' to dominate the global discussion, the 'right' to make a profit and the 'right' to suppress dissenting views.

Journalists protect their sources. They, not the U.S. Government, are the true guardians of free speech.

What happened to 200 years of jurisprudence?

[Lodragandraoidh]

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.