Freedom Of The Press Foundation Sues DOJ Over Its Secret Rules For Spying On Journalists

from the a-little-transparency-please dept

Fri, Jul 31st 2015 3:44pm — Mike Masnick

The wonderful Freedom of the Press Foundation is now suing the US Justice Department for refusing to reveal its rules and procedures for spying on journalists. You can read the complaint here. The key issue: what rules and oversight exist for the DOJ when it comes to spying on journalists. As you may recall, a few years ago, it came out that the DOJ had been using some fairly sneaky tricks to spy on journalists, including falsely telling a court that reporter James Rosen was a "co-conspirator" in order to get access to his emails and phone records. In response to a lot of criticism, the DOJ agreed to "revise" its rules for when it snoops on journalists.

However, there was an important limitation on the "new" rules, as the NY Times noted at the time:

There is no change to how the F.B.I. may obtain reporters’ calling records via “national security letters,” which are exempt from the regular guidelines. A Justice spokesman said the device is 'subject to an extensive oversight regime.'

Extensive oversight regime, eh? The Freedom of the Press Foundation sought to find out just what kind of extensive oversight there really was -- and came up against a brick wall in the form of black redaction ink:

That's from the DOJ's Inspector General report, concerning a situation where the FBI had used an NSL to access a journalist's communications inappropriately. As the Freedom of the Press Foundation notes, elsewhere in that same report, it appears that the FBI is actually ignoring recommendations of the Inspector General concerning these situations, despite the "First Amendment interests implicated."

As the Foundation notes, the redactions here make the details entirely opaque, and the Inspector General's Office has made it clear that it disagreed with the redactions, saying that revealing the information behind that black ink "is important to the public's understanding of the FBI's compliance with NSL requirements." Given that the Foundation is now suing to find out those details. The lawsuit specifically requests that the DOJ reveal those documents in their entirety, which includes the "extensive regime, rules, guidelines, or infrastructure that oversees the issuance of NSLs or exigent letters to obtain records regarding a member of the media" as well as "the current procedures that FBI agents must undertake in advance of issuing a NSL or exigent letter to obtain records regarding any member of the media."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the DOJ will reply, hysterically, that revealing this kind of information will put national security at risk and could reveal important law enforcement gathering techniques that will aid those out to harm us or some such crap. Perhaps they'll even toss in a request to dump the entire case for reasons of "national security." Just recognize that this is all busllshit. The request here is not for any details that are going to help any criminals get away with anything. All it is asking for is what process the FBI uses to make sure that it's not violating the First Amendment in spying on journalists. If that's something that needs to be kept secret, there can be only one reason: because the FBI is embarrassed by what it's doing in spying on journalists.

Fpf Nsl Foia Complaint (PDF)Fpf Nsl Foia Complaint (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: doj, fbi, first amendment, journalists, national security letters, nsls, surveillance
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:02pm

I'd like to know just one thing: how and why did the Executive Branch of this Government become the personal enemy of every citizen it supposedly governs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Other Not So Random Guy, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:10pm

Re:
Because... "terrorism."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 5:11pm

The people targeted have a need to know
So secrecy about secret interpretations of laws. Feel free to replace the word Bullshit for Secret at any time and the end result is the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2015 @ 9:11pm

More secret law/interpretation/memo/executive order bullshit. I think that sums it up. Same old shit, just a different day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 1 Aug 2015 @ 12:53am

There shouldn't be any spying on journalists. At all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 2:29am

Re:
Because the terrorists won after 9/11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 3:35am

Re:
they aspire to lead a dictatorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 4:02am

Well there's always standard 3 of the FBI, where they'll drop any case (including terrorism) for sex.

Doesn't matter if your male or female, if you're willing to get nekkid and do the nasty, the investigation comes to an immediate halt.

Source: hundreds of cases since 2009
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 1 Aug 2015 @ 5:17am

Re:
The U.S. has acquired so much experience in establishing and supporting corporation-friendly dictatorships abroad (partly under the color of democracy, an interesting propaganda challenge when toppling grass-root supported socialist governments) that it would be a shame not to employ the requisite skills at home.

Why should the U.S. itself be saved the shame of liberation? It's more believable if you make your own serfs eat your own dog food, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groaker (profile), 1 Aug 2015 @ 6:11am

Small potatoes
We now have candidates who wish to use the US military and the FBI against law abiding citizens,most particularly to delve int the reproductive organs of half the population. If that isn't terrorism then I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2015 @ 3:21pm

Obvious constituion patch
Clearly the definition of treason needs to be amended to include the passage of any and all secret laws so that they are not only unconstitutional but also a capital crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont, 2 Aug 2015 @ 11:24pm

Re: Obvious constituion patch
Now if only there was a real government in the USA that could initiate such legislation against the passage of crooked laws.

Sadly, all you have today is this Hollywood Government thing whose only desire is sicker, dumber people, fewer civil rights for non-millionaires, and every last dime in America.

Yep. Yer gonna need to create a real government before you can get it to make real laws against real crimes and punish the real crooks.

Good luck with that. :)

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]