Would it be bad to admit, in a public forum, that you are deliberately taking steps to stop law enforcement, or the courts, from getting the data that they require, and have issued subpoenas for?
I mean, I’m not a professional journalist, nor am I an attorney, so I don’t know if discussing the steps you are taking to hamper investigations is par for the course, or not.
Any attorneys out there know if there is any rule or law against planning your data storage around the central idea of being able to keep it out of discovery, away from the prying eyes of regulators, law enforcement, the government? And basically saying so?
I’m all for freedom of speech. Love the concept. Wouldn’t have it any other way.
But when you are essentially admitting to conspiring to obstruct investigations, is that part of the mantle of journalistic protection?
If I counseled a “journalist” to keep their materials where they could easily destroy them, eradicating all record of correspondence, etc. – would that be bad? Would it cross any lines?
If at a big meeting of business journalists, one of the leading writers in her genre matter-of-factly chatted about how this planning for obstruction is standard procedure among her peers, would that cause anyone to be concerned about who and what we are dealing with here?
For instance, if I attended a meeting for CPAs, and one of the discussions centered around how to best shred documents and store sensitive data so that the IRS couldn’t get to it when they subpoenaed my files, would that be noteworthy? Or what if I was attending a seminar for Internet Service Providers, and happened to catch a discussion of how best to keep potentially sensitive information from subpoena – you know, stuff like kiddy porn, or hate propaganda, or whatnot. Would that be cause for outrage?
Yes? No?
Folks, from the recent SABEW conference, I have a treat for you. Here is a transcript of one part of a discussion with the eminently quotable Diana Enriquez of the New York Times, where she discusses how she and her colleagues are using removable media, to better hinder issuers of subpoenas (law enforcement, court-ordered discovery) from getting the information that they need.
I really am not making this up. The bold is my emphasis. This is word for word what she said.
“HENRIQUES: Diana Henriquez. At the Times we do have regular legal seminars that the staff is required to attend, and those reflect—they're offered by our in-house 1st Amendment lawyers—and they reflect the changing assessments, risk assessments, that they're making based on court judgments or interim rulings that come out in a variety of invasion of privacy cases, libel cases, in some cases contract law situations.
So we are updated about that and ever since… the threats, the subpoena threats that are emerging are largely on the national security front, and those are going to be the go-to-the-mat kind of battles over sourcing. So it's against that backdrop that the Times has been shaping its email, phone record, expense account records.
ANON: Expense account?
HENRIQUES: Well, if you put an anonymous sources name on an expense account comp for lunch and that goes to some shared services business processing center down in Virginia and somebody subpoenas that record, you've burned your source. But how are you going to get paid for that meal if you don't put a name down?
We're wrestling with this in a very direct way within the committees in the newsroom. A lot of us are turning to things like flash drives to keep sensitive email and even sensitive interview notes, early story drafts, to keep them off any piece of equipment that the Times might be required to turn over in response to a subpoena.
So I think the answer is, "Yes," it's started, but is has grown mostly out of the national security subpoena threats that have emerged that … subpoena threats against our national security coverage that we in the Washington post (bureau – Bobo) are already experiencing - and it will inevitably affect our business reporting as well.”
Huh. I mean, wow. Wow wow wow.
Does everyone get the full import of this? Commissioner Cox – do you comprehend fully the implications of what is being discussed at the very meeting you attended? Where guys like Herb Greenberg, who are currently recipients of subpoenas from your agency, are in attendance, sharing their view that they are victims? And maybe picking up tips on how best to hamper investigations by making data inaccessible to your agency?
Do I need to spell it out, maybe with cartoons?
I was honestly speechless as I sat down to write this. And I am wondering what sort of press coverage this little bombshell is going to receive. Want to bet none at all?
The irony that reporters, whose job it is to dig and gather information they can then break in order to illustrate the flaws in an organization or industry, are so lacking in awareness as to make the sorts of comments we are seeing come out of SABEW, is both very sad, and telling of the sense of omnipotence that they enjoy. A feeling of divine right, or impunity.
Hey, fellas, how do you prefer to erase your email logs so that nobody can go back and build a case against your buddies? What is the best way to engage in a cover-up? I know, declare that you are “protecting sources” or some other happy load of BS, and then conspire, with knowledge and pre-meditation, to hinder any compliance with subpoenas.
Am I getting this wrong?
These were her EXACT WORDS.
And these are supposed to be the good guys.
Wonder what the hedge fund symposiums sound like? I’d love to be a fly on the wall at one of those – I bet the ones in Costa Rica especially are dedicated to discussions of the importance of honesty and integrity and ethical behavior.
How much weirder and more outrageous can this situation get? I mean, WTF?
This is the same industry that gives you an Eisinger stalking geriatrics and being cited for trespassing before being ejected from a retirement community, and using obviously stolen bank records and cell bills, and yet who is on bully pulpits like Squawk Box regularly. Yet we are supposed to believe that they are all honest as the day is long. While getting snippets of discussions about how they will use their tremendous power to crush their critics, and how best to interfere with investigations.
Unbelievable stuff. And yet too true.
Comments? Is there anything that can even be said?