|
March 13, 2006
Does your hard drive contain official secrets from your local coroner?
In a fascinating local "news leak" case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has seized hard drives from a Lancaster newspaper's computer -- to determine whether reporters were allowed improper access to the local coroner's web site. Pennsylvania's supreme court has refused to intervene: "This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this."The coroner denies that he gave reporters the password. Putting aside the First Amendment issue, I'm disturbed by the idea that it can be a crime to visit a taxpayer-funded site even when the public official in charge allows access. If he's breaking the rules, does that give the government the right to search through hard drives of all his contacts? The applicability of this to bloggers is obvious. Lots of information comes from visiting hard drives which require logging in. If I'm looking for information and someone sends me to a web site and gives me a password and I go there, how the hell am I supposed to know whether that's a crime? All I want is the damned information, not a hassle. As a practical matter, how many times do we have to log in to these pompous and ridiculous web sites every day? If you're online gathering information, these things are little more than an annoyance to be bypassed any way you can. But as more and more laws involving "internet security" are passed, why, I could imagine it might become a crime for a blogger to read Paul Krugman's stupid "pay only" opinions without paying. Pennsylvania law enforcement officials maintain that journalists have misused the First Amendment to shield a crime: Senior Deputy Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach argued that this was not a case of a journalist's right to protect a source but an attempt to use the First Amendment to shield a crime.How many web sites might be characterized as "a bulletin board in a locked room"? What the hell does that mean? Is there something about the digital nature of the bulletin board which changes its nature? Suppose we analogize to an actual, physical, bulletin board, located on the wall in the coroner's office. If, for whatever reason, the coroner allowed someone to see it who was not supposed to be "authorized," doesn't that go to the nature of news gathering and news reporting? If the reporter saw the bulletin board and took notes, does that give the government the right to raid the newspaper offices? Or for that matter, a blogger's home? Sheesh. Next they'll be making it a crime to listen to public officials who aren't allowed to talk. posted by Eric on 03.13.06 at 07:28 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Having to deal with confidentiality issues I'd be willing to bet the problem is a bit deeper than someone accessing a government site.
This is somewhat analogous to some of the government leak investigations going: not only is the person leaking the information is committing a crime for divulging the secrets; the consumer of that information (and subsequent reporting of it) is also committing a crime because they were aware of the confidentiality.
So while I don't agree with the means used by the PA AG Office (confiscating the hard disks) I can understand what they are chasing. The coroner provided access to a "restricted law enforcement Web Site". I'd be willing to bet that everytime the reporters logged in they got a warning banner that is required by law for such sites indicating something of the nature of "The use of this PA Government system is restricted to authorized users only. Unauthorized access, use, or modification of this computer system or of the data contained herein or in transit to/from this system constitutes a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030 and state criminal and civil laws".
In essence, I'd be willing to bet that there is evidence to indicate that the confidential nature of the data is known by the parties involved and therefore divulging and consuming that data is a crime.