St. Louis County Charges Journalists Who Covered Ferguson Protests With Trespassing

from the bad-move dept

Just about a month ago, we noted that prosecutors in St. Louis County were, somewhat ridiculously, still considering charging two reporters, Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post, with "trespassing" charges for their coverage of the Ferguson protests. As you may recall, we also wrote about when they were first arrested, as they were gathering up their things in the local McDonald's after the police ordered them to leave. Here were their tweets at the time -- along with the tweets of a few other reporters on the scene, including one in which police admitted the arrest was a mistake: Another reporter, Matt Pearce from the LA Times, reached out to the police, who seemed to indicate that the arrests had been a mistake (and from the descriptions offered by Reilly and Lowery, that sounds about right). Lowery and Reilly were then released and told that no charges would be filed against reporters. And yet... prosecutors have decided to move forward with the lawsuit, charging at least Lowery with trespassing (Reilly has not officially yet been informed that he's been sued too, but he expects to be shortly -- and a reporter has confirmed from the county that Reilly faces similar charges).

A court summons dated Aug. 6 — just under a year after Lowery’s arrest — was sent to Lowery, 25, ordering him to appear in a St. Louis County municipal court on Aug. 24. The summons notes that he could be arrested if he does not appear.

“Charging a reporter with trespassing and interfering with a police officer when he was just doing his job is outrageous,” Martin Baron, executive editor of The Post, said in a statement Monday. “You’d have thought law enforcement authorities would have come to their senses about this incident. Wes Lowery should never have been arrested in the first place. That was an abuse of police authority.

Meanwhile, it seems noteworthy that this comes just days after St. Louis County "settled" a lawsuit filed against it by another journalist, Trey Yingst, who had been arrested while covering protests in Ferguson in November. In that case, the county agreed to pay Yingst $8,500 and drop all charges... and evidence showed that the police flat-out lied about why they had detained Yingst -- using the same excuse they had used against Lowery and Reilly.

A Reason magazine reporter, along with other witnesses, also supported Yingst’s account. And video of the incident, posted that night on Twitter, shows police in skirmish formation approaching Yingst on the sidewalk. 

The St. Louis County Police Department, however, tweeted after the incident that Yingst was detained for “failure to disperse” and had “refused” orders from commanding officers to leave the street. A police report echoes the description of events in that tweet.

In the police department’s account, Yingst was standing in the street with protesters and impeding the flow of traffic when ordered to move to the sidewalk. It was then that Vollmer ordered Yingst -- three times, by his account -- to return to the sidewalk. But Yingst refused to do so, according to the report, and only “slowly walked backwards onto the sidewalk” as the police formation approached. 

“The whole police report was basically made up,” Yingst said.

Given that, you would think that prosecutors would shy away from immediately going after journalists where there was pretty strong evidence that they, too, were detained for bogus reasons, but apparently "reason" doesn't exist in the prosecutor's office in St. Louis County. I would imagine that both Lowery and Reilly will have pretty strong defenses, and that St. Louis County may end up handing over more taxpayer funds to both of them before this is over. Also, Reilly says he's spent the last year trying to find out the name of the St. Louis County police officer who slammed his head into the wall -- and figures that now that he's being charged, he might actually be able to find out who it was.

Filed Under: arrests, ferguson, journalism, missouri, protests, reporting, ryan reilly, st. louis county, trespassing, wesley lowery
Companies: huffington post, washington post

Washington Post Publishes... And Then Unpublishes... Opinion Piece By Ex-Intelligence Industry Brass, In Favor Of Strong Encryption

from the what-happened? dept

Update: And... the article has been republished at the Washington Post's site with a note claiming that it was accidentally published without fully going through its editing process. Extra points if anyone can spot anything that's changed...

Earlier this week, we noted with some surprise that both former DHS boss Michael Chertoff and former NSA/CIA boss Michael Hayden had come out against backdooring encryption, with both noting (rightly) that it would lead to more harm than good, no matter what FBI boss Jim Comey had to say. Chertoff's spoken argument was particularly good, detailing all of the reasons why backdooring encryption is just a really bad idea. Last night, Chertoff, along with former NSA boss Mike McConnell and former deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, published an opinion piece at the Washington Post, doubling down on why more encryption is a good thing and backdooring encryption is a bad thing.

Yes, the very same Washington Post that has flat out ignored all of the technical expertise on the subject and called for a "golden key" that would let the intelligence community into our communications. Not only that, but after being mocked all around for its original editorial on this piece, it came back and did it again.

Of course, you may note that I have not linked to this piece by Chertoff, McConnell and Lynn at the Washington Post... and that's because it's gone. If you go there now you get oddly forwarded to a 2013 story (as per the rerouted URL), with a 2010 dateline, claiming that "this file was inadvertently published." Of course, this is the internet, and the internet never forgets. A cached version of the story can be found online. The title really says it all: Why the fear over ubiquitous data encryption is overblown. Of course, technical experts have been saying that for decades, but it's nice to see the intelligence community finally coming around to this. And here's a snippet of what was said in the article before it disappeared.

We recognize the importance our officials attach to being able to decrypt a coded communication under a warrant or similar legal authority. But the issue that has not been addressed is the competing priorities that support the companies’ resistance to building in a back door or duplicated key for decryption. We believe that the greater public good is a secure communications infrastructure protected by ubiquitous encryption at the device, server and enterprise level without building in means for government monitoring.

First, such an encryption system would protect individual privacy and business information from exploitation at a much higher level than exists today. As a recent MIT paper explains, requiring duplicate keys introduces vulnerabilities in encryption that raise the risk of compromise and theft by bad actors. If third-party key holders have less than perfect security, they may be hacked and the duplicate key exposed. This is no theoretical possibility, as evidenced by major cyberintrusions into supposedly secure government databases and the successful compromise of security tokens held by the security firm RSA. Furthermore, requiring a duplicate key rules out security techniques, such as one-time-only private keys.

The op-ed also points out that "smart bad guys" will still figure out plenty of ways to use encryption anyway and all we're really doing is weakening security for everyone else. And, of course, it raises the fact that if the US demands such access, so will China and other companies.

Strategically, the interests of U.S. businesses are essential to protecting U.S. national security interests. After all, political power and military power are derived from economic strength. If the United States is to maintain its global role and influence, protecting business interests from massive economic espionage is essential. And that imperative may outweigh the tactical benefit of making encrypted communications more easily accessible to Western authorities.

These are the same basic arguments that experts have been making for quite some time now. What's also interesting is that the three former government officials also point out that the "threat" of "going dark" is totally overblown anyway. It raises the original crypto wars and the fight over the Clipper Chip, and notes that when that effort failed, "the sky did not fall, and we did not go dark and deaf."

But the sky did not fall, and we did not go dark and deaf. Law enforcement and intelligence officials simply had to face a new future. As witnesses to that new future, we can attest that our security agencies were able to protect national security interests to an even greater extent in the ’90s and into the new century.

This is an important bit of input into this debate, and one hopes that the Washington Post only "unpublished" it because it forgot to correct some grammar or something along those lines. Hopefully it is republished soon -- but even if it was published briefly, this kind of statement could be a necessary turning point, so that hopefully we can avoid having to waste any further effort on the wasteful idiocy of a second crypto war.

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, going dark, james comey, jim comey, michael chertoff, michael mcconnell, mobile encryption, william lynn
Companies: washington post

Washington Post Observes Encryption War 2.0 For Several Months, Learns Absolutely Nothing

from the we're-going-to-take-this-stupidity-and-DOUBLE-it dept

Last October -- following Apple and Google's announcements of encryption-by-default for iOS and Android devices -- was greeted with law enforcement panic, spearheaded by FBI director James Comey, who has yet to find the perfect dead child to force these companies' hands.

The Washington Post editorial board found Comey's diatribes super-effective! It published a post calling for some sort of law enforcement-only, magical hole in Apple and Google's encryption.

How to resolve this? A police “back door” for all smartphones is undesirable — a back door can and will be exploited by bad guys, too. However, with all their wizardry, perhaps Apple and Google could invent a kind of secure golden key they would retain and use only when a court has approved a search warrant. Ultimately, Congress could act and force the issue, but we’d rather see it resolved in law enforcement collaboration with the manufacturers and in a way that protects all three of the forces at work: technology, privacy and rule of law.

When is a "backdoor" not a "backdoor?" Well, apparently when an editorial board spells it G-O-L-D-E-N K-E-Y. It's the same thing, but in this particular pitch, it magically isn't, because good intentions. Or something.

Months later, the debate is still raging. But it's boiled down to two arguments:

1. This is impossible. You can't create a "law enforcement only" backdoor in encryption. It's simply not possible because a backdoor is a backdoor and can be used by anyone who can locate the door handle.

2. No, it isn't. Please see below for citations and references:

The FBI is at an impasse. Comey firmly believes this is possible, despite openly admitting he has zero evidence to back this claim up. When asked for specifics, Comey defers to "smart tech guys" and their warlock-like skills.

Sensing James Comey might be struggling a bit, the editorial board of the Washington Post is once again riding to the rescue. And they've brought the same level of cluelessness with them. (h/t to Techdirt reader Steve R.)

Mr. Comey’s assertions should be taken seriously. A rule-of-law society cannot allow sanctuary for those who wreak harm. But there are legitimate and valid counter arguments from software engineers, privacy advocates and companies that make the smartphones and software. They say that any decision to give law enforcement a key — known as “exceptional access” — would endanger the integrity of all online encryption, and that would mean weakness everywhere in a digital universe that already is awash in cyberattacks, thefts and intrusions. They say that a compromise isn’t possible, since one crack in encryption — even if for a good actor, like the police — is still a crack that could be exploited by a bad actor. A recent report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned that granting exceptional access would bring on “grave” security risks that outweigh the benefits.

After providing some statements opposing its view on the matter -- most notably an actual research paper written by actual security researchers -- the editorial board continues on to declare this all irrelevant.

The tech companies are right about the overall importance of encryption, protecting consumers and insuring privacy. But these companies ought to more forthrightly acknowledge the legitimate needs of U.S. law enforcement.

And by "forthrightly acknowledge," the board means "give law enforcement what it wants, no matter the potential damage." After all, what's PERSONAL safety, security and a handful of civil liberties compared to "legitimate needs of law enforcement?"

All freedoms come with limits; it seems only proper that the vast freedoms of the Internet be subject to the same rule of law and protections that we accept for the rest of society.

Your rights end where law enforcement's "legitimate needs" begin. Except they don't. The needs of law enforcement don't trump the Bill of Rights. The needs of law enforcement don't automatically allow it to define the acceptable parameters of the communications of US citizens.

The editorial finally wraps up by calling for experts in the field to resolve this issue:

This conflict should not be left unattended. Nineteen years ago, the National Academy of Sciences studied the encryption issue; technology has evolved rapidly since then. It would be wise to ask the academy to undertake a new study, with special focus on technical matters, and recommendations on how to reconcile the competing imperatives.

The WaPo editorial board is no better than James Comey. It can cite nothing in support of its view but yet still believes it's right. And just like Comey, the board is being wholly disingenuous in its "deferral" to security researchers and tech companies. It, like Comey, wants to hold two contradictory views.

Tech/security researchers are dumb when they say this problem can't be solved.

Tech/security researchers are super-smart and can solve this problem.

So, they (the board and Comey) want to ignore the "smart guys" when they say this is impossible, but both are willing to listen if they like the answers they're hearing.

Filed Under: backdoors, encryption, golden key, james comey, mobile encryption
Companies: washington post

St. Louis County Still Considering Bringing Trespassing Charges Against Journalists Police Arrested In Ferguson

from the that-would-be-a-bad-idea dept

One of the side stories over the Ferguson protests from last summer was the fact that the over-aggressive militarized police went in and arrested journalists who were covering the events in Ferguson. Two of the first journalists arrested were Ryan Reilly of Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post. At the time, we highlighted how they had tweeted the lead up to their own arrests:

SWAT just invade McDonald's where I'm working/recharging. Asked for ID when I took photo. pic.twitter.com/FOIsMnBwHy

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

Police come into McD where me and @ryanjreilly working. Try to kick everyone out.

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

A third reporter, Matt Pearce from the LA Times witnesses some of what happened and called the police chief -- and was told that it was all a mistake and that he had ordered the reporters released. After being released, Lowery and Reilly talked more about the ridiculousness of being arrested for, essentially, not getting out of the McDonalds fast enough:

Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out of

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Detained, booked, given answers to no questions. Then just let out

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Also Ryan Reilly of Huff Po. Assaulted and arrested

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Unfortunately my last Vine featuring the officer who assaulted me was deleted when other my phone died.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Given all that, you might think the local police would let the matter drop (though, if I were Lowery or Reilly I'm not sure I would have let them just drop it...). But, no, apparently the St. Louis County police are now debating whether to bring trespassing charges against the two reporters:

St. Louis County prosecutors will soon decide whether to bring trespassing charges against two journalists arrested while covering demonstrations last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly and The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery recently learned that there are open investigations related to their Aug. 13, 2014, arrests and that the cases have been referred to the county counselor's office, which primarily handles local ordinance violations. The St. Louis County Police Department filed incident reports in late April of this year describing the reporters as trespassing when they were seized at a McDonald's restaurant.

I'm trying to envision a scenario where this whole thing doesn't backfire in a ridiculous way for the St. Louis County police and prosecutors, and I'm struggling to find any possible way for them not to come out of this looking absolutely terrible. Both Lowery and Reilly are quick to point out how ridiculous the whole thing is:

"Ryan and I have maintained from day one that our detention was unwarranted, unnecessary and illegal," Lowery said in an email. "The idea that the prosecutor’s office would consider bringing formal charges in this incident is ludicrous. Officials in St. Louis County should drop this matter, release the relevant documents and allow us all to move on with our lives and onto more important elements of this story."

"Wesley and I did nothing wrong in this scenario, which occurred shortly after officers with the St. Louis County Police Department trained sniper rifles at a crowd of peaceful protesters in broad daylight," Reilly said in an email.

The article linked above notes that both reporters have continued their investigations into their own arrests, and have faced stonewalling at every turn, including police trying to deny their requests to find out the names of the officers who assaulted and arrested them. Moving forward with actual bogus "trespassing" charges would be not just adding insult to injury, but would, once again, call the world's gaze to St. Louis County and whatever the hell it is they call "justice" down there.

Filed Under: charges, ferguson, missouri, police, reporting, ryan reilly, st. louis county, trespassing, wesley lowery
Companies: huffington post, washington post

Washington Post Shrugs Off Torture Because, You Know, It Polls Well

from the wait,-what?!? dept

We've written before about Jay Rosen's excellent explanation of "the church of the savvy," in which political reporters seem more focused on describing the "horse race" aspect of politics rather than the truth. It's the old story in which the press ignores, say, a really good concept because "politicians won't support it." A key giveaway for a "savvy" post is to focus on "what the polls say" rather than what reality says. That doesn't mean that polls are never useful or shouldn't be reported on -- but when they get in the way of the actual story, it can make for ridiculous results.

Take, as a quintessential example, the Washington Post's Aaron Blake giving us the latest on torture's polling numbers. Apparently, the polls tell us that Americans are okay with torture (even when they believe it's torture):

A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 "provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks."

Similarly, a CBS News poll shows that 57 percent of Americans think waterboarding and other interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA "provide reliable information that helps prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.

And finally, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did "produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way."

Now, an actual reporter might point out that (1) these Americans are wrong and (2) that it doesn't fucking matter whether or not torture works -- it's still reprehensible. But, instead, Blake concludes that, boy, this sure is a loss for the Democrats:

And as long as people believe torturing terrorism detainees leads to valuable information, the CIA's interrogation program — and torture in general — are unlikely to face a major public backlash.

This is the unhappy reality being confronted by Democrats who had hoped to make a splash with the CIA report.

So the only "reality" in the article is the fact that the public's depraved position is bad for one particular party. Apparently, it's not bad for "humanity" or common sense or human rights or America. It's just bad for one party? Rather than actually educating the public -- which reporters are supposed to be doing -- the focus is just on what these polling numbers mean for torture -- presented in the same way one might discuss the polling numbers for a regular election.

This isn't a political horse race we're talking about here. This is about a fundamental issue of human rights, and the press is acting like all that matters is torture's polling numbers?

Filed Under: aaron blake, church of the savvy, cia, journalism, polling, polls, torture, torture report, washington post
Companies: washington post

Misguided Pianist Asks Washington Post To Remove A Less-Than-Wonderful Review Under Right To Be Forgotten

from the can't-forget-it-now dept

There are all sorts of issues with the whole "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe from a few months back. However, some of the confusion around it has resulted in people thinking it's something that it totally isn't -- leading to some rather public revelations of astoundingly thin skins. Take the case of pianist Dejan Lazic who apparently was not pleased with a less than sparkling review the Washington Post gave him four years ago. The review really isn't that bad. It basically just says the performance didn't quite live up to expectations, and someone as talented as Lazic should be able to do better. Lazic's response? Send the Washington Post (not Google) a demand to take down that review under the right to be forgotten ruling. Let's count the ways that this is profoundly mistaken:

1. The ruling only applies to "data controllers" -- i.e., search engines in this context -- and not the publishers themselves. That was clear from the ruling.
2. The ruling applies to search engines in Europe, not newspapers in the US.
3. The ruling is not supposed to apply to people in the public eye, so famous world-traveling musicians don't count.
4. The purpose is to remove outdated information, not things like a review of a performance.
5. It most certainly is not, despite Lazic's stated belief, supposed to be about letting someone control "the truth" about themselves.
6. Because of all of this, the lukewarm review of Lazic's performance from 2010 is getting lots of new attention.
7. Because of all of this, Lazic's views on censorship, free speech and his own personal reviews is now widely known.

Lazic, however, is big on this "truth" thing -- and apparently, negative reviews are not the truth, and thus should be removed:

“I so often listen to a concert, and then the next day read about it in the newspapers — read something that is simply too far from the truth,” Lazic complained. “This is something I, as an artist, am seeking and looking for my whole life: the truth.”

There's a simple way to avoid that: don't read your own reviews. Or, recognize that people have opinions and not everyone is going to like everything you do. But Lazic, apparently, thinks that an individual should have the right to edit others opinions of him or herself:

We ought to live in a world, Lazic argues, where everyone — not only artists and performers but also politicians and public officials — should be able to edit the record according to their personal opinions and tastes. (“Politicians are people just like you and me,” he explains.) This is all in pursuit of some higher, objective truth.

Not only that, but apparently a negative opinion, according to Lazic, is "defamatory." That's a rather interesting definition of defamatory that few legal statutes would agree with, because it's wrong.

“Defamatory, mean-spirited, opinionated, one-sided, offensive [and] simply irrelevant for the arts,” is how he put it.

The review itself doesn't appear to be, well, any of those things necessarily. But that's Lazic's opinion, which he's entitled to. Well, except, based on Lazic's own "rules" for truth, it certainly seems like the author of his original review, Anne Midgette, should now have the right to claim that Lazic's opinion of her opinion is "offensive" and have it deleted as well.

Except that's' not how it works.

And it's especially bizarre in the world of the arts, where reviews and criticism are quite common. Living in a world where people can delete negative reviews may feel good, but it makes no sense at all. It's a world in which the worst performers are never driven to improve because just about anyone can just disappear a negative review because they disagree with it.

Filed Under: defamation, dejan lazic, free speech, opinion, pianist, reviews, right to be forgotten, thin skin
Companies: washington post

Washington Post's Clueless Editorial On Phone Encryption: No Backdoors, But How About A Magical 'Golden Key'?

from the golden-key-cryptography dept

The Washington Post editorial board has weighed in on the recent "controversy" over Apple and Google's smart decision to start encrypting mobile devices by default. The "controversy" itself seems pretty hyped up by law enforcement types who are either lying or clueless about the technology. Throwing a bunch of technically ignorant newspaper editors into the mix probably wasn't the wisest of decisions.

Much of the editorial engages in hand-wringing about what law enforcement is going to do when they need the info on your phone (answer: same thing they did for years before smartphones, and most of the time with smartphones as well, which is regular detective work). It even repeats the bogus use of the phrase "above the law" that FBI director James Comey bizarrely keeps repeating (hint: putting a lock on your stuff isn't making you above the law). But the real kicker is the final paragraph:

How to resolve this? A police “back door” for all smartphones is undesirable — a back door can and will be exploited by bad guys, too. However, with all their wizardry, perhaps Apple and Google could invent a kind of secure golden key they would retain and use only when a court has approved a search warrant. Ultimately, Congress could act and force the issue, but we’d rather see it resolved in law enforcement collaboration with the manufacturers and in a way that protects all three of the forces at work: technology, privacy and rule of law.

Did you get that? No "back door," but rather a "golden key." Now, I'm not sure which members of the Washington Post editorial board is engaged in mythical "golden key" cryptography studies, but to most folks who have even the slightest understanding of technology, they ought to have recognized that what they basically said is: "a back door is a bad idea, so how about creating a magic back door?" A "golden key" is a backdoor and a "backdoor" is a "golden key." The two are indistinguishable and the Post's first point is the only accurate one: it "can and will be exploited by bad guys, too." That's why Apple and Google are doing this. To protect users from bad guys.

In the meantime, just watch, and we'll start to see ignorant politicians and law enforcement start to echo this proposal as well, talking down "backdoors" and talking up "golden keys." The fact that we already had this debate in the 1990s, when the "golden key" was called "key escrow" and when having the government lose that was was fairly important in allowing the internet to become so useful, will apparently be lost on the talking heads.

Still, a small request for the Washington Post Editorial Board: before weighing in on a subject like this, where it's fairly clear that none of you have the slightest clue, perhaps try asking a security expert first?

Filed Under: backdoors, editorial board, encryption, golden key, mobile encryption, privacy, security
Companies: washington post

SWAT Team Shows Up In Ferguson, Detains Reporters Live Tweeting Their Actions

from the incredible dept

We've been debating internally whether or not to cover the mess that is currently going on in Ferguson, Missouri. There has been plenty of attention paid to the protests and the failures by police there -- and we frequently cover problems with police, as well as the militarization of police, which was absolutely on display in Ferguson (if you've been under a rock, police killed an unarmed teenager there last week, leading to protests over the past few days -- and the police have been handling the situation... poorly, to say the least). However, the situation was changing so rapidly, it wasn't entirely clear what to cover. The pictures from Ferguson of a very militarized police force were disturbing, and we've been thinking about writing something on that (and we may still). However, this evening, things got even more ridiculous, as not only did the SWAT team show up, but it then arrested two of the reporters who had been covering the events: Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post. Both had been vital in getting out the story of what was happening on the street.

Here are a few of their tweets (prior to being arrested):

I counted 70+ SWAT officers. Guns trained on crowds. Insanity. pic.twitter.com/stev2G6v4b

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

Overkill in #Ferguson. Officer won't answer my question about why this is needed. pic.twitter.com/iSPsP1Rxa1

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

This exchange-> RT @AntonioFrench: State Senator asks the #Ferguson police chief if she's going to be gassed again. https://t.co/bXTjTbc7kM

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

And then, soon after those and other tweets, another reporter, Jon Swaine from the Guardian, reported that he saw two reporters detained by police in a McDonalds:

Two reporters just cuffed and put in cop can outside Ferguson McDonald's where @WesleyLowery said he and @ryanjreilly were working

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 13, 2014

Lowery and Reilly each had live tweeted the police entering the McDonald's, followed by a long silence from their accounts:

Police come into McD where me and @ryanjreilly working. Try to kick everyone out.

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

SWAT just invade McDonald's where I'm working/recharging. Asked for ID when I took photo. pic.twitter.com/FOIsMnBwHy

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

A fourth reporter on the scene, Matt Pearce of the LA Times, contacted the police chief about the situation, who was apparently surprised at the turn of events and said he'd order them released:

I just called Ferguson police chief to ask about @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly, told him what I knew. His response: "Oh, God."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

I just talked to the Ferguson chief again about Wes and Ryan. "I told them to release them," he said of the riot command.

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

Ferguson chief tells me @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly's arresters were "probably somebody who didn't know better."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

Soon after, both Lowery and Reilly tweeted about their experiences, which were not exactly pleasant.

Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out of

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Detained, booked, given answers to no questions. Then just let out

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Also Ryan Reilly of Huff Po. Assaulted and arrested

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Unfortunately my last Vine featuring the officer who assaulted me was deleted when other my phone died.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

I'm sure that we'll have more on this whole thing, but as GideonsTrumpet notes, Lowery and Reilly were technically detained, not arrested, "which is far more insidious" because there's no accountability. No charges to challenge. Nothing. It's just a way to silence the press who were diligently getting the word out there on what they were doing.

There are all sorts of very questionable activities going on in Ferguson, including intimidation and threats against the protestors exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Detaining reporters in the middle of that is just the latest in a long string of "fuck your constitutional rights" by the (very heavily militarized) police down there.

Filed Under: arrests, assembly, detention, ferguson, free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, michael brown, police, protests, ryan reilly, swat teams, wesley lowery
Companies: huffington post, washington post

Senator Lindsey Graham Doesn't Know Details Of NSA Abuse, But Sure It's Fine Because 'WE'RE AT WAR!'

from the fud dept

So, over the weekend, the Washington Post reported on the latest bombshell from the Snowden files, showing both that the NSA is really bad at "minimizing" information on Americans that it's not supposed to hang onto and (more importantly) that, contrary to earlier claims, Snowden did in fact have access to the FISA collection database of info (suggesting that the NSA's controls over misuse of that data are not nearly as good as the agency and its defenders have claimed). Over at the Daily Beast, they figured that the various Senators in charge of oversight of the NSA would have some comments on the piece and how it shows an out of control NSA. But, that's not quite what happened. Senator after Senator insisted that they either hadn't yet read the story or were still trying to understand the details. The most ridiculous of all was kneejerk defender of the NSA, Lindsey Graham, who insisted that whatever was in the report didn't matter because we're at war:

Sen. Lindsey Graham—who sits on the Senate’s armed services, appropriations, and judiciary committees and is one of the Republican Party’s most prominent voices on defense and intelligence issues—wasn’t familiar with the Post piece.

“I don’t really know the details about what they’re saying in the paper. I know [NSA intelligence-gathering] is necessary. We’re at war with radical Islam,” Graham said.

Of course, that's interesting on two accounts. First, technically, we're not at war, because Congress hasn't declared war. You'd think a Senator would know that. Second, even if we were at war, does Graham honestly believe that there can be no limitations on NSA surveillance and nothing can go too far, so long as he can insist that "we're at war" (even if we're not)? If so, that's rather scary.

Other Senators similarly begged off responding to the piece, insisting they hadn't seen the details, including Intelligence Committee head Dianne Feinstein:

Nearly two days after the release of The Washington Post’s report, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, who has direct oversight of the NSA, was just beginning to be fully briefed in the issue.

“I’m just in the process of looking into that,” Feinstein said.

And onto some others:

Sen. Carl Levin, the Democratic head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was in Afghanistan and hadn’t had a chance to catch up. Sen. James Inhofe, his Republican counterpart, hadn’t seen the story. Sen. Angus King, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said he didn’t know the facts behind the newest revelations yet. He wasn’t alone.

Of course, it's safe to assume that most of them are just making an excuse to avoid answering the question, but that seems even worse. Either they don't know what's happening and have taken days to find out (bad) or they do know what's happening and simply don't want to comment about it (worse). Then, of course, there's always someone who is going to insist the whole thing is bogus -- but refuses to give any explanation as to why:

Sen. Tom Coburn, a member of Feinstein’s committee, came out of the Senate’s Monday votes challenging the veracity of the report, saying the “story is not accurate.” Pressed on where it was inaccurate, Coburn said, “I can’t tell you in what way. If I could tell you in what way, I would.”

To date, there has been no indication that there is anything amiss with the story. If it were really "not accurate," you can rest assured that the NSA or James Clapper's office would have been hitting back hard already about "inaccuracies" in the report. To date, they have not. Coburn's "trust me," is not particularly convincing since he still is the only person saying that... Though, I guess that's still better than Graham's ridiculous "we're at war!" comment.

Filed Under: abuse, dianne feinstein, ed snowden, lindsey graham, nsa, surveillance, tom coburn
Companies: washington post

NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways

from the because...-reporting dept

As we noted, yesterday's FCC vote concerning the NPRM on "open internet" rules was really just the start of the process. A lot of people seem confused by this -- and part of the problem is really the FCC. Tom Wheeler keeps insisting that the rules are designed to protect net neutrality and the open internet, but as lots of people keep pointing out, the rulemaking he's proposing would likely do the opposite. Because of that, you get a ton of confusion, perhaps best shown by a simple comparison, put together by Drew Oden on Twitter of the summary from both the NY Times and the Washington Post about what happened: If you can't read that, the NYT's version was:

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post's version was:

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers."

And you wonder why so many people are confused about what's going on? Of course, that's what happens when this stage of the process is really just about opening up the floor to comments, prior to the final rulemaking likely to happen later this year. But the bizarre thing is that both of the descriptions may be accurate, even as they appear to disagree fundamentally. Wheeler appears to be sincere in hoping that these rules would guarantee an open internet, but the reality may reshape how consumers use the internet by more clearly enabling such discrimination.

Welcome to the mess that is a fight over net neutrality.

Filed Under: fcc, journalism, net neutrality, open internet, reporting
Companies: ny times, washington post