Filecoin Foundation Ensuring That SecureDrop Can Continue To Help Whistleblowers And Journalists

from the some-good-news dept

Earlier this year we were excited to see the Filecoin Foundation give the Internet Archive its largest donation ever, to help make sure that the Internet Archive is both more sustainable as an organization, and that the works it makes available will be more permanently available on a more distributed, decentralized system. The Internet Archive is a perfect example of the type of organization that can benefit from a more distributed internet.

Another such organization is the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which, among its many, many projects, maintains and develops SecureDrop, the incredibly important tool for journalists and whistleblowers, which was initially developed in part by Aaron Swartz (as DeadDrop). So it's great to see that the Freedom of the Press Foundation has now announced the largest donation it has ever received, coming from the Filecoin Foundation for the Distributed Web (the sister organization of the Filecoin Foundation):

Today, for the first time, that calculus has changed. We’re thrilled to announce the largest grant in the history of Freedom of the Press Foundation that will ensure SecureDrop survives — and thrives — for years to come. The Filecoin Foundation for the Decentralized Web — a new grantmaking organization whose mission is to permanently preserve humanity’s most important information — is funding FPF at over $1.7 million for each of the next three years, for a total of $5.8 million.

The funding will largely go towards sustaining and expanding our SecureDrop team, funding the development of the next-generation of the system, including exploring a new zero-trust architecture for the decentralized servers. This grant will ensure that SecureDrop will not only be sustainable over the long term, but will be easier to use and hopefully safer than ever. In short, it will have a game-changing impact on how we can build and improve SecureDrop for journalists around the world. You can read about some of our technical plans for the future here.

This is great to see as SecureDrop is another one of those tools that is so key, but as an open source project is often in a precarious position without the financial support to make sure that there is active development.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, decentralization, filecoin, free speech, journalism, securedrop, whistleblowers
Companies: filecoin foundation, freedom of the press foundation

Court Says FBI Doesn't Have To Hand Over Its Rules For Surveilling Domestic Journalists

from the petitioners-immediately-placed-under-surveillance dept

A couple of years ago, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sued the DOJ over its refusal to release its secret rules governing spying on the nation's journalists. This was prompted by revelations the FBI had used National Security Letters to obtain information on AP and Fox News journalists. The DOJ then issued new rules on the do's and don'ts of surveilling journalists, but once again (a) redacted them into uselessness and (b) granted the FBI an NSL exception, undercutting the entire point of the recrafted rules.

The OIG report -- in which the Inspector General disputed the DOJ's extensive redactions -- still has yet to be released in a less-redacted form. Sadly, it now appears it will never be any less redacted than the unintelligible mess the DOJ handed over a few years ago. A federal judge has sided with the government, finding its investigative techniques and methods are too sensitive to be handed over to the public, much less journalists it may or may not have surveilled using NSLs. (h/t Trevor Timm, Mike Scarcella)

Underlying everything is the government's barely-contested assertion that these rules contain information of national security interest. It's a handy assertion because it means the DOJ doesn't even have to explain why the redactions it made are relevant to its national security claims. From the opinion [PDF]:

Recognizing the Court’s “limited institutional expertise on intelligence matters,” the Court accords substantial weight to Hardy’s representation that “any greater specificity in the descriptions and justifications . . . could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the national security of the United States.” Hardy Decl. ¶ 46. In the area of national security, “it is conceivable that the mere explanation of why information must be withheld can convey valuable information to a foreign intelligence agency.”

This same argument appears later in the decision when dispensing of the plaintiff's challenge to yet another FOIA exception deployed by the FBI:

[T]he Court finds Defendant has met its burden and properly withheld documents under Exemption 7(E) for all five categories of documents. Defendant described with particularity that the withheld documents all contained non-public information about the FBI’s investigative techniques and procedures. These pages not only identified NSLs as an investigative technique, but also described information such as the circumstances under which the techniques should be used, how to analyze the information gathered through these techniques, and the current focus of the FBI’s investigations. As in Hamdan, the Court concludes that the declarations, which state that further detail would “reveal[] the very information it seeks to protect,” are sufficient to satisfy Defendant’s burden.

The court's also uninterested in double-checking the DOJ's secrecy assertions. As always, the court has the option to review contested documents behind closed doors (and away from plaintiffs) to see if the government's claims of national security/investigative concerns are valid. The court here declined to exercise this privilege.

The Court finds that in camera review is unnecessary here as Defendant already provided sufficiently detailed factual information in support of its exemptions in the Hardy Declarations and Vaughn Index.

The FBI is still free to use NSLs to obtain information -- including call records -- about journalists. The DOJ may have reined in other options, but NSLs have always been the FBI's go-to form when it's stymied by the FISA court, magistrate judges, or internal guidelines. Nothing about that will change. As for what's actually changed at the DOJ as a result of this public outing of journalist surveillance, the public apparently can't be trusted with that information.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, first amendment, freedom of the press, journalists, rules, surveillance, transparency
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

Leak Reveals Secret FBI Guidelines That Basically Give Them Free Rein To Spy On Journalists And Sources

from the not-cool,-doj dept

Eleven months ago, we wrote about a lawsuit filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation seeking to get a copy of the DOJ's infamous new rules for spying on journalists. The new rules came about after it had come out that the DOJ had spied on Associated Press reporters as well as lied to a court to claim that Fox News reporter James Rosen was a co-conspirator in a leak investigation. To date, the DOJ has steadfastly refused to reveal the rules.

Thankfully, someone has now leaked the rules, or at least the 2013 version of some of the rules, which show that, contrary to what then Attorney General Eric Holder had suggested, it's still ridiculously easy for the FBI to spy on reporters and their sources in trying to hunt down a leak. In fact, it appears that these rules, around the use of NSLs are actually separate from the rules that Holder was talking about -- meaning that there's an entirely separate path for the DOJ to spy on journalists. The rules show that the FBI can just issue a National Security Letter (NSL), the mechanism that the FBI has been known to regularly abuse without consequence and which it's trying to expand. The "process" by which the media is supposedly protected under these new rules is that if someone in the DOJ is seeking an NSL to get phone records of someone in the media, they need to get some permission from someone else in the DOJ first: This is the fox watching the henhouse. These are not restrictions, these are just the DOJ getting to ask itself if it really wants to spy on these journalists, and the DOJ telling itself "sure, go ahead." There's a further exception that if someone is a member of the media, but the FBI "suspects" they're an intelligence officer or affiliated with a foreign intelligence service, "no additional approval requirements" are needed. So, as with the Rosen case, the FBI can just declare him a "co-conspirator" and voila, no approval necessary.

As the Freedom of the Press Foundation explains in response to this leak, this completely undermines the claims by the DOJ that there were strict controls on spying on journalists:

First, the rules clearly indicate—in two separate places—that NSLs can specifically be used to conduct surveillance on reporters and sources in leak investigations. This is quite disturbing, since the Justice Department spent two years trying to convince the public that it updated its “Media Guidelines” to create a very high and restrictive bar for when and how they could spy on journalists using regular subpoenas and court orders. These leaked rules prove that the FBI and DOJ can completely circumvent the Media Guidelines and just use an NSL in total secrecy.

Second, the DOJ told the New York Times in 2013 that, despite NSLs being exempt from the media guidelines, they were still used under a “strict legal regime.” Well, the “strict legal regime” here is basically non-existent. The only extra step the FBI has to go through to spy on journalists with an NSL—besides the normal, lax NSL procedures, which they have flagrantly and repeatedly violated over the past decade—is essentially get the sign off of a superior in the Justice Department. That’s it! They don’t have to even go through the motions for following any of the several rules laid out in the DOJ media guidelines: like get the Attorney General to sign off, exhaust all other means of investigation, alerting and negotiating with the affected media organization, making sure what is being sought is essential to the investigation, etc.

There's a separate important question here too: why were these rules kept secret? There is no national security reason to keep this secret. It does not reveal anything that helps anyone avoid surveillance. As Freedom of the Press Foundation notes, it appears the only reason to keep this secret is to avoid the embarrassment.

The information that has been redacted here by the Justice Department – and which they are fighting to keep secret in court – is incredibly mundane. The fact that the FBI has to get another person in the bureaucracy to sign off on a particular investigation should not be a state secret, nor would it remotely harm any ongoing investigation, nor would “tip off” any alleged criminals to how to evade surveillance.

The only reason to keep these rules secret, it seems, is that it’s incredibly embarrassing for the FBI to admit that they can use NSLs in leak cases to go after journalists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ are keeping these rules is outrageous, and they should use this opportunity to officially release the rules—and any updates to them—immediately.

The Foundation is also planning to continue its lawsuit for two reasons. First, as mentioned in the quote above, it wants the DOJ to officially release the rules, and, more importantly, it believes that the rules may have been updated since these 2013 rules were published.

The whole thing, once again, shows just how ridiculous this administration has been concerning protecting the rights of journalists to talk to confidential sources. "The most transparent administration in history" once again seems to be the exact opposite. Undermining the freedom of the press and spying on reporters and their sources is shameful. It's the activity of tyrants and insecure dictators, not democratically elected governments.

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

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

from the a-little-transparency-please dept

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.

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

Aaron Swartz's Final Project: Secure Whistleblower Submission Platform Gets New Support

from the and-a-detailed-security-audit dept

Back in May, we wrote about Aaron Swartz's final project, done in collaboration with Wired's Kevin Poulsen, to create a very secure platform to allow whistleblowers to anonymously submit documents to the press. At the time it was called DeadDrop, and the initial media partner was The New Yorker, which set up its version as Strongbox. It's unclear if anyone's actually used Strongbox, but obviously since that launch there's been renewed attention concerning leakers and whistleblowers, and ways to leak information safely.

Today it was announced that the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an offshoot of the EFF which we've covered before, has taken over the project, now dubbed SecureDrop. Besides having the support of the Foundation to help with development and deployment of the platform, they've also announced that the system has gone through a significant security audit by some of the most respected names in the business, leading to a few additional improvements:

SecureDrop’s code has gone through a detailed security audit by a team of University of Washington researchers, led by Alexei Czeckis. Other authors of the audit include renowned security expert Bruce Schneier and Tor developer Jacob Appelbaum. Freedom of the Press Foundation has made a number of updates to SecureDrop based on these findings and will be making a significant investment in continually improving the system.  

On top of that the Foundation has hired computer security expert James Dolan to maintain the code and to help install the system for media organizations. He helped do the original installation of StrongBox for the New Yorker. Hopefully a bunch of media organizations look into using this system, as it will help provide better ways to protect whistleblowers, especially in an age where they're under such constant attack from the government.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, freedom of the press, journalism, securedrop, security, whistleblowers
Companies: freedom of the press foundation

Recording Of Bradley Manning's Statement In Court Leaked

from the in-his-own-words dept

We've discussed before just how secretive the court martial process has been for Bradley Manning. Part of that is that there is no recording allowed in the courtroom, and thus there was no recording or official transcript of Manning's long statement to the court, even though some reporters tried to piece together a statement from their notes. However, it appears that someone snuck a recorder into the room, and recorded Manning's statement, which has now been leaked by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. As they note, this is actually the first time that the public has been able to hear Bradley Manning speak. As the FPF notes:

A group of journalists, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), has been engaged in a legal battle to force the court to be more open. While the government has belatedly released a small portion of documents related to the case, many of the most important orders have been withheld—such as the orders relating to the speedy trial proceedings or the order related to Manning’s prolonged solitary confinement.

Michael Ratner, president emeritus of CCR, called the government "utterly unresponsive to what is a core First Amendment principle." Ratner noted this is a public trial, the information being presented is not classified, and that contemporaneous access to information about the trial is necessary to understanding the proceedings. Nonetheless, the lawsuit has been tied up in the appeals court for months.

Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald highlights why this is so important:

The US government and its military has carefully ensured that people hear about Manning from the government, but do not hear from Manning himself. It is way past time for Manning's voice to be heard.

Greenwald has also broken down the statement and highlighted some key points. For example, he notes that many of Manning's critics argued that Manning released information willy nilly with no concern for what was in the documents, and whether releasing them would cause harm. From the transcript, we learn that this is simply untrue. He did review the content, and came to the conclusion that the documents he was releasing needed to be released for the benefit of the US, and not to harm the US. He admitted they might be embarrassing, but that's very different from harmful.

Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

"In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

"The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

"The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

"The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

"The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

"I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

"I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."

It really is a travesty that the US government has kept all of this so closed, and has refused to release a recording or a transcript. Are they really so afraid that the public might hear Bradley Manning explain himself?

Filed Under: bradley manning, court marshal, journalism, recording, secrecy
Companies: freedom of the press foundation