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.'"

49 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 herrnova · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering the warrant, at least according to the article, was for the search of guns inside her home, the only items they were allowed to seize were guns. Her files are not guns, so they are violating the terms of the search order. Not that that will do her no longer confidential sources any good.

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

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

    9. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't really need encryption. I mean think about it - we just found out who "Deep Throat" (from the Water Gate days) was about a year or two ago. The files the reporter had were all paper. They could have been taken any time. But they didn't identify anyone. They called the guy "Deep Throat". Any connection of that pseudonym to a real name was in the reporter's head. Why would this reporter be more cavalier with her sources? If she can't remember the names, she can always keep paper notes that are obfuscated in her purse connecting the pseudonyms to the names. This was just plain, "it can't happen to me" complacency on the part of the reporter. She wasn't following practices that were standard years ago.

    10. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's right. The scope of a search warrant can only be exceeded if there is evidence of some crime "in plain sight" when the authorities enter the premises.

      I don't see how the data in a computer file can ever be said to be "in plain sight".

      One thing that bothers me about this story is that the source is the Daily Caller. The surveillance beat is active enough right now that if this was real, we'd be reading about it in the Washington Post, Guardian, and dozens of reputable websites that focus on the press and privacy and government enforcement overreach.

      So I'm going to hold my water on this until the story appears in an actual hard-news outlet. I don't doubt that US law enforcement and intelligence services would do something like that, but it doesn't help the cause of fighting this stuff if we latch on to some right-wing website that has a long record of getting stories wrong.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. 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.

    12. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Still playing catch up with Red China, North Korea, and Cuba. But we are trying our best.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    13. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The interesting thing here is that being legally bared from owning or possessing a firearm is still not probable cause for a warrant. There had to be some evidence that a gun or ammunition was in the house as well as the resisting arrest charge being something that could bar your gun rights.

      Resisting arrest in most states is only a misdemeanor which usually doesn't remove your gun rights. Is it possible that not only the premise for the warrant was unconstitutional but the premise for the premise was as well?

      Perhaps the NSA intercepted a conversation with her and her mom talking about how her husband loves his birthday present and is running around the kitchen shooting everything with the salad shooter or something as the pretext for the search.

    14. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by runeghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps she was operating under the (mistaken) assumption that she was living in a free country. America's "leaders" do talk about freedom and liberty a lot. Heck, the current President likes to go on about accountability and transparency too. Not all of the American public, particularly those who are part of the upper middle class (as journalists tend to be), have really internalized that their country is run by corrupt liars.

    15. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just looked through the MD court files. It appears that her husband was arrested on 4/14/85 for a carrying a concealed deadly weapon, assault, possession of Marihuana (as spelled on the docket) and resisting arrest. The concealed weapon charge was dismissed (Nolle Prosequi), the assault and possession of marihuana- he was found not guilty of. For the resisting arrest, he got a 3 year jail sentence that was suspended on probation for 3 years. The MD disqualifying crime is a 2 year jail term it seems.

      It appears I assumed a few things incorrectly that were spelled out in the article. Supposedly the government thought he purchased machine gun parts from a Swede but it was a potato gun that didn't work. Who would have thought that her husband was anordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore and he wasn't legally allowed to own or posses a firearm.

    16. 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
    17. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is America.
      This is America under Obama.

      This is America under Bush.
      This is America under Clinton.
      ...and so on...

      If you really think that a particular party is responsible for this, I have a multi-million dollar inheritance I need help moving out of Nigeria, and I just need your bank account number to make the transfer.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    18. Re:I donâ(TM)t suppose... by Smauler · · Score: 4, 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.

      Yes, she was the victim. However, there are ways of making yourself less likely to become a victim. This is what we are talking about.

      You're making like a rape case. "Come on, she shouldn't have worn that dress, she was inviting it".

      I personally think some irresponsible behaviour increases the likelihood of crimes happening to you. If I go in to a Chelsea pub just prior to a Chelsea/Tottenham game, and start mouthing off about how shit Chelsea are, and anyone who follows them is a braindead prawn sandwich eating Russian mafia financing twat, I'm quite likely to get a kicking. I'm still the victim there, but there were things that I could have done which might have decreased my likelihood of becoming a victim.

      Rape is rape, assault is assault. Someone putting themselves in a bad situation does not excuse or lessen the crime. I'll repeat that... doing something provocative does not excuse or lessen a crime if it is committed on you. However, knowing about these situations, and learning to avoid them helps them not happen to you. Knowing what triggers these crimes and talking about what triggers these crimes is _not_ blaming the victim. The blame is still entirely on the attacker.

    19. Re: I donâ(TM)t suppose... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The surplus in the late 90's had more to do with the Republican congress not letting Clinton do much, than with Clinton's fiscal prowess.

      That, and the dot com bubble that was inflating tax revenues, which vanished when the bubble burst.

      But, go ahead and credit and blame the wrong parties for stuff.

      --
      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.
  2. USA by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Leader of the free world!!!

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  3. Constitution free zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    '"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously on Wednesday.

    Depends, how large are these constitution free border zones again?

    1. Re:Constitution free zone by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony of getting a warrant to raid a jornalist for "guns".....

      But hey, a judge signed it... so it must be legit.

  4. 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.

    1. Re:I smell a lawsuit here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can a warrant to search for guns be turned into let me take these files too? Have we lost all control over law enforcement that they can now do anything that they want?

    2. 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.

  5. If you want a picture of the future, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

  6. 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 /.
  7. Whistleblower Protection by imnes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I guess we'll get to see if the whistleblower protection program actually works.

    http://www.whistleblowers.gov/

    1. Re:Whistleblower Protection by imnes · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Whistleblower Protection by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoiler Alert: It won't.

    3. Re:Whistleblower Protection by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be ridiculous, US laws don't protect enemy combatants.

  8. Nazi police state by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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"
  9. 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.

  10. and it begs the question by themushroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What imaginary guns were they looking for? Where'd the intell saying there were imaginary guns come from?

    1. Re:and it begs the question by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Am I the only person in America who is not a felon, but who believes that convicted felons should be able to have guns AND vote once they've pay their dues (with prison, or whatever), just like regular non-felon folks are able to do?

  11. Where is the public outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Where is the public outrage? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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'm sorry to say that you are wrong. Bush invented things like "Free Speech Zones" and while he wasn't the first executive to attempt to control the press, he was outstandingly successful. I don't recall hearing the term "embedded" (a/k/a captive) reporter in pre-Bush military campaigns and the whole Patriot Act thing got passed without even a squeak.

      That's what I hate about Obama. Hope and Change? No Hope! It's just Bush continued with a smoother tongue and a suntan.

    2. Re:Where is the public outrage? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bush didn't invent the Free Speech Zone. It was actually the democrats who first did that, at their 1988 convention. Bush is associated with the zones because he used them at far more events than any previous president, and under him the Secret Service took a much more active role in establishing the zones and in making sure the protesters were kept in their designated place. During his time the Secret Service also adopted a less politically neutral role in managing the protests - rather than directing all activists into free speech zones they would work to place pro-Bush campaigners in the most visible areas of crowds ahead of time, preemptively denying the prime territory to anti-Bush campaigners and making them easier to separate and shunt off to the FSZ safely out of view of any cameras.

      But he didn't invent them. No need to falsely attribute that part to him: The things he actually did do are quite damning enough.

  12. WTF? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. Time to leave by comrade1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  15. felony offense by neghvar1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. This cannot be true by real+gumby · · Score: 4, Informative

    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:

    • Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

    The politician said it, I believe it, that settles it.

  19. Re:I don't suppose... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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
  20. Some Salient Points by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

  21. Re:I don't suppose... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.