Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Confiscate Investigative Reporter's Confidential Files During Raid

Posted by Soulskill on from the freedom-of-the-press-void-where-prohibited dept.

schwit1 writes "Using a warrant to search for guns, Homeland security officers and Maryland police confiscated a journalist's confidential files. The reporter had written a series of articles critical of the TSA. It appears that the raid was specifically designed to get her files, which contain identifying information about her sources in the TSA. 'In particular, the files included notes that were used to expose how the Federal Air Marshal Service had lied to Congress about the number of airline flights there were actually protecting against another terrorist attack,' Hudson [the reporter] wrote in a summary about the raid provided to The Daily Caller. Recalling the experience during an interview this week, Hudson said: 'When they called and told me about it, I just about had a heart attack.' She said she asked Bosch [the investigator heading the raid] why they took the files. He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was 'legitimate' for her to have them. '"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously on Wednesday. Asked how many sources she thinks may have been exposed, Hudson said: 'A lot. More than one. There were a lot of names in those files. This guy basically came in here and took my anonymous sources and turned them over — took my whistleblowers — and turned it over to the agency they were blowing the whistle on,' Hudson said. 'And these guys still work there.'"

17 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I donâ(TM)t suppose this critical file of confidential sources and interview information was encrypted?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't seem that way.

      I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text?

      The kind who isn't a computer expert.

      I know it's hard to do considering the crowd here, but try and keep in mind - most people, journalists included, barely even know what encryption is, let alone how to use it properly.

      Regardless, her Constitutional rights should have negated any need for encrypting her work. That is what we should take away from this.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The kind that isn't aware that she lives in a police state. You can continue to delude yourselves if you like, but it's pretty clear at this point that that's what the US has become. It's no longer a matter of 'if this continues'; it's here.

    3. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sure hope to hell that they are teaching the basics of encryption in journalism classes these days....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by fche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If one can expect a SWAT raid for exercising one's freedoms, the exact details of the oppression are insignificant.

    5. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may want to look up "Free speech zones", "Constitution free zones", and VIPR Teams. You may want to read up on what the NSA is doing. I've got a pretty good idea of what a police state is. If you get the equivalent of "papers please" when driving through your own country, you're pretty much there and raiding journalists puts it over the top. You may think that she needs to be thrown in jail for that to be the case, but the chilling effect on both journalists and whistleblowers will be served just fine by the raid alone.

    6. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.

      That's what really struck me about this: She knew she was investigating something that certain, powerful people in government would not like her to investigate, yet didn't even have the good sense to use aliases for her sources?

      Not that it excuses the government for flagrantly violating her rights, but shit, man, you don't have to make it easy for them!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey America! How's your police state working for you so far?

    8. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed.

      How about a country where they can arrest you and hold you indefinitely without a trial and without letting you talk to a lawyer? Like the U.S..

      How about a country where they can kill you with an armed drone without a trial? Like the U. S..

      How about a country where they spy on your every move and all of your communications? Like the U.S..

      Which country were we talking about? This is not the United States any more. I don't recognize it as the country I was born in 60 years ago.

    9. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Bucc5062 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hold on, she was the victim here. SHe doesn't need to do encryption because at one point thre was this thing called the constitution. You're making like a rape case. "Come on, she shouldn't have worn that dress, she was inviting it". No, the reporter was doing her job and whether she wrote on paper, plain text on a computer she had rights...and the Government raped them.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  2. I smell a lawsuit here by themushroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A raid to steal a reporter's notes (verses a Watergate sneak-theft)? That crosses the line into jackboot thuggery.

    --
    Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
    1. Re:I smell a lawsuit here by dlt074 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, that's just when you do raids. your target is more likely to be asleep or very tired waiting up for you all night. simple military tactics. welcome to the police state and a Constitution free US of A.

  3. Media by thestudio_bob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our government began abusing other countries and the media ignored it.
    Our government began abusing it's citizens and the media ignored it.
    Our government began abusing the media...

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  4. Re:Incompetence abounds! by harvestsun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. The issue is not that she lost her information, it's that her confidential anonymous sources have now been potentially revealed to the agency they were blowing the whistle on.
    2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
    3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?

    There is nothing you as an individual can do to retaliate against this, other than speaking out (as she is doing). If you really want to prevent this from happening, choose to live somewhere else, or just be a nice little citizen and never try to rock the boat.

  5. The best defense... by goathumper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At this point, the best defense is a good offense. They know by now their identities are compromised to their employer, so whatever they said that could be construed to be negative against the TSA will be used against them. Otherwise, it's just a waiting game to find out how much harassment and attrition will be leveled against them to force them to resign, if not downright fire them.

    Except if they go public with it. In unison. Loudly. Right now.

    Turn the tables. Then again, that approach will be heavily dependent on how the media will cover it, and what the spinsters have to say. Yes - there are risks. Yes - these are probably people with families and commitments and responsibilities that would be at risk. Then again, as of this raid, they already are.

    In my mind, this was a stupid move by the establishment. The whistleblowers now have nothing to lose. Absolutely nothing.

  6. Re:Search Warrant Scope by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Because."

    And also, "Just because."

    And finally, "Do you want some of this too? If not, shut up, mind your own business, and move along, Citizen."

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  7. Mod parent up. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If one can expect a SWAT raid for exercising one's freedoms, the exact details of the oppression are insignificant.

    And "exercising one's freedoms" doesn't convey the complete scenario.

    She was REPORTING on LIES that GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES were telling.

    So she is treated the same as if she was holding innocent children hostage at gunpoint.

    We are not in a "police state" yet. But tactics such as that for "crimes" that are not crimes WITHOUT REPERCUSSIONS FOR WHOMEVER AUTHORIZED IT do blur the distinction.