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?

Re:Define "Service"

[Jameth]

Section 2703(f) says in its entirety: "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process."

The Article was quite good actually.

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.

Means Justify ends Re:Bending and twisting

[leoaugust]

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

The department itself was unapologetic. "Our policy," said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman, "is to use all legal tools available to protect innocent Americans from terrorist attacks." The aggressive tactics used against people held on minor immigration violations were, civil libertarians said, a natural result of the department's new approach. "When it's in this preventive mode," David D. Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University, said of the Justice Department, "it by definition sweeps very broadly and ends up harming hundreds if not thousands of people."

Knock, knock, yes you are an ISP!

[im a fucking coward]

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 has happened before

[saturndude]

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.

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. /end rant)

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!

The FBI has backed off

[Our Man In Redmond]

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."

No.

[Orne]

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.