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.
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
Um...no. When talking to a reporter you're not protected in any way. It's not like talking to a lawyer or a doctor...or even a clergyman for that matter. Reporters are threatened all the time with contempt-of-court unless they give up their sources. When was the last time a lawyer was threatened with contempt unless he spilled everything his client told him about a crime? It's privileged. That's protected. Talking to some yahoo who thinks he's the next Woodward & Bernstein from the Washington Post isn't privledged.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong about all this. Take my advice when I say: "Don't take my advice".
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Hack into their website.
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.
All analogies are bad and that was a Really bad analogy.
Yep - Using analogies is like comparing apples and oranges.
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???
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.