PA Seizes Newspaper's Computers 314
twitter writes "Computer equipment from the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal was seized for alleged improper data access and disclosure. From the article: 'If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime.' Journalist are understandably upset that confidential information, that has nothing to do with the investigation, will be found and used for retribution."
Logs? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to me like impounding your car to take it apart to prove that you drove 7Mls over the speed limit.
Or in other words: Harrassement!
Silence the whistleblowers! (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you can give them the impression that even when a newspaper grants you anonymity, the feds will somehow find out who you are. Sure, you can still execute your freedom of speech.
But will you dare to when it pretty much means your career is over because it's this easy for the government to grab any kind of information they want? So take your share of the cake and shut up. It's better for you.
Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the 4th Amendment, the right to be secure in our belongings is still subject to the will of a judge to issue a warrant. The warrant was issued in this case, and the judge has taken personal responsibility to act as escrow for the information that reaches the prosecutors.
I don't know what else can really be guaranteed the newspaper, except that they will have their day in court. Their protests about informant confidentiality is a red herring, designed to take our attention away from the possibility that they were involved in illegal activities.
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof that there's no proof (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, if the coroner had indeed provided the system's password, wasn't he the one contravening security policy (if not the law)?
Their justification for the computer seizure doesn't explain it at all. If they were concerned about a possible breach (even one obtained through some fraud or password sharing), they'd be able to ascertain the truth more reliably and certainly via access logs from the host systems, or even the intervening logs from the newspaper's ISP. Period.
Searching through the hard drives would be a last ditch effort for a legitimate investigation, since the cache could have been modified or deleted (thus requiring a forensic examination of the suspect systems).
The investigators are either stupid or lying about their true motivations. I can smell a lawsuit of significant proportion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:1, Insightful)
> take our attention away from the possibility that they were involved in illegal
> activities.
Wrong - the computers will contain all sorts of information, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that any sort of control over the information retrieved will be implemented. So it's possible that stories, interviews, research etc about corrupt governmental officials, policemen etc could leak out, or that rival news organisations with friends in high places will have access to information that this news organisation may have obtained itself.
Just another argument for encryption, and perhaps also for some method of storing information about seperate subjects seperately so that only some subset of the encrypted data need be decrypted, and not just everything.
The Disconcerting part... (Score:2, Insightful)
In similar news, I understand that Congress is going to pass a law making it a crime to disclose illegal spying by the government.
Re:Logs? (Score:5, Insightful)
First Ammendement.... (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I'm reading... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no freedom to be a reporter (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that but anybody who talks to a reporter should know that there is no guarantee that the reporter will not be forced to tell law inforcement their source. When reporters write something down it should be assumed that it may be investigated. This raises the question of why reporters would put information on a computer and not encrypt it. If they have sensitive information it should be encrypted. How hard is it to use pgp? That is the only way to insure that the information they have will remain private.
If reporters really want to protect their sources they will not rely on judges to back them up but take precautions to insure that their information is secure from prying eyes.
Re:Proof that there's no proof (Score:3, Insightful)
Seizure may be going too far though - all depends on the specifics of the case.
--
(I never read facts - they spoil my arguments)
encryption for FSs (Score:5, Insightful)
Can remote 3rd party storage be siezed? (Score:5, Insightful)
This inevitably brings to mind today's story about Amazon's new storage service. If Lancaster Intelligencer Journal had stored their encrypted records and work files on such a storage service, would Amazon (or Google etc) have got raided and their computers taken away?
Obviously not (I think), but where does the boundary between yes and no actually lie? What if LIJ stored their encrypted data at some small 3rd party outfit?
This whole area is likely to become a tangled quagmire, as well as sadly a legal goldmine.
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another argument for encryption, and perhaps also for some method of storing information about seperate subjects seperately so that only some subset of the encrypted data need be decrypted, and not just everything.
Encryption wouldn't do much good when a judge will just order you to reveal the password(s) under pain of a contempt charge and jail until you concede, regardless of claims of bad memory, etc. There could also be destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice charges for wiping or destroying the hardrives.
Keeping the data private from investigators is possible, if one is willing to spend some serious time in the justice and penal systems. I'm all for standing on ones' principals, but when you're looking at a long stretch in prison, with a whole life, a career, and a family to consider, priorities can change in a hurry.
IANAL, YMMV, etc...
Strat
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:3, Insightful)
ATTENTION! THIS COMPUTING SYSTEM, INCLUDING ALL RELATED EQUIPMENT, NETWORKS, AND NETWORK DEVICES ARE PROVIDED ONLY FOR AUTHORIZED U.S. GOVERNMENT USE. ONLY AUTHORIZED USERS ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO THIS SYSTEM. DOD COMPUTER SYSTEMS MY BE MONITORED FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES, INCLUDING TO ENSURE THEIR USE IS AUTHORIZED.
I think it's pretty clear even if someone gave you a password, you should know you are not authorized to use it.
Someone please smack the author of this article (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeez.
Next up, "Rudy Guiliani orders torture of Al-Queda suspect at Gitmo"
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:3, Insightful)
Click through agreements have trained people not to read anything presented in all caps.
The Land of the Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to contact http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Re:Logs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
All I know is this'll sure make a good news story. Oh; wait, nevermind.
TrueCrypt (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Logs? (Score:1, Insightful)
So a bank notices an employee key card is missing,
How did they notice that? Did the employee report the loss?
and it was used to open the front door and the vault door.
Either the card was missing and used by thives or it was not missing in the first place. Would you mind making up your mind?
a review of the security cameras reveals the offender
So, was it the employee with the missing or not missing key card caught on tape or was it the thieve of the key card and if it was the thieve would you mind telling us why a warrant for the employees premises should be issued?
Besides that: I wouldn't know of any bank, which permits access to the vault based on a key card without additional security measures. Which is another reason why your analogy sucks.
Besides a class in logic 101 would be probably a good idea.
HTH HAND
Re:Can remote 3rd party storage be siezed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pointless, since it is illegal to not provide the key when asked by law enforcement who've gotten a warrant for it.
If you are concerned about your data being seized, you're better off having it on a portable storage device that you can either toss or give to someone else for safekeeping if you think the hammer's going to drop on your investigation.
Third parties would have to give up your files if they are prsented with a warrant for them. The key would be to use an offshore storage company, and do all your online activity through an offshore proxy. I'm sure they'll have tons of fun trying to serve a warrant then.
Re:Logs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Logs? (Score:5, Insightful)
1 Tax records
2 Full credit card information including card number, pin, phone numbers to call if lost or stolen.
3 Full bank details for online banking
4 Password list for various websites i log into once in a while. After all, I can't use Technician as a logon for AOL IM. So when I do use it on occasion, I need to look up my id.
5 Alarm system master password and user password. I seldom use the master password.
Can you think of any reason to leave any of that out for law enforcement or a burglar to dig through? It's nothing I would want either to have.
Re:Silence the whistleblowers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:encryption for FSs (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how many criminals are using encryption on their Filesystems these days? If they are not, now is the time to start. A bit of a hassle, but maybe less hassle than spending 3 years in prison.
As using someone elses password to get to information that you aren't allowed access to is a criminal act, and that is what will get you the three years in prison. Possible concern over source privacy, etc for reporters won't get you in prison for three years and is a totaly different statement than what you said.
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that journalists should be punishable for crimes they commit, but "criminal investigation" is commonly used as an excuse for government intimidation. (Not often in the USA, but read the reports from Reporters without borders [rsf.org].) Is this happening here, the secrecy around all this makes me worry!
Re:i got a 404 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The lesson Learned here kids? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you personally do what he said, but secretly do the opposite under a psudeoname that you change every time and use different ways of releasing it to the world then you are safe.
I.E. you HAVE to play the spy game. send encrypted hidden files to sources overseas afer you sent them the encryption key in a seperate manner earlier and from a throw away account or via a pair of relays through other countries, etc....
The only way to say out of jail is do everything in your power to keep your self 100% squeaky clean. your personal computer NEVER has anything in it. you do your subversive stuff from a live boot CD onto a USB drive or USB thumb drive that is encrypted.
Think deeper before you react. you haveto think like an opressed person because in america that is what you ARE!
Am I missing something??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a reporter allowed to run red lights? Can they break into the mayors office to rummage thru his files? How is this any different???
Re:Logs? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
Cardinal Richelieu
Re:Is the Freedom of the Press abridged? (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
Feudale ruled Feb. 23 that the state could seize the computers but view only Internet data relevant to the case. The judge also ordered the agent who withdraws the data to show them to him first - before passing them to prosecutors - to ensure that the journalists' other confidential files are not compromised.
Personally I think the entire process ought to be handled by a third-party on behalf of the court, and not by the state which is a party at interest. How could anyone be sure that only the material shown to the judge is made available to the prosecutors? How can anyone be sure that a complete copies of the entire contents of the drives weren't made and handed to the prosecution on the sly?
I also had the same reaction as the initial commentators here. Why isn't it proof enough that webserver log entries exist showing access to the restricted areas from the IPs of the newspaper? Sure IP addresses don't give you any information about the actual identity of the person(s) accessing the site, but seizing the computers is no better. How can you prove that the use of the computers wasn't by an unauthorized person? In fact, if you're out to undermine a local newspaper, sneaking into their offices and accessing a protected government website and then claiming foul sounds like a good strategy.
And, for those of you who want to analogize this situation to a simple burglary, remember that there are important press freedom issues here that don't arise in normal criminal acts. When printing presses were invented, states first tried destroying them, then licensing them. Governments have a very strong incentive to restrict press access as much as possible. That's why we have a First Amendment.
Two ways to look at it (Score:4, Insightful)
On the one hand:
"This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this."We have the potential for confidential sources and other non-related data to be exposed to the light of day. On the other hand:
The grand jury is investigating whether the Lancaster County coroner gave reporters for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal his password to a restricted law enforcement Web site. The site contained nonpublic details of local crimes. The newspaper allegedly used some of those details in articles.If the reporters used the Web site without authorization, officials say, they may have committed a crime.
We have reporters, eager to scoop the competition to drive up circulation by exposing little know details of crimes, committing a crime themselves in cahoots with the coroner, who must have been getting something out of the deal.
Either way you cut it, it's a legal quagmire and a constitutional nightmare.
Whose computers are they? (Score:3, Insightful)
State agents raided Kirchner's home outside Lancaster last month and took computers, he said. He said he had had no other contact with authorities since.
I can see the issue of having confidential secrets being found by the government, but at the same time being in the press does not absolve you from having evidence collected on you. The best thing the government can do is find a 3rd party to do the evidence collection (that is trusted by both sides).
The nerve of some people (Score:2, Insightful)
Newspapers (Score:1, Insightful)
There's ALOT more to this story then people see and read.
A high ranking person gave an illegal password to the intelligencer, who used it to get into confidential sites. However, the high ranking person is on trial for many many things, and they need to gather evidence against him
Nothing illegal whatsoever. The intelligencer is also willingly giving the computers over, not being forced.
Re:Logs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Logs? (Score:2, Insightful)
They may be able to delete my data, but they can't access it.
Judge: What's the password/key?
You: I'm not gonna tell you.
Judge: Have a stay in our luxurious county jail then.
Encryption might keep out the hoods, but it ain't gonna stop a judge's order.
Re:Logs? (Score:2, Insightful)
You decide. The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear, and there are no exceptions for the obviously guilty citizen.
Re:Logs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cardinal Richelieu
That number also works for guilt by association, since only 6 degrees seperate us all.
Re:Journalists have freedom, not immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Since businesses do a better job obtaining and preserving their protections than the public seems to do, just look to them for the precedent. They refuse to release things all the time claiming "irrepairable harm". Admittedly those are usually civil cases involving trade secrets and the like. However, the point stands. The Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable search and seizure for exactly that reason. Leaking information that can be used for retribution against citizen or, almost more importantly, against the press causes irrepairable harm. The belief of the paper is that the seizure, in this case, was far beyond what a constitution warrant would allow.
Admittedly computers and networks of them are very tightly integrated. It's hard to seize just the right parts of them. However, having witnessed the aftermath of a few police seizures of computer equipment I can assure you that it probably was overkill. People don't usually work well with things they don't understand. You can be that your average police department usually goes overboard in situations like this.
The claim could be made that the police made the most limited seizure practical, but I don't believe that's provides a defense against a clear Fourth Amendment claim (IANAL). The Fourth Amendment sends a clear message. Unfettered search and seizure is at odds with a citizen's ability to participate in a democracy because of the potential it creates for abuse. Any pretense of a crime can be used as a gateway to retribution. Especially considering that computers actually have made it easier to search and seize.
In the past, thousands of papers would have to meticulously found, catalogued, and archived. Now, digital copies can be made trivially, evidence integrity can be certified by third party signature, and search can be heavily automated. The sad fact is that the police are willfully ignoring the fact that they don't have to seize the entire computer so that they don't have to work as hard (not that they're lazy, but their resources ARE limited). Make no mistake, a single man can now seize libraries worth of data in minutes and search it just as quickly.
What nobody realizes about the Bill of Rights is that it was made to safeguard the ability of the people to revolt again if necessary. The government and courts has slowly disarmed the people, nibbled away at their speech protections, removed their autonomy, and generally preserve democracy by ensuring the government is subject to the will of the people--by force if necessary. This is always done in the spirit of "making people accountable", "keeping the peace", or "protecting people from criminals". The humbling reality is that every one of the founders of our government would have been dead if they were accountable to the government in their time. The peace would have been kept, it's true, but in a world where the people are made criminals for enjoying their freedom, what does it matter?