Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Online Journalists are ISPs? 196

Posted by CowboyNeal from the declan-brand-dialup dept.
MFS! writes "Long-time C|Net reporter and Politech operator Declan McCullagh has been contacted by the FBI, according to his most recent article. The FBI requests that he retain all records regarding his talks with Adrian Lamo. The problem? The FBI's letter was sent under the auspices of a law which applies only to internet service providers. Says Declan, "Perhaps I'd be immune from the FBI's demands if I used an Underwood No. 5 typewriter instead." Does writing online now qualify one as an ISP?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Journalists are ISPs? More

Online Journalists are ISPs?

Comments Filter:
  • The journos could claim indemnity by way of being a mere medium ;-)
    • The journos could claim indemnity by way of being a mere medium ;-)

      No, Your Honor, this law does not affect me, you see; I am agar.

  • Define "Service" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bwalling ( 195998 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:02AM (#7189620) Homepage
    ISP = Internet Service Provider. Providing a website with content on the Internet is a service.

    We've always associated ISP with Internet Access Provider, but is that really accurate? How is it defined withing the law?
    • So, if I talk to people on IRC and correct their grammar... I provide a service [though it's free] and makes me too ISP???

    • ISP = Internet Service Provider. Providing a website with content on the Internet is a service.

      We've always associated ISP with Internet Access Provider, but is that really accurate? How is it defined withing the law?

      Yes. But just as society has come to understand that a "software pirate" is not a guy with an eye-patch and a parrot on the shoulder with a treasure of stolen MS Windows boxes--rather he is someone engaging in copyright infringement--we have likewise come to understand that "internet servic

    • Re:Define "Service" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:15AM (#7189665)
      Section 2703(f) says in its entirety: "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process."
      The Article was quite good actually.
      • The Article was quite good actually.I recognize that. I was replying to the text of the main post, which exhibited strong preferences toward defining ISP as a provider of Internet access.
    • mebbe they want to extend it to "information service provider"

      at that point, everyone is a valid target.
    • There's a difference between providing service and providing content. One could think of the service provider here being the hosting company, since they are the ones actually distributing everything to website visitors. One could think of the journalists as hiring the web hosting company for their services, to put their content on.

      Then it's up to the hosting company to keep whatever records they are required to, but the journalist is in the clear.
    • If i write a book and get some to else to publish it, even if I pay all publishing costs, I am not a publisher i am a writer. If I create a web site and host it, even if i pay all hosting site, I am web site developer or author, not an ISP, even if I pay all hosting costs.

      Unless one is running a publishing company of ISP, one is niether.

  • They *provide* a *service* on the *internet*, ergo are an ISP, right? Let's forget that ISPs have always been people that provide an internet connection as a service.

  • Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hype7 ( 239530 ) <u3295110.anu@edu@au> on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:08AM (#7189641) Journal
    It seems that the DoJ under Ashcroft is sneaking through all these hard-core bills because everyone thinks that it won't apply to them, only to find he's turned around [slashdot.org] and "broadened" the definitions a bit. He is actually encouraging LEAs to get common criminals classed as terrorists [wired.com].

    I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I really don't care much for John Ashcroft.

    -- james
    • I'm not American, but from what I've seen, I really don't care much for John Ashcroft.
      Don't worry, he's not very American either. I believe we technically qualify him as a terrorist, for inspiring fear in otherwise innocent people by abusing every power he can find.
    • Gads, with all these revelations about abuses originated by Ashcroft's own directives, one has to wonder which Constitution he was pledging to when he took his oath.

      More than ever now, I shudder to think what will happen if America lets GWB get a second term in office. It's getting bad enough to make one become religious and start praying for his defeat.

      Please God, why don't you put an end to America's misery and get rid of this administration for us... please please please please...
    • In the UK, terrorism legislation is very broadly defined and has already been applied to peaceful protestors.

      http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story /0 ,11026,1038891,00.html

    • We don't like him either. After all, we'd rather elect a dead man [cnn.com] than John Ashcroft.

    • Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @12:31PM (#7190018)
      Ashcroft's major malfunction is forgetting that in the American system, we'd rather make the mistake of letting the guilty go free than putting the wrong person in jail. As a result, we make it hard for law enforcement to arrest and hold people. We require that proof be presented to the public when they want to do so.

      Now, this makes it difficult to have a "zero tolerance" policy on terrorism. Our justice system doesn't have anything we can do with the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, they're already dead. Our justice system doesn't quite have much it could have done much with the hijackers before they did it, it's very hard to prove somebody is going to committ a murder, and lowering the standards of proof just lets mistakes of capturing the wrong people happen.

      If we didn't hold our justice system to such high standards of proof, we would risk people within the government abusing their power. That's exactly what the terrorists want in their governments, and exactly why we're happy with ours just the way it is... we can't let the government just point the finger at people without proof, that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

      • Re:Ashcroft is doing a bit of this, isn't he (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mpe ( 36238 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @02:08PM (#7190550)
        Ashcroft's major malfunction is forgetting that in the American system, we'd rather make the mistake of letting the guilty go free than putting the wrong person in jail. As a result, we make it hard for law enforcement to arrest and hold people. We require that proof be presented to the public when they want to do so.

        But somehow the US has managed to wind up with a higher proportion of its residents in jail than any other country on the planet.
    • It seems that the DoJ under Ashcroft is sneaking through all these hard-core bills because everyone thinks that it won't apply to them, only to find he's turned around and "broadened" the definitions a bit. He is actually encouraging LEAs to get common criminals classed as terrorists.

      It's not even quite that simple. There also appears to be preasure to get some actual terrorists classed (and prosecuted) as "common criminals".
  • Seems to me like the FBI is simply trying to see how far they can go with this. IMHO, they won't get away with it, it's quite a strech to define a journalist as an ISP but who can blame them for trying?
    • > who can blame them for trying?

      Anybody who cares about freedom. It is not the job of law enforcement agencies to see how far they can twist the law to suit their ends. This is an example of blatent intimitation. Special Agent Howard Leadbetter has disgraced the FBI. He should apologise or resign.
  • I just read the article, about the reply from their First Amendment Department, and all I have to say is, "Oooo, Smackdown."
  • ISP does not mean Internet Service Providers. When talking about online journalists, ISP means I Spell Poorly.
  • The FBI should target itself over drug charges, because it is the only way this could happen:p
    -Seriv
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the First Amendment allow journalists to keep their sources, records, notes, interviews, etc. confidential?

    Last time I checked we still had a Constitution.
    • They are trying to find a backdoor to this bothersome freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Next thing you know they'll try to say that freedom of press only applies to those who have a FCC permit.

      After that they'll try and claim that the 2nd ammendment only applies to the military.

      Oh wait...

    • No. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Orne ( 144925 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @12:07PM (#7189889) Homepage
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      -- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

      Text & Description [freedomforum.org]

      A strict definition is the government shall not pass any law that restricts the content or distribution of information via the press. Last time I checked, online journalists (who you might say provide press services on the internet) are not restricted what they are or are not allowed to publish. In this case, the government is exploring their legal rights to determine the source of the material that is being distributed.

      • Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Politburo ( 640618 )
        Funny, I don't see them attempting to use illegal trickery to get Bob Novak to reveal his sources...
        • Funny, I don't see them attempting to use illegal trickery to get Bob Novak to reveal his sources...

          You hadn't heard that President Bush has asked O.J. Simpson to track down the real leaker?

      • Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aussersterne ( 212916 )
        But of course "free speech" is worthless if you believe that your speech may lead to your own, or someone else's, prison time.

        That's the same sort of "free speech" that citizens it totalitarian states have. "Yes, you are 'free' to use your voicebox at any time. Then we are 'free' to nail you and/or your associates to the wall."

        Do you really believe that was the spirit and intention of the U.S. Constitution? It seems that recent generations of American citizens have gone from believing that the U.S. Bill o
      • A strict definition is the government shall not pass any law that restricts the content or distribution of information via the press. Last time I checked, online journalists (who you might say provide press services on the internet) are not restricted what they are or are not allowed to publish.

        Well check again. You might want to start with the article:

        The third problem with the FBI's letter is that it requests that I not "disclose this request or its contents to anyone."

        That sounds like a restrict

    • From a purely technical standpoint, no the press does not have a right to keep information from the FBI. Freedom of the press simply means that the government cannot restrict what a journalist writes and publishes. They can still have their notes subpoenaed just like anyone else.

  • Lucky guy ! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With Patriot Act 2 he would be a terrorist and lose his american nationality.
  • I didn't read the article ,but I did hear about this in the register.uk a week ago. The FBI have since stopped it. Acording to what I read it was a lone agent acting without athority. I will believe it when I see it.
    • peragrin is right. The FBI apologized for their mistake as stated in this article [firstamendmentcenter.org]
      • Don't assume they have learned the errors of their ways.
        Last I heard, 'Ted Bridis' is NOT 'Declan McCullagh'.

        Also note from Declan's website [politechbot.com]:

        9/24/2003 update: I'm in the middle of moving Politech to Mailman, so the usual archive below is not up-to-date. Instead see the temporary Mailman archives. Thanks, Declan

        His last article there was 2003-09-15. He received a letter from the FBI on 2003-09-19. Coincidence?

  • According to Webopedia, the term ISP stands for:

    Short for Internet Service Provider, a company that provides access to the Internet. For a monthly fee, the service provider gives you a software package, username, password and access phone number. Equipped with a modem, you can then log on to the Internet and browse the World Wide Web and USENET, and send and receive e-mail. In addition to serving individuals, ISPs also serve large companies, providing a direct connection from the company's networks to t

  • Worth it (Score:3, Funny)

    by isorox ( 205688 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:33AM (#7189731) Homepage Journal
    Surely a little onconvienence and loss of a tiny it of liberty for a few people is worth it is we can stop terrorists. Wont somebody think of the children?

  • Great. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So this law changes as the government redefines what ISP means. They have taken the traditional meaning of ISP (That of an Internet Connection Provider) and extended it to cover to anyone who provides "services" on the web.

    This law, really, REALLY needs to be revised. This was NOT an intended consequence of the law, AFAIK. I thought it was so that Internet connection providers would be able to provide information about internet access to the FBI. Anyone else know more details?

  • The relevant code describes "A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service." Does that describe Declan? If it comes to that, only the courts can provide the legal answer. He does have a mailing list, so maybe so (somehow that factoid didn't make it into his column).

    I don't know how far the reach of the relevant code extends. If I run an ISP and an ice cream store, can they subpoena records from my store? What if it's an ISP and a computer repair service? Anyway
    • At least in the UK, a limited company is a separate legal entity to whomever is in it, so one would imagine that if you do run an ISP, it would be set up as a limited company and thus stand on it's own.

      As for being "A provider of wire or electronic communication services", it strikes me that the law could be written a lot more unambiguously. Especially for a country like the US, that likes unambiguous laws.
      • "At least in the UK, a limited company is a separate legal entity to whomever is in it, so one would imagine that if you do run an ISP, it would be set up as a limited company and thus stand on it's own."

        Of course, if your ISP is really just a mailing list, and your other business is just a column that you write, would you really have legal entities set up? Actually, I'm in that position, and I've never set up businesses for either. Maybe I should. I'm no Declan McCullagh, though.

        "Especially for a coun
        • Well, I meant that if the definition in the Patriot act of "communications provider" was only to apply to proper ISPs, then there would be no problem. If the FBI's definition is right, then obviously you're more or less screwed. You can't set up a limited company for a mailing list or something trivial like that. Well, not unless you're a big corperation.

          And, interestingly, the US does have a lot more specific laws than the UK. As I understand it (and IANAL, but I've had people try to explain this to me),
    • drfireman is correct to say I didn't mention Politech [politechbot.com] in the column. But as far as I've been able to determine, my FBI letter was word-for-word identical to the letters other reporters received. So it's almost certainly irrelevant.

      Perhaps a more interesting question: The New York Times runs its own mailing list. In the hypothetical case that reporters were allowed to post to it directly, would they enjoy reduced First Amendment protections and be covered by this law? Or, more realistically, lots of report

      • It's also possible the FBI called you to try to sort this out, you said something like "Aieee!" and they mistook the sound for a modem.

        More seriously, I doubt the justice department would balk at any ridiculous overextension of this or any other statute if they decided they needed a reporter's notes or email. I guess that's already been demonstrated. So at that level I think your concern is justified, and not even so hypothetical. At the same time, it seems unlikely they'd press it if NYT lawyers got in
  • Asscroft is touring the country trying to convince citizens that PATRIOT II is in their best interests and his people are proving him wrong! Hahahahaha

    On the other hand, unless this is really being hyped on CNN and the networks, most people probably don't even know this is happening.

    Sigh :(

  • ISPs are carriers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:47AM (#7189803) Homepage Journal

    And not liable for the content they transmit. They are however liable for content they host on their servers, but only once they are notified and given a reasonable amount of time to remove it.

    The powers the FBI has been granted to boss around ISPs does not apply to content providers (like web sites).

    I suspect what the FBI tried to do was demand logs and other information from Declan's, perhaps even demanding they look through his web space. Either they refused, had nothing useful, or maybe he handles his own hosting, the last one which may be grounds for the FBI to call him an ISP (which is probably enough to get a judge to grant the power, but not enough to stand up in court).

    This is my best guess as to what happened, and I don't know anything about his situation and IANAL.

  • Ah, the Underwood No. 5 typewriter...

    It weighs as much as a refrigerator and can build up the muscles in your forarms until you look like Popeye in short order.

    My mother rented one for me to learn to type on back around '74 or so and, even today, I still pound on my computer keyboards waaay too hard.

  • "Creativity" in government (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mariox19 ( 632969 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:52AM (#7189826)

    The harrassment of this reporter points to a larger and more fundamental problem. In the US, law enforcement takes a "creative" approach to applying law to specific cases. [does-not-exist.org] (An abstract of the original NYT article, and the option to purchase is here. [nytimes.com])

    Law enforcement is charging manufacturers of illegal drugs, and others, under provisions in the Patriot Act -- stretching the law to appear "tough on crime."

    When law can be interpreted "creatively" and made to apply in cases for which it was not designed, and for which there are already applicable laws, we are on the path to a government not of laws, but of men! It is anti-American, and moreover anti-liberal.

    If the law can be made to mean anything, then it is worse than having no law; worse because the unthinking still give such a government the respect due a lawful society. It's a sham!

    Everyone in government, law and society who supports this philosophy -- from ambitious proscecutors, to shyster lawyers, to every last office worker and housewife who couldn't care less as to how criminals are caught and convicted -- is guilty of destroying this country.

    We need a push to get honesty back into law enforcement. The alternative is to have draconian laws on the books that can be used to oppress whoever is at the moment among the despised and unpopular.

  • Your 1st Amendment is already gone... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:52AM (#7189828) Homepage
    Remember the writer who was sent to jail because he linked to a protest guide on another site [watchblog.com]?

    1 year in federal prison.
    For being a writer and writing things the govt doesn't like.
    The government wanted to send him away for 20.

  • Knock, knock, yes you are an ISP! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by im a fucking coward ( 695509 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:53AM (#7189830)
    As a 20 year member of the Republican party, this is just too kind:

    An apology is too much to ask for. An unequivocal statement from the FBI and Ashcroft that this will not happen again and no subpoenas will be forthcoming--even if proper procedures are followed--is not.

    An apology, immediate removal of all parties involved, and a pledge from my party to directly not only remove the mis-named 'Patriot Act', but to apologize en masse for having thought of such a dreadful, stupid, and intellectually void piece of legislation like this, is in immediate order.

    Perhaps I'm too vague, but let me, as one of those responsible for voting said representatives into office, be the first to offer my humblest apology for what can only be termed a complete cluster fuck of an idea. In my own defense, they didn't dress like S.S. Wafen, and therefore fooled the shit out of me.

    When the wanna-be storm troopers in my party finally realize that long standing members of good repute (great, there goes that) won't vote for invasions of civil liberties any more than we'd vote to re-institute slavery, apparently they'll be out of office. You Democrats will have to handle your own ranks, I've got enough trouble already.

    History, read it and remember, you pathetic morons. Zieg Heil!

    --
    "I am not a crook!" -- Another paranoid Republican doomed to ignominy. Wait, where is that? Iowa? That'll do.

    PS: No, I have no intention of stopping these types of diatribes until my elected officials at least pretend to want more freedom for all peoples, journalists, and innocent ISP's.
    • As a 20 year member of the Republican party, this is just too kind:
      [...] won't vote for invasions of civil liberties any more than we'd vote to re-institute slavery

      Are you telling me that you'll vote against Bush on the next election?
      Are republicans even allowed to do that?

      Bah, the way things are going, they'll be a law making it illegal to vote for anyone but President-for-life (hereditary) Bush soon enough...
      • Are you telling me that you'll vote against Bush on the next election? Are republicans even allowed to do that?

        I appreciate your level of frivolity, but yes, that's precisely what I mean. Furthermore, I will not donate one red damn cent to the party until they get rid of the stupidity.

        The Party of Politically Pragmatic Nihilists, it's funny, but I will start a new party of disaffected Republicans. Bribes will be accepted freely, and it will be based in Nevada so we can just skip the whole morality quandr
    • You're one Republican I've got respect for. Now get out there and help us with some good old fashioned regime change.
      • Regime change is currently listed as a terrorist activity, actions against the US government y'know... Tell you what, if you can send to us the secret prison without representation you're going to we'll all try to bake you a nail file into a cake or something. Nice knowing you!

    • Maybe you are a Libertarian, not a Republican. I think many conservatives are Libertarians and they either have never heard of the Libertarian Party or they vote "strategically" for Republicans (like Greens who vote for Democrats).

      I can understand why Libertarians would not vote for socialist Democrats, but I do not understand why many have adopted the Republican Party. The GOP is the anithesis of libertarian ideals. The GOP is filled with religious fundamentalists and Big Brothers. Republican-controlled s
  • this entire thing with journalists being asked for records about Lamo was written off as one agent acting without proper authority or authorization. thus, the point Declan is trying to make is a moot point.

    It was discussed in this Slashback [slashdot.org].

    What's a moot point, you ask? Think of a sports match where a bad call or decision is made against you or your team, but you still win at the end of the match. The blown call is now a moot point.

  • This guy is more of an Internet Content Provider. For the FBI to classify him as an ISP and therefore hold him to the same regulations for providing information is ridiculous, but not surprisingly, expected.

    Watch out Insane Clown Posse. The /. crowd are about to infringe on your copyright.

  • This has happened before (Score:4, Informative)

    by saturndude ( 609090 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @12:06PM (#7189874) Homepage
    IIRC, some years ago, tourists with a camcorder in Washington DC accidentally captured some bad guys getting away from a crime while taping monuments, statues, etc. on their vacation. When they realized this, they gave the videocassette to a TV station in Washington, DC.

    Police demanded not only the part of the tape that aired on the local news, but also any other footage that didn't air. Police surrounded the TV station and wouldn't let anybody leave. (Is that kidnapping or illegal detention? Doesn't matter, everybody knows the laws don't apply to police. /end rant)

    Eventually a court ruled the police demand was not allowed.

    Anybody remember this incident? John Ashcroft seems to have amnesia.

    Also, quoting the article: "An apology is too much to ask for." Not if we stick together and demand it! You bring the torches, I'll bring some pitchforks!

    • Eventually a court ruled the police demand was not allowed.

      But this case is different: it's set in the wondrous world of whimsy called the Internet, and those magical mysterious toold called Computers.

      It's just like patents: you can obtain a patent on any silly or obvious thing, or on something that already has been used or even patented, just by tacking on the words 'computer' and 'internet'. By the same token, any 'undesirable' activity involving computers or the internet, prompts those in power to co

    • Not if we stick together and demand it! You bring the torches, I'll bring some pitchforks!

      Tsk, tsk, tsk. Inciting to rebellion against the government. And with weapons. That would be 40 years away, under the PATRIOT Act.
      And you posted it on the internet. I'm sure we can tack it somehow to the DMCA. Somehow.

  • The FBI has backed off (Score:5, Informative)

    by Our Man In Redmond ( 63094 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @12:07PM (#7189884)
    Here's a link [politechbot.com] from Declan's Politechbot [politechbot.com] archive.

    For those too lazy to RTFL, the FBI is now dropping the threat of obstruction of justice charges and asking reporters to voluntarily hold on to any notes they may have, saying they hope to come to an agreement later on access to their notes.

    If I were a journalist my reply would be, "Um, yeah, I may keep them, but you'll be in touch with my organization's First Amendment lawyer, and you'll see my notes over my thrown-in-jail-for-contempt-of-court body."
    • They are backing off as the bad press and Ashcroft's effort to make USA-Partiot II law is being endangered.

      There need to be some penalty on the FBI. Just sending the letter is a violation of their constitutional rights.

      An Ooops, we are Soooooo sorry and no internal reprimands just does not cut it.

      Remember this shit at election day and ask your reperentative what they have done (not going to do) to fix this abuse. If no good answer. boot the incumbent, regardless of party.

  • I mean, he's not just trying to shame the FBI into backing off, while at the same time preparing to bend over and touch his toes when they do actually subpoena the information, right? I mean, that would be cowardly and hypocritical, right? Right?
  • It is hard to get good help these days. While I decry the apparent metamorphosis of the U.S. into a police state, I'm not so sure this is an example. I think this incident is a mistake by the FBI agents handling the case, plain and simple.

    Unless John Ashcroft or an FBI official says so, I won't assume that this letter represents justice department policy.
  • TechTV's The Screen Savers had two live conversations with Lamo when he was on the run, and they sent contributor Kevin Rose to walk with him all the way to the door of the FBI offices.

    Initially, fans were concerned that they were not discussing these over-the-line subpeonas because of the threats contained within. They since declartively said on the air that the reason they haven't been talking about this story is because they have never seen such a subpeona.

    If TechTV had the absolute most access to Lamo
    • If TechTV had the absolute most access to Lamo in the hours before turning himself in, how could they have been left out of the FBI's threatening spree?

      It's a clear cut case of selective stupidity. The bureau does this from time to time, but apparently nobody's to blame, or man enough to own up to errors in judgement.

      Thank God Lamo wasn't at home in the back woods of Idaho, with a wife, a baby, a dog, and wasn't a legal firearms owner. The mere serving of subpeonas get's rather tricky with the ol' FBI th
  • Can't this guy just say, "oh, I don't think so, see #5."
  • If the DOJ is so keen to use this law to acquire journalist's sources regarding Lamo, why are they not doing the same thing to figure out who exposed Joseph Wilson's CIA wife?

    I suppose that the "threat" of hackers requires more jurisprudence then the violation of a federal statute designed to ensure national security.

    (For those unaware of the story; "someone" in the white house exposed the CIA credentials of the wife of the man who revealed the lack of uranium purchases by Saddam, check out this link [salon.com] for
  • In Malta, ISP's have to pay thousands to the communications authority which regulates them.

    It would be expensive for journalists, no doubt.

    I presume ISP's don't pay license fees in the USA.
    This is done locally to prevent Momma and Poppa shops becoming ISP's and to keep the 'few' select who can pay the fees as the local ISP's.
  • "Does writing online now qualify one as an ISP?"

    By writing online, authors are providing content, therefore surely would be more aptly defined as content providers, if indeed author isn't enough of a title for them. If someone writes something that goes into a newspaper or magazine, they're contributing to the content. Why reclassify them because their content lives on a server?

    A book author isn't the same as a book publisher, though the author could be considered both if he or she were to go to the lengt
  • I would imagine the FBI's bullying could easily be handled by the following letter:

    Dear sir/madam:

    I received your letter requiring me to provide all of my notes on the Lamer case. Unfortunately, due to the threatening and demanding tone of the letter, I became quite distressed and in the process of attempting to back up said notes, I appear to have inadvertently deleted them instead.

    I apologize for this unfortunate situation but would suggest that a calmer, more respectful request from you would have av

  • What happened to 200 years of jurisprudence? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @02:10PM (#7190568) Journal
    It seems to me as if the government is using the internet as a way to undermine all of the judicial precedence (not to mention the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) that have been hard fought for over the past two centuries.

    I can't understand how anyone who has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States can in any way perceive freedom of the press and the protection of sources to not apply in the case of the internet. All of the young soldiers who died for our freedom are spinning in their graves with every nail this administration puts into the coffin of the Constitution and the Internet.

    This is a dark day for freedom - in a year of dark days.

    I feel like Alice, having dropped down the rabbit hole; everything I understood to be right and wrong is turned on its head - and no one seems to give a damn.

  • A rather interesting article from the NYTimes covered some facts on a journalist's ability to protect sources:

    Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order [nytimes.com] (reg required)

    I'd agree with the poster above that this was a "creative" use of the Carrier law by an FBI agent hoping to bully the guy into complying, with little actual legal ground to stand on. However, the reporter is definitely going to get a request for the full notes and info from the interview.

    As the Times article points out, a repo

  • The US PATRIOT act can be used to go after journalists going after some goofy hacker pulling pranks, but it can't be used to go after Novak and the leakers in the White House who are putting our nation's security at risk by leaking classified information?

    In truth, neither situation warrants intrusion into journalists' records.

    In practice, One gets a free pass to endanger lives if one is doing it to hurt the wives of the White House's political enemies.

    The US PATRIOT Act is being abused.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close