Latest Attempt To Create Federal Journalism Shield Law May Carve Wikileaks Out Of The Protections

Journalism

from the petty,-much? dept

With so much attention getting paid to Wikileaks lately — and with some politicians insisting that the site is guilty of treason, it should come as little surprise that no US politician wants to be seen proposing a law that somehow helps Wikileaks. We’ve written in the past about the (very much needed) effort to create a federal shield law for journalists, allowing them to protect their sources. Of course, part of the issue is who counts as a “journalist.” In the past there’s been a lot of back and forth and back and forth over whether or not “amateur” journalists could qualify — but one thing that the folks working on the bill now want to make sure: it won’t apply to Wikileaks (sent in by paperbag).

Apparently Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are quickly drafting a special amendment that says the law wouldn’t apply to “websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents.” That’s obviously targeted directly at Wikileaks, but it certainly could impact other sites that store documents as well, and that could create problems. I understand the political reasoning behind this, but it seems silly and only likely to cause more problems. And, of course, it won’t have any real impact on Wikileaks anyway. Not only is the organization not based in the US, but it designed its system to act as a technological shield law, anyway. So, the law won’t impact Wikileaks, but will almost certainly end up creating unintended consequences for other sites. All for political capital. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had politicians who did what’s right for once, rather than what’s politically expedient?

Filed Under: journalism, shield law, wikileaks

Canadian Supreme Court Says Press Have No Right To Hide Sources

Journalism

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

While we’re still fighting for a federal press shield law in the US (various states have them, but it’s not universal), the Supreme Court in Canada has ruled that a journalist could be compelled to give up his or her sources if the court thinks it’s worthwhile. The court did say that it really does depend on the circumstances, but if a court decides that it’s of greater public interest to reveal the source, then the court can require it. Of course, there could be some serious unintended consequences that come with such a ruling — including making sources and whistleblowers less willing to come forward, knowing that the journalists they speak to may not be able to protect their anonymity. I don’t know how the Canadian political setup works, but couldn’t this issue be solved with Canada passing a shield law? Hell, they can talk to their counterparts down south who are working on the same thing…

Filed Under: canada, press, shield law

TSA Withdrew Subpoenas On Travel Bloggers… But Serious Questions Linger

Legal Issues

from the this-is-security? dept

Last week, the news that the TSA visited two travel bloggers who had written about some rather obvious “security directives” that the TSA had refused to confirm publicly (i.e., that everyone boarding a flight to the US would get a pat down) got a fair bit of attention. Beyond just seeking their sources, the TSA agents had subpoenas and with one of the bloggers, were quite threatening and ended up confiscating his laptop (which was then damaged when it was returned). With the story getting so much attention, the TSA withdrew the subpoenas saying they were no longer necessary. While some are attributing this to the negative publicity received in the press, it seems more likely that they had figured out what they needed (especially with Steven Frischling handing over his laptop).

There are two other aspects of the story that remain in question and are somewhat troubling. The first is the issue raised by Danny Sullivan about Google’s role in this effort. It came out in the early reports that both bloggers had received the notice from someone with a Gmail account. Google won’t comment on whether or not it received a subpoena in this case, but it seems likely that it did. In fact, as Sullivan points out, Google — unlike some other companies — often seems quite willing to comply with such subpoenas without giving users a chance to protect themselves. This is the company’s right, of course, but given Google’s own positioning as a protector of user rights, you would think it would be a bit more aggressive on this front.

The second issue concerns reports that the TSA more or less forced Frischling to post a Twitter message, asking the guy who sent him the original email to email him again. Again, earlier reports had noted that Frischling had already deleted the email when the TSA agents had arrived. So, the suggestion is that they wanted to get him to email again. An “anonymous source” (so take it for what it’s worth) is claiming that the TSA agents typed a message into Twitter asking the guy to send Frischling an email, but told Frischling to actually “send” the Twitter message, so they could deny that they had posted it.

Given all of this, it seems like there’s a half decent chance that the TSA withdrew the subpoenas because it already had what it needed. It could get the guy’s email from Frischling’s computer after the guy emailed back — and then could subpoena Google to find out who it was, without getting much pushback. The bigger question, though, remains why this is happening at all. The “security directive” wasn’t classified. It wasn’t secret and it was obvious to anyone who happened to fly into the US from a foreign country. If the TSA really thinks that keeping something like this secret somehow makes us more secure, it’s even more messed up than previously thought.

And, once again, we’re reminded why we should have a federal shield law to protect anyone engaged in journalism from having to reveal their sources.

Filed Under: bloggers, security, shield law, subpoenas, terrorism
Companies: tsa

Minnesota Public Radio Reporter Faces Hacking Charges For Reporting On Data Leak

Legal Issues

from the federal-shield-law? dept

We were just noting how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is regularly abused to bring “hacking” charges where none are really warranted. And here we have yet another example. Alex Howard points out that a Minnesota Public Radio reporter, Sasha Aslanian, is potentially facing “hacking” charges from a Texas company called Lookout Services. Lookout creates employment/compliance software for large organizations, and Aslanian was reporting on a supposed data vulnerability in the software used to verify employment eligibility that could potentially reveal private info. Aslanian’s report noted that she was able to see info from the state of Minnesota, and the state was now directing agencies to stop using Lookout. The details are not entirely clear, but from what’s written at the MinnPost link above, it sounds like there were some vulnerabilities, poor security, and a bungled demonstration which revealed a vulnerability — all of which Lookout admits — and from those vulnerabilities (which Lookout claims it closed), someone was able to adjust the URL to find private data.

So, basically, the company admits to a series of vulnerabilities, which exposed info that allowed the reporter to eventually see some private data… but still claims that the reporter was “hacking” and is now looking to sue under the same Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which could lead to 5 years in prison. Because our federal government still hasn’t passed a journalism shield law, the reporter is potentially liable, though, as the MinnPost reporter notes, Lookout seems particularly shortsighted in bringing this lawsuit in the first place. All it does is call more attention to its own vulnerabilities and failings. And the CEO of Lookout basically responds that she doesn’t care:

While the legality and severity of Lookout’s security breach remains to be adjudicated, there’s no doubt Aslanian was trying to serve the public interest — something a prosecutor might consider. As Dalglish says, “The state of Minnesota should be grateful MPR exposed what’s going on. It seemed like a pretty good story.”

I asked Morley if she realized, by filing a high-profile suit, how hapless her timeline made Lookout look. After all, there’s the webinar screwup, letting clients pick lame IDs/passwords and caching security credentials in such a way that rendered them useless.

“Yup,” she admitted. “It was a perfect storm that came together. Our communication with the state really broke down — in our contract, we had 60 days to fix any problem. But there was still an unauthorized intrusion, and that was wrong.”

So, even though this will publicize not just Lookout’s failings, but also how it responds to people who notice and report on vulnerabilities, the company still thinks it needs to bring a lawsuit because exposing those vulnerabilities “was wrong”? I would argue that the company’s reaction to this gives many more reasons never to do business with Lookout — more than any discovered vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities in software happen — and it’s more telling how a company reacts when they’re exposed. Suing those who expose them isn’t what you want to see. Update: Lots of good points in the comments, pointing out (of course) that Lookout cannot bring criminal charges against the woman, only prosecutors could do that, and it seems unlikely they would do so in this case.

Filed Under: computer fraud and abuse act, data leak, hacking, reporting, sasha aslanian, shield law
Companies: lookout

Sens. Feinstein And Durbin Specifically Try To Carve Citizen Journalists Out Of Shield Law

Politics

from the protecting-journalists-or-journalism dept

There was a lot of reasonable concern earlier this year when a much needed federal shield law proposal appeared to ignore participatory journalists and only cover those employed by major media companies. After people complained about this we were relieved to see Senators Chuck Schumer and Arlen Specter change the bill to cover participatory journalism as well. As they realized such a law should be about protecting acts of journalism not some arbitrary definition of journalists.

Unfortunately, it looks like some other Senators disagree. Karl Bode alerts us to the news that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin are specifically trying to limit the bill to only covering major media journalists. It’s hard to see any rationale for such a move, but it does seem rather obnoxious. One of the fundamental points of a strong media is the ability to protect their sources. Without that, it’s that much harder for the media to actually hold anyone accountable, since sources will be more afraid to reveal important information. Why would Senators Feinstein and Durbin be so against protecting the process of journalism?

Filed Under: chuck durbin, dianne feinstein, journalism, participatory journalism, shield law

Senate's Latest Shield Law Brings Back Protection For Participatory Journalists

Politics

from the good-news dept

It looks like the Senate has pushed back on the restrictions that the White House wanted on a journalism shield law. Not only does the new Senate version greatly limit the circumstances under which the White House could get around the law, it also goes back to covering amateur/freelance/citizen/participatory journalists as well. The White House had wanted the right to basically claim which stories wouldn’t count for shield law protection (meaning journalists would need to give up their sources). But the “compromise” bill from the Senate will only allow this in cases where the government can show (not just say) that the information is needed to prevent terrorism or substantial harm to national security. That seems a lot more reasonable. Of course, this is only the Senate version and the bill very well might change before it gets approved, but at least it’s good to see that it doesn’t just create a special class of “professional journalists.”

Filed Under: journalism, participatory journalism, shield law

Shield Law? What Shield Law? Police Just Get Reporter's Phone Records

Legal Issues

from the how-about-that... dept

While there are still debates over proposals for a federal shield law to protect journalists from having to reveal sources, California already has a shield law for journalists, but what good does it do if authorities totally ignore it. It seems that may have happened in the case of TMZ’s Harvey Levin and the Los Angeles County Sheriff obtaining Levin’s phone records in trying to track down who leaked information about actor Mel Gibson’s arrest. Levin is pointing out that this does, in fact, appear to violate both state and federal law and is apparently working with lawyers over this. While the Sheriff’s department says it spoke with a prosecutor and got a judge’s approval to get the records, it’s difficult to see how that fits with California’s shield law.

Filed Under: harvey levin, journalism, los angeles, shield law
Companies: tmz

Wikileaks Decides: If The US Gov't Won't Create A Real Shield Law, We'll Shield Journalists Instead

Culture

from the technology-to-the-rescue dept

With the US federal gov’t continually watering down and limiting any attempt at a federal shield law to help protect journalists from being pressured into revealing their sources, it looks like the site Wikileaks wants to help. It’s trying to set up a system, whereby a source can leak information directly to a journalist for a period of time, before Wikileaks goes public with the info. But, either way, Wikileaks promises to protect the source, keeping the journalist separate from the source. While I have no idea if this particular program will actually work, it does show the futility of politicians trying to water down such a shield law. It seems like every time politicians try to do these sorts of things, the internet comes to the rescue with its own solutions.

Filed Under: journalism, shield law, wikileaks

Obama Administration: Shield Law Should Only Protect Journalists If We Don't Care About The Story

Politics

from the um...-wait-a-second... dept

We already found it quite troubling that the Senate committee, working on a federal “shield law” that would help protect journalists from having to reveal their sources, switched from language that was pretty inclusive, to a bill that would greatly limit the definition of a journalist to only those who work for big time journalistic endeavors. Lots of smaller, independent or amateur journalists would get no protection at all. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a sponsor of the bill, was apparently responsible for kicking out all those independent journalists. In looking into why, Jason Linkins, was told that the Justice Department was apparently worried that everyone would just start claiming shield protection, and it would greatly limit their ability to investigate certain issues. That’s a stretch, however. The law clearly could have been written in a way that would enable investigations, without removing protections over legitimate journalistic activity.

Either way, it might not matter at all. Apparently, even after all this, the Obama administration is asking for more concessions, such as not allowing any shield protection on any instance where the administration declares that the matter involves “significant” harm to national security. Now, you can understand why the administration would want that, but there’s absolutely no oversight. Basically, under the administration’s proposal, if the administration simply said there was such harm, the judge would immediately wipe out the shield.

If you want to create a chilling effect against any sort of whistleblowing on gov’t corruption, that’s what this proposal does. It basically lets the gov’t say that the shield law only applies to whistleblowing that doesn’t make the administration look bad. But, in any case where the administration isn’t happy, it gets to wipe out the shield. Apparently, freedom of the press only applies to situations in which the administration is not embarrassed.

Filed Under: journalism, national security, obama administration, shield law