Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FBI bypasses First Amendment to nail a hacker; Citing a provision of the Patriot Act
The Register/SecurityFocus ^ | 09-29-03 | Mark D. Rasch

Posted on 09/29/2003 5:39:20 PM PDT by Brian S

Posted: 29/09/2003 at 16:35 GMT

Citing a provision of the Patriot Act, the FBI is sending letters to journalists telling them to secretly prepare to turn over their notes, e-mails and sources to the bureau. Should we throw out the First Amendment to nail a hacker, writes SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch.

Frequent readers of this space know that I am no apologist for hackers like Adrian Lamo, who, in the guise of protection, access others' computer systems without authorization, and then publicize these vulnerabilities.

When Lamo did this to the New York Times, he violated two of my cardinal rules: Don't make enemies with people appointed for life by the President of the United States; and don't make enemies of people who buy their ink by the gallon.

Now, in the scope of prosecuting Lamo, the FBI is doing the hacker one better by violating both of these precepts in one fell swoop.

The Bureau recently sent letters to a handful of reporters who have written stories about the Lamo case -- whether or not they have actually interviewed Lamo. The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.

In short, everything.

The notices make no mention of the protections of the First Amendment, Department of Justice regulations that restrict the authority to subpoena information from journalists, or the New York law that creates a "newsman's shield" against disclosure of certain confidential information by reporters.

Instead, the FBI has threatened to put these reporters in jail unless they agree to preserve all of these records while they obtain a subpoena for them under provisions amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act.

The government also officiously informed the reporters that this is an "official criminal investigation" and asks that they not disclose the request to preserve documents, or the contents of the letter, to anyone -- presumably including their editors, directors, or lawyers -- under the implied threat of prosecution for obstruction of justice.

That's why you're reading about the letters for the first time here.

They do this despite the fact that, had they actually obtained and issued a subpoena for these documents, the federal criminal procedure rules would have prohibited the imposition of any obligation of secrecy unless the Justice Department obtained a "gag" order on the press -- a rare event indeed.

All of this began the day after the Attorney General advised all United States Attorney's Offices to prosecute each and every criminal offense with the harshest possible penalties, instead of the previous policy of prosecuting cases with the penalties that most accurately reflect the seriousness of the offense. Thus, journalists be forewarned -- your government may be seeking to throw the book at you!

Believe it or not, this isn't even the worst of it.

Patriot Games

The demand that journalists preserve their notes is being made under laws that require ISP's and other "providers of electronic communications services" to preserve, for example, e-mails stored on their service, pending a subpoena, under a statute modified by the USA-PATRIOT Act.

The purpose of that law was to prevent the inadvertent destruction of ephemeral electronic records pending a subpoena. For example, you could tell an ISP that you were investigating a hacking case, and that they should preserve the audit logs while you ran to the local magistrate for a subpoena.

It was never intended to apply to journalist's records.

Similarly, the letters go on to inform the reporters that the FBI intends to get an order for production of records under the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act, a statute that applies only to ISPs. Citing that law, they insist that the journalist is mandated to preserve records for at least the next three months and possibly longer. This demand is all the more egregious in that it comes more than a year after the articles and interviews first appeared -- after any actual Internet logs would have been routinely deleted.

There are times -- few and far between -- when it may be essential in a criminal investigation or prosecution to subpoena a member of the press. Say, for example, a cameraman gets a picture of a crime in progress, and the photograph or videotape is published or broadcast, and the prosecution seeks to use it at trial. Or suppose that O.J. Simpson, after the murders in Brentwood, chose to unload his soul to Barbara Walters. That admission may require hauling Ms. Walters to the stand, if -- and this is a big "if" -- there is no other way to obtain crucial evidence.

But before a subpoena can be issued to a reporter under federal regulations and internal DOJ guidelines, not only must the Attorney General personally approve the subpoena, but prosecutors are instructed to use all reasonable efforts to get the information from other sources. The New York State newsman's shield law that applies to the Lamo prosecution requires essentially the same thing.

Even if such a subpoena is issued, government regulations mandate that, absent exigent circumstances, it must be limited to the verification of published information, and to such surrounding circumstances as relate to the accuracy of the published information.

Breaking the Rules

And yet, the FBI is demanding that reporters preserve every scrap of documentation about everything having to do with Adrian Lamo -- and has expressly told them that if they fail to do this for at least three months, and perhaps longer, they can expect to be prosecuted for contempt of court.

The DOJ guidelines also mandate that before a subpoena is issued, even for public information (e.g., a copy of a Dateline NBC videotape), there has to be a good faith effort to obtain the records by negotiation with the reporter. But no negotiation has occurred in this case.

I wish I could say this was a first. But in May of 2002, prosecutors investigating the very same Lamo case issued an unauthorized subpoena to MSNBC.com's Bob Sullivan for his notes and records. The subpoena was hastily withdrawn when it was noted that it had never been approved by the Attorney General, as mandated by regulation, and that the prosecutor -- who was reported as "inexperienced" -- didn't even realize that he had to obtain such approval.

And in March of 2001, the Department of Justice subpoenaed then-Wired.com reporter Declan McCullagh to testify in a criminal case, also in violation of the regulations.

While the FBI has reportedly told reporters that this time they will seek Attorney General approval before issuing subpoenas, there does not appear to have been any effort to obtain any that approval before threatening to prosecute these reporters with obstruction of justice under a statute that facially does not apply to them.

It's as though the FBI believes that Attorney General approval is a mere formality, ignoring the regulations that require negotiations with reporters first, and reportedly stating that all reporters can expect to be required to "turn it all over."

So why would the government need to put a reporter on the stand to testify that she interviewed Adrian Lamo, and that Lamo confessed?

Presumably to demonstrate that Lamo in fact hacked into the New York Times. I would certainly hope that the government would be able to prove this through other means -- like the IP logs. But if you peruse the affidavit submitted by the FBI to arrest Adrian Lamo, you begin to wonder. The affidavit is rife with references to articles written by Security Focus reporter Kevin Poulsen, and MSNBC.com's Sullivan, as their principal "evidence" of Lamo's guilt.

Might it be helpful to the government to enlist all journalists Lamo spoke to as criminal investigators -- doing the prosecutors' job for them? Sure. Would it make the FBI's job easier? No doubt. But the law requires that the information sought by subpoena be highly relevant and not available elsewhere. The government has not even tried to make this showing.

Nor have they limited their request to preserve evidence to verification of the published information. In fact, if all they wanted was verification of published information, no document preservation would be necessary. You simply call the reporter to the stand and ask, "Hey, when you said in your article that Lamo confessed, was that true?" End of subpoena.

So there must be a more sinister motive behind this preservation request. And there must be a more sinister motive behind using the ISP statute to do so.

Secret Orders

There are really only three reasons the government would invoke the ISP statute against journalists. All of these possibilities are frightening in their implications.

They may think that reporters who write stories for online publications or who use e-mail to communicate with sources (and whose news organizations maintain their own Internet connections) are, in fact, "providers of electronic communications" under the law. The statute is clearly geared at mandating the preservation of ephemeral electronic records by ISP's, but perhaps the Department of Justice is attempting to use the fact that reporters use electronic communications as a jurisdictional hook to order them to preserve their physical notes -- a dramatic, unprecedented and unwarranted expansion of the statute.

More sinister is the possibility that these letters were never intended to go to the reporters at all, but rather were actually intended to go to their ISPs. You see, the regulation that mandates Attorney General approval applies only to subpoenas to reporters, or to telephone companies to get a reporter's telephone records. Because the regulation is 20-years-old, it does not address the possibility that you could actually get the content of a reporters communications from a third party -- an ISP -- without subpoenaing the reporter herself. So the whole thing could be intended as an end-run around for the First Amendment.

Finally, it is possible that the FBI knew that the ISP statute didn't apply to the reporters, but simply wanted to threaten or intimidate them with the possibility of an obstruction of justice prosecution. But, as the Enron auditors at Arthur Anderson learned, all the government has to do is tell the reporters that their information may be relevant to the prosecution or defense of the case, and this would put them on notice that destroying their records in anticipation of litigation would constitute obstruction. There was no need for the heavy handed threat.

None of this explains the cloak of secrecy the FBI has thrown over the whole affair. Reporters are being told that this is an official criminal investigation, and asked not to tell anyone. Even the DOJ's proposals for secret administrative subpoenas announced this month as part of USA-PATRIOT II would allow recipients of such subpoenas to confer with their own lawyers and others necessary to enforce the subpoena. The FBI request here made it clear that they didn't want the reporters talking to anyone, because that would supposedly harm the ongoing criminal investigation.

And yet the FBI publicly announced to the world, through a Wired.com reporter, their intention to subpoena every journalist who ever talked to Adrian Lamo. Apparently, the FBI can talk about their intention to subpoena reporters, and mention specific reporters' names in the Lamo affidavit, but if journalists have the temerity to mention it to their own lawyers, this could devastate the prosecution.

I've never spoken to Adrian Lamo, but I am sure that by writing this article, I am making myself a target for subpoenas, search warrants (government, take note that the law prohibits search warrants for reporter's notes) and demands to preserve evidence. All I have to say is, quoting President George W. Bush, "Bring it on."

Copyright © 2003,

Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: adrianlamo; captured; doj; fbi; hacker; patriotact

1 posted on 09/29/2003 5:39:20 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian S
My eyes glazed over right after the guy said the FBI fellows didn't even mention a New York state law that they were not respecting.

So?!

The FBI does not work for New York!

Made me think this guy was a "former" something or other, and right there at the end of the article he is described as a "former".

2 posted on 09/29/2003 5:52:30 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
The Gestapo never had the investigative powers of the FBI under the Patriot Act.

Yes, it is for a good cause, the war on terror, but Hillary is almost certain to be elected President in '08.
What do you think her Atty General will do with this power.

Ruby Ridge, the sequel comming to your house in '08.

So9

3 posted on 09/29/2003 6:24:32 PM PDT by Servant of the 9 (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Can you please explain why an investigation an abuse of the First Amendment? The alleged "right of a journalist to protect a source" is not in the 1st or any other amendment. It is a modern myth, promulgated by (I woner why) the press.

Think for yourself for a minute. Ordinary citizens do not have the right to observe a crime and then refuse to testify about it (unless they invoke another Amedment). Why should the press have this right?

Add on that giving them this right allows them to aid and abet crime with impunity, as has often happened.

4 posted on 09/29/2003 6:29:50 PM PDT by RossA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Hillary is almost certain to be elected President in '08.

Please, get a grip on reality.

By '08 Hillery~! won't be able to be elected dogcatcher.
5 posted on 09/29/2003 6:31:44 PM PDT by tet68 (multiculturalism is an ideological academic fantasy maintained in obvious bad faith. M. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tet68
"By '08 Hillery~! won't be able to be elected dogcatcher."

If that is true she will get herself appointed
as deputy dogcatcher and then wack the dogcatcher.
6 posted on 09/29/2003 6:59:23 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
And your problem with that is??? He makes a GOOD case that FedGov is way overstepping its bounds (AGAIN) and all YOU can think of is he's a "former" something??????????? Sick,
7 posted on 09/29/2003 7:09:31 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Please, get a grip on reality.
By '08 Hillery~! won't be able to be elected dogcatcher.

If the Patriot Act stands, and you are wrong, we will continue the discussion at the internment camp.
If we both live.

So9

8 posted on 09/29/2003 7:18:56 PM PDT by Servant of the 9 (A Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Anyone who would question anything done in the name of anti-terror is desecrating the graves of the FDNY/NYPD heroes who died on September 11, 2001.

That's what they want us to believe, anyway.
9 posted on 09/29/2003 7:20:45 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
He's a whiner.
10 posted on 09/29/2003 7:22:31 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
This guy is all over the place.
"a more sinister motive behind this preservation request. "

Well, is it a request or an demand? He claims it to be both.
"The demand that journalists preserve their notes is being made under laws that require ISP's and other "providers of electronic communications services" to preserve, for example, e-mails stored on their service, pending a subpoena, under a statute modified by the USA-PATRIOT Act. "

It's possible that notice of the subpoena of the ISP or remote storage facilities records was sent to the reporters ( so they can challenge the subpoena), and that is being misunderstood by the author.

He doesn't make any sense.

11 posted on 09/29/2003 7:23:17 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RossA
I thought the gag order that journalists not discuss the letters was a potential first amendment violation.
12 posted on 09/29/2003 10:16:55 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RossA
Ordinary citizens do not have the right to observe a crime and then refuse to testify about it (unless they invoke another Amedment). Why should the press have this right?

Exactly. Journalists need to be told over and over until they get it through their fat pompous heads (like that's ever gonna happen) that the first amendment did not turn them into a special class of Beautiful People with rights different from what ordinary mortals enjoy.

13 posted on 09/30/2003 7:35:09 AM PDT by inquest (World socialism: the ultimate multinational corporation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RossA
Protection of journalist's confidential sources is necessary to preserve freedom of speech, to prevent, for example, retaliation by the govt against those who expose govt wrongdoing.

In any event, New York has a "shield law" which codifies this right. You can always lobby to have it repealed. I'm sure, as conservatives support states' rights, you will not suggest that the feds can just ignore it.

If you want to insist that they can and should, well then let's be fair. Let's jail Robert Novak if he doesn't reveal his source for the CIA agent he outed.


14 posted on 09/30/2003 11:53:09 AM PDT by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson