[IP] more on NYT: U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <bmeeks@xxxxxxx>
Date: August 2, 2006 6:17:46 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] NYT: U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records
Hail hardy and good f-ing luck to the Feds.
As a reporter I when dealing with sensitive sources I NEVER called
them on a
phone that could be traced to them or myself nor would I ever have
them call
me on a phone that could be traced back to them.
And here I'm talking about sources that handling information that was
classified or "hot" in some big way; not talking about a congressional
staffer or agency employee leaking me a draft copy of a GAO report or
something like that.
I would instruct sources, either during face to face meetings or
"talking"
to a group of potential sources (like law enforcement) in an electronic
forum, to buy phone cards and make calls to me from public phones or
from
disposable cell phones.
I had more than two dozen Federal Air Marshals as sources and they all
communicated with me using phone cards.
Yes, all very James Bond, to be sure. But for years I was afraid
that just
this sort of thing might happen one day, either legally or illegally.
I know several other reporters that operate like this as well.
--Brock
On 8/2/06 5:28 PM, "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brad Malin <b.malin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 2, 2006 2:15:42 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: NYT: U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records
If I was going to be a confidential source, I would do so through an
encrypted channel.
-brad
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02phones.html
U.S. Wins Access to Reporter Phone Records
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: August 2, 2006
A federal prosecutor may inspect the telephone records of two New
York Times
reporters in an effort to identify their confidential sources, a
federal
appeals court in New York ruled yesterday.
The 2-to-1 decision, from a court historically sympathetic to claims
that
journalists should be entitled to protect their sources, reversed a
lower
court and dealt a further setback to news organizations, which have
lately
been on a losing streak in the federal courts.
The dissenting judge said that the government had failed to
demonstrate it
truly needed the records and that efforts to obtain reporters’ phone
records
could alter the way news gathering was conducted.
<snip>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as bmeeks@xxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/