Feds Wanted Private Data on All Visitors to Liberal News Site!

[Better Believe It]

Feds Wanted Private Data on All Visitors to Liberal News Site
By Daniel Tencer
November 11, 2009

A Justice Department subpoena requesting information on visitors to an independent news site is raising serious privacy concerns.

A Justice Department subpoena requesting all available information on all visitors to an independent news site is raising serious privacy concerns, and questions about how much information the US government is storing about its citizens' news reading habits.

Privacy watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has released an extensive report on a "bogus" attempt by a US attorney in Indiana to get Indymedia.us, an independent left-leaning news site, to hand over all the data it had about all the users who visited the site on a particular day.

Further adding to civil libertarians' and privacy watchdogs' concerns is the fact that the Justice Department ordered Indymedia to keep silent about the request.

"This overbroad demand for internet records not only violated federal privacy law but also violated First Amendment rights, by ordering not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a US attorney’s permission," the EFF's Kevin Bankston wrote.

According to the EFF, Indymedia received a request (PDF) in January for the IP addresses of everyone who visited the Indymedia site on June 25, 2008. But the request went further than simply asking for the computer addresses of visitors -- the subpoena ordered Indymedia to turn over all identifying information it may have about visitors, including their addresses, email addresses, bank account numbers and social security numbers.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/143864/feds_wanted_private_data_on_all_visitors_to_liberal_news_site

[G_j]

1. addresses, email addresses, bank account numbers and social security numbers.

Justice Dept. ordering not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a US attorney’s permission,


serious stuff!

[Buzz Clik]

4. How the hell would Indymedia have Social Security numbers?

[jberryhill]

6. Standard Form Language

It's not as if they typed up this one special.

Subpoenae request all kinds of things you don't or wouldn't have.

But if you used a subpoena a few months ago, then you just recycle the paragraphs.

"I want everything you have recorded about X including but not limited to IP addresses, usernames, passwords, blood samples, blah, blah, blah...."

Those kinds of laundry lists simply get reused in form subpoenae.

[spanone]

9. or bank account numbers?

[leveymg]

2. WTF was going on in Indiana on 6/25/08?

According to this story, a subpoena was issued by the US Attorney in Indiana to Indymedia.US, which I am under the impression is a national umbrella for dozens of separate sites operated across the country.

What the hell happened that day within the jurisdiction of the US Attorney for Indiana?

[bananas]

5. Chris Dodd's speech in the Senate regarding the FISA reform act?

From the LBN post (which I missed and just looked for):
"The date they were looking for information on coincides with Chris Dodd's speech in the Senate regarding the FISA reform act."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4140812

[AllentownJake]

7. Have you ever been to Indiana?

You wouldn't need an explanation.

[Buzz Clik]

3. "...the Justice Department ordered Indymedia to keep silent..." Well, they ignored that order.

Sorta like big, spashy headlines about someone having a secret meeting -- the secret's out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Pshaw.

Amateurs. If you have to ask, you'll leave a paper trail.

[bigtree]

10. the Obama Justice Dept.

*sigh*

[AllentownJake]

11. To be fair it looks like the request was from 08

[bigtree]

12. that's a relief

. . . so, this new crew at the Justice Dept. is going to drop it?

[bigtree]

13. less clear - from the article:

There is some question as to whose responsibility it would have been to authorize the request. The subpoena was issued on January 30, 2009 -- 10 days after President Barack Obama was sworn in, but days before Holder was sworn in as attorney general. Thus it's not clear if Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the request, but several news blogs are now pointing the finger at the Obama administration.

In an article entitled "White House declared war on Indymedia?", Ed Morrissey writes: "Holder assumed office on February 3rd, which means that the acting AG may have had to sign off on the subpoena instead — or that Holder may have filled that role while filling the role pending confirmation."

[AllentownJake]

14. Well Rahm is more scared of progressives than Republicans

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

15. kick (nt)