Justice Dept to News Site: Tells us who visited. And don't tell anyone we asked.

[Just_A_Guy]

Story here. The news outlet spilled the beans anyways, and the Justice Department has backed off.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[DigitalShadow]

Sounds like standard media fear mongering to me.

From the Article:

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.

That paragraph has a serious disconnect in it. IP addresses and times are really about all a news site like that would know about its visitors. If you had to register to view articles, they might be able to give a name and address as well, but a quick visit to the site in question tells me that they don't even have a place to register as a user. The only reason the article would specifically mention things like social security numbers is to scare you. If that news site is truly somehow recording my social security number every time I view an article there, there are far more serious issues with that situation.

All an IP address (which is the only conceivable piece of information the site could divulge) really correlates to is a particular ISP account at a particular time which is typically shared through a router to multiple people.

If you're truly that worried about your privacy and who knows what IP visited where, you should be far more outraged at the steps the MPAA and RIAA take in the name of stopping piracy.

[Moksha]

... 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.

Sounds more like something a criminal enterprise would ask.

[prisonchaplain]

An update to that story has the DOJ insisting that neither the AG nor the Asst. AG knew of this, so the supeona was not properly vetted prior to issuance. The order was quickly rescinded.

[Just_A_Guy]

The PDF of the actual subpoena is here. It does include a request for any credit card numbers, etc. that may have been garnered, though it almost looks like that part may be boilerplate text. At minimum, it was pretty darned sloppy lawyering. But I still lean towards prosecutorial overreaching.

One wonders if the DOJ would have backed off if the recipient hadn't lawyered up and gone public.

[Mahone]

That paragraph has a serious disconnect in it. IP addresses and times are really about all a news site like that would know about its visitors

It would appear they added the examples of "other identifying information" on themselves. It didn't actually specify those in the original document. It's either fear mongering or showing a complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject, or both.

[Mahone]

<snip>though it almost looks like that part may be boilerplate text<snip>

I deleted my previous post as you posted the actual subpoena which made my post inapplicable. However I agree with the above statement.

[Elphaba]

It is extremely misleading of McCullagh to refer to the "Justice Department" without explaining it is actually Bush’s Justice Department that is responsible for this situation.

In fact, McCullagh writes:

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment.

This is true. But he then goes on to write:

. . . that would be current attorney general Eric Holder. . . .

McCallugh is wrong. Eric Holder was not the attorney general on January 23, 2009, the date of the subpoena; in fact, he was not officially appointed Attorney General until February 2, 2003, eleven days after Morrison obtained the subpoena.

Mark Filip, a Bush-nominated District Court judge, served as interim attorney general until Holder could be officially appointed. It is simply impossible Filip would have approved anything during his eleven-day tenure, much less a grand jury subpoena.

Additionally, we know the investigation against Indymedia.us was conducted by Bush’s DoJ because the subpoena demands information be provided from June 25, 2008, while Bush was still president.

Obviously Morrison circumvented procedure to obtain the subpoena. I think it's possible he did not want to wait for Holder to come on board because he felt Holder would hesitate, or even hold it up completely. But, of course, that's just speculation on my part. Only Morrison can explain why he acted improperly and perhaps the answer is a benign one.

Regardless, the current Justice Department is not guilty of abuse of power. I’m not saying that was your point--I don’t think it was. But since McCullagh’s misinformation gave that impression, and far too many people on the right are doing happy dances over it, I felt a clarification was called for.

After all, I can't have anyone doing happy dances if I can't join in.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

Elpha, I have no doubt Holder did not know about it. Further, that the media outlet was considered left-of-center caused me to pause. The update says neither the AG nor the Asst. AG knew of it, and that it is possible an internal departmental investigation will take place. So...your vigilence and caution are noted, but this fire is well doused. :-)