Navy SEALs Sue AP Over Photos

L A Times ^ | December 29, 2004 | Tony Perry

[Ramonan]

SAN DIEGO — Six Navy SEALs and two wives of the commandos filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing Associated Press of invasion of privacy and endangering lives by distributing pictures of them with Iraqi prisoners.

The lawsuit, filed in San Diego County Superior Court, alleges that an Associated Press reporter obtained the photographs from a private website that the wife of one of the SEALs thought was open only to individuals with a password. The wire service issued a statement supporting the reporter, Seth Hettena, assigned to the San Diego bureau, and his use of the photos in a Dec. 4 story about possible abuse of prisoners.

"We believe AP's use of the photos and the manner in which they were obtained were entirely lawful and proper," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for Associated Press.

The lawsuit asserts that the photos, showing the SEALs' faces, have been shown on Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab television network and on anti-American billboards outside the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

As a result, said attorney James Huston, the SEALs' lives are endangered because their identities, which the Navy goes to great lengths to conceal, are now known.

The AP story said the photos were posted on a public website. The lawsuit says the site was meant for use only by Navy families with a password.

"This was not posted for world consumption and Al Jazeera's knowledge," Huston said.

With bases in Coronado and Virginia, the SEALs are deployed in a variety of clandestine missions. Reporters embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, are forbidden to mention the presence of SEALs.

The lawsuit asserts that identifying SEALs by showing their photographs is tantamount to blowing the cover for CIA agents, which is a felony.

[Ramonan]

1. Invasion of Privaxy is O K--if you are the Media. 2. Anything to help out Al-Quaida. 3.Find fault with SEALS-even if you have to make up stuff.

[Kitten Festival]

I might make you mad, but the media is innocent on this one.

[Kitten Festival]

If an AP reporter could see photos of the seals, there's no question that alqaida could, too.

Lesson: Don't like AP using your photos and names? Then don't post them on the Internet. It's not that complicated.

[Just Dan]

agreed... The wife should have secures the album.. better yet, the pictures should never have been taken.

[hometoroost]

Don't put it any where on the Internet if you wouldn't want it published on the front page of a newspaper.

[SuzyQue]

Any ideas as to why these photos were posted on the web in the first place? (Whether they were password protected or not). What is that about?

[OPS4]

The question who posted the pictures on the Internet?
Why did they post them?
What wa the poster's clearence?
How did the poster obtain them?
Did the actions of the poster, break any military rules?
Ops4 God Bless America!

[dalight]

I am wondering if there was a copyright notice on this site. Unauthorized reproduction of images such as a series of photographs is also a felony. Gosh we know about this.. and distributing these photographs for commercial gain without rights could be good for quite a hefty fine..

[FreedomCalls]

Lesson: Don't like AP using your photos and names? Then don't post them on the Internet. It's not that complicated.

I think it was one of the SEAL's wives back in the states who actually posted the pictures -- not a SEAL himself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kitten Festival]

I think the SEAL ought to have a little talk with his loquacious wife.

[dead]

Lesson: Don't like AP using your photos and names? Then don't post them on the Internet.

You got a point:

[Zeroisanumber]

1. Don't take photos 2. Don't post them on the web.

3. Don't abuse prisoners in the first place.

[antiunion person]

How in the hell can you say the media is innocent with this one?? You are out of your mind. Now that everyone in the world knows the identities of these Seals, not only will they be more in dangered but their families are also. You don't think the terrorists will use this information to their benefit?? You don't think there is a reason why the military keeps the identities of their elite troops secret for a reason?? This is just another ploy by the media to say the 1st Amendment is on their side. Hope would you like if the media, in their infinite wisdom, used photos your family, Kitten Festival, against you?? I'm sure you would say that being a private citizen gives you the right NOT to have private information said about you and your family. Well, keep in mind, the military is trying to keep you safe at night so you can sleep without the possibility of being attacked. Why don't you try to think of them a little. You can see my tagline, but this time I will something to it. Soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. all will die to help you, but what will you do to help them??

[GOP_Proud]

< Don't put it any where on the Internet if you wouldn't want it published on the front page of a newspaper. >

I'll go one better. Don't POSE for a picture that "you wouldn't want published on the front page of a newspaper".

[longtermmemmory]

This is pretty good. Reckless endangerment.

Negligence at some point becomes culpable.

(as in no yelling fire in a crowded theater.)

This is not first amendment, this is the equal of saying "keeel THIS person".

This is not a first amendment issue. Of course it all depends on the actual theory of the complaint.

at the very least I hope this gets over summary judgement to dismiss.

[First_Salute]

Much depends upon how the AP acquired the password.

Use of a key, simply because you have it, is not a lawful action.

You have a duty to check its source, and check with its source.

Because you pick up a key off the pavement, and you find that it works in a car, then, on the basis of, you're the AP, you get to drive the car or even open the door?

No, you don't.

You are trespassing.

With better lawyers, the S.E.A.L.'s in question might have the book thrown at the AP; if, again, given that the AP was not authorized to use the key.

[NJ_gent]

"1. Invasion of Privaxy"

Posting the pictures to publicly-accessible places on a worldwide internetwork kind of nixes that whole 'privacy' thing, now doesn't it. This is the same as if this person put the pictures up on a giant billboard in Los Angeles and then complained when the media showed a picture of the billboard.

I'm sorry that the person who put up the website was incompetent; I really do. I think it's a shame that their ignorance and stupidity may have put US soldiers' lives in danger. That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the media reporting on information made available in places where any member of the public has access to it. Perhaps this will provide a cautionary tale for others in the future.

[rohtol]

They're NOT innocent. The Copyright Act of 1976 made clear that photographers are the copyright owners of their images, except when those images were made as an employee, or when the photographer has conveyed the copyright to another party in a written and signed agreement.

I am assuming that the families gave no such written authorization to AP. At very least, AP was negligent in not obtaining authorization.

Hell, the username and password should have been the first clue to the reporter... that is, of course, unless he or someone he knows hacked into the site.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I believe that there were several errors here before Seth Hettena got involved.

1. Taking the pictures. I made a point on briefing guys on the pictures not to take. As a result, we don't have, for instance, any dead-guy pictures. (We wouldn't have had any pictures that showed violations, but who knows how a corrupt operation like AP would have altered or spun innocent snapshots).

   Sometimes I am sorry that I have so few pictures of myself to show for 25 years. Then I remember that there are the Seth Hettenas out there who wanted me dead -- my teammates, too -- for all those years, and I can live with a sparse photo album.

   So -- the SEALs were dumb to take the pictures. They were dumber still to email them. Once an image has been transmitted, it's lost to your control forever. Let this be a lesson to all those whom the media would destroy to win a news cycle (which is everybody).

2. The wife that posted these pictures online is stupid, stupid, stupid. The internet is piped directly into damned near every structure in the world from terrorists' mud huts on up, and the ones it doesn't reach now, it will, soon. And once something is put on the internet it is there, for all intents and purposes, forever. It can't be deleted, suppressed, or quashed: it's out now. A good rule of thumb is Don't do irreversible stuff if you don't know what you're doing!

3. The attempt to tie the SEALs to the CIA nondisclosure law is a longshot. The law is pretty clear about who it means. Military personnel in sensitive units are only covered by this law in a few very narrow scenarios. Now, IANAL, and military lawyers have been making a lot of strange claims in this current war. But this one looks like a complete non-starter to me.

4. The one specification under which they might have claims that might stick to Hettena, is if the site was actually password protected and he used technical tricks or subterfuge (social engineering) to gain access. If that is the case, he has committed a couple of Federal felonies, and probably further violations of California law. Before we start measuring him for a striped shirt, though, remember that when the story first hit the link to the pictures was included, and many people (self included) viewed the pictures. I think Hettena is OK, legally speaking.

Morally speaking is a different matter. But remember, we're talking AP here. The guys that reported a nonexistent boo at a Bush rally, that are wired into the insurgency, that are Al-Jazeera's middle-men on beheading tapes, and get filigreed invitations to participate in terrorist actions.

The Marines whacked a guy in Fallujah last month - AK in one hand, SLR lens marked "Property of Associated Press" in the other. Poor beggar couldn't decide whether to put his faith in the pen or in the sword, eh?

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F