Slashdot Mirror
FBI Agent Posing As Journalist To Deliver Malware To Suspect Was Fine, Says DOJ (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: In 2007, an FBI agent impersonated an Associated Press journalist in order to deliver malware to a criminal suspect and find out his location. According to a newly published report from the Department of Justice, the operation was in line with the FBI's undercover policies at the time. Journalistic organizations had expressed concern that the tactic could undermine reporters' and media institutions' credibility. The case concerned a Seattle teenager suspected of sending bomb threats against a local school. FBI Special Agent Mason Grant got in touch with the teen over email, pretending to be an AP journalist. After some back and forth, Grant sent the suspect a fake article which, when clicked, grabbed his real IP address. Armed with this information, the FBI identified and arrested the suspect. The Associated Press, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and other journalistic organizations condemned the move. They pointed out that an FBI agent posing as a reporter could create distrust between legitimate journalists and sources, and also raised issues with the way the malware was distributed through a fake news story. The new Department of Justice report noted that, today, this activity would require greater authorization, under an interim policy on impersonating members of the media that was adopted by the FBI this June. Now, for the agency to pretend to be a journalist as part of an undercover operation, an application must be made by the head of an FBI field office to the agency's main headquarters, reviewed by the Undercover Review Committee, and then approved by the deputy director, after discussion with the deputy attorney general.
They pointed out that an FBI agent posing as a reporter could create distrust between legitimate journalists and sources...
This is a feature.
Why do I think that if he journalist impersonated an FBI agent, the DOJ's opinion would be very different?
That's not malware. That's basically any webserver ever made. There's even URL shorteners that can redirect somewhere while grabbing the IP address of someone who passes through. It's sneaky but not even remotely illegal for anyone.
"Journalistic organizations had expressed concern that the tactic could undermine reporters' and media institutions' credibility. "
I think they do a good enough job of doing that themselves these days.
I guess if they had any left they MIGHT have a case. But given the sorry state of Journalism in general I can't see that the FBI is doing anything to harm them than Journalists do to themselves today.
Besides, why are these 'special snow-flakes' worth any more protection than say a Plumber, Electrician or other profession that needs 'integrity' as part of their selling feature...I'm sure the FBI 'impersonate' all kinds of professions all the time, I doubt anyone cares to worry about that.
A specific Journalist has integrity or doesn't. He has a reputation or doesn't. Attempting to impersonate an individual is likely grounds for a law suit/sanctions. As a profession or 'group' Journalists are no more worthy of 'protection' than any other profession, so they can go piss up a rope for all I care.
"Journalistic organizations had expressed concern that the tactic could undermine reporters' and media institutions' credibility" and "They pointed out that an FBI agent posing as a reporter could create distrust between legitimate journalists and sources" are both hitting on exactly the reasons that the FBI chose this particular ruse over any of their other options. The FBI and the CIA both want it to be impossible for the press to do their job, because when independent investigation occurs then all of a sudden the story is out of control.
This is an element of the story that should not be underplayed.
"Journalistic organizations had expressed concern that the tactic could undermine reporters' and media institutions' credibility." Seriously? you have to have some credibility and integrity before it can be undermined.
If new standards were installed, why does the current case not have to comply with the updated rules. They were installed for a reason?!?
"Reporters and media institutions" have already ruined their own credibility.
"could undermine reporters' and media institutions' credibility"
LMFAO, really? Like they had any credibility left that could be somehow undermined?
Still, I loathe to see the FBI behaving like this... disgrace. All they have managed to do is continue to shred their own credibility much like CNN does hourly.
The new standards are not retrospective, but provide rules for the future. They are not a function of a court order, but a change implemented by the FBI on its own initiative. It therefore has no impact on previous events.
Don't do that.
For the same reason why when the cops asked if they could 'borrow' our ambulance to serve a high-risk search warrant because they wanted to catch the suspect unaware...the suspects will start shooting real ambulances.
There's no place like
Impersonation without authorization is a crime. FBI agent committed a crime. It's illegally obtained information. Common sense says it should be thrown out. I would be pissed at the agents involved for compromising an investigation into domestic terrorism. How badly can you fuck up a slam dunk case?
There's an interesting book about these sorts of tactics used in espionage called Fair Play: The Moral Dilemmas of Spying by James Olson, who was a former CIA case officer:
https://www.amazon.com/Fair-Play-Moral-Dilemmas-Spying/dp/1597971537
It speaks specifically as to whether the CIA should and does pose as aid workers or reporters as well as the consequences of such action. It's been years since I read the book, but I thought that he said that the CIA did neither. That, of course, turned out to be a huge lie. The CIA posed as aid workers in Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden and that set back the polio vaccination efforts considerably. Lies aside, I found some of the discussion on the topics interesting and it relates to what the FBI did. Namely, what are the consequences for impersonating or going undercover as a kind of person that in general, as a society, we want to trust.
According to ... the Department of Justice, the operation was in line with the FBI's undercover policies at the time.
The new Department of Justice report noted that, today, this activity would require greater authorization, under an interim policy on impersonating members of the media that was adopted by the FBI this June.
Why are the opinions (policies) of the FBI at all relevant to whether or not this activity was fine? Shouldn't the DOJ be looking at the law instead?
An argument can be made that it violates the First Amendment for the FBI to do what they did. Is the press truly being left free to operate unhindered by the government if the government has agents posing as members of the press? Granted, they were only deceiving one person, but doesn't the lone suspect they were going after still have the right to live in a country where the press, as it pertains to him, is free of government infringement? Would it have been acceptable for the FBI to impersonate a priest in order to gain the suspect's trust and to elicit evidence from him?
Now the AP cries fowl. Why weren't they speaking out against abuse of other reporters and news organizations?
Who cares about the journalist thing, that is the definition of going undercover. But you can't put on a girl scout uniform and bug my computer, install cameras, wiretap me, search (including digital searches), etc.
Google wouldnt translate that text for me. I figured it was something offensive but still wanted to know what it said. Had to use yandex to get a proper translation.
This is on par with the CIA doing DNA collection voa vaccination programs. Real journalists everywhere are at risk now because maybe those rebels/terrorists will think they're FBI. Sometimes the ends Just does not justify the means.
Whata bunch of irresponsible bastards.
Contrast impersonating a news professional with impersonating a cable repair person:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...