Ehrlich Firing Probe Advances (MD4Bush/NCPAC - FR Mentioned)

Washington Post ^ | 11/03/05 | Ray Rivera

[conservative in nyc]

After months of sluggish progress, a legislative committee investigating Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich's hiring and firing practices yesterday directed its outside counsel to begin interviewing state employees who say they were fired to make room for the governor's political allies.

Baltimore attorney Ward B. Coe III's marching orders came amid a growing partisan divide over the direction of the investigation and as a former aide to the Republican governor has begun talking about his role in the firings

--Snip--

[MD Senate Minority Leader (R)] Stoltzfus yesterday said he may ask the committee to subpoena records of the Web site where the chats took place, http://freerepublic.com/ , and to subpoena Washington Post reporter Matthew Mosk, who first reported the postings.

R.B. Brenner, The Post's Maryland editor, said: "There is no reason to subpoena Matthew Mosk. We have already reported that we don't know who MD4BUSH is and that the newspaper had no involvement in the postings."

Mosk was given printed copies of the messages in November 2004, Brenner said. Unable to verify their authenticity, the reporter appealed for help and, in January, was given sign-on information to enter the chat room by someone associated with MD4BUSH, he said. The exchanges with Steffen appeared in October and November.

"Given the nature of the postings, we needed to verify that the copies we had been provided were accurate," Brenner said. Mosk later showed printouts to Steffen before the Feb. 9 story was published.

Stoltzfus suggested Mosk's use of the log-in information would constitute an ethical breach if the reporter had used it to communicate with Steffen. Brenner said Mosk simply read the messages and did not post anything on the Web site.

[conservative in nyc]

The Washington Post's latest article on the MD4Bush saga. Looks like they don't want to be subpoenaed.

And Matthew Mosk didn't write this article.

[conservative in nyc]

MD4Bush Ping!

From today's Washington Post.

[HAL9000]

R.B. Brenner, The Post's Maryland editor, said: "There is no reason to subpoena Matthew Mosk. We have already reported that we don't know who MD4BUSH is and that the newspaper had no involvement in the postings."

Mosk used a password without authorization to access private communications, in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Brenner (stupidly) admitted that yesterday -

Post reporter Matthew Mosk received printed copies of the message exchanges last fall, Brenner said. To verify they were authentic, he said, Mosk was given sign-on information needed to view the private chat room by an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH in late January.

[icwhatudo]

MD4BUSH SPREAD RUMOURS THAT MARYLAND SEN BARBARA MIKULSKI IS A LESBIAN. THIS IS A FACT INGNORED BY EVERY STORY DONE ABOUT THIS AFFAIR. WHY IS IT WRONG FOR STEFFEN TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL GOAL SPREADING SEXUAL INNUENDO ABOUT OMALLY... BUT ITS OK FOR A DEM OPERATIVE TO "OUT" MIKULSKI (attempting to warm up to Steffen) TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL GOAL????

(Pardon my posting this on all MD4BUSH threads but I'm hoping some media type will call Mikulski's office for her feelings on being used in such a way by a fellow democrat.)

[Nailbiter]

... ping ...

[jan in Colorado]

Why? Because the rules don't apply to Dems. They have no standards,no integrity, and no shame, that's why.

[conservative in nyc]

There's also an AP article in the Daily Record:


Amid partisan sniping, another delay for Annapolis firing probe

It reports that the firing probe may not be wrapped up by January, as expected, due to computer glitches, before reporting on the partisan wrangling. The democrats are opposed to subpoenaing Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post.

[advance_copy]

Mosk used a password without authorization to access private communications, in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Brenner (stupidly) admitted that yesterday -

Post reporter Matthew Mosk received printed copies of the message exchanges last fall, Brenner said. To verify they were authentic, he said, Mosk was given sign-on information needed to view the private chat room by an intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH in late January.

If it is true that Mosk violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, then the passage you posted from WaPo is also evidence that the "intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH" conspired with Mosk to do it, with the original MD4BUSH being involved. It seems to me that RICO has been violated.

I think Jim Robinson, having evidence of a potential federal crime, could be contacting the FBI to provide them with all the related information so they can investigate.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Washington Post demonstrates in this follow-up article that is NOT by Mosk that it is both stupid and dishonest. Anyone with half a brain knows that FreeRepublic is not a "chat room." Nor do its threads on which people discuss various articles closed except to those who sign on with passwords. Nor are they "private."

The truth is, and the Post hasn't gotten it right yet, is that the only private area of FreeRepublic is its Freep mail. Those messages are designed not to be seen except by the persons sending and receiving them. "Chat" has a meaning -- anyone can join in. "Private correspondence" has a meaning -- only the parties to the correspondence can read it.

And we're supposed to take the word of the Maryland Editor of the Post that they did nothing wrong? While they are hiding Mosk away from their own pages and away from reporters for other media? When Mosk has yet to describe in public, much less under oath, how he got MD4 bush's password, and what he did while on FR?

Bullsh*t.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Democrat Official Outed as 'Sleaze' Source on Mayor O'Malley; Washington Post Ignored Story it Had (Updated)"

[advance_copy]

Mosk was given printed copies of the messages in November 2004, Brenner said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we confirmed last night that Ryan O'Doherty was working for the Maryland DemocRAT Party in November 2004.

[HAL9000]

If Washington Post editor Brenner's statement is accurate, claiming that Mosk did not know MD4Bush's identity, how could he have obtained MD4Bush's authorization to access those private e-mails?

Furthermore, Mosk's use of the password to access those emails was in violation of FR's terms of service.

Here is the link to the relevant authority to report the matter -

U.S. Secret Service Form 4017: Cyber Threat/Network Incident Report

Here are a couple of excerpts from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that appear to have been violated -

2701. Unlawful access to stored communications

2702. Disclosure of contents

[conservative in nyc]

I suspect that Matthew Mosk has been taken off of the MD4Bush related articles for now, since he's become part of the story.

The MSM has never adequately understood the distinction between a blog and a forum, let alone a chat and a post or FReepmail. The Washington Post came close in the one article in the MD4Bush saga written specifically about Free Republic. I believe Kristinn may have been interviewed.

What I don't understand is how the Washington Post can know that someone is "associated with MD4Bush" without knowing MD4Bush's identity. Merely receiving MD4Bush's password from the "associate" proves nothing. For example, the "associate" could have stolen MD4Bush's password and claimed he or she was associated.

[airedale]

I guess someone could contact the Washington Post ombudsman with the details discussed in this and other postings. Unless their reporter can dead-bang prove he had permission of the account holder to access the information not relayed through some third person who also didn't know who MD4Bush was he could be in trouble. Wonder how the Post would handle this. I know they can take and publish stolen material without liability but I don't think they can actually break a law for a story.

[conservative in nyc]

I know they can take and publish stolen material without liability but I don't think they can actually break a law for a story.

No, they cannot. And if they didn't actually have MD4Bush's "authorization" to log on, they were probably breaking the law. There's no proof the Washington Post actually did that. But it's unclear to me that MD4Bush could have authorized ANYONE to login using his or her password under FR's terms and conditions.

The only type of "intermediary" "associated with" MD4Bush that I can think of that a newspaper could reasonably trust as giving legal "authorization" to use an anonymous "user"'s password is that person's lawyer.

[Southack]

The WaPost's userid on Free Republic claimed that Senator Mikulski is a lesbian.

Where's the outcry from the pro-gay organizations?

[advance_copy]

The WaPost's userid on Free Republic...

Well, if you believe WaPo, it wasn't their userid. It was the user id of someone they don't know and therefore could not have authorized them to use it. Even if they know MD4BUSH's identity, MD4BUSH couldn't really authorize them anyway because of the FR user agreement.

So, it seems as though MD4BUSH was the user id WaPo used in violation of Section 2701 of the Electronic Comunications Privacy Act. AND it appears as though they conspired to do that with someone they call an "intermediary acting on behalf of MD4BUSH".

[airedale]

I guess that could keep them anonymous

[conservative in nyc]

If the "intermediary" is a lawyer or other agent for an anonymous MD4Bush, the WaPo could have theoretically received authorization through the intermediary.

If that's true, I'm not sure whether the fact that MD4Bush couldn't give his password to a third party under the FR user agreement would have caused the WaPo not to have received "authorization" from MD4Bush for purposes of the ECPA. They likely would have thought they were authorized to access MD4Bush's FReepmails if his or her lawyer said ok.

[Southack]

"Well, if you believe WaPo, it wasn't their userid."

Incorrect. The WaPost admits using the Free Republic userid of "MD4Bush" to access this site.

That userid has at various times called Senator Mikulski a lesbian.

Thus, the WaPost's one admitted Free Republic userid has spread a gay-bashing rumor about a Democratic Party Senator.

Now granted, there may be more to the story. It may be that someone else also used that userid. It may even be that someone besides the WaPost spread that rumor...

...But it is up to the WaPost to explain why it wasn't them. Their userid did it, after all.

[advance_copy]

I'm not sure whether the fact that MD4Bush couldn't give his password to a third party under the FR user agreement would have caused the WaPo not to have received "authorization" from MD4Bush for purposes of the ECPA.

That's a point that the lawyers would have to know, ultimately based on case law, or by a judge. One thing is true, if I leave an apartment that I leased and give you the keys telling you to pay the rent, you are still not authorized to live there unless the landlord agrees to it.