Legs, teeth, and damn ugly!
Posted on 11/10/2005 2:29:24 PM PST by Republican Red
Did the Washington Post Violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act? 11/10 05:24 PM For those of you who have been following the MD4Bush story (if not, click on the links at the bottom of this post to catch up), here's a little breaking news: Free Republic is looking into whether the Washington Post violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when Post reporter Matthew Mosk accessed the Free Republic account of MD4Bush.
According to the Post's statement on the matter, Mosk was given MD4Bush's sign-on information by "someone acting on MD4Bush’s behalf." He then used that screen name and password to log into MD4Bush's account and view private e-mails sent between MD4Bush and former Maryland state official Joseph Steffen.
According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, anyone who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or... intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility" is committing a crime. In this case, the Post claims it had authorization to view the private e-mails because it was given the password by "someone acting on MD4Bush's behalf."
There are two problems with this defense. First, how could the Post have known that this "someone" was really "acting on MD4Bush's behalf"? Free Republic spokesman Kristinn Taylor gave me the following example:
Imagine if I gave you the keys to someone's house and I said, 'If you go in this house, you'll find something newsworthy. Oh and trust me, I know the guy whose house this is, and he wants you to go in there.' Regardless of the legal questions, that certainly wouldn't be ethical. Yet that's exactly what Mosk did when accessed a total stranger's Free Republic account and viewed that account holder's private correspondence. To compound that ethical lapse, Mosk did not report these actions in his stories about Joseph Steffen. He merely alluded to "private e-mails, which were given to The Washington Post."
Second, even if the Post could prove that Mosk had MD4Bush's consent to log into his private account, that wouldn't be enough to exempt the Post from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That's because each Free Republic user agrees to terms of use, one of which is that the user will not give out his password. In other words, MD4Bush was not authorized to give Mosk permission to use his password — as the other party to the user agreement, Free Republic's consent was required also.
Taylor told me that Free Republic is looking at its options and considering legal action against the Post. Up until now, Free Republic has not released much information about the identity of MD4Bush, other than to say that his account was associated with the mddems.org web domain (not an mddems.org e-mail address, as this otherwise informative Washington Times piece reported today). But since it's now clear that MD4Bush violated his user agreement, Free Republic is considering whether he forfeited his confidentiality.
That Free Republic might go public with the name has the state Democratic Party on the defensive. This week, WBAL in Baltimore reported that the co-chairman of the Maryland Democrats, Keiffer Mitchell, has called for an investigation into whether the state party was involved in the MD4Bush affair, calling MD4Bush's tricks, "despicable" and saying an investigation was needed to "clear the air."
Unfortunately, the Washington Post has not shown a similar desire to shed light on its own role in assisting MD4Bush in his political hit on the governor of Maryland. The Post maintains that it does not know the identity of MD4Bush, but it has refused to name the "someone" who gave Mosk MD4Bush's sign-on information. In the interest of avoiding a criminal investigation, it might behoove the Post to come clean.
Thanks for the documentation and references.
So who will be the Compost's Mary Mapes, and who will be their Danny Blather?
Really nothing happens on the WP end until charges are pressed. You can count on the WP to stonewall until that time comes.
It will be fun to watch them twist and turn in the winds of truth.
Borrowed conservative in nyc's ping list with his prior permission.
Their attorneys should be looking at the law right about now.
From your lips to God's ears.
The WaPo is in trouble with FR?
Poetic justice is afoot.
This is just so absolutely delicious :)
"Their attorneys should be looking at the law right about now."
I'm sure the Compost's attorney's are monitoring all threads dealing with MD4BUSH.
If they weren't aware of that law, they are now after you posted it! :)
This is a WaPo op pop! Interesting to see what happens.
Yes it is! It is especially nice after all the puffery about GOP dirty tricks earlier in the year.
All they can do is wait and see if the hammer drops on them. It will get very interesting if that happens.
A court ordered revealing of IP info would be sweet once the papers are served. WAPO would definately be pushing for closed door courts on the matter to save face (while leaking just what the want to be heard to friendly press comrades).
Legs, teeth, and damn ugly!
More importantly, Matthew Mosk, reporter for WashPost was also on warning. He was on warning that MD4Bush COULD NOT grant permission for a third party, namely Mosk, to access that account. So, regardless of the "permission of the intermediary" which the Post claimed to have, they still did not have valid permission to access MD4Bush's account.
I conclude, strongly, that FreeRepublic is within its rights, on the circumstances of this particular situation, ro reveal to the public all information it has about the various times of access on this one particular account -- regardless of whether the person on the keyboard was MD4Bush, Mosk, or anyone else, signing in as MD4Bush.
If there is any blowback from that release, I will be happy to testify in court or in deposition that on the circumstances and facts of this situation, that action is legitimate.
John Armor, Esq.
It would be sweet. The court would have to find out for certain that Mosk was not MD4Bush to act. I don't think WP could get a "Closed door court", but Grand Jurys are like that.
Thanks for the ping.
Welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.