Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to Tighten Rules on Seizing Reporters' Data

[Hissyspit]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder to tighten rules on seizing reporters' data

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder proposes new restrictions on government seizure of journalists' phone and email records in leak investigations.

By David G. Savage
July 12, 2013, 6:27 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. promised tough new restrictions Friday on the seizure of journalists' phone records and emails, backing off from the Obama administration's aggressive use of secret court orders to obtain news media records as part of investigations into leaks of government secrets.

- snip -

Pressure on the administration to change its policies mounted after Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, disclosed information about the government's widespread gathering of telephone and email records for use in counter-terrorism investigations.

Holder presented the proposed policy changes to Obama on Friday. Under the new rules, prosecutors in nearly all cases would be required to give news organizations advance notice before seeking records of contacts between reporters and their sources. That would give a news organization time to challenge the demand for records in court.

Moreover, the department would be forbidden from using search warrants to obtain records from reporters except in cases in which the reporter is the target of a criminal investigation not involving news gathering. That rule abandoned the practice used in the Fox News case of branding a journalist as a possible co-conspirator in the crime of espionage.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-press-20130713,0,6615814.story

[merrily]

1. I need more specifics before I can comment pro or con.

Not a whole lot in that longish article about specific changes is there?

There was this, though:

"Members of the news media will not be subject to prosecution based solely on news gathering activities," Holder said in a report to Obama.

That seems meaningless.

As far as I know, "solely" newsgathering activities has not been the problem for the Fourth Estate. It's only when they publish the news that they have gathered that they seem to get in trouble.

The Obama administration has tried to push a shield law with a huge exception for the federal government, so basically, it's useless unless your only journalistic interest is in publishing stuff about state and local government.

Wait and see seems wise here, though that does not seem to be the instinct of many message board posters.

[DCBob]

3. There are at least two specifics mentioned..

-- news organizations will be given advance notice before seeking records of contacts between reporters and their sources.
-- search warrants forbidden unless reporter is the target of a criminal investigation not involving news gathering.

I think these are significant.

[merrily]

6. Not really specific at all. When dealing with lawyers, exact wording is everything.

So are any exceptions to the rule, like "national security."

As I said, I'll wait and see.

[DCBob]

2. Sounds reasonable.

I think this is the sort of thing that is needed across the board to tighten up some loose ends.

[merrily]

8. Some loose ends. What a way to put it.

[DCBob]

9. yes.. I think for the most part the practice is sound and legit.

It just needs some tightening up to ensure there is no abuse.

[merrily]

10. Disagree. The basic and pervasive attitude is a huge problem.

Whether it is mass surveillance, macing or pummeling OWS protestors excessively with impunity, or being thugs with journalists.

[DCBob]

12. I think their "basic and pervasive attitude" is simply to protect the general public..

and sometimes unfortunately that infringes on our personal rights.

[merrily]

15. Protect the general public from what?

Which specific threat requires all that metadata, when the FBI said of two warnings from a sovereign nation about Tsarnaev that it already has far too many tips to have pursued the ones from Russia?

And when did the general public say it wanted the Constitution to become a historical relic anyway? If we are going to decide that surveillance and fear of terra! trump almost every provision of the bill of rights, shouldn't there at least be a national vote on that--not something that the Executive Branch decides on its own--after Obama campaigned on the exact opposite?

Obviously, you and I view this administration through very different, forgive me, prisms.

[DCBob]

17. Wow.. there is so much exaggeration in that post..

I give up. Have a nice day!

[merrily]

18. Your reply 17 is untrue. I can back up everything in my post with links to

stories from mainstream media sources.

So far, nothing that you've posted to me is anything more than your opinion, which is apparently based on taking everything the Obama administration says at face value.

Telling me to have a nice day doesn't fix that gap, either.

[Cha]

20. You're doing

fine, DCBob. I don't blame you.. not wanting to feed the hyperbole.

[DCBob]

21. Thanks Cha..

it really gets tiring dealing with some on the nonsense on this site. It really makes you wonder sometimes.

[spin]

4. The First Amendment is first for a damn good reason. ...

A free press is very important in a democracy.

[merrily]

16. I think so too. So did Manning, Snowden and wikileaks.

Apparently, not everyone agrees.

[KG]

5. telling that this is even an issue.

[merrily]

7. Yep. And I don't know if even a partial remedy would have come so quickly if the press had

not been the victims in this instance.

The PTB has really made very good use of the lapdog media. They should. They bought it all up and they bought and paid for an end to the Fairness Doctrine, too.

[fasttense]

11. Since the NSA is getting all the data anyway

All need be done is to look at a reporter's phone calls at a particular time and you know who their source is.

So, of what value is Holder's new restrictions? The NSA is accessing most of the data anyway.

They are still collecting the data, but Holder is promising not to look?

Just like they promised they wouldn't spy on innocent Americans.

[Android3.14]

13. Just window dressing

Without public oversight and consequences for violation, it's just public relations for a fascist practice that will continue in secret.

[christx30]

25. Oh it's ok.

As long as we have secret courts with secret judges passing down secret decisions, rubber stamping 99.999% of NSA's requests, we can rest assured that freedom and democracy will continue. You want transparency? What are you, a communist jelly fish?
:sarcasm;

It's really sad that this is even a issue.

[jtuck004]

14. Maybe you could tighten the rules on taxpayer money seized to give out for corporate subsidies.

You say that's not your department?

Figures. Carry on.

[Yo_Mama]

19. The new rules appear to be the same as the old rules

But perhaps this time they intend to follow them?

These WERE the rules.

[delrem]

22. like 99 lashes instead of 100, the tradeoff being extra salt thrown to finish it off.

[blackspade]

23. Sounds like a payoff to the corporate media.

Just watch, they'll stop talking about 4th amendment violations from now on.
Well the corporate owned ones anyway.
Alternative media will still be targeted.

[Safetykitten]

24. He is completely untrustworthy.

[Ash_F]

26. Holder seems to do whatever he wants.

Too bad he can't prosecute what needs prosecuting.