Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Journalists are ISPs?

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the declan-brand-dialup dept.

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?"

4 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Define "Service" by bwalling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  2. Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by hype7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he by mpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.