Slashdot Mirror
PA Seizes Newspaper's Computers
twitter writes "Computer equipment from the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal was seized for alleged improper data access and disclosure. From the article: 'If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime.' Journalist are understandably upset that confidential information, that has nothing to do with the investigation, will be found and used for retribution."
This seems to me like impounding your car to take it apart to prove that you drove 7Mls over the speed limit.
Or in other words: Harrassement!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
That seems to be the slogan. After all, without them, some not really legal actions taken by governments could be more easily covered up.
So if you can give them the impression that even when a newspaper grants you anonymity, the feds will somehow find out who you are. Sure, you can still execute your freedom of speech.
But will you dare to when it pretty much means your career is over because it's this easy for the government to grab any kind of information they want? So take your share of the cake and shut up. It's better for you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If a newspaper company commits a crime, infiltrating password-protected government computers in this case, should it be allowed to continue because of the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of the Press?
According to the 4th Amendment, the right to be secure in our belongings is still subject to the will of a judge to issue a warrant. The warrant was issued in this case, and the judge has taken personal responsibility to act as escrow for the information that reaches the prosecutors.
I don't know what else can really be guaranteed the newspaper, except that they will have their day in court. Their protests about informant confidentiality is a red herring, designed to take our attention away from the possibility that they were involved in illegal activities.
First off, if the coroner had indeed provided the system's password, wasn't he the one contravening security policy (if not the law)?
Their justification for the computer seizure doesn't explain it at all. If they were concerned about a possible breach (even one obtained through some fraud or password sharing), they'd be able to ascertain the truth more reliably and certainly via access logs from the host systems, or even the intervening logs from the newspaper's ISP. Period.
Searching through the hard drives would be a last ditch effort for a legitimate investigation, since the cache could have been modified or deleted (thus requiring a forensic examination of the suspect systems).
The investigators are either stupid or lying about their true motivations. I can smell a lawsuit of significant proportion.
in the Constitution. Freedom of the press means simply what it says, freedom of the (printing) press. It's an extension to freedom of speech. What good is a guarantee that you won't be imprisoned for speaking if you have to get a license from Congress to circulate your opinion?
The freedom of the press was also the freedom to publish books in our founders' times. There was no journalism as it has come to be known today. The "newspapers" back then were so bad they make the National Enquirer look respectable.
And sure, a free media doing reporting is necessary for a strong democratic system. Too bad we don't have one thanks to reporters' willingness to schmooze with politicians of both parties and obsession with certain political viewpoints over real reporting. Instead of hard-hitting information on Bush or Clinton, what do we get? "Rich white girl kidnapped, film at 11!"
Besides, what they did was a crime and they knew it. Who in their right mind would have accessed a private police network to publish public reports? Gee, you'd think as a reporter that maybe the coroner is setting you up there and you might want to contact the police to get him nailed and not you.
Contrary to the /. headline, Philadelphia did not sieze the four hard drives.
Philadelphia is a city.
Pennsylvania is a commonwealth.
Surprisingly enough, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office works for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the City of Philadelphia. I know it's confusing; after all: they both start with the same letter.
-=Maggie Leber=-
The paper doesn't seem to be denying accessing the site, merely if it had been given permission. The only possible reason for this would be to check who accessed the site using the login and when, something which the government's own server logs should reveal.
Is that the AG said that since the Newspaper did not show proof that confidential information exists, the Newspaper has no claim not to have the drives examined. (Say for confidential information about weak security at the police IT department.)
In similar news, I understand that Congress is going to pass a law making it a crime to disclose illegal spying by the government.
....what's that?
May the Maths Be with you!
It looks like the state is trying to investigate leaks from inside its offices. Last time I checked, wasn't there some sort of confidentiality/privlage attached when you're an "Unnamed Source" for a paper? Wouldn't this be violating a few people's Constitituinal rights?
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
I wonder how many reporters are using encryption on their Filesystems these days? If they are not, now is the time to start. A bit of a hassle, but maybe less hassle than spending 3 years in prison.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
One of the lessons in this story is that any organization involved in investigative reporting needs to keep its data systems under heavy cryptographic lock and key. Quite separate from any possible legal wrongdoing on the part of one or more of their reporters, all their other stories and investigations are now severely comprimised by the seizure, as others have pointed out. Their whole business could be at risk because of the ease with which computer equipment can be taken away.
This inevitably brings to mind today's story about Amazon's new storage service. If Lancaster Intelligencer Journal had stored their encrypted records and work files on such a storage service, would Amazon (or Google etc) have got raided and their computers taken away?
Obviously not (I think), but where does the boundary between yes and no actually lie? What if LIJ stored their encrypted data at some small 3rd party outfit?
This whole area is likely to become a tangled quagmire, as well as sadly a legal goldmine.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Philadelphia does not control the Pennsylvania Attorney General and has no authority over Lancaster county - you know, where the Amish live?
Jeez.
Next up, "Rudy Guiliani orders torture of Al-Queda suspect at Gitmo"
Clear, Dark Skies
Hack into their website.
Whatever happened to 1st Amendment rights? Should people be afraid of what they write?
They need to contact http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
All I know is this'll sure make a good news story. Oh; wait, nevermind.
What doesn't seem to be passing most people's minds is the fact that this is a criminal investigation, not a civil one. As such, its target will be individuals, not the newspaper itself. If the newspaper is anything normal in this day and age, they lawyered up at first notice, and certainly didn't reveal the individuals within the newspaper who were responsible for the illegal access. As for server logs, they don't prove much. How, for instance, will the logs at the server level produce any compelling evidence as to who was physically using the workstations involved? As a criminal investigation with major possible jailtime involved, they can't arrest the entire newspaper, and have to go after individual users. And heck, even if they did have what they believed was sufficient evidence, federal prosecutors tend to want to have all the evidence they can get in case a defense attorney punches a hole through the legitimacy of a given piece of evidence. It's unfortunate that such events would effect the entire newspaper for actions of a few, but if the newspaper had knowledge, they're getting what they sowed...
"Congress is going to pass a law making it a crime to disclose illegal spying by the government."
Not exactly, they're going to make it a crime to knowingly circulate classified information (such as information about the spying program, which is not necessarily illegal). The idea is that the press should be held accountable for the security breaches they facilitate/encourage.
The claim that the program is illegal is based on the notion that congress did not have enough information about it, and did not grant it approval. Given congress' continuing support for the program, I think it's safe to say they had ample knowledge. I don't think it's realistic to argue that the program is illegal. You should let your congressional representative know that you have a problem with the program, and then, maybe, they'll make it illegal.
It really isn't hard to keep your sensitive data safe from the first order of inspection.
One can bleat that the jack boots are calling but don't start whining because your data protection measures are unsound.
With sloppiness like that, what damage a laptop in the hands of a mole.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Pretty sad when newspapers in this country have to start worrying about encrypting their source data. Welcome to Republican Amerika, formerly known as the land of the free.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I think the biggest lesson here is that ALL your files that are important or private MUST be encrypted on your computer. Because the federalies will come looking through them sooner or later. Using a encryption system that gives you plausable deniability like True Crypt is a better choice as you can lead them astray. you can give them a fake password that lets them into the encrypted file but only gives up worthless information keeping the secure documents hidden.
Finally, with today's fervor over terrorism it's best for you to not write anything down, record nothing and deny, deny, deny.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Besides, the Intelligencer Journal is a Lancaster newspaper. -NOT- Philadelphia.
While Lancaster isn't that far (90 minute drive on a good day) it's not a Philadelphia subburb.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
It's not that nobody got it, it just wasn't funny.
All analogies are bad and that was a Really bad analogy.
All analogies are bad and that was a Really bad analogy.
Yep - Using analogies is like comparing apples and oranges.
Who said just because you're the government doesn't mean you can't stab the constitution in the back?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
To freedom of the press.
I hate sigs.
Contrary to the /. headline, Philadelphia did not sieze the four hard drives.
Philadelphia is a city.
Pennsylvania is a commonwealth.
Surprisingly enough, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office works for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the City of Philadelphia. I know it's confusing; after all: they both start with the same letter.
but then so does Pontiac Plymoth and Ptomaine
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
A link for Simple Share NAS would be great, though I'm going to google it as soon as I finish writing this. Also, how strong is the encryption and have there been any administrative issues, flakiness, etc.?
Thanks for the info, btw.
Take another look and see exactly what's wrong with this case (I've bolded the major points):
The grand jury is investigating whether the Lancaster County coroner gave reporters for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal his password to a restricted law enforcement Web site. The site contained nonpublic details of local crimes. The newspaper allegedly used some of those details in articles.
If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime.
In interviews yesterday, the reporters' lawyer, William DeStefano, and the coroner, Gary Kirchner, disagreed over whether Kirchner had given them permission to access the site.
And yet, they move on to draw this conclusion as fact:
"We know the source," she [Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach] said. It is a password-protected Web site, she said, essentially "a bulletin board in a locked room, and it is getting into that locked room and seeing the bulletin board that makes this a crime."
Seems to me that the bar of "reasonable suspicious" has been lowered an awful lot for this case. I wonder when they'll start raiding people's homes on a whim. Oh, wait...
State agents raided Kirchner's home outside Lancaster last month and took computers, he said.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
I keep reading people write "Freedom of the press" like that trumps any illegal activity. Am I missing something here? A couple reporters gets the username/password of the local coroner (with or without his knowledge is in debate right now) and proceed to access a restricted web site. How is this not illegal?
/and on the subject of server logs... This is slashdot, I thought you guys knew better. Even if you track the IP back to the newspaper, all that says is someone connected to that IP accesssed the system, not which system behind the firewall it was (and do they have free wireless in their lobby?)
Is a reporter allowed to run red lights? Can they break into the mayors office to rummage thru his files? How is this any different???
The encryption is invisable to the users. When the box is rebooted, the encrypted shares simply vanish and are not seen on the network until the password is input from the web interface. Another snip from Toms site;
I was initially a little confused about how an encrypted share would work. Would the client have to enter the encryption password, as well as the user password, when mounting the network share? I saw no provision for this, but what I had to do became clear the next time I rebooted the box. When the SimpleShare rebooted, I received an e-mail from it telling me that I had to go into the administration screen and enter the encryption password. Once I did this, the share was available for clients. So this feature is meant to protect your data if someone walks off with your drive - without the password, they won't be able to access it.
end snip
That's the way to survive a raid. Packing it up breaks it if they find it.
I know from experiance (i made a configuration error) that using the reset to reset it to factory defaults does not open the encrypted share. It stays encrypted and can only be opened and mounted by entering the encryption key.
The truth shall set you free!
But how could you do that? Everyone knows that apples are BETTER than oranges, so there is no comparison! (God, I hope I don't have to use a smiley to show that this was meant as humor. Holy crap, is this thing still on...)
Want to make any bets that the manufacturer has a masterkey, or key reclamation mechanism, and will share it with law enforcement if there is a subpoena involved?
This is the kind of thing one reads about happening in China... public officials using the power of their office to quash criticism by leveling accusations of criminal wrongdoing by their critics.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
Our sleepy little town made slashdot...wow!
Here's the paper's website. Nothing is mentioned about it there.
http://lancasteronline.com/index.php
whaa whaaa whaaaaaaaaaaaa. Here comes the WHAAAAAAMBULCANCE. bitches.
6 in a row
When did Philadelphia take over the rest of Pennsylvania and rename it?
The state of Philadelphia should sieze the hard drives of the Slashdot Editors for lousy journalism.
Slashdot = alt.religion.windows.mpaa.riaa.sucks
On the one hand:
"This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this."We have the potential for confidential sources and other non-related data to be exposed to the light of day. On the other hand:
The grand jury is investigating whether the Lancaster County coroner gave reporters for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal his password to a restricted law enforcement Web site. The site contained nonpublic details of local crimes. The newspaper allegedly used some of those details in articles.If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime.
We have reporters, eager to scoop the competition to drive up circulation by exposing little know details of crimes, committing a crime themselves in cahoots with the coroner, who must have been getting something out of the deal.
Either way you cut it, it's a legal quagmire and a constitutional nightmare.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If I'm trying to break into an apartment, and I convince the unscrupulous complex manager to give me a key to get in, the fact that he has violated a trust and abused his authority does not mean that I am guiltless.
It's called "probable cause" to believe that an entity (the paper) was involved in the crime. The state can not know whether the newspaper's computers were also used illegally as the state is claiming the coroner's password was. I can easily guess that some hacker that got the password might also hack some news corp's site that had weak security. Why? Cuz anyone would know that the state will (or should) use extra care when kicking in the doors of the press.
Something else you're missing is called "Innocent until proven guilty".
The paper is innocent, and the siezure would obviously have a serious impact on their business. A judge should take this into account before signing a warrant, especially when the criminal could so easily be someone else.
Even if non-public facts were disclosed by the newspaper, the state does not "know" that hacking was the source unless there is clear evidence. Even if hacking was the source, what indication does the state have that it was the newspaper that did the hacking? They may have been hacked too.
The coroner claims he didn't share the password. Who else would know?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
cuz disk space is so cheap, and privacy is so valuable.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
When you use "like" you're making a simile, not an analogy.
...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal is based in lancaster which is an hour west of Philadelphia. The Philly Jounal is just reporting the issue.
Besides that all of the news papers our here are just conservative media outlets so it's fun to watch them "eat there own".. bowing down under corporate pressure to be eatin alive by others and finally chewed up and spit out by a hungry DA working for another. gotta love it.
Want to make any bets that the manufacturer has a masterkey, or key reclamation mechanism, and will share it with law enforcement if there is a subpoena involved?
If they do, they are not talking about it. When I sent mine in for a configuration error on my part (covered by warranty) I did not provide the encryption key. They let me know they got the software unlooped and could see the unencrypted shares OK. They would be willing to check the encrypted pool if I provided the key. I declined and said it's probably OK and had them send it back. When I got it back I put in the key and everything was fine. They did not indicate any key recovery ability on their part.
The truth shall set you free!
And presumably that unrelated confidential information wouldn't fall under the scope of the warrant. But the cops *definitely* have enough for a warrant. They have traced blatantly illegal activity back to a computer and seized it. Any private citizen would have faced the same. Freedom of the press isn't a blanket right to break the law with complete impunity and immunity.
I mean, think about what you're saying. It's like saying anyone with confidential information in their house (ie, everyone) shouldn't ever be subject to a legal, warranted search. There are mechanisms to restrict the scope of warrants.
In general, if one is worried about such confidential information, I'd strongly suggest not doing completely illegal shit with the computer containing it.
Want to make any bets that the manufacturer has a masterkey, or key reclamation mechanism, and will share it with law enforcement if there is a subpoena involved?
I was thinking too slow.. The software is GPL. Download the source and take a look. I'm not making any bets, but the odds against a back door are heavily in my favor.
The truth shall set you free!
There is a difference between the two at this stage?
Yeah, one wants to tax away all your money then spend it all; the other wants to spend it all then raise the taxes.
Look here..
http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/Broadcom_SOCs
The truth shall set you free!
I thought this was interesting, since the Intelligencer Journal's HQ is about 2 miles from my house. Anyway, it sounds more like the reporter's computers were stolen, rather than Intelligencer Journal's.
State agents raided Kirchner's home outside Lancaster last month and took computers, he said. He said he had had no other contact with authorities since.
I can see the issue of having confidential secrets being found by the government, but at the same time being in the press does not absolve you from having evidence collected on you. The best thing the government can do is find a 3rd party to do the evidence collection (that is trusted by both sides).
More chilling than law enforcement seizing assets from a newspaper for inspection is the sheer arrogance of individuals in the media industry believing that they are above the law. Literally. The first amendment has - time and again - protected our media from censorship. I cannot possibly imagine how one could arrive at the conclusion that the first amendment also protects the media (or anyone else) from criminal investigations. I'm a member of the computer forensics community; I know what is going to happen to the computers in Harrisburg, and the ridiculous allegations thrown about by a few individuals discredit the media community as a whole. I'm sure you're aware of the adage "A bad apple spoils a bunch?" It holds especially true in the media. You have a larger audience than a nameless person unheard by the masses. To see wild claims from someone in the media about government conspiracies and constitutional violations over a matter of criminal investigation do a great discredit to your once noble profession. If the seized computer's slack space, RAM, or more simple tracking means contain data showing access to the web page in question, someone (or several someones) are going to spend an exquisitely long time in prison. Invest in soap-on-a-rope now. Honestly though...simply for the belief that the First Amendment somehow grants the media immunity from criminal behavior, I sincerely wish that the rest of your industry would scorn you, decry you as unworthy, and distance themselves from such unethical beliefs. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. Thus, the growing scorn for American media. Thanks for being a part of the division.
The following link is from the Lancaster papers' website. It has greater detail on the case and more information about what Judge Feudale actually authorized, which was a relatively limited search and in camera review of the findings prior to allowing them to be turned over to the Commonwealth.
r neyID=24) that he knows bupkis about criminal law. Barley Snyder attorneys are usually pretty sharp folks, but they are not who I would select for this sort of case, either for the newspaper company or the journalists in the underlying criminal case.
http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/21327
In addition, the Lancaster papers' attorney failed to secure any witness or provide any testimony that could demonstrate that the computer forensics work could be done in the newspapers' offices as opposed to taking the drives to the AG's forensics lab. You have to at least put up a fight to win. I think that the attorney for the paper knows bupkis about technology and he was completely unprepared to fight the subpoena on that basis. It's an example of having the wrong lawyer and being outgunned by people who specialize in this sort of criminal prosecution.
I suspect also, having read the bio of the attorney (George C. Werner) on his firm's (Barley Snyder) website (http://www.barley.com/attorney/bios/bio.cfm?atto
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
I live in Lancaster, and the coroner, Gary Kirchner, is a bit of a strange individual. He was featured on the news for a "car" he owns. It is basically a golf cart that was converted to resemble a car. It wasn't considered street legal, and he was fighting the DOT to be able to drive it to work. When we saw that piece on the news, a light bulb went off in my head. This is the guy that lives at the house we lovingly refer to as "the compound". It is a slightly secluded house that he decorates strangely. **Disclaimer: I have driven by many times, but never set foot on the property. All of this can be seen from the street. The house is in the woods, and he decorates the pine trees with ten foot tall ornaments at Xmas. He has probably a dozen security cameras sprinkled throughout the property He has a lighted post at the end of the driveway that he puts signs on. He changes them all of the time. They include holiday greetings, birthday wishes, think spring, and other little sayings. I wish I had some pictures of the compound and the car to show you. They would better illustrate the unusual location in which this guy lives. Wow, I never thought Lancaster would make Slashdot. Here is a link to the newspapers site: Lancaster online, and one crappy mention of the issue on their site.
Encryption wouldn't do much good when a judge will just order you to reveal the password(s) under pain of a contempt charge and jail until you concede, regardless of claims of bad memory, etc.
Can't you plead the 5th when asked to give passwords? I've always wondered about that... Can you be forced to give information to the authorities? From my understanding you cannot be forced to testify against yourself.
Or maybe the "right to remain silent" doesn't always apply to certain situations?
Can anyone shed light on this?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I live in Lancaster myself, and I read the Intelligencer everyday.
There's ALOT more to this story then people see and read.
A high ranking person gave an illegal password to the intelligencer, who used it to get into confidential sites. However, the high ranking person is on trial for many many things, and they need to gather evidence against him
Nothing illegal whatsoever. The intelligencer is also willingly giving the computers over, not being forced.
There is no way to plead ignorance for those who improperly accessed the site.
Right, but from my understanding they are seizing a corporations computers and not the journalists. (I'm assuming the newspaper incorporated for tax and legal reasons)
If one of your employee violates the law or EULA it does not hold the corporation liable nor vice versa with its shareholders. Individuals in the corporation can be prosecuted for wrong doing and the corporation can be fined for wrong doing, but they are two exclusive entities.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I work for my local police department as their "computer guy." Well, it surprised me, but they will verbally tell our local newpaper reporters information that would be blacked out if the report is released under FOI. They have an understanding that the reporters can have access to some information, but if it winds up in print, then the entire process will cease until the case is closed. I can't believe that newspaper was quite that stupid/careless. Maybe it comes from being large enough to have multiple newspapers in the city. Our newspaper doesn't have to be quite that cut throat about releasing the information that has been gathered by their reporters. Ex. If an underage rape occurrs that's about all the newspaper is allowed to print even though they may have alot more information. Of course, they know (or should know anyway) that if they release any of the little details as news; then details that the police could use to verify that a suspect had knowledge of a crime scene would be usless if it were all printed in the newspaper. I find this newspaper more careless than anything else. I think the raid on their equipment may have been alittle much though. I didn't read the article though so I don't know what they released. Here is something for you to think about. IF a murder or rapist is let go because of something this newspaper printed, how will you react/think then?
What if that disclaimer was used to hide embarrassing but important facts? My knowledge of those facts may have nothing to do with your silly web page. Does the state get to raid your newspaper because I blew the whistle? Who's going to blow the whistle? Do you really want to live in a TIA world, where the government thinks it has the right to know everthing and decide who can know it?
There are serious issues of limited search and seizure and publication in this case. It is being argued that the state is using this as a fishing expedition.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Main question here is, did the reporters illegally access the restricted access parts of the website?, key words being "illegally access" because as far as i can see they are not actually deneying they accessed the site, rather they are saying they were given the ability and thus permission by the coroner
As the reporters are not deneying accessing the website, why does anyone need to examine the hard drive? Only reason i can think of is either that they are looking for evidence of hacking tools or evidence that the coroner gave them permission electronically (email)
So either the judge does not understand what is what here and has given permission for this when there was no reason to or full facts of the case are not being reported by the reporters, either is equally possible.
As to the "freedom of the press" and confindentality questions, those are not relevant here as neither were created to provide "cover" for reporters themselves commiting crimes
If movies have taught me anything, any accused official/cheatin husband who uses the "Why would I do that?" line, followed by some fuzzy logic is pretty much guilty.
Book em Dano!
I'm all for standing on ones' principals...
A kid in high school stood on our principal, and they put him in jail!
Oh, you mean principle, my bad.
Well, that is a definite plus for the product. I didn't do any research, and assumed that the product was closed source and proprietary.
Those computers offer journalists more than just faster . They can encrypt all their data. Which would require a judge order they produce the key in a formal decision, rather than leave it up to the cops, who always snoop in whatever they touch, and usually blab.
Newspapers saved hundreds of millions of dollars in paper process, and often make millions by publishing digitally. They should reinvest some of that gain in protecting their product from destruction by the competition.
If the industry joined open source efforts to encrypt messaging and research workflow in popular tools, we'd all have a lot more protection, and a lot cheaper, too.
--
make install -not war
The seemingly universal practice of law enforcement seizing whole computers or hard drives would be disallowed on a correct interpretation of the Constitution, IMHO (USA perspective here).
-- 4th Amendment.It should be obvious that files are the modern equivalent of the founding fathers' "papers". Seizing the whole computer or hard drive is, in 18th century terms, like taking the bookcases, writing desks, ink-pots and goose-quills. It imposes an unjustified cost on people who are supposed to be presumed innocent. The reasonable rule would be simply making copies.
Related idea: Imagine a system where you log on with a smart card; the card's key plus a passphrase are used to encrypt each user's data with his/her own key and, say, AES. Newspapers will have to start using something like this.
"Encryption wouldn't do much good when a judge will just order you to reveal the password(s) under pain of a contempt charge and jail until you concede, regardless of claims of bad memory, etc.
I know the bolded text is out of context but it is important regardless of the type of pain. The classic dilema this course of action creates is how can the judge tell encrypted data from random data? If the prisoner decrypts one message and it is not what the authorities "know" is there, do we then lock him up until he reveals the "other key" to decode the random crap scattered across the storage media? If it's a terror plot we are investigating do we "take off the gloves" to get that "other key"? If he does not decrypt any messages how can the judge decide he knows the key in the first place? The logic is the same as what was used in witch hunts, and yes, they did find alot of witches.
"There could also be destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice charges for wiping or destroying the hardrives."
How can you charge someone for wiping their own drive BEFORE it was siezed?
"I'm all for standing on ones' principals, but when you're looking at a long stretch in prison, with a whole life, a career, and a family to consider, priorities can change in a hurry."
Principles are expensive, choose them wisely.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ron's Rule of Rubber Analogies: Analogies always expand to fill the argument available.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I'm not sure if your NAS device is IDE based or SCSI based (internally). ATA drives use a locking mechanism that is not actually on the disk, but on the circuit boards surrounding the disk (I have some experience with locking/unlocking drives for Xbox repair/modification). Some drives dont lock, others will lock, but do not unlock when supplied with the correct password. I haven't had a new drive go into a persistant lock state, but a referbished drive was persistantly locked the first time I locked it, and a older 8gb drive failed to work in a system simply because it would not unlock.
You should be especially careful with any data you keep on a system of this type. I would reccomend at least keeping a mirror of the box to make sure you dont loose the whole thing.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
"In response, the state argued that 'the newspaper has not produced one shred of evidence that the computer hard drives contain information protected from disclosure.'"
YIKES!!! How are they supposed to produce the evidence when the evidence has been seized?
The future of American Law?
"You're the suspect that is described in our warrant."
"No I'm not."
"Oh yeah? Prove it."
"First I need my photo ID cards and paperwork that you stole from me."
"No can do. It's ours now, and anyway, 'in a post 9-11 world, this is a matter of national security'. You're guilty."
I mean, yeah, it's sort of the disney version of Amish country now. Or maybe the Walmart version. But I figured at least some people who don't live in the area have seen Witness. ;-)
It's still a really pretty area if you stay away from the highways, though. My wife and I tend to visit every year (we live in the Valley Forge area).
Clear, Dark Skies
I think the government had a pretty legitimate cause to subpoena the computers (although I fail to see why they needed them; others have pointed out that server log files would work just as well). What bothers me is the impact the subpoenas can have.
Suppose it was 1940 and the crime was that the coroner allegedly gave the reporter a key to the office, and he was accused of going in and photocopying secret documents. He (allegedly) brought these back, put them in the filing cabinet drawer of his desk, and included information from them in his typewritten news articles.
The government gets a warrant, to seize the relevant articles. They probably wouldn't be able to take the entire desk, with all the file cabinets, and the typewriter on it. That would be completely unnecessary, as they only need certain files. Furthermore, it would (at least temporarily) destroy the reporter's ability to do his job, as the primary instruments of his job are now in a state lab.
It would be *nice* if warrants were issued to allow them to produce a *copy* of the disk on site, and then take it with them for analysis. (Or, better yet, to only copy the file(s) they needed, but requiring that a copy be made rather than taking the actual drive is a good enough start.) I don't know if this will actually come to pass, at they're probably interested in lower-level stuff.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
We're getting a little off topic here, but I suspect you're getting analogies confused with metaphors. Metaphors and similes are not the same thing. Metaphors and similes can both be used to express an analogy: http://www.answers.com/analogy&r=67#Grammar. An analogy has nothing to do with grammar, nor is it a figure of speech; it's just a similarity or comparison drawn between two things, which is often used for logical inference.
Judges, police chiefs and others -- when you took the oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, this is what is referred to by "domestic".
Yes, but I'd imagine that the law enforcement officials were equally upset when they found that reporters had access to data on their restricted website. The important thing here is that due process was falled, a warrant was applied for and obtained. So I don't really see how the reporter's rights were violated, as it applies to them no differently than anyone else. If the cops raided a person's computer (on warrant) during a murder investigation, or busting a kiddy pr0n ring, would it be any less necessary if said hard-drive contained perhaps confidential info such as:
a) Bank records
b) Business/work information
c) Protected source code
You can bet in those cases that the police would want all the evidence they could get. If the ISP records go sour, having the physical drive with additional evidence would be a good secondary. Police don't and shouldn't skimp by on the smallest amount of evidence they can get, but rather put as much together as they can to make a tight case. If they found confidential police records + saved passwords in the cache on that machine, it makes their case that much tigher.
Again, at the moment, the police have followed the rules properly. If later it's found that this case is a sham, and several dozen 'whistleblowers' were arrested using the data from the newspaper hard-drive, then you can start up your conspiracy machines.
you were saying? Oh, I forgot. They're communists. Americans don't harass their press. This is a "legitimate" criminal investigation. More like a fishing expedition, I say.
What?
Which is all just sloppy on the part of the journalists. If you have sensitive information on a hard drive that might be siezed, then encrypt the d@mn thing! Or is that too much trouble to protect your sources?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The first thing I thought when I saw this headline on my google home page...Why would penny arcade do such a thing?
I try not to laugh in death's face. I tend to make belittling comments and snicker behind death's back.
Exactly what I thought. America is not the world. You're lucky I recognise the names of all the states, now you want me to remember their acronyms as well? I can understand that it's difficult as a website editor to know what to write, what things people from other countries will or won't know, but some attempt at acknowledging the existence of the millions of non-US English-speaking people would be nice.
All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
I get this paper
The very last line in the article is chilling - "In a one-page order dated Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, freeing the state to examine the hard drives."
First the elections in 2000, and now aiding and abetting the dismantling of the right to free speech.
Way to go, GW - you really packed the court with "objective" jurists - as long as they rule to keep restricting freedoms.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
I mean, the moment a journalist is involved in any form of investigation, every one cries out, "freedom of the press, freedom of speech, how dare they!"
Look, if a reporter breaks the law in order to get the news, then no, they don't have that freedom. Being a journalist does not entitle them to break the law, period.
Unfortunately, the only way to investigate these claims is to seize the computer equipment, which violates the journalists privacy because there is information that has no business being looked at. But there obviously was merit or seizing the equipment.
I just don't buy the whole freedom of speech angle in this story. If it turns out that PA didn't want the journalists to publish a story, and so used some fake warrant to seize computers, then I will jump on the free speech bandwagon. But if journalists are being investigated for possible criminal behaviour then they have no right to cry about about their lack of freedom of the press or freedom of speech. People too often hide behind this crutch, especially when they are guilty of criminal behaviour.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I don't know what the legal implications are but I look at it like this: which is the worst?
.....or.....
In other words, what is the punishment for not revealing the information? And assuming they have a real reason for holding/investigating you, what is the punishment if they find you guilty of whatever they are charging you with? Because they most certainly will get a conviction if you give them the info they are asking for.
Back in college, we had an attorney come talk to us about drunk driving and what to do if you ARE DRUNK and get pulled over (yes, I know you shouldn't be drunk driving but that is beside the point). At that time, the penalty for NOT taking the breathalizer was loss of your license for 6 months. The attorney also mentioned that most juries (in his experience) did not hold it against people who did not take the breathalizer. However, they DID hold it against you if you failed the breathalizer. So the equation became real easy:
a) Don't take the breathalizer. Be found innocent and lose your license for 6 months.
b) take the breathalizer, fail, AND get convicted.
So his advice was this: never-ever take a breathalizer. Even if you are innocent. Losing your license for 6 months was MUCH better than "risking" it and getting yourself convicted.
I think the situation you describe is very very similar. But I don't know what the penalities are for withholding passwords or encryption keys. Over in the UK, they are quite steep. But I don't know about the USA.
I already checked on the encryption when I saw the product mentioned further up the page.
The encryption is AES. Assuming they've implemented it correctly, it should be adequately secure even against governments, as long as you follow the usual password security precautions.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It depends whether the purpose of the exercise is (a) to prevent authorities from gaining unauthorized access to your data, or (b) to prevent authorities from denying you access to your data.
A backup given to a friend is OK for (b), but useless for (a). You need encryption for that.
The point of encryption is you don't have to think that anything's about to happen, you don't have to find a friend and hand over a disk.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I guess I've been reading too many webcomics lately. Need to cut down.
Check this out ... a similar idea, already implemented and ready to go. An encrypted volume within an encrypted volume; its impossible to detect its existence without knowing its there and the relevant key.
I saw the article title and was like, "Penny Arcade did what?"
Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
First the elections in 2000, and now aiding and abetting the dismantling of the right to free speech. Way to go, GW - you really packed the court with "objective" jurists - as long as they rule to keep restricting freedoms.
So you're saying that GW packed the court so he could win the 2000 elections. Wow, if he had that kind of power already, why did he want to be president?
Also, as has been mentioned earlier, just because someone is a journalist doesn't make them immune to criminal investigation. If this was truly a fishing expedition then I hope the parties responsible are reprimanded. But GW doesn't have any direct connection to the coroner's office, the newspaper, the state attorney generals office, or the state supreme court.
Incredible how fogged your head is. Try to calm your hatred.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
He's hiding something.
Off to Guantanamo with you, buddy.
ah, shit, I mentioned Guantanamo (twice!), d'yer think they'll log this post and use my IP to find me and remove my hardware?
"I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
I've risked my life to promote them many more times than they've ever even thought about risking so much as their toenail to save me.
The only time they ever put themselves in danger is when their job depends on it. In all other situations they seek out the easiest possible prey.
The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
Well, no. But it didn't hurt that the key state in Florida had a recount controlled by GW's brother, now did it? And that there were all sorts of voting irregularities that would have stood out in third-world election, much less is this increasingly un-democatic country. I don't think I can get calm again until this lying administration is out of office. But maybe you want more of the same? Hey - Bill Frist just won the Repugnicants straw poll! He's your man! Does it matter to you that he still hasn't been Is he the best the candidate repugnicants have? Snap!
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
The best candidate the Repugnicants have!
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
It can also be opened by a court order to give up your key.
What?
While I consider an investigation, with probable cause, of a journalist's possible crime proper, what I was objecting to was the seizure of *everything*, i.e., entire servers and hard disks. This is definitely overbroad and abusive: the cops and the judge (if warrant was issued - TFA doesn't say) absolutely had to know that the servers and disks were not used exclusively on one story where one crime may have been committed. All other data on those disks and all other services provided by those servers was innocent under any theory of law.
As others have said, just the server logs alone are probably enough evidence to convict or clear whoever may have been involved.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Well, I'm not arguing politics, just pointing out logical fallacy. And rather than defend your statements, which I assume you believe in, you jumped straight to a completely different point. Typical. Just because you hate someone, that doesn't mean that all arguments against them are true. /. will cause the politicians to realize how money/power hungry they are. The original intent was for a politician to come from the common people, serve a term or two, and then go back to his life. I think we'd have a much better government if we could follow that pattern. Career politicians are a huge part of the problem, be they Bill Frist, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, whoever.
Calm the anger, think more clearly.
All political parties are corrupt. Both sides (don't know how this got to a two-sided argument, seems like there's lots of room in between) have been plagued by problems and scandal when they are the ones making the rules. Look back 50 years, the pattern is obvious. Maybe I'm a little fatalistic here, but I don't think political rant on
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
I don't hate GW - although given what he's done to this country, hate might be justified in his case. Hate doesn't solve things. I do believe that this mis -administration will be one for the record books - inept in every sense of the word, and even given that career politicians do tend towards corruption, this one is so over the top that the mind becomes numb to the drum-beat of corruption and ineptitude.
Even with Bush's poll numbers sinking lower each day, Faux News and the other branches of the right-wing media machine continue to pump out the message of bad is good, war is peace, and every other Orwellian nightmare made real.
Impeach the bum - Clinton's impeachment was based on a dress that needed dry-cleaning - it resulted in no one being killed, bombed, maimed, or tortured. Bush's impeachment would be based on breaking the laws of this country he swore to uphold when he placed his hand on a holy book.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington