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.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."

Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: "We have no comment." The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

Continued at site....

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists - Taking Liberties - CBS News

================================================== =======

it appears that no ones civil liberty's are safe under this administration!

__________________
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

* An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia regatur orbis?
o Translation: "Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?


VIVE LIBERTE'

Hmmm...if it was a right wing site the howling would be ear-splitting.

But since it's a left wing site I'm sure all the Law and Order Wrinklers support it.

Right?

__________________
_____________________________________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
_____________________________________________

Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind

What's the big deal??? They're just collecting names for Democrat campaign donor lists....

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Giving a liberal facts is like throwing bacon at a vegetarian. All it does it piss off the vegetarian and waste good bacon.

I kinda think that website would provide that info for free.

Maybe they're after a right winger that posts there too much....nah, they'd give him up for free too....

It's gotta be something evil, since it's Obama's Justice Dept. on one side and a left wing website on the other....

It's enough to give a fella a headache trying to make it fit within a simple political philosophy....

__________________
_____________________________________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
_____________________________________________

Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind

No...

It's evil because it's setting precedent that the government can force media outlets to provide sources...

As stated, they won't comment as to WHY they are asking...If they are looking for an individual's information, they could ask Indymedia.us for that individual (considering there's a warrent)...but to ask for ALL information knowing 99.9% of it has NOTHING to do with what they're looking for, it's a blatant aggreivance to a core American value of a media's right to not disclose...

As far as the little conspiracy thing you got going as to right- and left-wingers, it's not hard to deduce that if Holder is able to pull this off against people on his own side first, it'll be much easier in the future to go after ANYONE they feel like later since precedent was set...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

No, the guv'mint was trying to get readers - like getting a subscriber list from a newspaper. Problem is they were asking for all kinds of personal information associated with that list. Not a good thing.

I agree completely - it's a classic case of overzealous Federal investigators being...well, overzealous. A lot of those folks still don't know the new rules concerning the internet (which I think keep changing).

So, this perhaps was a practice run...carefully thought out to attract a minimum of attention (but apparently not thought out carefully enough)...to set a precedent...to open the door to going after their REAL enemies?

Umm...it ain't me that has a conspiracy thing going!

__________________
_____________________________________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -Friedrich Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)
_____________________________________________

Just an old sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind

If this wasn't bad enough I ran across this this afternoon also.

================================================== ====

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it has the power to regulate blogs, specifically blogs that endorse commercial products. The unelected FTC composed entirely of Bush appointees-mandates that "bloggers who maker an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."

Consider a scenario. Someone gives you a CD as a gift. You like it. You post on your blog that others should buy a copy but don't disclose that you recieved a free copy. This is a violation of the new regulation. You are hit with a fine of $11,000.

This merely is a first step toward regulating the content of blogs themselves, as anyone who offers a personal testimonial about any product will be liable under the FTC act should the FTC disagree with your personal experiences.

continued at site....

http://mises.org/journals/fm/September09.pdf

also see....

The Future of the Internet - S.M. Oliva - Mises Economics Blog

__________________
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

* An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia regatur orbis?
o Translation: "Don't you know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?


VIVE LIBERTE'

I remember when his name was Lou Alcindor and watching him play for UCLA.

Well, that's obviously in the wrong thread!!

I could move it, but I find keeping it here worth the laugh...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd