8 ms·

FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism

112 points by mindgam3 7y ago

rahuldottech 7y ago
> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.
- int_19h 7y ago
  ITAR has many absurdities to it. For example, many items that are imported into US, cannot be re-exported because of ITAR. This is especially amusing when the country of origin is China. Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item. The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of <long list>". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence. And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record. Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.
    - ryanlol 7y ago
      I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Additionally the amount of lawyer fees that can be awarded to the losing side should be capped. In Germany you're free to charge your client whatever you want as a lawyer (there are minimums to prevent dumping though)... but if your client wins, your client will only get a (highly capped) amount of these costs from the losing side and be on the hook for the rest.
DailyHN 7y ago
Time for the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- rahuldottech 7y ago
  Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.
  - uuhsuduuej2 7y ago
    Calling Gizmodo a part of the news cycle is pretty generous. If the story was coming from somewhere mainstream like the AP, Reuters, or even CNN or Fox it'd likely stick around for a bit. Gizmodo is mostly niche articles for tech enthusiasts that like bite sized intrigue articles.
    - rahuldottech 7y ago
      What I meant was that even if it gets picked up by more mainstream media outlets, it still won't have any impact.
rahuldottech 7y ago
I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure there's no way that this can ever possibly be misused /s. If agencies are using these for surveillance on specific targets then that's maybe okay, but as far as I'm aware, there is not much regulation regarding hidden cameras in public - at least, not in many parts of the world.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  "But think of the children". This is an excuse that always work when the governments get even more in the lives of the citizens; with it you can ban anything, you can monitor, search, decrypt, forbid, etc.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  > I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. Me either. I mean, once people get used to just having cameras on them all the time, they'll basically just ignore the camera and act however they want. No real need for hidden cameras, just have to be patient.
  - judge2020 7y ago
    I mean, the issue with cameras on everyone is that they all require small batteries, meaning always recording with them isn't really practical. There is already early-stage research into long-range wireless charging https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 so maybe 15+ years in the future it would be practical to have always-recording devices.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  >Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever. All of it piped into communications networks we know they have untapped access to. All of it being stored and analyzed in places like the NSA's data warehouses, the output of which gets added to things like our XKeyscore profiles. Rise high enough on their undefined terms and they'll make extra effort to analyze your appearance in that network traffic. Might sound dystopian but that's how it is. It's for our own good, don't you know?
hvo 7y ago
Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.
- catalogia 7y ago
  There have been instances of religious/ethnic motivated vandalism before. I'd guess this is the target market. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism
- cat199 7y ago
  Funerals of 'bad guys' are a good way to learn about who is affiliated and has connections, and probably to also pick up on juicy gossip of one form or another
- Thorrez 7y ago
  They might bet a criminal will visit his parents' graves every so often.
mirimir 7y ago
It's not like they compromised SSG's website to get it. It was produced in response to at least two FOIA requests. So if anyone's culpable, it's arguably whoever produced it.
hoistbypetard 7y ago
SLAPP normally means a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.
nigodimu 7y ago
Law enforcement often does things that make their job easier. Said things just as often encroach upon our rights as citizens https://besthdporn.me https://besthdporn.me . We shouldn’t allow them to exist for that reason.

112 points by mindgam3 7y ago

> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War. We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.

int_19h 7y ago
ITAR has many absurdities to it. For example, many items that are imported into US, cannot be re-exported because of ITAR. This is especially amusing when the country of origin is China. Also, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that the law "encompasses a wide range of actual military equipment that can’t be replicated in a home garage, such as space launch vehicles, nuclear reactors, and anti-helicopter mines". I mean, it's true that the law does encompass all of these - but it also applies to many things that can be replicated in a home garage. For example, wood furniture (handguard or pistol grip) for any firearm is an ITAR-controlled item. The combination of these two is why there are a lot of small businesses in Europe and Asia that import firearm accessories and other "tactical" products into the US, but US exports are all done by large corporations that can go through the regulatory hurdles.
ryanlol 7y ago
Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The general problem is power imbalance. Imagine I'm a journalist and want to report on crimes committed by a big company, or the government. Then I get a letter "you're on our radar, notice that we have a decently financed legal team and believe reporting to be a violation of <long list>". Do I continue or do I drop the case? The only ones that can actually pull through now are media powerhouses with their own legal team (WaPo, NYT) - but small operations like local papers, small radio stations, bloggers, they rather retreat than to lose their existence. And it's not just about the money for lawyers that the losing party ends up with - it's also a huge loss of time and in case of actual criminal accusations (e.g. libel, or fraud if I go undercover as a journalist) the risk of jail time or a criminal record. Journalists need better financing and the legal system a reform. As long as the standards of decent journalism are adhered it should not be a crime in any way or even carry the risk of that.
  - ryanlol 7y ago
    I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Additionally the amount of lawyer fees that can be awarded to the losing side should be capped. In Germany you're free to charge your client whatever you want as a lawyer (there are minimums to prevent dumping though)... but if your client wins, your client will only get a (highly capped) amount of these costs from the losing side and be on the hook for the rest.

DailyHN 7y ago

Time for the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

rahuldottech 7y ago
Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.
- uuhsuduuej2 7y ago
  Calling Gizmodo a part of the news cycle is pretty generous. If the story was coming from somewhere mainstream like the AP, Reuters, or even CNN or Fox it'd likely stick around for a bit. Gizmodo is mostly niche articles for tech enthusiasts that like bite sized intrigue articles.
  - rahuldottech 7y ago
    What I meant was that even if it gets picked up by more mainstream media outlets, it still won't have any impact.

rahuldottech 7y ago

I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure there's no way that this can ever possibly be misused /s. If agencies are using these for surveillance on specific targets then that's maybe okay, but as far as I'm aware, there is not much regulation regarding hidden cameras in public - at least, not in many parts of the world.

AdrianB1 7y ago
"But think of the children". This is an excuse that always work when the governments get even more in the lives of the citizens; with it you can ban anything, you can monitor, search, decrypt, forbid, etc.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
> I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. Me either. I mean, once people get used to just having cameras on them all the time, they'll basically just ignore the camera and act however they want. No real need for hidden cameras, just have to be patient.
- judge2020 7y ago
  I mean, the issue with cameras on everyone is that they all require small batteries, meaning always recording with them isn't really practical. There is already early-stage research into long-range wireless charging https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 https://youtu.be/gn7T599QaN8 so maybe 15+ years in the future it would be practical to have always-recording devices.
cmdshiftf4 7y ago
>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever. All of it piped into communications networks we know they have untapped access to. All of it being stored and analyzed in places like the NSA's data warehouses, the output of which gets added to things like our XKeyscore profiles. Rise high enough on their undefined terms and they'll make extra effort to analyze your appearance in that network traffic. Might sound dystopian but that's how it is. It's for our own good, don't you know?

hvo 7y ago

Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.

catalogia 7y ago
There have been instances of religious/ethnic motivated vandalism before. I'd guess this is the target market. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlawn_Cemetery#Vandalism
cat199 7y ago
Funerals of 'bad guys' are a good way to learn about who is affiliated and has connections, and probably to also pick up on juicy gossip of one form or another
Thorrez 7y ago
They might bet a criminal will visit his parents' graves every so often.

mirimir 7y ago

It's not like they compromised SSG's website to get it. It was produced in response to at least two FOIA requests. So if anyone's culpable, it's arguably whoever produced it.

hoistbypetard 7y ago

SLAPP normally means a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.

nigodimu 7y ago

Law enforcement often does things that make their job easier. Said things just as often encroach upon our rights as citizens https://besthdporn.me https://besthdporn.me . We shouldn’t allow them to exist for that reason.