Slashdot Mirror
Feds Confiscate Investigative Reporter's Confidential Files During Raid
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.'"
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.
Leader of the free world!!!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
'"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously on Wednesday.
Depends, how large are these constitution free border zones again?
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.
imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
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
http://www.whistleblowers.gov/
This looks to be well outside of the intent of the law, if not outside the reach of the national security letter, but the writing's been on the wall for a while now that even this government is out of control and can no longer be trusted at all, with any information, whatsoever.
Better to have off-site backups and have everything encrypted. Journalists critical of any government anywhere, take heed.
"Hitler's police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm, could come to you. If you had doubts about the way the country was going, you kept them to yourself - or paid the price".
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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.
You are so retarded! This has nothing to do with a specific president. The whole country is a fucked up fascist state. Get out while you can.
“That explains the one file they took but does not explain why they took four other files with my handwritten and typed interview notes with confidential sources, that I staked my reputation as a journalist to protect under the auspices of the First Amendment of the Constitution,”. Ok, so she swore to protect them and yet did not bother with even basic encryption? And then did not notice the loss of files for quite some time (article suggests a month after the raid, until she was notified by investigators that they took those files)
Well, perhaps she should not be trusted with confidential information, if she can't be bothered to take even basic care of it.
And yes, I am all against jackbooted government agents busting doors and grabbing whatever they please, but that does not absolve individual from responsibility to protect data.
What imaginary guns were they looking for? Where'd the intell saying there were imaginary guns come from?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
I would assume not for long unfortunately. It's also quite likely the feds will gin up some very expensive to defend gun charges against the husband.
Were this the previous administration (Bush) using jackbooted tactics like this there would be a huge uproar in the US press and public. Why do they tolerate it now? It's just as dangerous to freedom, and to people's rights and a free press as it would have been 8 years go.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
“ You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world."
— O'Brien
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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.
they are murdering the truth.
lieing, thieving, murdering tyrannical bastards is what has taken control of this country
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
How many constitutionally guaranteed rights can the DHS violate with a single action? Quite a few it turns out. . .
"Using a warrant to search for guns, Homeland security officers and Maryland police confiscated a journalist's confidential files. "
I thought warrants had to be specific as to what they're looking for and allowed to confiscate? Somehow I can't make the mental connection between the stated purpose (guns) and a pile of papers, which were probably not left out in plain sight...
On the other hand, cat's out of the bag now, so there's no reasonable reparation possible. The notes can't be un-read, and I am sure that multiple copies were made the moment they got them back to the office...so what is a reasonable legal response? I suppose if any lawsuits develop against the sources, perhaps all evidence collected on them after this date should be tossed out as inadmissible due to illegal search and seizure? As in, they would not have begun gathering intel on the sources without the notes to point the finger at them, and the notes were seized outside warrant...
But what do I know, IANAL, just a crime show junkie :)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
what the REAL threat to American freedom is: government bureaucrats desperately wanting to stay in power hooking up with jackbooted thugs cloaked in the mantle of the state, stomping all over Liberty.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If you have desirable skills, it's time to leave the u.s. If you can't leave then move your data and services outside the u.s. I don't mean to godwin, but I spent most of my life wondering when I would have left Germany if I lived there during the rise of the Nazis, and how I can apply this to my own life. Two of my great-grandparents fled and lost some modest lands, and one of my grandfather's land was invaded by the Germans. He went back to fight the Germans while in the u.s. army. I often wondered at what point my great-grandparents decided it was time to give up and leave Germany. They left a comfortable aristocratic life and became immigrants in the u.s., owning a neighborhood grocery store. They made a new and somewhat comfortable life for themselves in the u.s. but gave up more to leave. About 6 years ago I decided to leave the u.s. and move to Switzerland, one of the last bastions of freedom in the West. I was lucky - it's difficult to get a work permit here, and will be even more difficult after the elections coming up. So, if you can, just leave. Don't be a cog in the evil that the u.s. has become. If you can't leave, then do what you can to not support it.
My ass! Land of the Immoral and Home of the Cowards!
A warrant should be very specific about what items are to be siezed. If the warrant was for guns, how does that get extended to files ?
Lying on an affidavit is perjury and gathering evidence is limited to what the warrant states. Other evidence outside the scope of the warrant requires another warrant before it can be taken. Otherwise that evidence is inadmissible.
The difference is in prior presidencies, the people doing this crap were fired, or arrested all the way up to the president resigning. Meanwhile, this joker keeps blaming everyone else and playing his golf.
Seriously? Did you just beam in?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Not much longer.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This article makes it sound like it is illegal for the FBI to confiscate journalists notes with a real bona-fide warrant.
Is there some law that prevents the seizure of journalistic notes?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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.
Just read some of the comments and you'll see the audience of this rag. Slashdot can do better than to post this crap. If Ann Coulter is associated with it..... I'm NOT.
I don't care if it's Ann Coulter personally. The spirit of the USA is that people like Coulter can spew their vitriol - right, left, or sideways without fear of armed officers storming the premises. The idea is that we're self-responsible enough and intelligent enough to accept or reject it without government interference. Although admittedly, the fact that Coulter hasn't had to get a second job at McDonalds to make ends meet may make the "intelligent enough" part hard to swallow.
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?
1.) That I do fault her on. She had people's lives in her hands, and should have tried very hard to protect them.
2.) Trying, and failing, is not the same as not trying.
3.) Sue the bastards, obviously. Call the EFF and the ACLU and get the best pro bono counsel in the country and nail them to the wall.
If this is true, law enforcement (a) blatantly exceeded the scope of a lawful search warrant; and (b) used a search warrant as a pretext to seize material that they had no authority to seize.
This is unusually bad. People need to lose their jobs for this.
If Ann Coulter is associated with it..... I'm NOT
Audrey Hudson writes for Newsmax and formerly for the Washington Times. The story has appeared on WND, TheDailyCaller, TheBlaze and other right wing sites. It is being studiously ignored by all other Western media, as per a Google News search, just now.
Selective outrage; the jackboots kick in the door on a conservative reporter and you people and your MSM are fine with it.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
The difference is in prior presidencies, the people doing this crap were fired, or arrested all the way up to the president resigning.
Uh. We are talking about the US here. Are you sure you are thinking of the right country?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
A tyrant is someone who can sign the death warrants for a thousand people without a second thought.
A bureaucrat is someone who, when told they've been reprieved, will insist on properly-completed individual documents for each person.
I cannot believe that the Feds would do anything to hurt a whistleblower. After all, this text still appears (despite scurrilous reports to the contrary) on the Obama/Biden campaign website:
The politician said it, I believe it, that settles it.
I very much doubt that a search warrant for guns prevents the police from taking files that very well might have to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
And I very much doubt that they need to read every single file they confiscate before they confiscate it to guarantee its relevance (as that would take months in some cases).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Richard Nixon ring a bell?
Sue them? And watch as they use state sovereign immunity to brush you off?
Why AC?? Embrace your hate. Be proud of it.
Hate filled people like you are the best argument I can imagine for an unfettered 2nd Amendment.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I'm guessing they could have stopped to look at the documents. It's not as if they took away a skip full of papers. A quick browse, and only seize if they have grounds to suspect the documents could be tied to illegal gun ownership.
If all the had was a warrant for guns, then seizure of her notes is pretty plainly overreaching. Call me paranoid, but doesn't this warrant seem like a pretty good pretense to go confiscate documents that would be easily justified by a warrant?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Yes, actually, it does. If a warrant says "search and seize guns", and you find something that's not a gun, you don't get to mess with it.
"[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." "Guns and whatever other stuff we find" is not a particular description.
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
As soon as they start taking things that aren't in the warrant try to sneak in a head shot and take the lead guy out. After that shoot who you can.
Enjoy Obummer's America you fucking retarded liberals.
All praise to the Glorious Leader!
More like enjoy the voting-against-the-other-guy America. Red vs. Blue politics completely devoid of any ideas or alternatives. When the worst case scenario for the ruling party is to play minority for the next one or two terms no matter how badly they screw up, don't expect your rights and freedoms to last long.
Sorry, what I meant in the last line is that a warrant for guns is easier to obtain than a warrant to seize hand written notes of possibly confidential information.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Does it even explain why this guy wasn't supposed to have guns? Saying the warrant was for "guns" doesn't tell us anything.
Here are a few key points from the original story in The Daily Caller:
Warrant Basis:
The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George's County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
Militarization of Police Angle:
At about 4:30 a.m. on Aug. 6, Hudson said officers dressed in full body armor presented a search warrant to enter the home she shares on the bay with her husband. She estimates that at least seven officers took part in the raid.
Document Seizure Justification:
Diaz explained that the files were taken because they found official government papers, which Hudson had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO - For Official Use Only (FOUO) - and LES - Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises," Diaz said.
"The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act," he said.
Document Seizure Counterpoint:
But Hudson doesn't buy the explanation: "That explains the one file they took but does not explain why they took four other files with my handwritten and typed interview notes with confidential sources, that I staked my reputation as a journalist to protect under the auspices of the First Amendment of the Constitution," she said.
They Did Have Guns:
During the raid, the officers also went after Hudson's three pistols and three long guns, which she obtained legally.
"I'm a Kentucky girl," she said. "I come kitchen trained, and firearm ready. I grew up with guns and I've always been around guns."
She Is A "Real" Reporter:
Hudson has been a reporter in Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years and was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize. She is a freelancer for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer.
Her Investigative Reporting:
While at the Times, Hudson reported extensively on the air marshal program - specifically about whether Homeland Security officials had lied to Congress and reported protecting more flights than they really were. Using her sources inside the government, Hudson has also reported for years about possible terrorist "dry-runs" on airplanes.
Unlike some other reporters whose sources have been targeted in recent years by the government, Hudson said none of the information she had was classified or given to her by someone who broke the law.
"None of the documents were classified," she said. "There were no laws broken in me obtaining these files."
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Can any of you seriously defend the civil rights record of this president? Anything GW Bush did with the patriot act (Obama actually strengthened it) pales in comparison to the jackboot Obama has on the throat of the American people.
Ding Dong, that's the sound of Ford pardoning Nixon because we're a nation of men, not of laws.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George's County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
But without Hudson's knowledge, the agents also confiscated a batch of documents that contained information about sources inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, she said.
Since when does a felon's restricted rights extend to a spouse? G. Gordon Liddy has been publicly vocal about all the guns his wife owns. You don't see the jackboots raiding his home.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
that very well might have to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
When you start adding arbitrary meaning to your interpretation of the law, you can get away with anything. I mean, why don't they seize the house too, since it was obviously used to shelter said gun, and also seize bank accounts because the money to purchase the guns came from there.... etc, etc etc. THIS is what is happening all over America - bullshit interpretation of what you WANT the law to mean instead of what it actually means. On the part of cops, judges and prosecutors. Well, do enjoy the police state this has led to. I'm glad I don't live there.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's simple . the terrorists won .. america lost .. check mate to your way of life you paranoid klutzes .. too bad for the journalists but it was inevitable that something like it happened one day . no mandate , nothing , they come im and take you away ..
Wonder why.
There wont be any soda. Not that you could afford it if there was.
Security through obscurity isn't encryption and we've already discovered how to recover text from burnt paper.
Flush the ashes.
Maybe they could still recover it, but at least you would create a really bad day at work for someone.
it blows my fucking mind how many people here are placing the blame on the person who's papers were confiscated. this is completely unacceptable.
Why the hell are they using a gun warrant to seize papers?
Don't they have to go back and get a new warrant?
I don't suppose that you noted that the files in question were (believe it or not) on dead plants.
Every tried encrypting dead plants?
http://www.amazon.com/Scanners-Office-Electronics/b?ie=UTF8&node=172584
so they were not allowed to take them
A search warrant has to list what is being searched for. If it's not on the list it can't be taken.
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents). However they also took her handwritten notes which clearly were not official government documents.
Not only that, they did not make it clear to the journalist that documents were even taken, who only found out about this a month later.
These notes were then passed on to the TSA who has no jurisdiction in the matter.
Basically there was a long string of mistakes being made by the law enforcement. Enough so that you could use this in a cadet training program as an "identify everything illegal in this search procedure" exercise.
According to the article summery, the claim is that the files were taken specifically because they didn't know if the TSA would allow her to have them.
So evidently, they did read the notes and knew they had nothing to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
This entire fiasco leaves the impression that the warrant was a bogus excuse to get at the notes and discover who the sources were. From what I can tell, resisting arrest is not even a disqualifying crime in Maryland so her husband wouldn't be bared from owning or possessing a firearm anyways. Perhaps it is something in the new gun law just passed by that would imply the older convictions would be grandfathered in.
Do a Google search for the title of the article and you will come up with who is running with this story:
- The Daily Caller
- WorldNetDaily
- The Blaze
- Pajamas Media
- Free Republic
- American Thinker
* Others
And, this woman worked for the "Moonie" Times a freelancer for Newsmax.
Starting to see a pattern?
I'm now *very* skeptical of the truth of this story.
======
* I had not head of the other sites they include:
Topix (News aggregator for Gannet)
Some "top secret" / security blogs
And, for extra credit, how many criminal convictions were handed out for all this illegality?
"None?"
That's right, TImmy! You get an A!
"No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."
Thank you. You saved me the trouble of typing that all out and explaining it. The key word here is "particularly".
However, I don't think you went far enough here:
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Probably no examination at all necessary. If it doesn't reach out and scream at you "I AM EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL GUNS", it almost certainly was not covered in the warrant and would therefore be in illegal seizure.
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents).
Certainly NOT. No matter how the documents were marked, if it wasn't something covered by the warrant, then they would have to AT LEAST have had probable cause to believe the documents were stolen FIRST, before it would be legal to seize them. Law enforcement simply DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to seize documents in order to later try to find evidence of something illegal. That's called a "fishing expedition" and it is illegal as hell.
The prior president is the one who created the Dept of Homeland Security, not even bright enough to give it a name that didn't sound vaguely soviet.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]"
Note 'particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized'.
People were familiar with this trick a long time ago.
How much more are we going to sit back and look at and just..talk about?
How much longer? Where's the threshold where we collectively get off our asses and do something?
The longer we sit, the bolder they'll get. They'll push as far as we let them, and so far, all I see is a lot of noise, but no action. And that's all they see too, so they just keep doing what they're doing. Why shouldn't they? No one is stopping them.
Their names were never published, and only discovered in an illegal search. If I write down in my notebook 'Cowboy Neal has inappropriate sexual relations with his water bottle', and never tell anyone what I have written, and never publish it, than what exactly am I guilty of?
END COMMUNICATION
The powers that be don't even seem to care about even a pretense of constitutionality.
Except these stories didn't exist before our current president. I actually consider it one of George Bush's failures that he did so little to stop the release of classified government documents and exposure of secret anti-terrorism programs. During his term, the feds didn't storm people's offices like we are hearing repeatedly for the last few years. So, yes, this is a pattern peculiar to President Obama.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
He didn't say Nixon went to jail, but Nixon did resign. Others working under Nixon went to jail.
How many under Obama have gone to jail for their illegal activities? When will Obama have the character that Nixon had, and leave office?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
They may not care that the evidence won't stick to a non-crime (assuming that the story is as reported in the submission). They may care more about nailing down the leak to save their jobs in the near term. Of course, long term, there may be no prosecution, and a long and winding tort that they can afford to spend money on since it's not their money and if they settle, it's not their money. She could go broke trying to get an apology from them.
That being said, if the story is as reported. Let's wait a bit for the facts to solidify.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Sue them? And watch as they use state sovereign immunity to brush you off?
I am not a lawyer. this is not legal advice but of course you can sue the Feds for unlawful arrest, and even win.
Yes, actually, it does. If a warrant says "search and seize guns", and you find something that's not a gun, you don't get to mess with it.
Unfortunately there is the plain sight doctrine or plain view doctrine. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plain_view_doctrine
You don't understand the problem at all. Liberal and Conservative are camoflage suits worn by politicians.
Yes, Obama is breaking the law (mainly as an accessory before the fact). But he's able to do this because of the precedents set by Bush. That's what the cycle has been for (at least) decades. The Republicans extend the power of the government, but don't dare use that power because of the opposition (at least apparently). While the Republicans are in power the Democrats vilify their mad power grabs. Then the Democrats take power, and rather then repealing the extension of power, they use the powers that have been granted to them by their predecessors.
In this case, however, it sounds like the actual criminal actions were performed by the Maryland police. (With various TSA personnel accessories before the fact.) I expect that Obama is only an accessory after the fact...and even that hasn't yet been proven. He may decline to support this action.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/
That example seems a little fucked up. In a country that (supposedly) guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, I would think that simply seeing a gun would be insufficient evidence to justify seizing said gun on the basis of unlawful possession.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
The files are PAPER FILE FOLDERS. With notes ON PAPER. The very first thing in the article is a PICTURE of said PAPER FILES. On PAPER.
"But it wasn’t until a month later, on Sept. 10, that Hudson was informed by Bosch that five files including her handwritten and typed notes from interviews with numerous confidential sources and other documents had been taken during the raid."
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/2/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
If they wanted papers related to gun purchases they should have asked for them. In particular to give the judge a chance to carefully specify what papers they might have and what safeguards would separate out the other papers.
In other words, they had no legal purpose in taking or keeping those papers. They were obtained outside the scope of a warrant.
Note that even if the warrant covered papers related to gun ownership, handwritten notes about the TSA and air marshals would obviously not be included. They would have been required to return those immediately.
US of A is almost there. Wait for economic situation deteriorate a bit more, supply of 3-rd world countries still having something to steal dry out (a.k.a "bring democracy - US style"), US public image to deteriorate enough to not be worth defending and you'll see US government hand in hand with US corporations exterminating its own citizens just to steal their belongings. The only thing that keeps US thugs from doing this is publicity. Given current situation, rapidly deteriorating economic situation and rapidly deteriorating public image of USofA around the world, it is only matter of time. Until things won't change radically, which - given Obama administration busy codifying Bush' transgressions, killing its own citizens abroad and jailing its own domestic critics and journalists - won't happen soon.
That's not the way the courts have decided it.
Actually, as a computer security 'expert' I'm going to have to disagree, at least when your target is 'Uncle Sam' with NSA in his employ.
Too many operating systems are compromised, too many encryption systems and codes. If they want they'll simply hit your computer with a non-disclosed zero-day exploit and steal your encryption key/password.
No, in this case paper files make sense. However any and all names should be encoded pseudonyms for her informants.
I don't read AC A human right
At least in my case I'm upset about multiple things, but since slashdot hit on the lack of encryption first thing, it's what we're talking about. Personally, my thought is encoded pseudonyms like 'deep throat' was.
Is this theft an outrage? Yep. Should government officials be going to jail? Yep. But right now my concern, as pointed out in the article, is the safety/security of the informants. I'm afraid that the wrong people are going to end up in jail.
I don't read AC A human right
How? They're her private notes. It doesn't count as fraud until she deliberate releases them trying to frame them. Since she didn't deliberately release them...
I don't read AC A human right
This is the sort of government that they envisioned when they made up the amendment about the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, that right isn't very useful against this sort of government any more. What other rights would the USA need to conquer this sort of threat to her very being?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I think there's some merit to blaming the reporter for being negligent. But it's important to note that that does not in any way, shape or form excuse the behavior of the police in this matter.
Frankly, I think individual officers in cases like these should be held personally responsible for infractions they commit, even if they're just following orders, and even if they didn't know any better. It happens all too frequently that some anonymous police or other organization gets blamed, and the consequences to anyone personally are then irrelevant at best. Perhaps some committee harasses those involved; or the police pays some fine (but that's really the taxpayers paying it, after all) - but at the end of the day, the actual people that in all likelihood intentionally violated other's rights get away scott free.
And there's no pushback from inside the organization, because, well, nobody ever got fired for following orders when there's even a whiff of plausible deniability here. Nobody is taking responsibility for their own actions; so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the police act irresponsibly and unethically despite the fact that most people involved only ever had the best of intentions. If you want it to be normal for the officers in a raid to question the need for it, the circumstances in which it is made, the force with which it is executed, or the damage that is done to those they raid, then there's got to be an incentive for officers to push back and do what's right. Right now, we reward officers for doing what's wrong and punish them for thinking and having a conscience, and that is deeply disturbing.
Which, when combined with including receipts or bullets in the warrant, lets them search just about anywhere to find things.
There is no longer any doubt that we live in a police state. Looks like we are down to using our last box.
I agree. The Maryland police officers and the DHS people need to be prosecuted. This isn't a minor procedural snafu - this is an intentional illegal act.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Welcome to the United Soviet Socialist States of America. But wait! There's more.. FOr just a little extra safety, we will require a 2 way TV in all housing tuned to the same channel with big brother watching.
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
no longer is.
This is all out war on journalism. Freedom of the press is a key protection. This is a power grab by the government. I should say yet another in a long line of power grabs. We want our constitution back.
Unless said item is illegal in and of itself, I don't agree with the courts. If the police officer stops a person for speeding and seeing a pile of cocaine in the back seat, no problem. If there's a machine gun in the back seat, I can see having an issue with that. But if we are going to take legal items like handguns and let the officers assume that they are illegal then what's to stop an officer from noticing that the driver has hands and therefore might beat someone to death? Or noticing that the driver is a woman or a man and therefore has the potential to be a prostitute or have paid for prostitution? Worst of all: The driver has eyes and ears, right? They could have used those to view/listen to copyright infringing material!!!
Then again, "court system" and "common sense" go together far less often than I'd like.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So are you saying that if the files had been encrypted, they wouldn't have been confiscated, all of this would not have happened?
What else precautions one should make not to become the victim of one's own government? Is leaving home allowed? Is there a list of approved websites to visit?
You are making the case that the government is a bullying criminal. And while you can and perhaps should avoid getting the attention of a hooligan/bully/criminal, the government is at least in principle there for you. And in my mind this makes the situation completely different. One shouldn't bow to bullies, but having a bullying government is worse.
And yes, of course the files should have been encrypted. I wonder if they would have detained her in that case.
If the files had been encrypted (after transcription, if needed), then this would be a case about overreaching warrants and illegal government actions, not a case about overreaching warrants, illegal government actions, and wrongful terminations, as that last item will undoubtedly be the end result of the intelligence DHS has collected on the whistle-blowers.
You are right in that she shouldn't have to protect herself and her informants from the government, but such is the imperfect world we find ourselves in while we try to dig our way out of it. She failed her informants. She should have known better than to depend on legal principle to protect her informants from the current administration.