Justice Department Ordered Online News Website To Divulge Data About Visitors

Proof • November 10, 2009

And to keep the existence of the demand a secret as well.

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day. The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site ‘not to disclose the existence of this request’ unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation got involved and the subpoena has been killed, but it does set up interesting questions about online privacy.
If you visit a website, are the traces of your visit private and protected? Or, put another way, as a site owner is the data about your visitors and posters private and protected? Who owns that data? The site owner? The visitors? If you walk into a retail store the fact that you visited isn’t necessarily private. If you visit a public website, is that private?
If Indymedia had decided to cooperate with the government voluntarily, would they have violated the privacy of their visitors and/or posters? Can the government compel such cooperation? What standards does the government have to meet to compel such cooperation?
All good questions without perfect answers. One thing is clear, though. The Justice Department’s handling of this subpoena was wrong. It shouldn’t have been a secret. If the government is going to seek data like this it should be above board with the requests.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

If you walk into a retail store the fact that you visited isnâ€™t necessarily private.

I think the difference is expectation of privacy. If the police staked out the door of the retail store, they would see everyone who went in and out. If I write a letter to the retail store, the police cannot examine the contents of the letter without a warrant, even though the postman walks it through the same door. Nor can they stop him and examine the return addresses unless they obtain a warrant.*
I believe that people who visit websites or send emails have a certain expectation of privacy, whether that is absolutely true or not.

*The possible exception might be if police had information that someone was sending letter bombs or anthrax through the mail, and believed that someone’s life could be in jeopardy.
sayanything-15427

If you visit a legal website that “warrants” investigation then a warrant should be issued for the data.

However the government MUST demonstrate the need for the information. If they want a list of ALL visitors to the site they must demonstrate why they need the data. If it is a seperatist website that condones or inspires jihad or attacks on government officials then I could see them wanting information on visitors. But unless those persons are posting there is no way to use that information as proof of anything but that they visited so it is useless. How many people read Al Jazira’s website or other websites simply to see what the enemy is up to?

If it is an illegal website, like one that allows illegal acts to happen using its servers, then I can see using the information to go after the users. But again, you would have to be able to prove that the person(s) in question actually used the servers and didn’t just stop by to see what the hype was about.

Trying to backdoor the system with a subpoena is not the proper and legal way to do things. I am not going to put on my tinfoil hat for this one just yet.
Lioncourt

One thing is clear, though. The Justice Departmentâ€™s handling of this subpoena was wrong. It shouldnâ€™t have been a secret. If the government is going to seek data like this it should be above board with the requests.

Grand Jury proceedings are secret by law to protect the accused. This isn’t some secret government plan.
sayanything-106

Doesn’t seem to be right, to demand that it be kept a secret.
http://www.2plus2equals5.net winston_smith1

it’s ok if you don’t like free speech. this has been going on for quite some time.

Free Speech Loses Out in Kahre Case

http://www.fff.org/blog/jgh2009-09.asp

it’s all about getting people to shut their mouths
lock’m'up

There is a difference between asking, through a warrant, if a specific person/computer accessed a legal site and asking for all visitors to a legal site.

Asking for all visitors to an illegal site is quite another thing.
jimmypop

if the website really cared to ‘protect’ thier users, they would wipe all that info from the start or never record it. there is a search engine (cant recall the name) that does not log anything you do. so, if anyone showed up for info, there is nothing to be had.
http://www.2plus2equals5.net winston_smith1

where was i being an apologist for statists? and what statist are you referring to? the democrat statists? or the republican statists? i get them confused sometimes.
http://www.2plus2equals5.net winston_smith1

If the government is going to seek data like this it should be above board with the requests.

yeah, right.
sayanything-4808

Even if you have nothing to hide, it is still your nothing.

Protect what you believe to be yours, for the government certainly has no interest in doing so. They aren’t your friends, they are the mob, and the mob commits atrocities spiritual and temporal like nothing else.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I wouldn’t expect someone who claims to be an archist but is really an
apologist for statists to understand how the constitution works.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

You do know that the government is allowed to seek certain types of data through warrants, no?
sayanything-1317

You know that there has to be a reason for the warrant right?

A cop can’t just say “I want all your surveilence footage and expect to be followed.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

If I write a letter to the retail store, the police cannot examine the contents of the letter without a warrant, even though the postman walks it through the same door.

No, but the fact that you mailed a letter would be public. Where it’s going. Who it’s from. the date it was mailed. Etc.

That’s the “on the envelope” information that’s never been private.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Justice Department Ordered Online News Website To Divulge Data About Visitors

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments