FBI Investigating Lamo Via Patriot Act Provision 621
umm qasr writes "Mark Rasch, a columnist for SecurityFocus wrote in his Register-reprinted column that the FBI has sent a letter, invoking provisions of the Patriot Act, to journalists reporting on the Adrian Lamo case: 'The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.' Good to see that our First Amendment rights are being upheld by the FBI."
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from England, therefore don't have any rights
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Yep. That proves it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes being bold is fashionable. Other times, only the brave dare to be bold. . -- Donald Kingsbury Courtship Rite
I think that we are fast approaching the latter time.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI could be going after pedophiles and rapists, or missing persons with the money we (US Citizens) have paid to have them around - this guy was doing companies HUGE favors by helping them patch holes in their systems as he discovered them.
They need to offer him a job and put him in the Defense Department - use his skill 'for' us, instead of putting him in jail.
Somehow I expect there to be a FREELAMO site up soon that the
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no they don't. The guy breaks into other people networks, without their permission, then "graciously" offers to fix their problems for them, for free. While that last bit sounds nice, the first part (the breaking in part) isn't so nice. Especially not when he uses his access to run thousands of dollars in bills using that network to, basically, ego surf (he accessed the Times' L
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
They have a flat-rate account with N-L. It didn't cost them anything more than it would have normally.
Wow, talk about swallowing the kool-aid... (Score:3, Insightful)
By "sitting around thinking about children?"
Dude, it's thinking like yours that is steering this country straight to hell. If you think thoughts constitute criminal action, my only question for you is when are you going to turn yourself in? Don't try to tell us you never thought of doing something illegal - there's not a rational person on earth who would buy that bullshit.
A pedophile is a little more than someone who just sits and thinks about chil
FBI == Federal Bureau of Intimidation (Score:5, Interesting)
Mark Rasch has got some balls!
Re:FBI == Federal Bureau of Intimidation (Score:3)
Mark Rasch probably isn't terribly concerned about backlash. He's a former US Attorney who rose to prominence through his prosecution of Kevin Mitnick. While now in private practice, I'm sure he has friends who would be willing to overlook minor transgressions on his part that would bring imposing visitors were anyone else to commit them.
Jeopardy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jeopardy (Score:2, Funny)
Good thing the constitution forbids double jeopardy.
Re:Jeopardy (Score:4, Funny)
Great journalist acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
The result of this of course is that every journalist sued for not turning documents over as a result of the unconstitutional subpoena can be considered to have integrity, and is someone that you will want to watch in the future.
Anyone who hands over their documentation is obviously a ratfink and every time a paper carries one of their articles, it should be deluged with letters to the editor letting them know just what kind of asshole wrote the stories.
How about "Great citizen acid test" (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, yeah, it's easy to put the responsibility on someone else whilst we sit back in our comfy chairs.
This journalist should break the stupid law that elected officials signed in, and the general public has done very little about?
PATRIOT Act is the law, as dumb as it may be. And it is the citizen's of this country that allow it to exist in the books, not just the journalist.
Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the point here is that it's not a law the applies to anyone but an ISP.
It's a strong arm that may be followed up with a legal document.
The main thing to remember is that, it's an unlawful threat, so it SHOULDN'T be followed up.
Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" (Score:5, Insightful)
A law must be challenged in court to get it thrown out. Journalists working for large media corporations have the backing necessary to get this law overturned. The average citizen does not.
Re:How about "Great citizen acid test" (Score:5, Insightful)
When Hitler was coming to power in Germany, lots of German journalists thought that if they made enough noise, their fellow citizens would come to their aid and stop the Nazis before things got really bad. Those journalists died in the camps. Ditto for those Russians who believed the Revolution's promises of equality and freedom, and protested when Lenin started breaking those promises in rather dramatic fashion.
Civil disobedience is an American tradition because, for most of American history, the assumption of rationality has been true. I'm not at all sure that's still the case.
Truth? Then why not turn over the papers? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that what gets printed and broadcast in the news is just the tip of the iceberg of what we call reality. The rest of "reality" is still embedded in the journalist's notes and interview tapes. If it's about "truth", then I say "the more data, the better". For everyone. This is Slashdot, aren't we for transparency?
If a journalist's responsibility is to "the truth", what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation? (Or, for that matter, sending copies of those same notes to the lawyer for the defendant, should a case come to trial? They're the journalist's notes, he can send copies to whomever he or she damn well pleases.)
The notes contain information. If the notes exonerate the defendant, the defendant is more likely to walk free or have the charges dropped before the case even gets to trial. If the notes confirm the defendant's guilt, the defendant is more likely to be tried and convicted. Both of these outcomes are Good Things.
The more information the FBI has, the more likely it is that it can make the correct decision about whether to press charges. And if a case comes to trial, the more information both sides have, the more likely it is that the judge and/or jury will come to the correct verdict.
Finally - is this precedent more likely to make "crackers" reluctant to talk to journalists, and thereby dry up an important conduit of information? Sure it is. But if you happen to be a "cracker", and "cracking" is illegal in your jurisdiction, perhaps telling a journalist that you're involved in such a thing is a dumb idea in the first place.
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that there is a measure of confusion in the above statement which needs immediate clarification. The reason that the (mis-) use of provisions in the Patriot Act, to demand that the reporters in question preserve their notes, communciations etc. preparatory to turning them over has nothing to do with a lawsuit. Lawsuits are the results of 'Torts', acts of commission or omission where one party or another suffers some damage and seeks redress in a court through legal means.
What is scary about the article, if it is true, is that the FBI is using the Patriot act to demand that the journalists preserve their information to hand over to the Department of Justice and threatening them with prosecution for obstruction of justice if they refuse to comply.
Obstruction of Justice is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment and/or fine.
In a tort, you pull out your checkbook to satisfy a judgment against you. 'Satisfying the judgment' in a federal criminal proceeding more often than not requires that you surrender your person for use by the federal corrections system. In other words, you go to prison.
The thing that makes this ugly, shocking, egregious and a good reason to vote out the current administration A.S.A.P. is that the article demonstrates that the Patriot Act is living up to the worst nightmares of its detractors by having its broad application effect things beyond its scope (i.e., journalists treated as ISP administrators) while it is used as an end-run around the Constitutional protections afforded the Press which allow Americans access to information without government interference; this system allows journalists to access individuals without their being forced to aid in criminal investigations regardless of the severity of the individual's alleged crime.
The real problem here is that by using the patriot act to tunnel under the constitution and demand Journalist's records, the FBI is doing what they simply should not be able to do in the United States: they are threatening reporters with imprisonment for not turning over constitutionally protected information.
This could be ugly. If the Patriot Act can be used to turn news sources into nothing more than an advertisment board for Georgie's trips in flight suits we should all look up the procedure for asking Canada for asylum.
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid you still don't see where the true danger lies. A journalist facing this sort of dilemma will rather find another topic. If computers are your speciality you don't have to write about Lamo. Why not choose something safer, like what Steve Jobs said in his keynote or what will be implemented in the next Windows release. And this could be what FBI really is after - they are sending a message to the journalist community "guys, stay clear from this or you we will turn you into our informers". And this makes sense - they want to have more "what Steve said in keynote" articles and less "how to bypass security measures in computer network" features.
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:3, Interesting)
Talking down to you is still better than just insulting you. Besides, condescension is a virtue. Speaking to someone beneath your station is a sign of an open mind.
The fact is that part of being a journalist is having integrity. It's part of the job description, just like being a cop or a fireman. The thing is, we lost the war wi
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:3, Insightful)
Nearly as fallacious? What, so there's something more truthful than Gospel truth? Because politicians are inherently corrupt these days. Any person seeking a career in politics has become corrupt. Politician as we understand it today would have been a laughable concept when our government was created. Our founding fathers had day jobs, which they returned to when not serving the public. It was ne
Re:Great journalist acid test (Score:2)
Re:Lamo is a criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, he told me he did it."
"There, your Honor, what further proof do you need?"
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Lamo's guilt or innocence has no bearing on the legality or morality of the tactics being employed by the FBI.
Re:Vapid moral preening (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vapid moral preening (Score:3, Insightful)
Poppycock. I'm not against the death penalty, but lets not kid ourselves. The number of lives saved by the death penalty is very likely to be fewer than the number mistakenly murdered by jury. Death is a punishment, not a protection. Also, you need to remember that it is not just your life you are g
but wait (Score:2, Interesting)
am I missing something here?
Re:but wait (Score:5, Informative)
Patriotism? (Score:5, Funny)
When do we fire up the ovens?
Re:Patriotism? (Score:2)
Re:Patriotism? (Score:5, Funny)
They can take ours, after all we arn't using it...
Scum (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Journalist of the 21st Century" will need to know how to:
use PGP.
use encrypted virtual partitions they can burn to CDR.
destroy information off a hard disk (not "trash, empty trash")
use PGP-Phone or other encrypted VoIP system.
stand up for what is right.
The brownshirts are chipping away your rights under the guise of "security". Remember who supported these fascist laws when you vote.
Re:Scum (Score:2)
Re:Scum (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck, the previous administration did just as much damage under the 'War on Drugs' guise. One could say the Patriot Act stands on its predecessor's shoulders.
Who ya gonna vote for next!? (Ghostbusters!!)
Re:Scum (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that virtually anybody supported them. The PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming majority - the Senate accepted it almost unanimously (with Sen. Russ Feingold as the only but notable exception), the House okay'd it with 357 to 66. Welcome to the hell of American politics - you can vote either Democrat or Republican which makes no noticeable difference. Or you can vote independent and then you might as well stay home, they probably won't even count your vote. And even if they'll count, it will make no difference whatsoever.
And don't think it was any better in 1980's, 1940's, 1920's or in XIX century. It wasn't, even if Eugene Debbs and guys like him sometimes managed to get the whopping 10 per cent, it still changed exactly nada point zero.
A platform of rights restoration (Score:3, Offtopic)
I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.
I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.
I will work for federal legislation to restore the right to vote in any federal election for ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.
I will appoint an Attorney General who sees ou
Re:Scum (Score:3, Troll)
Bullshit. I'm sick of hearing this lie propagated. The real problem was that the Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) were too spineless to put up a fight in the wake of September 11, and when the Ashcroft submitted the FBI's wish list they just approved it without even reading the fucking thing. Most of them probably thought that if they didn't vote yes, the RNC would be ru
Re:Scum (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubber Hose (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that you can't avoid giving the Feds your keys, and scrubbing the disk is an admission of guilt. This is the really scary thing.
The above file system was designed for use by human rights activists in third-world dictatorships (or the UK). It now seems to be appropriate for the US as well. It seems particularly useful if you are a journo with stuff like the dirt on the whitehouse or no. 10 (i.e. a 'source') then
Can you blame them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you can (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument assumes that what is legal is what is morally right. The PATRIOT act is a huge mistake and we need to repeal it, but the people that have that act as an option need to make the moral choice to not do it.
If somebody made it legal to steal, then, the person that stole would still be a thief. That everyone seems to think this Congressionally concocted tyranny lets the FBI off the moral hook says miles about how low this country has become.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here was a law, by all intents and purposes, created in order to deal with potential domestic terrorist-related threats, and here it is being used to go after a citizen in a situation that has everything to do with the domestic marketplace and damaging the image of a corperation.
I don't condone what he did, but it is rather amusing to see the Patriot Act being used as a means of persecuting somebody that, by all accounts, could and should be prosecuted in a judicial system untainted by the broad powers of the Patriot Act.
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can you blame them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to get nitpicky but (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically the FBI doesn't "uphold" our rights. They should *respect* them, but right now the reason our rights are on this slippery slope is because of the politicians we have in office (and to a lesser degree the judges we have in the courts, although that results from the former). Dare I suggest we try and find some new folks to put in office?
Get the EPIC newsletter... (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a good overview [epic.org] of the USA PATRIOT ACT on their site and in the most recent [epic.org] EPIC Alert newsletter, there is this interesting paragraph (item 4):
Balking at providing requested documentation ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What real use has this act been? (Score:5, Insightful)
All of those so called represntatives up on capitol hill that pushed this thing through should be ashamed of this abomination they have helped create. The only thing it's done to my patriotism is weaken it.
As opposed to the UK (Score:2)
So it should have been called something different. (Score:2, Interesting)
For all the whining going on here, most people can't see the forest from the trees. This law is not a bad law. It just makes the application of long-standing law enforcement investigation techniques more uniform over existing crimes, with the inclusion of terrorism.
So what if now the same standard applies to terrorists that formerly applied to drug dealer and racketeering investigations? So much the better. There is still a required
Re:What real use has this act been? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Not that it matters,
What I'm worried about... (Score:5, Interesting)
Transparency, tranparency, transparency. When a government, especially one theoretically existing by permission of the governed, can do things in secret and without accountability, be afraid.
Be even more afraid when your fellow citizens don't rise up against it.
-Carolyn
Our next Slashdot interview?? (Score:3, Funny)
9/11 Succeeded (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, we all get to live under totalitarian regime that trounces the freedoms and protections at its whim.
yay. =P
-- TMKDeclaration of Independence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Declaration of Independence (Score:2, Funny)
Stay where you are!
Men in cheap Sears suits with expensive firearams will be there shortly to "discuss" you views with you in private.
I hear Cuba is nice this time of year ...
-- TMKRe:Declaration of Independence (Score:3, Interesting)
In california, he got a year in prison.
And he started serving, what, last week?
Journalists' rights not unlimited (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yeah, and IANAL, but let's be clear that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the law. (Or be a lawyer, for that matter.)
WHOOSH!!! there goes the baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you notice.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What does the Patriot Act have to do with it? (Score:2)
But, what does the Patriot Act change about things here? Is it just me, or are they trying to scare journalists into giving up their notes, because they're that desperate for any leads?
I picked a nice time to leave (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad truth is that the U.S. is quickly turning into a country that people don't want to live in. And it's happening in a single presidential administration. People aren't as afraid of more terrorist acts as they are of what's happening to their rights. At least the educated people aren't.
I'm definitely still going to vote in the next election though, 'cause I may want to return to the States someday, and I'd really hate to see the Mexico bordered by a police state.
Re:I picked a nice time to leave (Score:3, Interesting)
I, too, am seriously thinking about moving somewhere, though not to Mexico. At least in the US they pretend you have rights some of the time, in Mexico the Army
It was just a matter of time... (Score:2)
I hope the journalists say... (Score:2)
Rasch thinks he broke this story? (Score:2, Informative)
I read this article [wired.com] last week.
Rasch didn't even add anything new.
IIRC (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how it got through the US legal system without due process (ie congress people weren't allowed to read it until an hour before they had to vote on it...this is a true fact which still shocks me) and got passed unanimously (or near enough not to matter).
Now isn't this a mere case of fraud (aka impersonating a legal user of a computer system) or plain braeaking and entering? Isn't this a case of misuse of a tool? And please screw the Al Capone stories...this kind of 'request' by the FBI is plain misuse of power, period.
Ignore the subpoenas (Score:3, Insightful)
The USA PATRIOT ACT has a Scary Similarity... (Score:5, Insightful)
A while back, one of the US T.V. Stations (ABC, CBS, NBC...don't remember which) ran a movie called "Hitler: Rise of Evil" (or something like that). The movie focused on Hitler's rise to power in Germany just before WW2.
The scary similarity comes from this: in the movie, a prominent Germain government building came "under attack" from a "terrorist" group (unknown if this was true or not). So, in order to stem any future "terrorist" attacks, Hitler drafted an act that proposed drastic measures, effectively limiting the freedoms people in Germany enjoyed. The act included (among other things) a ban on demonstrations, limited freedom of the press, and the right to be arrested without a warrant or evidence to support a crime being committed. Even "Hitler" himself said that they "would only be temporoary", and that anybody who was opposed to these new measures was "against Germany".
We all know what came out of that. The abuse of this power led to Hitler's WW2 and the attrocities he committed.
I saw this in the movie and immediately thought of the Patriot Act. I am not suggesting we would see a WW2 type atrocity happening in America. What I am suggesting (and seeing) is a slow erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Should we be concerned? I would say yes.
Re:The USA PATRIOT ACT has a Scary Similarity... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll one further your general argument by disagreeing with this line.
Though somewhat of a rambler, "Gore Vidal" has written interesting books on the imperialistic nature of the United states. "perpetual war for perpetual peace", for example, supposedly lists hundreds of "mini wars" that most American's aren't even aware of.
WW2 was an issue because germany wanted to extend it's influence on neighboring countries. The only difference between the US and that is the size of the countries we "enforce control over". It's essentially 1700's imperialism all over again. We sophisticated Americans bringing "third world countries" (a more PC version of the old phrase "savages") back into alignment... Read: "You're either helping us prosper, or you're our competition".
The sick irony is that this is exactly what we accused communist countries of doing throughout the cold war.. "We must fight this slightly immoral war, for fear that communism MIGHT spread"; pre-emptive killing being the letter of the day.
It's only in high profile cases such as Iraq that any Americans ever care. Other countries (especially those affected by our policies) have been crying fowl about this for decades.
Unfortunately I can't imagine any way of preventing this.. "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Even if we were to "shake things up" on capitol hill, the successors would faced with the daunting task of "giving up political influence". Would you be willing to give up your biggest bargaining chips merely for a good cause? Would you cast the ring into mount doom?
The best I can figure is one of my favorite phrases, "A little revolution every now and again..." - Thomas Jefferson
Patriot Act for Dummies (Score:5, Funny)
2) All criminals are now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
3) Anyone related to a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
4) Anyone who's friends with a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
5) Anyone who's ever talked to a suspected criminal is now suspected of terrorism until proven otherwise.
6) You are probably a terrorist. Turn yourself into your local DHS, FBI or CIA office immediately. You do not have the right to remain silent. Anything you say, and anything you do NOT say, will be used against you.
With great power comes great responsibility (Score:4, Interesting)
I just hope that all of these journalists remember that when they were granted their Journalist Superpowers, they all swore the Journalist's Holy Oath to get assraped in federal prison in preference to compromising their principles and choosing to remain employable and so keep paying their mortgage and their kids' orthodentistry bills.
No... wait... that's in Bizarro World. On Planet Earth, journalists are just working joes, working long hours scraping a living selling the stories that the paying public (which by and large doesn't include Slashdot readers) want to read.
Before anyone gets confused over this, remember that the Slashdot editing team are technically journalists. If the FBI ever come a-knocking around here, you can bet the farm that each and every one of them will be pissing their pants in their eagerness to hand over the goods. In best Slashdot editor tradition, they'll probably even dupe the submission.
On this specific issue, which law did Congress pass that abridges the freedom of the press? That would be the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Alien Registration Act of 1940. The PATRIOT act is amateur hour stuff by comparison; it places no restrictions on journalists' freedom to publish whatever they like, and that's all that the first amendment requires.
I've always found the argument that a free press requires anonymity to be highly spurious. If you're getting your stories from unverifiable sources, then you may as well get your bullshit from your tax funded officials rather than from a freelance reporter who's selling you what you want to hear.
Lame-O? What about Plame-O? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how they're treating the suspects in that case with kid gloves, even though quite a few journos know exactly who the leakers are.
Nice try FBI! (Score:5, Informative)
As a former tech worker turned journalism student I'm appalled at the actions of the FBI in this case - if it turns out to be true. Until I can see one of these alleged letters I'm inclined to reserve judgment on the issue though. We have very little to go on at this point. But I can tell you from personal experience that courts and government agencies often have a difficult time forcing journalists to reveal their sources or notes on their stories. There's a huge presumption in US law that the press does not have to willingly share information with the courts or government investigations and there are statutes, called shield laws, in many states that exempt reporters from revealing information.
A case in point: About a year ago, I had the privilege of sitting next to a friend of mine in court as he tried to keep the identity of an anonymous source out of the hands of the defense attorneys during the sentencing phase of a murder trial. My friend, a working journalist for San Diego Magazine, wrote a story on the Danielle van Dam murder case in which he quoted a police source saying, 'he hit her, and that was it.' The defense argued that this quote might mean that the victim died before the accused took her out of her home. Why might this be important? If true, the prosecution's argument for a death sentence would not have held up since it was the kidnapping charge that put the death penalty on the table in the case. You can't kidnap a corpse, or so the defense argued.
So what happened with my friend? The judge in the case threw out the defense motion, stating that the one-line mention in my friend's article didn't really say much about what might have happened in the home to the victim. The judge also explained that the California Shield Laws protected my friend from having to reveal his sources anyway. It was an interesting experience though, and I'm glad that I got a chance to see the First Amendment at work. But I think it also shows how difficult it is to get information out of a reporter if they don't want to voluntarily share it. Personally, I think the FBI is going to have an uphill battle in the Lamo case.
If you're interested in similar First Amendment issues and how they relate to the press try the First Amendment Project, an organization of attorneys and other interested individuals that works to ensure freedom of expression for artists, activists and journalists.
Strong Crypto (Score:3, Interesting)
We need to reach out and teach others how to use it, how to protect against government invasion of privacy. Teach others the politics behind crypto and teach others the practice of using good crypto and good key management. I'm making an effort to teach all people I correspond with and have been for several years. It's frustrating because most don't listen or don't want to listen, but in a few cases it really pays off. Crypto evangelism is now my evangelical topic over open source.
Imagine how much better of a state these reporters would be in if they kept all that they did not print strongly encrypted. Under the stress of the government questioning them, they may even forget their passphrase!
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:4, Funny)
We should just give the FBI all possible power. After all, they are above reproach. They would never abuse the system anymore.
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
The other side of the story is the bad effect that it has on the court. Like where he mentioned how a bunch of the "evidence" was siting newspaper articles! Because we all kno
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Withholding evidence and hindering a federal investigation, if my TV Court Drama Memory serves me correctly.
By and large, officers of the law, including members of the FBI, want to catch criminals and get as much evidence as possible towards making sure they are prosecuted for their crimes. They have a new tool for use in getting that information, and they are going to use it as frequently as possible for as long as the laws are
There are first amendment safeguards against this (Score:4, Informative)
This is where you are wrong. The courts have ruled previously that freedom of the press requires that journalists have a reasonable requirement for confidential sources and meetings. For example, without whistleblowers, it is difficult to fight government corruption. Therefore, under the First Amendment, the press has some protection against being forced to divulge sources and information.
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that in the case of some information, more then probable cause is needed. I remember at some point in history, people were presumed innocent till proven guilty. Did that go the way of new coke and parachute pants?
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
If the press can't keep their sources confidential, they won't be able to report on many critical issues. Especially with the rapidly-expanding use of "anti-terrorism" legislation to prosecute virtually anything, potential sources will simply be too afraid to give any information to journalists.
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
I put the emphasis on a critical point.
The task of the police is to find a suspect, but the juidical system will determine whether he is guilty or not. You grant them the power a priori.
And given the right power, the police most certainly find a perpetrator. The question is, is it the right one?
The part "abridging the freedom of [...] of the press" of the First Amendm
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you read the article? Do you understand the implications?
Sure, it would be nice for law enforcement to be able to do anything they wanted to aprehend a criminal, and prove his/her guilt. It would make society a lot less dangerous right? And it would clean up the streets, and lower the burden on the court system, and criminals would tremble in their boots. All of this is great if we lived in a perfect world where power doesn't corrupt, and money isn't the supreme ruler.
Unfortunately we live on planet Earth, where it has been demonstrated a billion times that men (humans for the politically correct) are fallible and are consumed by power and greed. It has been the downfall of civilization after civilization. We today are no different, no matter what some may argue. Give a man the power to do anything he wants, and he will do anything he wants, even at the cost of society or humanity.
The point of Rasch's article is that the FBI is beginning to excercise its imagined "do anything you want" card, and putting several constitutional freedoms at risk.
I suppose that everyone has their opinion, and I do not mean to belittle your views, but I feel very strongly that we should have a society that has freedoms allotted to everyone without discrimination, and is governed by laws that cannot be broken even by law enforcement.
To demonstrate, imagine that you are sleeping in your home with your wife and kids, and at 3:00am a team of FBI agents storm into your house, rifle through all of your documents, terrorize your family at gunpoint calling you a traitor or something, take half of your financial records, and your firstborn son... for evidence.
This example is extreme, but by letting them get away with little illegalities, we are paving the way for them to commit more egregious acts.
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:2)
Re:First Amendment Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope they touch his penis (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder how many pedophiles read Slashdot?
None. They're too busy editing slashdot to read it. [rimshot]
Re:Today's lesson. (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason that the government is going after him is that private interests have lobbied to have laws set that make what he did a very severe crime under law. I recall reading that he committed the very same thing with a few other companies' networks, and they worked with him to correct what he found, not took a spazz and sic'd the FBI on him.
For those who don't think the Patriot Act was influenced by private interests
Is the government people for the people, or is it people for the industry/economy? It's hard to tell anymore.
Re:Will they subpoena the Screen Savers? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First Ammendment? (Score:2)
Did you even read the article? It is all about freedom of the press. E.G. their ability to report on things while protecting confidential sources who wouldn't come forward otherwise.
Re:Not a first amend issue (Score:4, Insightful)
It is rather disgusting at what the powering bodies(government/big companies) gets away with now because people are lazy.
America was founded in such a way as distrust for the government is strong, but now days you?re a terrorist if you don?t agree with the current tyrants in power.
Re:STOP THE MADNESS (Score:4, Interesting)
The Register has a good article [theregister.co.uk] related to this whole mess. Granted it's obviously got a heavy liberal slant, but it raises some interesting points. People have already pseudo-jokingly asked this question, but how IS the weather in Canada? Each day I realize my neighbors up north live in a country that's currently less scary than the great US is.