4 ms·

If leakers learn they can't be certain they can trust reporters (or entities claiming to be such), that's a chilling effect on leakers. Thus, fewer leakers com

If leakers learn they can't be certain they can trust reporters (or entities claiming to be such), that's a chilling effect on leakers. Thus, fewer leakers coming forward - or lots more friction as they try to establish with certainty who they're dealing with. Thus, less info being leaked to the media (except when the government "leaks" it on purpose). Thus ... less oversight by the media, and less shared understanding of things going on.

xhevahir 12y ago
OK, but do you think the FBI cares? They're cops.
- jrs235 12y ago
  He's pointing out that this may be the governments's intended outcome. To stop leaks which paint the government and government officials in bad light. So no, the FBI could very well "not care" that there would be fewer leaks... that's what the government might be aiming for. Corrupt and evil people realize that FUD is their friend. If a society and civilization can't trust one another then the truth can't get out. Look at North Korea.
  - BrandonMarc 12y ago
    Precisely. We've seen the IRS, OSHA, BATF, and other 3-letter agencies turn into the play-toys of the powerful (to say nothing of militarized police and swatting). It's no longer unreasonable to think the FBI could be used for political shenanigans (and depending on how you read history, that's part of the FBI's origin anyway). It's interesting, after all, that Catherine Engelbrecht never had the trouble she found herself in until she got involved in politics. (and it's also interesting that the 7 of Lois Lerner's hard-drives under Congressional subpoena could have magically failed simultaneously) Not that it's one-sided, either: power corrupts, and I'm suspicious of both parties (and no, the answer isn't: well let's just make sure we always keep the other party out of power). The FBI may not want to silence potential leakers, but the FBI answers to someone who may think differently, depending on how the political winds blow.
samspot 12y ago
Perhaps this is exactly what they want, leakers not being able to trust reporters.
maxerickson 12y ago
Are most of the people worried about catching the attention of the US government really going around just taking people's word on things? Fed: "Yep, I'm a reporter." Leaker: "Great, let's talk." It just doesn't really scan. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with what the FBI is doing (I guess I'm not sure about that), I'm wondering if chilling effects are an important aspect of it.
- fenomas 12y ago
  Whether it scans is just a question of how much effort goes into any given investigation, surely? I mean, if one fed says "I'm a reporter", and a second says the same but also has AP business cards, and a third also has an authentic-looking AP badge with his photo and the name of a real AP journalist, I don't guess there's any bright line between those things. Once the feds decide to impersonate a journalist they could be arbitrarily convincing about it, couldn't they?
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    If I wanted to leak something, I would choose the reporter. I would probably go to a library and evaluate the writings of several reporters, and choose from there. I would then figure out how to identify the chosen reporter using materials that they did not provide to me. I would not rely on my ability to authenticate an AP badge. I don't think any of that is particularly sophisticated, so I would expect many leakers to at least take that first step (and hopefully they would usually see the problem with using information provided by the reporter to evaluate the identity of the reporter).
    - forgottenpass 12y ago
      Your extrapolating from your own course of thought and actions and assuming that everyone in the world makes similar enough decisions as you do that it's not worth considering alternate scenarios. Not everyone has the luxury of deciding if some proof is good enough in a a consequence free thought experiment where they can also shape the constraints. IRL constraints and persuasion tactics shift the ability to verify, and someone with legal considerations can't afford to be wrong even once. It shifts the decision making process in such a way that the fact "cops have posed as reporters" plus an abundance of caution means nobody talks to reporters. Exactly the circumstances the AP is afraid of.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Don't leakers generally initiate contact with reporters? You raise a good point (eg whether people who would be committing a crime by revealing classified information might feel chilled), but I think you're overstating the severity of the effect. If I was working with classified material and someone approached me as a reporter soliciting classified information, it would be part of my job to suspect espionage and report the contact. Instances of legally privileged rather than classified information would be broadly similar, possession of privileged information usually involves some sort of fiduciary obligation towards the person who entrusted you with it.

xhevahir 12y ago

OK, but do you think the FBI cares? They're cops.

jrs235 12y ago
He's pointing out that this may be the governments's intended outcome. To stop leaks which paint the government and government officials in bad light. So no, the FBI could very well "not care" that there would be fewer leaks... that's what the government might be aiming for. Corrupt and evil people realize that FUD is their friend. If a society and civilization can't trust one another then the truth can't get out. Look at North Korea.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  Precisely. We've seen the IRS, OSHA, BATF, and other 3-letter agencies turn into the play-toys of the powerful (to say nothing of militarized police and swatting). It's no longer unreasonable to think the FBI could be used for political shenanigans (and depending on how you read history, that's part of the FBI's origin anyway). It's interesting, after all, that Catherine Engelbrecht never had the trouble she found herself in until she got involved in politics. (and it's also interesting that the 7 of Lois Lerner's hard-drives under Congressional subpoena could have magically failed simultaneously) Not that it's one-sided, either: power corrupts, and I'm suspicious of both parties (and no, the answer isn't: well let's just make sure we always keep the other party out of power). The FBI may not want to silence potential leakers, but the FBI answers to someone who may think differently, depending on how the political winds blow.

samspot 12y ago

Perhaps this is exactly what they want, leakers not being able to trust reporters.

maxerickson 12y ago

Are most of the people worried about catching the attention of the US government really going around just taking people's word on things? Fed: "Yep, I'm a reporter." Leaker: "Great, let's talk." It just doesn't really scan. I'm not saying I'm comfortable with what the FBI is doing (I guess I'm not sure about that), I'm wondering if chilling effects are an important aspect of it.

fenomas 12y ago
Whether it scans is just a question of how much effort goes into any given investigation, surely? I mean, if one fed says "I'm a reporter", and a second says the same but also has AP business cards, and a third also has an authentic-looking AP badge with his photo and the name of a real AP journalist, I don't guess there's any bright line between those things. Once the feds decide to impersonate a journalist they could be arbitrarily convincing about it, couldn't they?
- maxerickson 12y ago
  If I wanted to leak something, I would choose the reporter. I would probably go to a library and evaluate the writings of several reporters, and choose from there. I would then figure out how to identify the chosen reporter using materials that they did not provide to me. I would not rely on my ability to authenticate an AP badge. I don't think any of that is particularly sophisticated, so I would expect many leakers to at least take that first step (and hopefully they would usually see the problem with using information provided by the reporter to evaluate the identity of the reporter).
  - forgottenpass 12y ago
    Your extrapolating from your own course of thought and actions and assuming that everyone in the world makes similar enough decisions as you do that it's not worth considering alternate scenarios. Not everyone has the luxury of deciding if some proof is good enough in a a consequence free thought experiment where they can also shape the constraints. IRL constraints and persuasion tactics shift the ability to verify, and someone with legal considerations can't afford to be wrong even once. It shifts the decision making process in such a way that the fact "cops have posed as reporters" plus an abundance of caution means nobody talks to reporters. Exactly the circumstances the AP is afraid of.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Don't leakers generally initiate contact with reporters? You raise a good point (eg whether people who would be committing a crime by revealing classified information might feel chilled), but I think you're overstating the severity of the effect. If I was working with classified material and someone approached me as a reporter soliciting classified information, it would be part of my job to suspect espionage and report the contact. Instances of legally privileged rather than classified information would be broadly similar, possession of privileged information usually involves some sort of fiduciary obligation towards the person who entrusted you with it.