That Anonymous Coward alerts us to the news that DC federal appeals court has issued a ruling (pdf) in the case of Gitmo detainee Adnan Farhan Abd Al Latif, but the entire ruling is classified, so the public has no idea what it says. A ruling last year at the district court had ordered the administration to release Latif for lack of evidence that he had anything to do with Al Qaeda. And now... we have no idea what the government is ordered to do or not do. So what do we do in a time when the federal government gets to come up with secret interpretations of law and then can have court rulings on related issues entirely hidden from the public?

We've covered, repeatedly, the misdeeds of various law enforcement officials lately, but this latest story might be the most egregiously ridiculous case. Apparently EPA Agent Keith Phillips pushed heavily for a case against a guy named Hubert Vidrine, who was eventually charged with "knowingly storing hazardous waste materials without a permit." It later turned out that there were some serious problems with the case against Vidrine. First, he was storing oil, which was not considered hazardous waste, and second, there was no evidence that the storage was done "knowingly." Eventually, the feds realized the case was so weak that it dumped it. Vidrine fought back in court, claiming malicious prosecution, and the court hasn't just sided with him, but awarded him $1.7 million dollars for the malicious prosecution, detailing that Phillips provided false testimony and then "permeated the entire investigation with omissions, half-truths, overstatements, inflammatory language, misstatements, patent falsehoods, and tortured readings of regulations."

But where it gets insane is the reason behind all of this. It didn't even have anything to do with Vidrine at all. Apparently, Agent Phillips used the case as a way to spend more time with his mistress, who was also working on the case. Seriously:

One of the more distressing allegations made at trial, involved allegations of Agent Phillips’ sexual, extra-marital affair (and its subsequent “cover up”) with Agent Barnhill. The evidence strongly indicated Agent Phillips deliberately used his investigation and prosecution of Hubert Vidrine to foster, further, facilitate and cloak his extra-marital affair with Agent Barnhill, and perhaps, to exert improper influence over the manner in which she investigated and reported upon this case. Agent Barnhill candidly testified that she and Agent Phillips began a physical, sexual relationship while assigned to this matter, which lasted from approximately 1996 until January or February 2001. Agent Barnhill testified she and Agent Phillips were only physically intimate when working together on the Vidrine case — in other words, they did not meet to pursue their sexual relations on occasions when they were not working the case together. Thus, the case granted the opportunity for those rendez-vous, as well as providing justification for Agent Phillips wife.

During the investigation and prosecution, Agent Barnhill, who was single, lived in South Louisiana; Agent Phillips, who was married, lived in Dallas, Texas with his wife. Prior to and at trial, plaintiffs’ counsel consistently argued Agent Phillips used the Vidrine investigation as a cover, excuse and opportunity to facilitate his illicit affair with Agent Barnhill and to hide the affair from his wife. Plaintiffs consistently argued Keith Phillips manufactured a case, both in law and fact, against Hubert Vidrine, and carefully fed the AUSA and his supervisors only the information which would further that end and perpetuate the case, all to promote access to Agent Barnhill and perpetuate and conceal their illicit affair. Regrettably, the Court agrees with plaintiffs: this inappropriate and unprofessional behavior likely was, at least in part (if not in whole) a motivation for Agent Phillips’ continued pursuit of Hubert Vidrine, without probable cause, and certainly with a complete and total reckless disregard of Hubert Vidrine’s rights.

For all of this, Phillips was charged separately, leading to him recently pleading guilty to perjury and obstruction of justice. Obviously, this is an extreme case, and in no way representative. But the point that it brings up is that law enforcement has tremendous power, and if they choose to go after someone maliciously (or indirectly salaciously), they can make someone's life a living hell on their own whim. This is why we're so often concerned about making sure there's transparency and oversight -- and that those accused of things are able to effectively defend themselves.

With the recent unveilling of sealed orders by the feds collecting info from various service providers on the activities of various Wikileaks volunteers, you might wonder how such things get sealed... and how often that happens. It appears quite frequently, but the details (of course) are secret. Julia Angwin at the Wall Street Journal profiles one magistrate judge who has been pushing for others to limit their use of seals, but it sounds like not many are following.

“We diminish our legitimacy when we do things under a blanket of secrecy,” Judge Smith said in an interview. “The only way people can get confidence in what we’re doing is if they can get access to what we are doing and know why we are doing it.”

Judge Smith analyzed the 4,234 electronic surveillance orders issued in his Houston courthouse between 1995 and 2007 and found that 91.8% of them remain sealed today.

Judge Smith says he now sets time limits for the seals on orders that he signs. If prosecutors want to renew the seal, they must request an extension. “It’s more work,” Judge Smith says, “but I think it’s necessary work.”

He said he is worried that “people who aren’t indicted – regular law abiding citizens like you or me,” will never know if their records were obtained in an investigation, he says, “because these sealing orders live on indefinitely.”

This is a huge problem for our supposedly "transparent" government. When it can effectively conduct investigations and never have to admit to them or get any adversarial review over whether or not the investigation itself was legal, you have a system prone to massive abuse. There are certainly times and cases where such seals could make sense. But the idea that so many cases are effectively permanently sealed, it gives the government the ability to spy on people with impunity. You just need to find a magistrate judge willing to accept the government's version of what's happening... and that seems to happen frequently enough.

The full article has even more disturbing details like the fact that a recent survey found that 39% of sealed cases are never even put into the court's system for tracking cases, which would at least provide some info to the public to help analyze how often this kind of thing happens. This kind of secrecy is not how a government is supposed to function. If such investigations need to happen under seal they should always include some sort of expiration date on the seal. Otherwise, the feds know that as long as they can convince a judge (without the other side there to argue), they're effectively home free, and no one will scrutinize the investigations.

Back in March, an appeals court said that the ACLU and others could challenge the controversial FISA Amendments Act, the highly controversial change to the law that Senator Wyden has been clearly suggesting is being interpreted ridiculously broadly, such that the US government is collecting private data on potentially millions of Americans without oversight or review. The concern was whether or not the ACLU had "standing" to bring the case. That's because no one knows if their private data has been scooped up and used under FISA, because the government isn't revealing it. But if you can't prove you've been harmed by the law, can you sue? The government claimed that since the ACLU had no proof it could not sue. The court disagreed.

Not surprisingly, the US asked the full appeals court (rather than just the three judge panel) to review that ruling, but the court has now rejected that request. Often when a court refuses to rehear a case en banc, there isn't much of a discussion about it -- they just refuse. Yet here, there's an 83 page filing of opinions (pdf) by judges on the court arguing over whether or not the case should have been heard. Incredibly, despite the clear implications of what Senator Wyden has been saying, a bunch of judges say that the FISA Amendments Act doesn't represent a significant change in the law. Thankfully, those judges were outvoted here, and the lawsuit can move forward.

Governments are pretty touchy about their logos. Last year, the FBI threw a hissy fit when it discovered that Wikipedia accurately displayed its logo on a page about (you guessed it) the FBI. Similarly, the White House got upset with a blogger who used the White House logo in a post about a meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. And, while there is a federal law against misuse of logos, that's for people using the logos to misrepresent themselves. Going after Wikipedia or journalists for using logos in a descriptive manner is silly.

However, Fluvanna County, Virginia, decided that it had nothing better to do than to pass an ordinance similarly banning the use of its logo, in an effort that appeared to have been directed at a blogger who used the logo... on stories about the county. Thankfully, a court has struck down the law as being a First Amendment violation:

This sweeping prohibition encompasses a substantial number of uses of the seal that would not suggest government endorsement, such as the display on a website of an exact copy of an official County news release that contains the image of the seal next to the text, or the publication in a newspaper of a photograph of a County official delivering a speech from a podium upon which the County seal is attached and visible.

The court does compare it to the similar federal law, but notes that at least the federal law makes it clear that it's only intended for use where there may be confusion over a potential endorsement. And, with that, here's the damn logo that the county can't sue us over.

While Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was recently in Cuba to undergo cancer treatment, several media outlets reported on Chavez using Twitter to run Venezuela. Tweets included an approval of a million dollar garbage collection program and the announcement of a new park in Caracas. As fantastic as the headlines dealing with this news sound, a little nuance is probably needed. Any of the actual decision-making was obviously done in more than 140 characters, and only the actual announcements of decisions were made by Chavez on Twitter. Instead of using it to 'run Venezuela', it would be more accurate to say that Twitter has allowed Chavez to retain a strong image in the run up to upcoming presidential elections. Probably a better strategy than censoring the internet.

We certainly suspected this when New York City first announced that it was running a series of silly and misleading videos as part of a media campaign to "Stop Piracy in NYC," but now it's been confirmed that these videos were not, in fact, New York City's, but are purely NBC Universal's. At the time, NYC had "thanked" NBC Universal (among others), but had not admitted that NBC Universal "owned" and had created the videos themselves. However, in response to one of the Freedom of Information requests that I filed with New York City, the city noted that the videos are property of NBC Universal. I had asked for any licensing info between NYC and Homeland Security/ICE because ICE was using the same videos. Since NYC had clearly suggested that those videos were the creation of the NYC government, I assumed that ICE must have licensed the videos from NYC. However, NYC responded to my request by saying that there was no such info to hand over, because it did not license the videos to Homeland Security. And the reason was that NYC did not own the videos:

The Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment has no records responsive to your request. Please note that NBC Universal owns the material, not the City of New York.

That's fascinating information. Of course, I had also filed a separate FOI request for any info on the licensing agreement between NYC and NBC Universal. As of this writing there has been no response from NYC, in violation of New York State's Freedom of Information Law, which requires a response within 5 business days (we're way beyond that).

Still, at least give NYC credit for making it clear that NBC Universal had a hand in the creation of the videos, even if it left out the rather pertinent information that it created and owned the videos. While I find it immensely troubling that a municipal government would run PSAs created by corporate interests (without making that clear), I'm extremely troubled by the news that the federal government would run those same videos with absolutely no mention of the fact that the videos were created and owned by a private corporation with a tremendous stake in the issue.

Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs? So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?

Does Homeland Security work for the US public... or for NBC Universal?

While there's been plenty of attention paid to the US government's attempt, using a 2703(d) order (sorta like a subpoena, but not quite), to get info from Twitter on certain users who had a connection to Wikileaks, one of things that we pointed out at the time was the only reason we knew about the orders to Twitter was because Twitter fought the order. We wondered who else received such orders and just rolled over and handed over the data.

It appears that the ACLU and the EFF are asking the same question.

While (of course) it would appear that such info is being kept totally secret by the US government, those two organizations scanned the case numbers to determine that it appears four other similar orders were issued at the same time as Twitter's order -- and they'd like to know who those orders went to, in order to defend the users' right to privacy. The argument seems pretty sound here. Since these users are currently fighting the government's attempt to have Twitter hand over their info, shouldn't they have the right to fight against other services handing over their info?

Of course, the end result of this will almost certainly be a revelation of which four online services simply rolled over rather than defending their users' rights. Anyone want to take guesses as to who's on that list?

In the business world, if you sign a non-disclosure agreement, it's well accepted that if the information covered in that agreement later becomes public through other means, you are no longer bound by the agreement. This makes sense. After all, why should anyone be forced to clam up about information that's already public. And, yet, for no good reason at all, it seems our government prefers a system where everyone is supposed to keep their head in the sand about public info. Witness the mind-numbingly bizarre claim that lawyers for Guantanamo detainees are not allowed to look at the documents that a bunch of newspapers released earlier this week (the documents allegedly came from Wikileaks, but apparently Wikileaks itself did not release them to the newspapers). Yes, these documents are all over the news and are widely available from multiple sources... yet the government has warned the lawyers not to look:

On Monday, hours after WikiLeaks, The New York Times and other news organizations began publishing the documents online, the Justice Department informed Guantanamo defense lawyers that the documents remained legally classified even after they were made public.

Because the lawyers have security clearances, they are obligated to treat the readily available files "in accordance with all relevant security precautions and safeguards" -- handling them, for example, only in secure government facilities, said the notice from the department's Court Security Office.

The NY Times, rightly, calls this "absurdist." I'd call it out right stupid. It's head-in-the-sandism. If the information is public, live with it. It's public. Pretending that public information is not public doesn't help anyone. It just makes it look like the government is in denial and not dealing with reality. Frankly, I'd much prefer a government that can deal with reality to one that tells everyone to cover their eyes and ears and pretend reality doesn't exist.

Of course, this is not the first time we've seen this. With just Wikileaks, we saw it a few months ago when parts of the federal government barred employees from looking at the site and its leaks, using the identical rationale. So, despite the fact that everyone else in the world could easily see those documents, the ones who it might impact the most have to pretend that the documents are not actually public.

It's government playing make believe.

It's also not unlike the ridiculous hoops the government made lawyers go through in the al-Haramain case, in which the government accidentally leaked a document proving that it had wiretapped without a warrant. And despite the fact that the document had been leaked, it was required that lawyers for al-Haramain pretend the documents were still secret, leading to an absolutely insane process by which the lawyers had to destroy all of the copies they had of this info, and could only refer to it obliquely from memory, with a Justice Department official watching over them, with the ability to force them to stop talking about certain aspects.

None of this makes any sense. Just like we have "security theater," this appears to be "classification theater." These documents are not classified any more. Period. Pretending they are is a charade that the government is putting on which everyone knows is a lie. Isn't it time we had our government stop pretending and start dealing with reality?