Justice Dept. Asked For Broad Swath of IndyMedia's Visitor Records

DesScorp writes "In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism, the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena. It requires a list of all visitors on a day, and further, a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request.' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair, a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena,' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."

Comments

Not to disclose the request

[Meshach]

The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request". They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels. But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.

Re:Not to disclose the request

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Conveniently, though, the request for secrecy offers a reasonable chance of keeping the fishy smell from attracting broader notice.

In this case, Indymedia is the sort of outfit that would be ideologically opposed to just knuckling under and they got actual legal help from the EFF(even then, though, once they dropped the initial request, the EFF's lawyer had to push to get them to back off from threats around disclosure). How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?

This can't be the only time that that demand has been made.

Re:Not to disclose the request

[HangingChad]

How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?

Considering most of the major telecos went along with wholesale spying on the American public, I'm guessing the number of organizations even challenging a request like that is going to be pretty small.

I thought the courts already vacated the secrecy demands, except in terrorism related cases. Either I'm mistaken or the Justice Dept. figures there's no downside to bluffing.

Re:Not to disclose the request

[commodore64_love]

I wish y'all would stop bashing Obama's Justice Department.

Yes there are problems, but he's aware of them, and he's doing his best to solve these problems in his own way. He doesn't need us criticizing him, so just cooperate with the subpoena instead of making a fuss about it.

/end sarcasm

And why are websites still keeping this info?

[garcia]

I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena? Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it. Then, when the feds come knocking, you simply reply, "I'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to /dev/null. Have a nice day."

Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not interested in seeing your rights eroded?

That's right, just close your eyes.

I don't get it

[amiga3D]

Why would anyone be shocked by something like this? It's not like it hasn't happened before. One thing about LIberals and Conservatives, they both like control. Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods aren't that different.

Re:That's change I can believe in

[caldodge]

Yes, they're separate. That's why it's sheer coincidence that criminal charges against Obama supporters (Bill Richardson, the Philadelphia voter-intimidating thugs) were dropped in spite of objections by career DOJ lawyers.

Re:This is change

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Ha, ha, you are a funny man.

Given that, at present, all but one of the states has at least one "fusion center"(and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed, military, and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun, I'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~0. With the exception of libertarians that the republicans don't listen to, and civil libertarians that the democrats don't listen to, there is broad support, in government and among the public, for pretty much anything that promises "security".There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy; but that is largely cosmetic.

With few (and politically irrelevant) exceptions, there are basically no actual "states' rights" enthusiasts. There are plenty of people who reliably take up the "states' rights" banner when they aren't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are; but that isn't exactly the same thing

Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise.

[Attila Dimedici]

My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.

Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.

Re:That's change I can believe in

[Plunky]

No. The irony is that the right wing and the left wing are identical.

No, the irony is that you guys don't have a left wing, or even a middle of the road party, its all far to the right.

Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats

[Paracelcus]

A battery backed RAM disk (DRAM not SRAM) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk!

Ooops! I musta kicked out that pesky wire again, damn!

You could call it a patriot act HDD.

Re:That's change I can believe in

[iluvcapra]

Cuz Obama has, um...no power over the Justice Dept, right?

Not really, no, if he wants to keep the next guy from doing it, too. Besides, if it got out that he was forbidding warrants like this, Republicans would scream bloody murder and claim that he was putting the nation at risk to protect the rights of dirty hippies.

If you wanted to ban these warrants for evermore, and you are the president, this is the only way in the US system you can do it; the only other modality is by getting Congress to pass a law, but it's questionable he'd have the votes for it, and he'd put himself at significant political risk.