When The FBI Shows Up At Your Door About Your Reporting, That's Intimidation

from the yikes dept

Having the government show up at your door to ask some questions about your reporting can be extremely unnerving. Zack Whittaker, the top notch cybersecurity reporter for TechCrunch got to experience the fun of that when the FBI showed up at his door over a year after he had published a story about a hacker dumping thousands of Mexican embassy documents from Guatemala after the Mexican embassy left the data exposed online.

As with many situations involving reporting on hacks and leaks, rather than focus on those actually responsible (often those who left the information exposed), law enforcement and the powers that be... often target the journalists. We saw that recently in Missouri where the governor called reporters hackers (and "fake news") for ethically disclosing that the state's elementary school agency had left teacher and administrator social security numbers exposed -- something the Department of Elementary and Secondary Educationapologized for weeks later (though it didn't apologize to the journalists).

For Whittaker, the experience was reasonably concerning:

I contacted Mexico’s consulate in New York for comment, as is standard practice when reporting a story. A spokesperson said the Mexican government took the matter “very seriously.” We published our story, and that seemed to be the end of it.

The FBI knock at my door a year later suggested it wasn’t. I declined to speak with the agents and closed the door.

After we published our story the Mexican government requested the help of the U.S. Department of Justice through diplomatic channels to investigate the hack and presumably try to identify the hacker. Because I had contact with the hacker, that must have made me a subject of interest to the Mexican authorities, hence the visit a year on.

A month after the house call, the Mexican government provided the FBI with a list of written questions it wanted us to answer, many of which were already answered in the story. Our response to the DOJ declined to provide anything more than what we had already published.

However, as Zack notes, even if he knew he hadn't done anything wrong, all of this is incredibly unnerving. Legal threats (unfortunately, and often ridiculously) now come with the territory of being a journalist, but the intimidation factor is very real -- and that can be super damaging for better informing the public. Indeed, it's often why the powerful -- be they governments or just wealthy people and companies -- make use of such intimidation tactics all the time:

We’ve rebuffed spurious legal demands before, but having federal agents on your doorstep simply for doing your job is certainly a new one for me. There has been no suggestion of wrongdoing, though it’s unsettling not knowing what view Mexico would take if I ever stepped foot on its soil.

But it’s the legal threats and demands that don’t make it to print that can have the most damage. Legal demands inherently have a silencing effect. Sometimes they succeed. Journalism can be risky and the newsrooms don’t always win. Left unchecked, legal threats can have a chilling effect that stifles both security research and journalism by making it legally toxic to work. That means the world is less informed and sometimes less secure.

Filed Under: fbi, intimidation, journalism, mexico, reporting, zack whittaker
Companies: techcrunch

Clearview Suffers Brief Bout Of Better Judgment, Drops Subpoena Demanding Activists' Communications With Journalists

from the keep-on-sucking dept

Just a few days ago, Clearview -- the company that scrapes the web to build a facial recognition database it sells to law enforcement, government agencies around the world, and a number of private parties -- decided to make itself even less likable.

It decided to subpoena transparency activists Open The Government, demanding copies of all FOIA requests it had made requesting info about Clearview. It also, more disturbingly, demanded copies of OTG's communications with journalists, clearly indicating it felt First Amendment protections were something it should enjoy, but shouldn't be extended to its critics.

It really wasn't a step Clearview needed to take… for several reasons. First of all, Clearview's reputation is pure dog shit at the moment. It's unlikely to improve unless the company pulls the plug on its product and disbands. A move like this only earns it more (deserved) disdain and hatred. What it's not going to do -- even if successful -- is deter future criticism of the business and its scraped-together facial recognition product.

Second, OTG was not a party to the lawsuit. Clearview has no right to demand these documents from a non-party, especially communications between it and journalists… journalists who are also not a party to the lawsuit Clearview is facing.

Third, if Clearview wanted copies of OTG's FOIA requests, all it had to do is visit OTG's MuckRock page and download all of its publicly accessible requests and responses.

There's some good news, though. Shortly after having shot itself in the face, Clearview had second thoughts about the self-inflicted wound it had just sustained. Here's Alexandra Levine for Politico.

Facial recognition company Clearview AI is dropping the subpoenas it served recently to some of the groups that first exposed its work with law enforcement — legal demands that sought the organizations’ correspondence with journalists and other records.

The best move would have been to never issue the subpoenas at all, especially given the First Amendment implications of attempting to pry loose communications between activists and journalists. This withdrawal is a distant second on the list of "Smart Things to Do."

And here's the rationale for the decision, straight from the mouth of Clearview's founder:

Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That told POLITICO that “on further reflection about the scope of the subpoenas, and my strong view of freedom of the press, we have decided to withdraw the subpoenas served on Open the Government and its associates.”

I imagine that "reflection" showed a badly maimed face mouthing the word "why" after taking the full impact of an unforced error. This should have been the first response to the suggestion of subpoenaing non-parties and demanding copies of their conversations with journalists. It should have been offered by Clearview's legal team. And if those bright minds failed to comprehend the collateral damage this move would inflict on the First Amendment (not to mention the fact that Clearview would be sitting at ground zero when its own bomb went off), the genius who came up with the idea of treating millions of internet users as fodder for unproven facial recognition tech should have been able to see doing this was a terrible idea.

Then again, it may just be impossible for Clearview and its principals (note the spelling -- "principles" are different and not possessed by Clearview) to get a firm grasp on the obvious if it can't easily be scraped from content created by people with far more common sense than its founder and legal reps.

Filed Under: activism, facial recognition, foia, intimidation, journalism, subpoena, surveillance, transparency
Companies: clearview, open the government

Illinois Governor Signs Law Banning Cops From Performing Background Searches On Public Speakers

from the hey,-this-is-the-1st-Amendment.-have-you-met? dept

The Chicago PD has a host of problems. Ones that have gone unaddressed for years and appear to remain unaddressed even after the federal government has been forced to step in. Misconduct goes unpunished, investigations into officers are left uncompleted, the PD buys surveillance tech with forfeiture funds to dodge its oversight, and it operated a CIA-style black site in the city where arrestees and their rights vanished with alarming regularity.

For years, the Chicago PD has also apparently investigated citizens who speak at public meetings. A 2019 investigation by the Chicago Tribune, aided by public records requests, uncovered this secret attack on the First Amendment.

Documents obtained by the Tribune under a public records request show the Police Department gathered the details on nearly 60 people in advance of their speaking at monthly meetings of the Chicago Police Board since at least January 2018. A police spokesman said the background checks go back further, to at least 2013.

The checks appear to be extensive, with police searching at least one internal department database to determine if speakers have arrest or prison records, warrants outstanding for their arrest, investigative alerts issued for them by the department and even if they’re registered sex offenders or missing persons. Police also searched comments that speakers had previously made on YouTube or on their Facebook and Twitter accounts, among other internet sites, the documents show.

Among those subjected to background checks were a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted decades ago by a Chicago police officer, a community activist who gained prominence after the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald by a police officer and a 77-year-old man known for his frequent, flamboyant rants on a variety of topics at public meetings across the city.

It actually goes back further than 2013. Other public records indicate the Chicago PD has been doing this for more than 15 years, beginning in 2006.

The background searches only targeted certain speakers at certain public meetings: those wishing to express their opinion during comment sessions hosted by the PD's oversight. Upon revelation of this practice, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson offered up two useless comments. First, he claimed the PD had never acted on this information. Then he promised to end it, but seemingly because it was a pointless exercise in police overreach.

“I don’t think we have a reason at this point to continue it," said Johnson, who often attends Police Board meetings with members of his command staff. "It’s done.”

It's really done now -- at least as far as one background search database goes. The involuntary decision to end the practice of running searches on public speakers has been codified.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Friday signed into law a measure that makes it illegal for police to use at least one commonly searched law enforcement database to conduct criminal background checks on citizens who sign up to speak at public meetings statewide.

[...]

The new law, which goes into effect immediately, bars police agencies throughout Illinois from conducting background checks on citizens “for the sole reason” of that person speaking “at an open meeting of a public body, including police disciplinary boards.”

But the bill only forbids use of the LEADS (Law Enforcement Agencies Database System) database for these searches. It doesn't prevent the Chicago PD (and other agencies) from using other criminal record/background check databases they have access to. There's also a public safety exception that allows cops to run searches if they "reasonably" believe a speaker is a security threat or may engage in criminal conduct. That's a pretty massive exemption and one that can be abused without officers fearing they may be punished by employers that have shown little interest in punishing them for their misconduct.

However, if LEADS is used and an officer can't find a way to justify the search, there are actual consequences. A violation of the law can lead to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,500. Considering how hesitant governments are about punishing their own, it seems unlikely we'll see many officers punished for violating this new ban. If the cops want to dig up dirt on public speakers, they'll find a way to do it. The better deterrent is something law enforcement agencies can't control: speakers are allowed to sign up to speak at meetings 15 minutes ahead of its start, rather than 24 hours prior. That gives some power back to the people, making it far more difficult for dossiers to be compiled by police officers more interested in abusing their powers than respecting people's rights.

Filed Under: background checks, chicago, chicago pd, free speech, illinois, intimidation, police, public meetings

Exec That Tried To Send Critical Reporters A Dead Pig Blames 'The Drinking Culture At eBay'

from the bad-ideas-all-around dept

Last year, you might recall how a group of eBay executives were arrested for a truly bizarre (an understatement) stalking and harassment campaign aimed at critical reporters. Angry at the critical coverage of eBay by a small news site (Ecommercebytes.com, published by David and Ina Steiner), a team of six eBay executives and employees engaged in a year long campaign of terror against the couple that included death threats, spying on them, and even sending them everything from dead cockroaches and a bloody pig mask. The crew even tried to send the reporters a dead pig, though it never managed to ship.

These weren't really low-level employees, either. They included eBay’s senior manager of global intelligence, a manager of eBay's global intelligence center (GIC), a contractor who worked as an intelligence analyst within the GIC, and a senior manager of special operations for eBay’s global security team --and a former cop. And all of them lost their jobs for their decision to engage in this bizarre campaign of terror against what's really just a fairly ordinary and polite industry trade outlet run by a couple of genuinely decent people.

This week saw the manager of eBay's global security team Philip Cooke plead guilty to the charges in court. At his sentencing hearing, Cooke insisted that it was eBay's "drinking culture" that was apparently responsible for his atrocious judgement:

"A former eBay security official who pleaded guilty for his role in a cyberstalking conspiracy has asked for leniency in sentencing while blaming his actions in part on a "drinking culture" at eBay that contributed to his alcoholism.

"eBay had a bar on campus that opened at 3:00 p.m., and drinking was part of the culture, with alcohol present throughout the office space where it was typical to take morning shots of alcohol with co-workers," a sentencing memorandum for 56-year-old defendant Philip Cooke said yesterday. It was filed in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts."

It's pretty hard to blame gin and tonics for a campaign that required this much focus, attention, and detail. The real and obvious problem was the corporate rot that infected eBay's overall corporate culture (and still may). Cooke was ultimately promoted by eBay to director of security operations and given a raise to $205,000 in June 2020 -- ten months after the campaign began -- before ultimately losing his job once allegations came to light a few months later. If the story had never gone public, there's a not insubstantial chance he'd still be working at eBay.

Last week, the Steiners filed an unsurprising lawsuit (pdf) against the executives. But that lawsuit also included former eBay CEO Devin Wenig and eBay Chief Communications Officer Steven Wymer, who were not originally charged by the DOJ. The lawsuit accuses both of sanctioning the behavior from the highest levels of eBay leadership. According to the complaint, the two executives:

"provided the other Defendants with carte blanche authority to terminate the reporting of the Steiners by whatever means necessary, with Defendant Wymer expressing "... I want to see ashes. As long as it takes. Whatever it takes." Defendant Wymer promised the defendants he would "embrace managing any bad fallout" if the plan went south, further directing, "We need to STOP her." All of the horrific, vicious and sickening conduct that followed was committed by employees of eBay and PFC, while acting in the scope of their employment under the authority of and for the benefit of eBay and PFC."

Again it's astonishing the lengths these guys went to in order to harass a fairly small and relatively polite blog. There is some incredible culture rot needed for an effort like this to materialize and persist for so long. If this is how they felt about a fairly innocuous trade blog, you can only imagine their disdain for bigger outlets that do more serious investigative reporting. The idea that this was just a strange one off caused by just a few errant, sauced executives still seems a little hard to believe.

Filed Under: critics, david steiner, devin wenig, drinking, harassment, ina steiner, intimidation, philip cooke, reporters, steven wymer
Companies: ebay, ecommercebytes

No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better

from the what-a-mess dept

Honestly, this is the last thing I wanted to be writing about today. First, let's make this clear: when I've seen political officials -- both Democrats and Republicans alike -- threatening to punish companies for 1st Amendment protected activities, I call it out. Indeed, I've been highlighting these kinds of issues for years -- and it has nothing to do with politics or ideology or who I like or who I don't like.

It's a simple fact: the US government should not be threatening or coercing private companies into taking down protected speech.

But, over the past few days there's been an absolutely ridiculous shit storm falsely claiming that the White House is, in fact, doing this with Facebook, leading to a whole bunch of nonsense -- mainly from the President's critics. It began on Thursday, when White House press secretary Jen Psaki, in talking about vaccine disinfo, noted that the White House had flagged vaccine disinformation to Facebook. And... critics of the President completely lost their shit claiming that it was a "First Amendment violation" or that it somehow proved Donald Trump's case against the social media companies.

It did none of those things.

On Friday, rather than recognizing how this whole line of argument would be weaponized, the White House doubled down, again highlighting how it was upset about misinformation about vaccines on social media, and then when asked directly about "Facebook" Joe Biden said "they're killing people." This is, of course, wrong. Facebook is not killing people. Some idiots on Facebook are spreading misinformation and disinformation that is likely causing people to die, but we should be putting the blame where it needs to be put. On the people spreading the disinformation.

Either way, the fact that the government might flag to social media companies that certain content is disinformation does not, in any way, reach the level of coercion or demands that would make it a 1st Amendment violation. There was no indication that the companies were told to take it down. There's no indication that anything happened other than the administration saying "Hey, this stuff is dangerous." And, I mean, if you're going to get mad at administrations demanding social media posts get taken down, it certainly looks like the Trump administration went way further than the Biden administration did in demanding such things (like that time with regards to posts advocating for the removal of confederate statues). I don't remember any of the folks now screaming about the Biden administration complaining when Trump actually did demand posts be removed.

Of course, that still doesn't make this necessarily the right approach by the White House -- and frankly, it's astounding that they walked right into this seemingly unaware of how it would all play out. Ken White wrote out the perfect way in which a smart White House would have dealt with this issue:

Here’s how the Biden Administration could handle the plague of deadly disinformation in a way that wouldn’t play into the Trumpist censorship narrative:

"The First Amendment and Section 230 let private companies like Twitter and Facebook choose how to moderate their sites. American free speech rights are exceptional and protect a very large amount of speech many of us would agree is dangerous or harmful. That broad protection helps insulate speech from political and ideological urges to censor. But the government has a leadership function as well as a governing one. Part of leadership is praising good behavior and condemning bad behavior, in hopes that people will do the right thing, without the coercion of law.

Facebook has a right to make money off of this alarming and deadly disinformation. But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Just as Americans have the right to say poisonous and ugly things to each other, that doesn’t make it right. When Facebook is exercising its right to profit off of deadly propaganda about COVID, it’s doing the wrong moral thing. It’s being a bad citizen. The First Amendment protects it from coercion, but not from criticism — yours and ours.

We call on Facebook to reconsider its stance. We’ve identified common anti-scientific propaganda that puts lives at risk. Facebook can continue to profit off of it. But it can choose not to. We call on Facebook to do the right thing - for Americans and their lives."

Would it really have been so hard to have done something like that?

Filed Under: censorship, content moderation, disinformation, intimidation, jen psaki, joe biden, orders, social media, vaccines
Companies: facebook

Judge Dumps Iowa Prosecutors' Attempt To Jail An Activist For Sharing A Law Enforcement Document With Journalists

from the setting-fire-to-the-first-amendment-like-it's-just-an-american-flag dept

Polk County, Iowa prosecutors are making a name for themselves. And that name is "Enemy of the First Amendment." Earlier this year, Polk County prosecutor John Sarcone tried and failed to convict a Des Moines Register journalist for attending a protest and attempting to comply with conflicting orders from law enforcement.

According to the prosecutor, journalist Andrea Sahouri failed to disperse when ordered to, even though other cops at the same scene were simply telling people to "protest peacefully." Sahouri was attempting to document the protest and was arrested as she was moving away from the epicenter of the protest. This attempt to turn First Amendment protected activity into a crime failed and the prosecutor took a rather humiliating loss in a very public fashion.

Another prosecutor from the same office -- Thomas Miller -- has just suffered a similar, very public loss. Activist Viet Tran was arrested last summer after he shared a Des Moines Police Department bulletin with journalists during a televised interview. The PD claimed the document was super-secret and not shareable without committing a crime. The bulletin contained information about protesters targeted by the PD, including some who had vandalized a police car.

The prosecutor (along with the PD) attempted to turn the sharing of public interest info with journalists into a felony charge: unauthorized dissemination of intelligence data. Normally, that sort of charge would only be leveled at the person who had shared it with someone who did not have authorization to view it, like whoever leaked it to Tran. Tran isn't a police officer, so his acquisition and sharing shouldn't be a crime. But that's not how the prosecutor's office saw it. And, in keeping with the First Amendment shredding vindictiveness of this whole debacle, the PD never asked the journalist Tran shared the document with to remove it from her Twitter feed.

Following a failed attempt to keep Tran locked up until his trial by spiking his bail to $20,000 (rather than the usual $3,000 for Class D felonies), the prosecutors' office has earned its second straight loss in the same case. The court said that even if the government was right about this seeming misuse of "unauthorized dissemination" charges, it was wrong about the document's contents.

On Wednesday, the court agreed that the bulletin didn't meet the definition of intelligence data, which is defined by the Iowa Code as "information on identifiable individuals compiled in an effort to anticipate, prevent or monitor possible criminal activity."

"It was not compiled in an effort to anticipate, prevent or monitor possible criminal activity. The bulletin was prepared because the police department had concluded that criminal acts had already occurred," Fifth Judicial District Judge Jeffery Farrell wrote Wednesday in his order to dismiss the charge against Tran.

Making this loss even more of an embarrassment for the rightfully maligned prosecutors office (feel free to continue maligning in the comments) was the prosecutor's best argument for jailing Tran:

Assistant Polk County Attorney Thomas Miller argued in a court document that the "court is not constrained by this limited prior use of this statute." Anyone who disseminated intelligence information, including journalists, could be charged, he wrote.

Ah, but what about the journalist who posted the same document to Twitter? (Oh, and let's not forget the First Amendment.)

Andersen, the journalist Tran shared the bulletin with, was not charged because "the police have the ability to use discretion when deciding whom to recommend for criminal charges," Miller wrote.

There it is. That's the prosecutor admitting the government will abuse laws to punish people they think they can get away with punishing. Some troublemaking minority advocating on behalf of black victims of police violence? That's a felony. A journalist likely backed by her employer's legal team? That's a free pass.

Nice work there, Mr. Miller. Not only did you blow this case but you made it clear law enforcement isn't about enforcing laws. It's about keeping certain people in line. This is how prosecutorial "discretion" almost always works. It goes after the weakest, least protected members of our society and ignores anyone too rich, too white, or perhaps just too lawyered-up to push around.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, andrea sahouri, des moines police department, intimidation, iowa, john sarcone, journalism, polk county, thomas miller, viet tran