Web Site Says Justice Department Demanded It Secretly Turn Over Readers' Information

[Revmitchell]

An independent news Web site says the Department of Justice ordered it to release detailed information on its readers -- then directed the site to keep quiet about the demand.

Kristina Clair, systems administrator for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked when she received a subpoena from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis in January demanding the IP address of every person who visited the site on June 25, 2008. She said she was also instructed "not to disclose the existence of this request unless authorized by the Assistant U.S. Attorney."

Clair said she was astonished by the demand. "It's a purely aggregate site, it only pulls data from other Indymedia feeds," she told FoxNews.com. "There's no information fed to the site directly."

When she contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a legal advocacy group for digital freedom, she was told the subpoena was riddled with problems.

"Not only was this request a plain violation of federal privacy law -- which would require the government to at least get a court order based on a factual showing to get that kind of data; not only did it violate Department of Justice regulations that require subpoenas to media organizations to be vetted by the attorney general; not only did it threaten the First Amendment right to read anonymously of all of Indymedia's users, it also violated Ms. Clair's First Amendment rights by ordering her not to disclose the subpoena's existence," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston told FoxNews.com.

More Here

 

[Crabtownboy]

The demand was probable made using provisions of the Homeland Security Bill that conservatives were all for ... until it affects them. Do you remember how as soon as the law was passed demands were made on public libraries for patrons names and the books they had checked out?

 

[Revmitchell]

The demand was probable made using provisions of the Homeland Security Bill that conservatives were all for ... until it affects them. Do you remember how as soon as the law was passed demands were made on public libraries for patrons names and the books they had checked out?

Your statement is so full of probabilities that you have no credibility. Just partisan and inane babble.

 

[targus]

The demand was probable made using provisions of the Homeland Security Bill that conservatives were all for ... until it affects them.

Idle speculation on your part... and nothing more than your ususal practice of taking threads off topic to bash Republicans, conservatives, Bush, etc. :sleep:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Idle speculation on your part... and nothing more than your ususal practice of taking threads off topic to bash Republicans, conservatives, Bush, etc. :sleep:

Well criticism of me is not on the subject. :laugh: "The pot calling the kettle black." :laugh:

What justification do you think they used? I did not support the Homeland Security bill as I was sure it bring about abuses. Do you agree?

Rev. did you support the passage of the Homeland Security Bill?

 

[targus]

Well criticism of me is not on the subject. :laugh: "The pot calling the kettle black." :laugh:

What justification do you think they used? I did not support the Homeland Security bill as I was sure it bring about abuses. Do you agree?

Rev. did you support the passage of the Homeland Security Bill?

Please provide proof that the request was made under provision of the Homeland Security bill.

Until then you are off topic - as usual.

I don't think that they had any justification for it as evidenced by their retraction of the request as soon as it was challenged.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Please provide proof that the request was made under provision of the Homeland Security bill.

Until then you are off topic - as usual.

I don't think that they had any justification for it as evidenced by their retraction of the request as soon as it was challenged.

Ms. Clair contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco who represented her for free. So, if you can see the larger picture here, the significance goes far beyond online journalism and privacy rights. But since the Homeland Security Act was instituted, such things are going on much more. It must be very difficult and open to interpretation where the defining line ends versus where it should end.

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q="i...1&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=945a26f3,5dd8bbca

Retractions are not uncommon.

Such

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking_liberties/entry5595506.shtml

It may have been a fishing trip .......

Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking_liberties/entry5595506.shtml

 

[targus]

"I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."

"...did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas..."

"...wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility..."

None of this sounds like it was done "using the provisions of the Homeland Security Bill".

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This is funny. INDYMEDIA attracts some wackos, and the last time I visited there, the article comments do not appear to be moderated. They tend to be left-of-center.

Good for Kristina Clair.


C.T.Boy, are you disappointed that Obama has not removed the liberty-stomping provisions of the "Patriot" Act ? Or do you think his department ated ethically in this episode ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

C.T.Boy, are you disappointed that Obama has not removed the liberty-stomping provisions of the "Patriot" Act ? Or do you think his department ated ethically in this episode ?

Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? No

Ethically? I am not quite sure how this applies to ethics, so I am not sure. Illegal would be a more appropriate question IMHO. On that I am not sure if courts would declare it legal ... probably not as they did not follow the Dept. of Justice guildlines. I am not sure how courts would rule if they had followed established procedures.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

First of all, I enter into a conversation with you with a feeling of nausea, knowing full well you feel it's OK to lie about other's positions, put words in their mouths, and stand by your prejudicial misrepresentations in the face of contrary facts. You have also been known to call them names without explaining why. Debate with you is not something I find appealing.

Second, if the Justice Department was using the Patriot Act provisions to secure this information, then they wouldn't have told K. Clair to clam up.

Third, I guess you don't understand ethics at all, if you don't think ithe word applies.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Third, I guess you don't understand ethics at all, if you don't think ithe word applies.

Thinking about the ethics a bit and since department rules were not followed, I think it was unethical.

 

[billwald]

>The demand was probable made using provisions of the Homeland Security Bill that conservatives were all for ... until it affects them. Do you remember how as soon as the law was passed demands were made on public libraries for patrons names and the books they had checked out?

from http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2005/05/heres_a_first_h.html

"May 18, 2005

"Library subpoena fight makes it to USA Today

"The Deming, WA library story is getting a lot of play today with a first hand account in USA Today by its library director. This is the library in northwest Washington voted to go to court to challenge an FBI subpoena for records of people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden."