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.'"

25 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 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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. 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. 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 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.

  4. 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 /.
  5. 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/

  6. 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"
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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."