[Politech] Replies on Adrian Lamo, FBI using Patriot Act against reporters [fs]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 09:44:56 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] EFF publishes report on trusted computing: "Promise and Risk""

    Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:29:52 -0700
    To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
    From: Steve Schear <s.schear@private>
    Subject: Re: [Politech] FBI has sent 13 reporters letters over Adrian
       Lamo, from AP
    >A Sept. 19 letter from the FBI directs Associated Press reporter Ted 
    >Bridis to preserve any documents pertaining to Adrian Lamo, stating that 
    >the request is in anticipation of an order requiring materials to be 
    >turned over to federal law enforcement authorities. The FBI said Wednesday 
    >that similar letters went to 12 other reporters or news organizations, 
    >which the agency did not identify.
    Have any reporters, to your knowledge, archived their notes solely offshore 
    and protected by a trust wherein presentment of a court order for access to 
    archived materials triggers a distress clause, requiring the reporter to 
    physically present themselves to the trust attorney to prove they are not 
    under duress?
    "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general
    knowledge among the people... Be not intimidated,
    therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the
    utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled
    out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness,
    delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used,
    are but three different names for hypocrisy,
    chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams
    Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:20:27 -0700
    From: "Curt Hagenlocher" <curt@private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
    Reply-To: curt@private
    Subject: Re: [Politech] FBI has sent 13 reporters letters over Adrian 
    Lamo,     from AP
     > WASHINGTON -- The FBI has notified 13 reporters that it might
     > subpoena their records regarding a hacker charged with breaking
     > into The New York Times' computer system.
    The obvious and still unmentioned analogy --
    "Gee, I wonder if that means that they'll be sending a subpoena
    to Bob Novak about the Valerie Plame matter."
    Curt Hagenlocher
    Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:48:42 -0700
    From: Avi Bar-Zeev <cyranose@private>
    Reply-To: cyranose@private
    Organization: RealityPrime
    Dear Declan,
    Ignoring, for a second, objections to provisions of the Patriot Act that 
    defy common sense, constitutionality, or even sanity, I'm wondering if this 
    is going to be a clear-cut case of Bush administration double-standard.
    In the case of Robert Novak publishing the name of an undercover CIA WMD 
    expert, it seems at least plausible that Bush administration officials 
    (two, and supposedly very senior) violated federal law and threatened 
    national security for political purposes. So this begs the question: will 
    the Justice Department now use these same provisions of the Patriot Act to 
    force Novak to disclose his notes and contacts?
    I'm not saying they should in either case, but since the Justice Department 
    seems to have concluded it has this power, I'm interested to see if they'll 
    choose to use it against potential criminals in the Bush administration. 
    One would presume that any non-criminal administration would be interested 
    in finding and removing any such people from positions of responsibility.
    Avi Bar-Zeev
    Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
    From: mairead <maireadbhean@private>
    Subject: response to "FBI orders reporters to keep all notes on Adrian Lamo 
    articles [fs]"
    To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
    Dear Mark Rasch:
    Welcome to the treatment tax reform activists have
    come to know and love.  Rather, I should say "welcome
    to the first volley."
    The direct attacks upon people of your profession have
    just begun.  Years ago, the actions against those who
    ask legitimate questions of the taxation "authorities"
    had already escalated far beyond the eye-opening but
    relatively mild invasion you've just experienced.  One
    example out of the legion of tactics I might mention
    is a particular Bill proposed in Congress each year,
    gaining support with each appearance.  If (when?)
    passed, it would make even the mention of certain IRC
    statutes punishable by a $5,000 fine -- that's $5K
    *per mention.*
    Your anger at the situation with which you've been
    confronted is well founded, and many readers will
    respond in surprise and disgust as well.  I, however,
    am too "old" in these matters to feel anything except
    recognition and commiseration.
    Of course, your issue may be understood as an entirely
    different one from that of tax reform activists.
    My understanding comprehends the similarities.  I am
    interested only in the answer to one question:
    Will enough of you say NO to turn the tide back -- at
    least for yourselves?
      - Mairead Hannon
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 10:46:08 PDT