Secret Service Sends FOIA Requester A Redacted Version Of A Public DOJ Press Release

from the spinning-secrets-out-of-public-web-pages dept

The government loves its secrets. It loves them so much it does stupid things to, say, "secure the nation..." or "protect the integrity of deliberative processes" or whatever the fuck. We should not trust the government's reasoning when it chooses to redact information from documents it releases to FOIA requesters. These assertions should always be challenged because the government's track record on redactions is objectively awful.

Here's the latest case-in-point: Emma Best -- someone the government feels is a "vexatious" FOIA filer -- just received a completely stupid set of redactions from the Secret Service. Best requested documents mentioning darknet market Hansa, which was shut down (along with Alpha Bay) following an investigation by US and Dutch law enforcement agencies.

The documents returned to Best contained redactions. This is unsurprising given the nature of the investigation. What's surprising is what the Secret Service decided to redact. As Best pointed out on Twitter, the Secret Service decided public press releases by the DOJ were too sensitive to be released to the general public.

Here's one of the redactions [PDF] the Secret Service applied to a press release that can be found unaltered and unedited at the Justice Department's publicly-accessible website:

And here's what the Secret Service excised, under the bullshit theory that a publicly-released press statement is somehow an "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letter which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency."

“This is likely one of the most important criminal investigations of the year – taking down the largest dark net marketplace in history,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Make no mistake, the forces of law and justice face a new challenge from the criminals and transnational criminal organizations who think they can commit their crimes with impunity using the dark net. The dark net is not a place to hide. The Department will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate criminals, drug traffickers and their enablers wherever they are. We will use every tool we have to stop criminals from exploiting vulnerable people and sending so many Americans to an early grave. I believe that because of this operation, the American people are safer – safer from the threat of identity fraud and malware, and safer from deadly drugs.”

Um. Is Jeff Sessions being Yezhoved by the Secret Service? Does the agency consider him to be enough of a persona non grata after his firing by Trump to be excised from the Secret Services' official recollection of this dark web takedown? This insane conspiracy theory I just made up makes as much sense as anything the Secret Service could offer in explanation for this redaction. The redaction removed nothing but the sort of swaggering statement Attorney Generals always make after a huge bust.

Needless to say, Emma Best is challenging the Secret Service's redactions. Pithily.

I am appealing the integrity of the redactions, as you withheld public press releases under b5, which is grossly inappropriate.

Yeah. That's an understatement. The Secret Service has no business redacting publicly-available info. Even if this was a clerical error, it's so bad it's insulting. And that's why you can't trust the government on things like this: when it's not being malicious, it's being stupid.

Filed Under: doj, foia, press release, redactions, secret service, transparency

Another Convicted Felon Tries To Use The DMCA Process To Erase DOJ Press Releases About His Criminal Acts

from the also:-PATENTS! dept

Looks like another convicted felon is abusing the DMCA process in hopes of cleansing the web of his misdeeds. Chad Hatten of Houston, Texas, was arrested on multiple counts related to ID theft and access device fraud. Hatten stole credit card numbers to buy gift cards to resell at a discount. He was indicted in 2005 and sentenced to 66 months in prison in 2006.

Now that Hatten is (presumably) no longer behind bars, he's been doing a little DIY SEO work. His first attempts to get the DOJ's press releases delisted by Google occurred in 2012, which would line up with the termination of his sentence.

In his first two attempts -- both filed under "music" -- it appears a third-party link removal service failed to achieve Hatten's objectives.

These links are lsited as blocked , when using the URL removal tool, yet continue to appear in search results.

The link targeted was the DOJ's press release announcing Hatten's indictment. His second 2012 DMCA targets the announcement of his conviction.

The links targeted in 2012 have since rotted away, which perhaps explains the six-year gap between Hatten's removal efforts. The targeted releases have since resurfaced with new URLs. So has Chad Hatten. This time he's brought... someone else's patents? And warnings of impending violence.

protected work. Additionally, the high page rank of this result places lives at stake. Please at least manually lower this result. Someone could die as a result of this appearing so high.

More detail on the DOJ's deadly press releases can be found in yet another Hatten takedown attempt -- one that also includes someone else's patents as the supposed "original work" being infringed.

If anyone actually reads this, this link is 12 years old, and is ruining my life. It is placing my safety at risk. Please either remove this, or manually lower the page rank. I could die as a result of this link.

If it's difficult to discern why a publicly-posted press release might be viewed as potentially deadly, it's even more difficult to comprehend the inclusion of someone else's patents in the DMCA takedown notice. And yet, that's what Houston's Chad Hatten has done. He's dragged along someone else he found in his frantic vanity searches in hopes that their intellectual property will somehow push his bogus takedowns past Google's spot checkers.

This is the so-called "original URL" listed in Hatten's request:

http://google.com/patents/WO2016007659A1?cl=no

While there may be those engaged in credit card theft who dabble in chemistry from time to time, it's highly doubtful the convicted Chad Hatten is also the inventor Chad Hatten, employed by Illinois-based energy company, Coskata Inc. It's also doubtful Chad Hatten the DMCA abuser could explain the following in layman's terms:

Processes for controlling the concentration of co-produced oxygenated organics in anaerobic fermentation broths for the bioconversion of syngas to product oxygenated organic compound

And, even if it was Hatten's (the convict's) patent, a DMCA notice has nothing to do with patents and would never be able to stop this sort of infringement no matter how many URLs it delisted.

But wait! There's (one) more!

Hatten also engages in the more expected form of DMCA abuse: fraudulently claiming information he wants delisted is actually his own creation. Targeted by this DMCA notice is a PDF of Hatten's unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, as rejected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Hatten's DMCA, the federal appeals court decision is "my writing." Proof of Hatten's "creation" supposedly can be found at joemoore.com (listed as "Original URL"), a URL which automatically redirects to Joe Moore's IMDb page… as it has since 2013. (The first few years of that URL's history are very different from its current incarnation as a promotional redirect for a second unit director. [But SFW.])

None of this represents how the system is supposed to work. But all of it demonstrates how easy it is to abuse. Google tends to vet DMCA notices pretty well, but it's unclear if other search engines are as attentive. Of course, to many people Google represents The Internet, so hitting up Google with bogus takedown notices is the only stop they'll ever make. Chad Hatten's attempts have fallen short of his DIY right-to-be-forgotten goal, but there's plenty of evidence out there that the DCMA process works just well enough (in terms of abuse) that it's always worth a try.

Filed Under: censorship, chad hatten, copyright, dmca, doj, press release, takedowns
Companies: google

Holder: DOJ Used Discretion In Bullying Swartz, Press Lacked Discretion In Quoting Facts

from the convenient dept

Fresh off of explaining why the President can use drones to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder apparently feels emboldened to say just about anything to justify ridiculous government actions. The latest? Defending the Aaron Swartz prosecution at a Congressional hearing called by Sen. John Cornyn, who has already expressed his concerns over the prosecution. As you might expect, Holder stuck with the official line that what the DOJ did in the Swartz case was perfectly reasonable. The key to his argument, as we've been hearing from others who defended the government's actions: the DOJ never intended to put Swartz in jail for 35 years. Also, apparently it was unfair of the media to use that 35 year number.

As I've talked to the people who have looked into this matter, these news reports about what he was actually facing is not consistent with what the interaction was between the government and Mr. Swartz. A plea offer was made to him of 3 months, before the indictment. This case could have been resolved with a plea of 3 months. After the indictment, an offer was made and he could plead and serve 4 months. Even after that, a plea offer was made, of a range of zero to 6 months, that he would be able to argue for a probationary sentence. The government would be able to argue for up to a period of 6 months. There was never any intention for him to go to jail for a period longer than 3, 4, potentially 5 month range.

These claims are not only misleading, but also total and complete bullshit. First off, if you never intended for him to spend more than 6 months in jail, and you're upset at the "media" for using the 35 year number... why is it that the DOJ's own press release on the arrest played up the 35 years:

AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to push that number around in your own damn press release and then whine and complain about how "unfair" it is that the media uses the number you gave them.

Separately, concerning the insistence that they never wanted him to spend more than 6 months in jail, they leave out the fact that this was only if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to multiple felonies. According to various reports, the DOJ, via Assistant US Attorney Steve Heymann made it clear that if Swartz did not agree to the plea, then he would seek somewhere around seven years in jail.

Cornyn goes on to ask about why the DOJ pursued the case even after the supposed "victim," JSTOR said it didn't want to have anything to do with the case. Cornyn specifically asks if it makes sense to threaten someone with 35 years in prison when the victim doesn't even seem to feel harmed by the situation. Holder than tries to spin this around and, incredibly, argue that the fact that they didn't pursue the full 35 years is an example of good prosecutorial discretion. Seriously.

Cornyn: The subscription service didn't support the prosecution. Does it strike you as odd that the government would indict someone for crimes that would carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and million dollar fines and then offer him a 3 or 4 month prison sentence?

Holder: Well I think that's a good use of prosecutorial discretion. To look at the conduct, regardless of what the statutory maximums were, and to fashion a sentence that was consistent with what the nature of the conduct was. And I think what those prosecutors did in offering 3, 4, 0 to 6 was consistent with that conduct.

In other words, the only thing Holder is really saying here is that there was perfectly reasonable prosecutorial discretion if and only if Swartz agreed to a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to all felony charges against him. Basically, it's a "good use of prosecutorial discretion" to bully someone into pleading guilty to a crime they don't believe they've committed, and as long as they accept that, go to jail, and be okay with being labelled a felon for life, then there's no problem.

How do we let these people into positions of power?

Filed Under: aaron swartz, bullying, doj, eric holder, facts, john cornyn, press release, prosecution, prosecutorial discretion

If You Don't Want People To Know About Stuff, Maybe Don't Put A Press Release On Your Website With The Info

from the just-a-tip dept

Reader jprlk alerts us to the amusing news that Carleton University apparently put a press release on its website with all of the details concerning an upcoming visit by the Emperor and Empress of Japan... and opened it up by saying:

The Government of Japan respectfully requests that media outlets do not report on specific details, including exact times, prior to the events. Thank you for your cooperation.

Someone, apparently, isn't quite aware of the way the web works. When you put that info on the web yourself, Carleton University, you've already "reported on the specific details, including exact times, prior to the event." The University has since pulled the press release, but it's too late, as it's been picked up by the local press. As you can see, the blog post above summarizes the situation nicely:

So I guess the message from Carleton is that they'll put stuff on their website, but SHHHHHH! nobody else is to say anything.

Welcome to the internet, Carleton University.

Filed Under: press release, secrecy
Companies: careleton university