Rep. Grayson Attempts To Build A Journalist Shield Law Out Of A One-Line Amendment, But Will It Do Any Good?

from the there-are-journalists-the-government-likes,-and-then-there's-everyone-else dept

It looks like the government might be forced to hold another uncomfortable discussion about who is/isn't a journalist. Among the many amendments to the DOJ's appropriation bill was one from Rep. Alan Grayson, which forbids the use of DOJ funding to force journalists to turn over sources.

The description of the amendment is only one sentence long, but it's provoking a much larger discussion.

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to compel a person to testify about information or sources that the person states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.

"...as a journalist or reporter…" -- What does that mean?

In the non-specifics of a short amendment, it could mean anything. In a practical sense, its definition is likely far narrower. Legislators have periodically mounted attempts at a "shield" law for journalists. Unfortunately, their efforts have either been beaten back by administrations that love prosecuting leakers or that were sabotaged by their own far-too-limited ideas of who might qualify for the elusive "journalist" designation.

This -- despite its open-endedness -- will probably end up being no better than previous efforts. On one hand, it could be argued that the term is almost all-inclusive. Here's Joel Kurtzberg -- who defended James Risen in his fight against the DOJ -- on what he sees is the problem with Grayson's amendment.

“If this became law, it would provide significantly needed protection to journalists who need to be able to keep their promises to confidential sources in order to do their jobs,” he says. “The difficulty with it, however, is that it appears to provide protection for anyone who claims in motion papers to have obtained confidential information as a journalist."

Kurtzberg says if the amendment passes the Senate and becomes law anyone who claims to be a journalist could be off the hook from testifying.

This seems like a rather odd argument to be coming from someone's whose client would have definitely benefitted from some sort of journalistic shield law. It's almost as though he's of the same mindset as some of our representatives: "real" journalists write for well-known papers and draw salaries. No one outside of this narrow definition should be shielded from the government's vengeance, no matter how much journalism they actually perform. (It's an act, not a position.)

A legal rep (Barry Pollack) for an entity frequently considered to be "NOT JOURNALISM" by legislators (Wikileaks) sees this wording as implying the opposite.

“I wouldn't say it offers no real-world protection,” he says. “It offers limited and imperfect protection. It would constrain what the Department of Justice could do. Anyone has a better chance if the opponent has one arm tied behind its back. But it is the referee, not the opponent, who makes the decision.”

As he sees it, the courts could still compel testimony because there is no federal law offering explicit protections for journalists. The DOJ may not be able to spend money prosecuting journalists, but the courts would not be compelled to recognize a protection that officially doesn't exist.

“Unless the law changes, judges may continue to rule against journalists, even without the Department of Justice openly advocating for that result,” Pollack says.

And if it's not the judges, it may be the administration itself, which has never been kind to whistleblowers or journalists. The usual mouthpiece for prosecutions is the Department of Justice, so this amendment -- if it sticks -- will make for some interesting courtroom maneuvers in the future.

Grayson himself doesn't see any real issues with the amendment as worded. According to him, the fact that lying to the government is a crime will be a sufficient deterrent to potential abuse.

Grayson points to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s recent indictment for allegedly lying to the FBI when asked if non-journalists could misuse the provision.

“If you go to court and lie about anything, or lie to federal agents ... then that itself is a crime and will lead to you being in prison,” he says.

The potential for this sort of abuse isn't what worries journalists about shield laws. It's the abuse coming from the top down. Grayson's amendment means well, but his feeling that the government -- via the courts -- will interpret this open-ended "reporter or journalist" designation "reasonably and favorably" puts a bit too much faith in a system that has shown a preference for doing exactly the opposite.

Filed Under: alan grayson, journalism, protection, shield law

Defense Contractors' Funds Fuel Vote To Keep Dept. Of Defense's Police Militarization Program Funded

from the that-MRAP-has-been-paid-for-several-times-over,-it-would-seem... dept

Color me unamazed. Politicians who are in favor of the government's 1033 program -- which distributes excess military gear and weapons to police departments engaged in our country's two favorite "wars" (v. Terror, v. Drugs) -- received a lot more money from defense contractors than those who oppose it.

Maplight, which tracks contributions to politicians, uncovered more evidence that private companies can get the legislative results they want if they just a$k nicely.

In June, the House of Representatives voted on an amendment from Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) that sought to partially defund the 1033 Program. The amendment failed on a bipartisan vote of 62-355.

Representatives voting to continue funding the 1033 Program have received, on average, 73 percent more money from the defense industry than representatives voting to defund it.

Fifty-nine representatives received more than $100,000 from the defense industry from January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2013. Of those only four supported defunding the 1033 Program.

This amendment didn't even target some of the common transfers: assault rifles, night vision goggles, etc.. These common indicators of police militarization would have continued to flow from the US government to law enforcement agencies unabated. Instead, 355 legislators voted that local law enforcement should still be allowed access to the following equipment:

Aircraft (Including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), Armored Vehicles, Grenade Launchers, Silencers, Toxicological Agents, Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, Mines, or Nuclear Weapons

One wonders if armored vehicles and drones had been struck from the list, the vote might have been more even. But phrased the way it was, if you still wanted your local PDs to acquire MRAPs, silencers and helicopters, you had to also give them the theoretical ability to requisition toxicological agents and ballistic missiles.

I don't imagine the government will be handing out guided missiles and nukes to law enforcement EVER, but what can be requisitioned is still partially a secret and information released to Muckrock by the Defense Logistics Agency only denotes which state received what, rather than indicate which law enforcement agencies were involved.

But even if the government has no intention of turning local law enforcement into full-fledged armies with nuclear/biological weapon capabilities, it's still handing over weapons and vehicles with little to no discretion. As Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post notes, if you can fill out one very simple form, you'll be able to roll down Main Street, USA in an armored tactical vehicle bristling with military assault rifles.

Applying for federal student aid? You'll need to fill out a 10 page application. Social Security retirement benefits come with an eight-page form, a passport application is six pages, and the shortform Obamacare application is five.

But if you are a law enforcement agency in the U.S., you can apply for a free armored tactical vehicle from the Pentagon with a simple one-page form, below. You can even apply for multiple vehicles using the same form!

Ingraham's article oversimplifies the process somewhat (a few layers of pre-approval are needed), but the fact remains that it's incredibly easy to outfit local law enforcement units with military gear. A vetting process with some teeth would likely have prevented small towns from acquiring vehicles designed to protect soldiers in combat zones from explosives.

Crime is way down and police are more heavily-armed and well-protected than ever. Part of it is defense contractors making sure there's still a growing market for their wares. As Maplight points out (quoting an ACLU report on police militarization), 36% of the equipment transferred to law enforcement via the 1033 program is brand new. What may have seemed to be a fiscally responsible program -- making use of excess military equipment rather than simply scrapping it -- is now another way to blow tax dollars. Only this time, it's having other adverse effects on the general public.

When the Defense Logistics Agency is buying brand new and transferring these purchases to law enforcement at pennies on the dollar (using DHS grants to pay the difference), the government is screwing taxpayers multiple times, at multiple levels -- and that's just in a financial sense. We shouldn't need an amendment to tell the Defense Dept. to stop turning locals cops into makeshift occupation forces, and we certainly shouldn't need to tell the government that no law enforcement agency needs ballistic missiles or bombs. Local cops really don't need armored vehicles either, but until legislators are willing to enact some serious limitations, the downhill slope from the DoD's excess property storage to the United States' police departments will continue unabated.

Filed Under: alan grayson, lobbyists, militarization, militarized police, politics

Rep. Grayson Asks If Keith Alexander Is Selling Classified Information To Get $1 Million Per Month

from the because-what-else-are-people-buying? dept

We recently noted that former NSA boss Keith Alexander is running around asking for $600k to $1 million per month for his new "cybersecurity" consulting firm. While some people thought that the number was "low" for banks, that doesn't make any sense. You could hire a lot of really good actual security professionals for that kind of cash. So it made us wonder just what banks thought they were getting for that $1 million. Actual security professional Bruce Schneier wondered that as well, and wondered aloud if the one difference was that... Alexander could give them classified info -- such as where he hid the backdoors in their routers.

That statement apparently caught the attention of Rep. Alan Grayson, who has been a vocal opponent of NSA overreach. He's now sent a letter to the Financial Service Rountable to point out that selling classified info is a crime:

Security expert Bruce Schneier noted that this fee for Alexander's services is on its face unreasonable. "Think of how much actual security they could buy with that $600k a month. Unless he's giving them classified information." Schneier also quoted Recode.net, which headlined this news as: "For another million, I'll show you the back door we put in your router."

This arrangement with Mr. Alexander may also include additional work with the shadow regulatory firm The Promontory Group, with whom Alexander apparently will partner "on cybersecurity matters." According to Promontory spokesman Chris Winans, Mr. Alexander "and a firm he's forming will work on the technical aspects of these issues, and we on the risk-management compliance and governance elements."

Disclosing or misusing classified information for profit is, as Mr. Alexander well knows, a felony. I question how Mr. Alexander can provide any of the services he is offering unless he discloses or misuses classified information, including extremely sensitive sources and methods. Without the classified information that he acquired in his former position, he literally would have nothing to offer to you.

Grayson also demands "all information related to your negotiations with Mr. Alexander, so that Congress can verify whether or not he is selling military or cybersecurity secrets to the financial services industry for personal gain. Sure, it's a snarky move, but there is a point behind it. Alexander can't command those sums because of his actual technical expertise. The reality, of course, is that he's selling his connections to the government. But it certainly raises the question of appearances.

Filed Under: alan grayson, backdoors, bruce schneier, cybersecurity, keith alexander, nsa, surveillance

Small Victory Against NSA: Amendment Says NIST No Longer Has To Consult NSA On Standards

from the it's-a-step dept

Even as major NSA reform appears to have become a cruel joke, there are still some small wins happening elsewhere. As noted by Access, the House Science and Technology Committee adopted an amendment to the FIRST Act (Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology -- which is supposed to be about increasing funding in science and technology) that says the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) no longer has to consult with the NSA on encryption standards.

As you may recall, the NSA secretly took over an encryption standard, purposely weakened it, paid RSA to make it a "default" in one of its products and basically weakened everyone's security. NIST has been dealing with the consequences ever since.

The Amendment, authored by Rep. Alan Grayson, would mean that NIST can skip dealing with the NSA altogether. As Grayson noted in a statement:

These are serious allegations. NIST, which falls solely under the jurisdiction of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has been given "the mission of developing standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for information systems". To violate that charge in a manner that would deliberately lessen encryption standards, and willfully diminish American citizens' and business' cyber-security, is appalling and warrants a stern response by this Committee. Many businesses, from Facebook to Google, have lamented the NSA's actions in the cyber world; and some, such as Lavabit, have consciously decided to shut their doors rather than continue to comply with the wishes of the NSA. Changes need to be made at NIST to protect its work in the encryption arena.

Filed Under: alan grayson, encryption, nist, nsa, standards, surveillance

Amendments Offered To NDAA To Try To Stop NSA Surveillance Abuse

from the forcing-hands dept

If you're wondering why the USA Freedom Act finally started moving forward again, a good place to look is tomorrow's vote on re-upping the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), with a variety of folks in the House proposing amendments that would lead to defunding certain NSA activities. As you may recall, last year, Rep. Justin Amash proposed defunding the NSA's Section 215 bulk data collection program, which came very close to passing. Fearing a similar effort, the House leadership decided to finally get moving on USA Freedom. Of course, with USA Freedom watered down, attention is turning back to the NDAA Amendments, with the vote on all of this happening tomorrow.

There are a ton of amendments, many of which won't get anywhere at all, but Amash is back with a few amendments, along with Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Rush Holt, Alan Grayson and some others. Amash, Lofgren and Holt have teamed up for a couple of amendments trying to block bulk collection under Section 215. Meanwhile Lofgren and Holt have an amendment to deny funding for the NSA's weakening of encryption and inserting back doors in technology. Lofgren and Amash, along with Rep. Thomas Massie, have an amendment defunding Section 702 "warrantless wiretapping" efforts. Grayson goes for the gold with an amendment that would block funds for any surveillance done on American citizens inside the US without probable cause. While there's no way this amendment will get approved, it's basically just saying "hey, you know what, we should obey the 4th Amendment."

Filed Under: alan grayson, amendments, justin amash, ndaa, rush holt, zoe lofgren

Rep. Alan Grayson Asks Eric Holder If US Citizen Glenn Greenwald Will Actually Be Allowed Back Into The US Without Arrest

from the shameful-that-this-question-is-asked dept

It's horrifying enough that this question needs to be asked, but Rep. Alan Grayson, who has been one of the most vocal members of Congress in calling out the NSA's bad behavior has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking assurance that if US citizen Glenn Greenwald were to come back into the US that he could do so without being arrested. Grayson notes that a variety of prominent people, both within and outside the government (but who have influence on the government) have called for Greenwald to be arrested and prosecuted.

Mr. Greenwald, a United States citizen currently living in Brazil, has been publicly attacked by Members of Congress such as Representative Peter King, who on multiple occasions has called for his arrest merely because of his reporting as a journalist on the NSA. The Chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, have appeared to echo this threat, as have prominent foreign-policy commentators such as Alan Dershowitz and Marc Thiessen.

He also highlights the infamous UK detention of Greenwald's partner, David Miranda. And then asks the basic question of whether or not the US government will agree that Greenwald can enter his own country without arrest for the crime of "journalism the government doesn't like."

I regard this as regrettable, because: (1) the commission of journalism is not a crime; (2) on the contrary, it is protected explicitly under the First Amendment; and (3) Mr. Greenwald's reports regarding these subjects have, in fact, informed me, other Members of Congress, and the general public of serious, pervasive violations of law and constitutional rights committed by agents of the government.

Bearing in mind that Mr. Greenwald is a citizen of the United States, please let me know: (1) whether the Department of Justice intends to bring charges against Mr. Greenwald, and (2) should Mr. Greenwald seek to enter the United States, whether the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, or any other office of the federal government intends to detain, question, arrest, or prosecute Mr. Greenwald, or to monitor or interfere in any way with his entry into or movement within the United States.

It's a sad and shameful comment on the state of the US government today that this question needs to be asked, no matter what the eventual answer is. We've strayed very very far from the ideals that this country is supposed to embrace.

Filed Under: alan grayson, eric holder, glenn greenwald, us citizens

Rep. Alan Grayson: I Learn Much More About The NSA From The Press Than From Intelligence Briefings

from the and-that's-important dept

Rep. Alan Grayson has been among the most outspoken members of Congress about the NSA's surveillance efforts, and his latest is an op-ed in the Guardian, in which he notes that Congressional "oversight" is really Congressional "overlook," and that he learns much more about the NSA from the press than from the House intelligence briefings:

Despite being a member of Congress possessing security clearance, I've learned far more about government spying on me and my fellow citizens from reading media reports than I have from "intelligence" briefings. If the vote on the Amash-Conyers amendment is any indication, my colleagues feel the same way. In fact, one long-serving conservative Republican told me that he doesn't attend such briefings anymore, because, "they always lie".

Many of us worry that Congressional Intelligence Committees are more loyal to the "intelligence community" that they are tasked with policing, than to the Constitution. And the House Intelligence Committee isn't doing anything to assuage our concerns.

We've covered in detail how House Intelligence chair Mike Rogers had blocked other Reps. from learning information about the spying program, refusing to answer questions or provide more access to certain Congressional Reps, as well as generally making sure that curious Reps can't find out the answers to their questions. Grayson goes into more detail:

I've requested classified information, and further meetings with NSA officials. The House Intelligence Committee has refused to provide either. Supporters of the NSA's vast ubiquitous domestic spying operation assure the public that members of Congress can be briefed on these activities whenever they want. Senator Saxby Chambliss says all a member of Congress needs to do is ask for information, and he'll get it. Well I did ask, and the House Intelligence Committee said "no", repeatedly. And virtually every other member not on the Intelligence Committee gets the same treatment.

Recently, a member of the House Intelligence Committee was asked at a town hall meeting, by his constituents, why my requests for more information about these programs were being denied. This member argued that I don't have the necessary level of clearance to obtain access for classified information. That doesn't make any sense; every member is given the same level of clearance. There is no legal justification for imparting secret knowledge about the NSA's domestic surveillance activities only to the 20 members of the House Intelligence Committee. Moreover, how can the remaining 415 of us do our job properly, when we're kept in the dark – or worse, misinformed?

This is even more important than just a few concerned Congressional Reps. Just recently, we wrote about the FISA Court's defense of its latest renewal on the bulk metadata collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. A very key piece of that decision had to do with the FISA Court's belief that Congress was well-informed about the programs when it voted to renew Section 215 -- thus, arguing that Congress approves of such things. Grayson's comments (along with those of many other House Representatives -- not to mention the 207 Reps who voted for the Amash Amendment against such bulk collection) suggest that the FISA Court is simply wrong on this, but doesn't seem to care enough to find out the truth.

Filed Under: alan grayson, congress, house intelligence committee, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight

House Intelligence Committee Threatens Rep. Grayson For Informing Other Reps About Leaked NSA Docs From The Guardian

from the congressional-failures dept

We already wrote about Glenn Greenwald's piece from this weekend concerning Rep. Mike Rogers and the House Intelligence Committee actively blocking access to information, documents and briefings for other members of Congress who have expressed interest in the details of the NSA surveillance program, but I wanted to focus in on a separate issue in that same article. In the original post, we noted how Rep. Alan Grayson was told directly by Rogers that the Intelligence Committee had taken a "voice vote" and decided to deny his request for some information (and when he asked for more details, he was told that it was "classified").

Grayson, of course, was one of the first members of Congress to speak out forcefully about the NSA surveillance program and why he found it to be unconstitutional. As we showed at the time, Grayson's speech, included a posterboard of some of the slides that were published in the Guardian from Snowden's leak. In fact, we pointed out that it seemed especially ridiculous for the government to block access to the Guardian or other websites that had published the same documents, in part because Grayson had shown those same documents on the House floor. To pretend that they were still classified is just the ultimate in sticking your head in the sand.

But, it gets worse. At the end of the Greenwald piece, we find out that the House Intelligence Committee threatened Grayson with sanctions for sharing the same slides that were published by the Guardian with fellow members of Congress:

In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.

Think about that for a second. Here were documents that were published in major newspapers, discussing issues of key importance for Congress -- and a member of Congress is actually being threatened with sanctions for daring to send this front page news around to other colleagues in order to have a discussion about the NSA's actions. At this point, it would appear that the House Intelligence Committee isn't just failing at its job of handling oversight for the intelligence agencies, but it's now actively obstructing the rest of Congress from living up to their oath as Congressional Representatives to protect the Constitution.

Filed Under: alan grayson, classified info, house intelligence committee, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, sanctions

Rep. Mike Rogers Blocking Other Congressional Reps From Access To Info On NSA Surveillance

from the look-at-that dept

When the Ed Snowden leaks first hit the Guardian and the Washington Post, many officials claimed that there was full oversight from Congress of these programs and that everyone was aware of them. In fact, President Obama himself declared:

"When it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program," Obama said to reporters last Friday.

And other defenders insisted, at the very least, that anyone could get a full briefing -- if they just asked for it:

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, chimed in later: "We provided detailed briefings and papers on this to explain the law, to explain the process it was governing," he said on NBC News last Saturday.

And then Monday on Fox News, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who's on the House Intelligence Committee, told his colleagues to stop whining: "You know, these members of Congress who said they didn't know about it — they could have gotten a briefing whenever they wanted to."

Oh really? Even back then, many in Congress said that was hogwash, and that it was incredibly difficult to get the details of these programs out of those who knew about them. While there were these "briefings" that Clapper and King mention above, they're anything but clear. As some noted, the "briefings" don't really brief you on anything -- unless you already know exactly what questions to ask:

“Sometimes these briefings are a game of 20 questions. If you don’t ask exactly the right question, you don’t get the answer,” said Harman.

Either way, Glenn Greenwald's latest shows that the claims that any member of Congress can simply find out what's going on is flat out false -- so we can add that to the list of "lies" from those defending the NSA surveillance programs. Greenwald highlights how two Congressional Representatives -- Morgan Griffith and Alan Grayson -- shared with him their attempts to get access to certain details about the NSA surveillance program. Griffith sent over a bunch of requests to the House Intelligence Committee... and got back nothing, even as he asked that his request be expedited so he could vote knowledgeably on the Amash amendment. Instead... silence.

Even worse, however, is the completely obnoxious response that Grayson received from (you guessed it!) Rep. Mike Rogers, saying that his request had been denied:

On June 19, Grayson wrote to the House Intelligence Committee requesting several documents relating to media accounts about the NSA. Included among them were FISA court opinions directing the collection of telephone records for Americans, as well as documents relating to the PRISM program.

But just over four weeks later, the Chairman of the Committee, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, wrote to Grayson informing him that his requests had been denied by a Committee "voice vote".

Oh, and it gets worse. Grayson spoke to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (basically the number two guy on the Intelligence Committee after Rogers) and was told that "he was unaware of any committee action on this matter." A staff member for Grayson asked the Intelligence Committee for the details of the voice vote, including the member-by-member voting. The response?

Thanks for your inquiry. The full Committee attends Business Meetings. At our July 18, 2013 Business Meeting, there were seven Democrat Members and nine Republican Members in attendance. The transcript is classified."

Say what? Here is a Congressional Representative -- who we are told over and over again can have full access to this information -- being told by the NSA's staunchest defenders, Rep. Mike Rogers, that his request is denied "by a voice vote" and then told that the details of that vote are now classified? At some point, you have to recognize that Rogers and the House Intelligence Committee are out of control. I realize they're trying to do damage control, but denying such direct requests from a Congressional Representative is really quite stunning.

And that's not all. Looking through the email exchange, it notes that Grayson had spoken to NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis to find out more about the program, and was requesting a follow up meeting. There are then a whole series of follow up emails with Grayson's office repeatedly trying to schedule a meeting. Finally, they are told that someone from the House Intelligence Committee would be calling to "close the loop," and there's a note that "closing the loop" meant merely calling to tell Grayson that he could not have a follow up meeting with the NSA.

It's no secret that Grayson has been one of the vocal critics of the surveillance program, but now the House Intelligence Committee, led by Mike Rogers, is looking to actively block him from doing his job, denying him access to the very documents, individuals and briefings that all the defenders of the program have said repeatedly are open to all Congressional reps. It really makes you wonder: what are they so afraid of?

Filed Under: alan grayson, barack obama, congress, house intelligence committee, james clapper, mike rogers, morgan griffith, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, peter king

Homeland Security Threatens Legal Action Against Employees Who Read News About Leaks

from the while-one-politician-looks-to-stop-it dept

We've talked about procedures within the Defense Department to block computers from accessing the website for The Guardian newspaper -- along with similarly short-sighted moves to apply a sledgehammer approach to pretending that public information isn't really public. I've heard from a few people within the Defense Department who defend this approach on basic procedural grounds of trying to "make sure" that classified info remains classified, but the real problem is considering any publicly revealed documents as still classified. As I've said each time this debate comes up, in the business world, the equivalent situation involving trade secrets or non-disclosure agreements almost always are recognized as null and void if the info becomes public through other means.

However, that's not the way the government works. The latest is that Homeland Security sent around a memo warning employees that merely opening up a Washington Post article about some of the leaks might violate their non-disclosure agreement to "protect National Security Information," and it even says that merely clicking on the story might make the reader "subject to any administrative or legal action from the Government." Got that? Working for the government and merely reading the news about things the government is doing might subject you to legal action.

Stunning.

At least someone in Congress realizes the insanity of all of this. Rep. Grayson, who displayed the very same NSA slides that DHS is warning its employees about in Congress itself, has offered up an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, stating that nothing in the defense appropriations should be used to block employees from reading the news on their own time.

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to restrict the access of members of the Armed Forces to publically available online news media during morale, welfare, and recreation periods.

While this is one way to deal with the problem, I still think you solve a lot more problems with a basic recognition of reality: if classified documents become public, they shouldn't be considered classified any more, because (a) that's stupid and (b) it actually hinders the ability of government employees to be as knowledgeable as everyone else in the world. Also, Grayson's amendment only applies to the members of the armed forces, but not to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, or any employees of Homeland Security, who are subject to the crazy threats above.

Filed Under: alan grayson, appropriations, defense department, homeland security, leaks, news, reading, websites