Armed agents seize records of reporter | Hacker News Reader

Armed agents seize records of reporter

washingtontimes.com

110 pointssuprgeek21 comments

Every journalist covering sensitive topics like national security should have well-practiced digital security habits.

Edward Snowden specifically sought out Laura Poitras because she had a clue about information security.

Peter Maass, who covers national security topics and interviewed Snowden, Poitras and Greenwald [0], explains that very few journalists take appropriate precautions to protect their sources [1].

Anything less than routine use of encryption, Tor, VPNs and secure voice communication should be considered journalistic malpractice given what we now know.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno...

[1] http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/221003/peter-ma...

That sounds nice and all, but the real solution is to have the government respect the constitutionally protected free press.

This may be true, but especially in the case of whistleblowing, where unethical behavior is already suspected/reported, it seems like prudence favors an approach that does not depend on one's rights being respected.

In a perfect world, yes. But I think this is yet another signal to the people that we're not living in any utopia and it's time to protect oneself against the intrusions of the government.

Free speach is now a right that the people must enforce.

A hackerspace in Malmö Sweden are suggesting workshops for the public to teach them the use of open tools, encryption and secure communications.

It would be nice if other hackerspaces around the world joined in on this idea.

Yes, we must repair the tattered remains of our freedoms and democratic institutions.

To do that, we desperately need exposure and public condemnation of the people and practices responsible for our predicament, plus discussion and analysis of the actions we can take.

To do that we need free expression and a free press, where sources aren't afraid to talk to reporters or to self-publish.

And _that_ requires well-practiced digital security habits and routine use of encryption, Tor, VPNs and secure voice communication at a minimum.

The notes in this case were actually on paper. The list of sources was on paper too I think - they were taken without her knowledge during the raid, and only returned later.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/25/report-armed-feds...

I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'. A common thief would have been able to steal this information, and all these sources would have been out in the open. Maybe it's even wise never to pertain physical copies of documents, but to work digitally and encrypt everything.

If you spend so much time investigating an agency that is so powerful, what do you expect? You must prepare for the worst: they may be fined by court for their actions, but they don't care: they got what they wanted:

1. information about the source of the leaks/information 2. scared any future wistleblowers of leaking to her or other people like her.

It only shows that being a wistleblower is very dangerous because of the journalists who don't have any clue about security.

But maybe I'm to harsh.

I don't understand your astonishment when most of the people believed that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... actually worked. It was assumed that the oppresive regimes are somewhere else.

> I read the full article and I was actually astonished that such information was not stored inside some kind of 'safe' or 'vault'.

Yes. Safes and encryption can be overcome by court order, or even rubber hose decryption, but even if you submit to an order you at least know that you've been surveilled.

Safes and encryption are like an alarm, even if they don't ultimately keep you safe or encrypted.

The bizarre thing is the actual warrant - searching for firearms-related items & documents in their house, because her husband had a 1980s-vintage resisting arrest conviction which precludes him from owning firearms. I don't have PACER access, but I would love for someone to dig up that warrant application when it becomes available and see how bald-facedly pretextual it is.

The continuous erosion of our protections is alarming. How can it be stopped and reversed? Is it even possible? IMANAL, but hasn't there been a SCOTUS case or two on this very thing?

It will take decades to reverse the trend. Everyone is scared these days. A lot of what we see are a consequence of being scared-- the government being scared of the populace, and the populace being scared of the government.

The US has gone well beyond the "if this continues" point. It is now well across the line.

Indeed. It's a thug-ocracy.

Original link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents...

I am doing my best to spread these stories beyond our community...the lack of awareness about what is going in is terrifying. can anyone point me to a well sourced, succinct but complete clearinghouse that I can point people to? I am going to need to start creating one if there is nothing out there

It gets criticized by some (rightly or wrongly) for being "biased" -- whatever that may mean, these days -- but techdirt.com is a fairly thorough and vary active catch-all summation site for these types of stories.

Even if there's an innocuous explanation for this, the government has totally blown through the trust of communities like this one, the critical journalism community, and more.

"This violates the very premise of a free press..."

I am thinking it would be far wiser for the Press to assume that there is no such thing...

Just like we caution our clients to treat email the same as postcards...

The warrant covers "any communications that that might be found in Mrs. Hudson and Mrs. Flanagan’s home related to “the acquisition of firearms or accessories.”

Likely the term "communications" includes written communications, in which case they would have had to seize all written records in the home, unless they wanted search though all of them on-site. I doubt agents are experts in filtering documents during a raid.

Furthermore, if the police find something not related to the search warrant but criminal in nature (like a dead body or possibly stolen records) they can seize them, too.

Except, at least according to Hudson's story, they were very specific and limited in the papers they took. They knew what they were looking for, it wasn't about guns, and they found it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com