Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Whaaaaat, Your Honor??? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome my 24-hour-data-retention-policy is!
Fuck that subpeona.
In the ear.
With a Siberian ice dildo.
Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
FRCP Rule 37 states:
Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.
Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad.
Ok. The news article is new, but the content is anything but.
The subpoena was withdrawn in a one sentence letter in late Feburary 2009 after the EFF sent a letter to the DOJ pointing out the problems with the subpeona.
We're only hearing about all of it now. It is troubling that the DOJ will not come out and say what the original motivation for even sending the subpoena in the first and is being mum about it all.
On top of that, the dates are all mixed up. The subpoena was sent in June 2008, according to the CBS article. However, the EFF says it wasn't received until January 30th 2009. This is important to note as Obama took office the 20th. The EFF's letter was sent Feb. 13th, with a return letter from the DOJ on the 25th.
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.
import system.cool.Sig;
Because Obama personally ordered this? If you knew anything about the US system of governance, you'd know that the Judiciary is separate from the Executive.
And if you knew anything about the US system of governance, you would know that the Justice Department is not part of the Judiciary, it is part of the executive. Not that this necessarily has anything to do with Obama or the White House, although all such requests of media organizations are supposed to be approved by the Attorney General, which would be the White House. It is likely just a prosecutor asking for something hoping that indymedia will just comply. Once they questioned the subpoena, the Justice Department backed down from their threats and withdrew the subpoena. Good for them and good for the EFF. This is basically identical to the AT&T case, except tiny indymedia didn't back down and just provide the information requested. And the government folded immediately because legally they didn't have a leg to stand on.
The big threat discussed in the article is the "you may not disclose this request". Holy Crap!! Absent a court order, what the heck makes them believe they can issue a secret subpoena that is probably illegitimate and order you not to discuss it!? I hope that part is fully investigated and if that is really an official policy of the US attorney's office that it is changed immediately. Talk about ripe for abuse!
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
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.