futurejournalismproject:

Leaks, The Justice Department and the Associated Press

Attorney General Eric Holder responded yesterday to the news that the Justice Department seized two months of Associated Press phone records. Security!

This was a very serious leak and a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. That’s not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.

Leaks! The government doesn’t like them. And Holder’s Justice Department has prosecuted more alleged leakers under the World War 1-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined.

In this case, the alleged leak lead to the AP reporting on a Yemeni-based plot to blow up an airplane.

Here’s some of what we’re reading on the story.

Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian: Justice Department’s pursuit of AP’s phone records is both extreme and dangerous.

The legality of the DOJ’s actions is impossible to assess because it is not even known what legal authority it claims nor the legal process it invoked to obtain these records. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the DOJ’s power to obtain phone records is, as I’ve detailed many times, dangerously broad. It often has the power to obtain those records without the person’s knowledge (as happened here) and for a wildly broad scope of time (as also happened here). There are numerous instruments that have been vested in the DOJ to obtain phone records, many of which do not require court approval, including administrative subpoenas and “national security letters” (issued without judicial review); indeed, the Obama DOJ has previously claimed it has the power to obtain journalists’ phone records without subpoeans using NSLs, and in its relentless pursuit to learn the identity of the source for one of New York Times’ James Risen’s stories, the Obama DOJ has actually claimed that journalists have no shield protections whatsoever in the national security context. It’s also quite possible that they obtained the records through a Grand Jury subpoena, as part of yet another criminal investigation to uncover and punish leakers.

None of those processes for obtaining these invasive records requires a demonstration of probable cause or anything close to it. Instead, the DOJ must simply assert that the records “relate to” a pending investigation: a standard so broad that virtually every DOJ desire will fulfill it.

Emily Bazelon, Slate: Obama’s War on Journalists:

Whether a leak threatens national security is clearly not the standard Holder and his department are using. And the problem is that the standard is up to them. The 1917 Espionage Act, the basis for most of these cases, was written to go after people who compromised military operations. Back in 1973, the major law review article on that statute concluded that Congress never intended to go after journalists with it, or even their sources. Since then, legal scholars have proposed various ways of narrowing the Espionage Act—University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone wants to limit the law’s reach to cases in which there’s proof that a reporter knows publication will wreck national security without contributing to the public debate. But Congress has done nothing of the sort. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Republicans who are indignant over the AP investigation got serious about reform? Somehow, I doubt it. Instead, with a Democratic White House leading the charge, it’s hard to see who will stop this train.

Timothy Lee, Washington Post: In AP surveillance case, the real scandal is what’s legal

But here’s what’s really scary: The Justice Department’s actions are likely perfectly legal.

U.S. law allows the government to engage in this type of surveillance—on media organizations or anyone else—without meaningful judicial oversight.

The key here is a legal principle known as the “third party doctrine,” which says that users don’t have Fourth Amendment rights protecting information they voluntarily turn over to someone else. Courts have said that when you dial a phone number, you are voluntarily providing information to your phone company, which is then free to share it with the government.

Brian Fung, National Journal: What the AP Subpoena Scandal Means for Your Electronic Privacy.

It’s not just journalists and their sources who stand to suffer from an erosion of the legal barriers between government and businesses. Here’s a short list of your personal information companies can hand over to the feds without repercussion, and on little more than a subpoena: geolocation data, the PCs you’ve accessed, emails you’ve sent and text messages and content you’ve placed on cloud services like Dropbox.

Image: Boiling Water, by Tom Tomorrow, March 2011. Since this cartoon, the government has prosecuted a sixth alleged leaker under the Espionage Act. Select to embiggen.

Privacy, do we really have any left once anyone decides to look (especially the government)? Not currently. But we can try to force a change, or make sure that records are not held by third parties to turn over later.

Libraries figured this out during the Cold War with the FBI, so there’s really no reason it can’t be done again.

thehannahmachine:

Find Out Who Supports Library Legislation

View the scorecards now:

•    2012 Legislative Scorecard – House (PDF)
•    2012 Legislative Scorecard – Senate (PDF)

A different way of evaluating your elected representatives. But one that hopefully shows just how hard we have to work to even keep things the same.

futurejournalismproject:

Under 18? Then It’s a Criminal Offense for You To Read Some News Sites

Via the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

As we’ve explained previously, in multiple cases the [Department of Justice] has taken the position that a violation of a website’s Terms of Service or an employer’s Terms of Use policy can be treated as a criminal act. And the House Judiciary Committee has floated a proposal that makes the DOJ’s position law, making it a crime to access a website for any “impermissible purpose.” For a number of reasons, including the requirements of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, many news sites have terms of service that prohibit minors from using their interactive services and sometimes even visiting their websites.

Take, for example, the Hearst Corporation’s family of publications. If you read the terms of use for the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, or Popular Mechanics websites, you’ll find this language, screamed in all-caps:

“YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD.”

In the DOJ’s world, this means anyone under 18 who reads a Hearst newspaper online could hypothetically face jail time. But Hearst’s publications aren’t the only ones with overly restrictive usage terms. U-T San Diego and the Miami Herald have similar policies. Even NPR is guilty, saying teenagers can’t access their “services” (including the site, NPR podcasts and the media player) without a permission slip…

…Some sites must have recognized the problem and crafted their policies to only forbid users under the age of 13. These include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Arizona Republic. NBCNews.com uses this wording:

“By using or attempting to use the Site or Services, you certify that you are at least 13 years of age or other required greater age for certain features and meet any other eligibility and residency requirements of the Site.”

This means that inquisitive 12-year-olds who visit NBCNews.com to learn about current events would be, by default, misrepresenting their ages. That’s criminal by DOJ standards and would be explicitly illegal under the House Judiciary Committee’s proposal.

We’d like to say that we’re being facetious, but, unfortunately, the Justice Department has already demonstrated its willingness to pursue [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] to absurd extremes. Luckily, the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s arguments, concluding that, under such an ruling, millions of unsuspecting citizens would suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. As Judge Alex Kozinski so aptly wrote: “Under the government’s proposed interpretation of the CFAA…describing yourself as ‘tall, dark and handsome,’ when you’re actually short and homely, will earn you a handsome orange jumpsuit.”

Image: Screenshot from a Twitter post by the New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum.

H/T: Jim Romenesko.

Things like this show how current law and licenses combine to make a giant mess.

thepeoplesrecord:

Interest in ethnic studies jumps after Arizona ban, underground Chicano libraries begin to pop up
March 24, 2013

Arizona lawmakers passed a law to dismantle a Mexican American studies program in Tucson schools, but the legislation has had an unintended effect: The controversy is renewing interest in the state and nationwide in ethnic studies and Chicano and Latino literature.

Some Tucson students have found new ways to study the subject while receiving college credit to boot. Others who had no interest on the topic say they are now drawn to the material.

“Underground” libraries with Chicano literature are popping up across the Southwest and are set to open soon in unexpected places such as Milwaukee and Louisville.

“I guess the irony is … that we have banded together and created a new civil rights movement, a renaissance in Latino literature. Now there are people in Louisville, Ky., who will be enjoying Chicano literature,” said Tony Diaz.

Diaz heads Librotraficante, a group that raises money to buy books and open libraries to keep Mexican American studies alive. The state ban was the impetus for Librotraficante — whose name is Spanish for “book smuggler.”

A federal judge this month upheld the law banning the program, which critics said sowed discontent and promoted resentment against non-Latinos. Supporters said the program focused on long-neglected aspects of American history and inspired Latino students to excel in school. The supporters said they would appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facing financial penalties if they continued the program in defiance of the new state law, trustees of the Tucson Unified School District killed the program last year.

Before the ban, interest in ethnic studies was minimal across the nation, says Sean Arce, who used to head the program.

“After the ban it really has grown exponentially,” he said.

Arce, who was dismissed when the program was discontinued a year ago, says he’s now in demand as a speaker, receiving invitations from various colleges — including Harvard and UCLA — to talk about the importance of ethnic studies. He said a few urban school districts have contacted him about consulting and collaborating on building a curriculum similar to the one outlawed in Tucson.

“We are happy and fortunate to collaborate with these folks because it really is a national issue,” Arce said. “It’s because Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic.”

Raquel Velasquez, a student at Prescott College in Prescott, Ariz., is among the students who say the controversy over the program has drawn them to ethnic studies.

“It was only until it was banned that I really took this seriously and recognized the need,” said Velasquez, a 19-year-old originally from Tucson. She is one of 14 students at Prescott College taking a pedagogy class to help train them to become ethnic studies teachers.

Curtis Acosta, who used to teach mostly Mexican American studies at Tucson High Magnet School and now is relegated to teaching a mainstream English curriculum, says he now looks forward to Sundays. That’s when he teaches a Chicano literature class at John Valenzuela Youth Center in South Tucson.

The idea for a course outside the confines of the school district came to him right before the Mexican American studies program was done away with in his school.

“I couldn’t sit back and watch that happen,” Acosta said. “So right away, the wheels were in motion. I had to do something.”

Now 10 students are enrolled in the Chicano literature class, and Prescott College offers college credit for those enrolled. Acosta and his colleagues also raised enough money to offset all of the students’ tuition costs.

Bianca Sierra said Acosta’s class may be one of the few silver linings to the ban. The 18-year-old is a senior at University High School in Tucson, where Mexican American studies was never offered. Although she had taken a slew of Advanced Placement courses, she’d never had the opportunity to attend a class on Chicano literature.

She says she likes her Sunday class better than her classes at school because she can relate to its subject matter on a personal level. For example, books she reads in her Chicano literature class have characters with names similar to those of her mother and grandmother or mention foods similar to those prepared in her home.

“You can put yourself in their shoes and relate to it more,” she said.

She also enjoys the relaxed atmosphere and format of her Sunday literature class. Instead of simply listening to the teacher lecture, the students gather in a circle and, along with Acosta, discuss and debate the subject matter.

“I like it because it makes me feel more invested in it, because they are asking you, ‘What is your opinion?’ I was never asked what my opinion was on an issue [in class]. You’re just not asked that in regular school,” she said.

Source
Photo

Watch El Librotraficante talk about bringing truckloads of banned Latino history & literature books back into Arizona on Democracy Now here. 

A textbook case in how banning a thing raises it’s profile and increases interest in it. It is on the one hand terrifying how it happened, but on the other, interest has surged, likely above what it would have been at the college level. If this law gets repealed, then in the longer run, everyone wins at the college level and above. It would not help K-12 education though…