Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists

[TheMercenary]

Interesting.

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...?tag=mncol;txt

[Spexxvet]

Is that where Bin Laden's home page is?

[TheMercenary]

Who is Bin Laden and why is his home page important?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sounds to me like the grand jury was not interested in the journalists posting stories (which had been published elsewhere already), as much as who read the stories. Possibly trying to prove someone accessed information they claimed they didn't know.

Either way, bad juju.

[Cloud]

people have to provide their social security numbers to access the site? wtf? I guess they didn't comply with the gag order, huh? somebody's in trouble!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cloud

somebody's in trouble!

Yeah, I think so.

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.

[classicman]

Quick clear your caches everyone!!!! Oh nevermind too late.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I guess they didn't comply with the gag order, huh? somebody's in trouble!

There was no gag order. Orders come from judges. This came from a US attorney. They were bluffing. The ISP knew they were bluffing and called their lawyers. The lawyers fought it and won and made it public. Yea lawyers!

The real question is how often does the Justice Department send secret subpoenas like this to ISPs and the ISPs believe they have to comply and keep the bullshit secret?

The government added insult to injury by also inserting this language on the first page of the subpoena: "You are not to disclose the existence of this request unless authorized by the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Any such disclosure would impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law."

The problem? The law doesn't require the recipient of a federal grand jury subpoena to keep the subpoena secret (which is why, typically, subpoenas often will "request" -- but not require -- a recipient's silence). There are certainly secrecy requirements for participants in the grand jury -- such as the jurors and the prosecutors -- but those requirements do not extend to witnesses (or potential witnesses such as a subpoena recipient). And although the SCA does provide the government with the option of obtaining a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) requiring silence when the recipient's disclosure would have an adverse affect on an investigation, the government in this case did not obtain any such gag order.

In sum, without any legal authority to back up their purported gag demand, the government ordered Ms. Clair not to reveal the existence of the subpoena, a subpoena that as already described was patently overbroad and invalid under the SCA. This is exactly the kind of unjustified demand of silence that creates a fog around the government's often-overreaching surveillance activities.

[Pie]

Fuck it.

<scribbles>

Here's another check to the EFF.

[SamIam]

I'm changing my user name to Martha Stewart. Let them figure that one out. Wanna see my new table setting?

[ZenGum]

Good on the website for standing up to that bullying BS. Those attorneys should be suspended and/or prosecuted over this.

[TheMercenary]

Looks like nothing less than an abuse of the Patriot Act. Good on them for getting it in the news.

[classicman]

Wait what? I thought Bush was back in Texas.

[Cicero]

What is with my idiot compulsion to go visit that website right away?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Looks like nothing less than an abuse of the Patriot Act. Good on them for getting it in the news.

I don't get the patriot act connection, other than the website might assume the Patriot act allows them to do that. They didn't follow the law, they didn't contact Washington, what the clowns actually did was bluff... and failed. Spank 'em.