Slashdot Mirror
Using Technology to Protect Anonymous Sources?
A not-so Anonymous Anonymous Coward asks: "The New York Times has a story describing how newspapers are looking for new ways to hide the identities of anonymous sources from prosecutors. This seems like a something the Slashdot crowd might know something about. How can a newspaper setup an IT system that completely hides every trace (including emails, phone calls notes, logs and so forth) of an anonymous source's identity?"
The best thing is to ditch anonymous sources.
Places like Stealth Surfer ( http://stealthsurfer.biz/anonymous_email.html ) offer off-shore anonymous and encrypted email addresses, free of cost. Usage of free and public computers, such as public librarys and even Wifi hotspots, can help cover tracks. But sometimes it all depends on how determined someone is to invade your network. The most secure computer is one not connected to the internet - that's why I recommend AOL Dialup! You'll never be exposed to the internet again!
The first two things that come to mind:
Even then, it is not possible to be completely anonymous. It is always possible to match things like print head patterns, fingerprints, typewriter head impressions, and so on. Like anything else security-related, there are only varying degrees.
In the case of deep throat - he was reporting on a crime that someone else committed. At no point did deep throat cross a legal line in reporting what he did to the Washington Post
In the case of the CIA leak - lets just say that who ever their source was COMMITTED a crime by leaking the name to the reporter. By committing a crime, he should be reported and punished to the full extent of the law.
Back to your regularly scheduled First Ammendment ramblings
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
*ack*
I can't say that with straight face and without choking.
Anyhow, if sources are so anonymous that they cannot be verified as to identity by the news people, and when has this ever stopped them, then how do we ever know it isn't some geek with a crude sense of humor who has managed to master nym and mixmaster remailers?
If they are known by the reporters, then the court order comes into play and they can testify or go to jail. That simple. We're not talking lawyer-client or doctor-patient or married couples here, we are talking about quite plainly, people whose entire job it is to print the most sensational things in their area that they can to sell newspapers and increase paying readership. Not saving people from the noose, not saving people's lives, not keeping a marriage together.
I place reporter-source privilege on the same level as that of gossip-mongers in my own neighborhood and as much importance on it. Reporters say their profession is about truth and facts. Well truth is ephemeral and in the mind of the person at hand and facts things that people may very well ignore in choosing their truth for themselves. If they want to be so high and mighty, let them put out verifiable bonafide facts and cut down the use of anonymous sources.
If news people see it as needing some way to circumvent court orders using encryption, then how trustworthy can it be? Sounds more like shielding their backsides and giving themselves greater latitude in abusing "anonymous sources" which they do too frequently these days as it is. Let them start acting ethical and aboveboard in the fourth estate to begin with and not looking for ways to cover their behinds.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
It is not primarily an issue of preventing evesdropping. That is not hard. It is not a problem of controlling access.
The bigger problem is not defeating a technological threat. It is a problem with defeating a court order. If anyone has access to the information (including the original reporter) then this information can be dubject to subpoena (IANAL). To my knowledge court orders don't tend to be defeated by some brand new technological system used. Even the reporter's recollection and testamony could be subpoenad. And if you hide things from the editorial staff, what sort of quality control do you get?
Use the right tool for the job. To defeat a technological threat, use a technological countermeasure. To defeat a legal threat, hire the best attourney. Better yet, don't enter into confidentiality agreements with those who are pursuing their own nefarious goals such as Carl Rove. Protecting whistleblowers is one thing. Protecting those in power as they seek revenge against those who dispute facts with them however is not nearly the same thing. A better way of handling this in order to have a good defensive position is to make sure that every reporter who may enter into such an agreement is given legal and editorial advice beforehand.
Just my lay opinion.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sealand,
of course, the US would have little difficulty invading it if they so desired, but to do so they'd be operating in British waters.
FGD 135