The National Security Agency is known to secretly intercept and modify computer equipment before it reaches the hands of customers.
A Reporter's Guide To
Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.
The following safeguards are suggested.
First, assume that unless you take precautions (see below) everything you say or do can become known at some point.
Second, email providers are now being forced to turn over encryption keys to cell phones and the personal correspondence of users.
Several email providers have chosen
to go out of business rather than being forced to betray user confidentiality.
Third, even after the Supreme Court decision announced in June, 2014 requiring warrants for routine searches of cell phone data, under certain conditions law enforcement officials can legally confiscate cell phones and download contacts and call logs without the need for a warrant.
Even the fact that you have been served a warrant for information can be illegal to disclose.
Is a reporter
safe from offshore, "cloud" monitoring?
The United States cloud computing companies regularly get requests under the U.S. Patriot Act to turn over intercepts.
After computers and telephones of major news centers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News and the Associated Press were hacked, reportedly by a branch of the U.S. Government, some journalists have asserted that when you are working on a sensitive story you are not being overly paranoid if you operate as if you are living in a third-world dictatorship or even in the climate of Stalinist Russia.
All this may seem like an overly dramatic or even paranoid reaction until you learn about the cell phones that have been confiscated for data and the laptop computers at airports have been sidetracked and perused for information.
Since even reporting these things can be against the law, we have no idea how often this takes place -- only that it does.
After your confidential data is seized, information on a story you may be working on or involved in is no longer confidential.
This means that as a reporter the source that you promised confidentiality can no longer trust that assurance. Not only does this discourage whistleblowing and exposing illegal activities but it severely cripples investigative journalism.
The following procedures and protections should now be considered part of the journalistic craft.
We'll start out with a "low-tech" example and then move to the many high-tech dangers we face today.
Truth may be is less important than what can be made to look like truth.
Paper Shredders are not exactly high tech, but they are quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive.
For people who start out with a conclusion and work backward to find supporting evidence, memos or sections of memos, or even what was intended as humor, can later appear quite different than originally intended.
For example, although you may have run into an old friend at a convention, a follow-up memo saying, "Connie, it was great catching up on old times," may not look so innocent to a government agency trying to "connect dots" and make a case against you.
This is especially true if Connie has some questionable friends or contacts that you don't know about.
In addition to being careful how you word things to start with, the shredder might be a good place to put Connie's follow-up note about how much she enjoyed talking to you again.
Although this may sound ridiculously paranoid, if Connie comes into suspicion at some future point, such notes can pull you into the drama.
A surprise search through files in your home
or office -- a warrant may not be necessary for those branded as an
imminent threat, a term that can be defined as necessary under
the Patriot Act.
But such "evidence" can't be used against you if it no longer exists.
Yes, this is definitely represents first-class paranoia and it's too bad that reporters now have to think in these terms, but this is the world we live in now.
If you are seriously concerned about your information staying secure, itís best not to send that data over a communications system of any kind.
Time magazine 04/15/'16
Now, we move into the world of electronic communications.
Passwords associated with your Internet and email accounts are a definite weak spot in personal security. We have an article elsewhere on this site that covers this.
You might want also want consider the next
section on that page, "When You Delete Data It's Still There." (Short
answer: generally, it is.)
Data Encryption A good primer for beginners wanting to use the most famous and one of the best encryption programs, PGP, can find a beginner's primer at the University of Pittsburgh web site.
Although good encryption takes a bit of effort, it can help you sleep better at night.
You should know that the government is trying to make it illegal to use encryption that they (or possibly someone else) can't break. That, of course, defeats and purpose of encryption
Other measures include:
E-Mail Communication For email there is Hushmail.com, which severely limits the ability of outside sources to hack your email.
Hushmail is licensed out of Canada, a country that protects privacy to a greater extent than the United States.
Even so, there is no guarantee that Hushmail will not be compelled under a court order issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada to turn over data. It's just much more difficult than in the United States.
Search Engine Patterns A pattern of Internet searches can easily reveal the focus of a story a reporter is working on.
To help thwart that there is Startpage.com. Although it uses Goggle as a reference, it claims that searches stay confidential.
Search information including IP addresses is either stripped off of search queries or quickly deleted. Even if there is a government request for the information, it simply does not exist.
In addition to switching on your browser's privacy settings, you can make DuckDuckgo the default for browser searches.
to information released by Eric Snowden, the U.S. Government has been
downloading the complete email address books from user email services.
Once they do, they can establish links to every person that you have ever communicated with.
This has prompted some users to delete email
site addresses and keep addresses "off line," as, for example, on a
flash drive which can be plugged into your computer as needed. (Some
flash drives also come with an encryption program built in.)
Use Disposable Cell Phones If you have reason to think that the story you are working on can endanger you or your source, you may want to take the step of using disposable cell phones ("burners") for story-related communication.
However, some in government are trying to force
phone manufactures to make a record of all phone sales, together with
the buyer's name and contact information. Thus, even "burner phones"
will be able to be traced.
As you probably know from all the TV shows, cell phones make excellent tracking devices -- even in some cases when they are turned off.
If you don't want your location revealed
(which can easily be done with readily available apps), some people
suggest you turn off your primary cell phone and, if you can, take out the battery.
The New York Times published an excellent article recently that addresses some of these issues.
Even if you use encryption a government agency
can force you to supply them with the password.
Meet Sources in Person if at all possible. Ideally, use the "walk and talk" procedure in noisy public locations.
Notes and Computer Files Can Be Seized
Keep in mind that you could be required at
some point to turn over notes and recordings you make in doing a story.
Given this, it may be wise to see that such data is not readily accessible.
In an effort to trace sources of information under Patriot Act provisions reporter notes and computer hard drives have been legally seized directly from newsrooms.
At an English newspaper a room full of computers was broken up by sledge hammers when it was thought they contained whistleblowing information.
When a journalism instructor friend of this writer was asked by the FBI to turn over film on a perfectly legal antiwar protest, he had the foresight to lock it in a safe. He said, "Sure, you can get it, but you'll have to blow the safe first."
They gave up on that and the instructor gave his students a valuable lesson on protecting their constitutional rights.
Although a definite case can be made for the need to delve into personal communications in the true cause of national security, as we've suggested claiming that "need" is now being used to block legitimate press investigations into political cover-ups and government malfeasance.
The recently updated article, Whistleblowing vs. Leaking, has some examples.
Finally, and you probably picked this one up from TV crime shows, when you are working on a sensitive story, pay cash for things
Credit card transactions not only show where you were and when, but they provide strong clues as to what you were doing at the time.
What are we left with? Primarily the "old school" techniques covered earlier including guarded face-to-face communication and paper shredders.
Beyond this there are thumb drives disguised as keys, pens, and other common devices which can be stowed in small, inconspicuous places.
*This may not work today because under the Obama administration news people can be forced to turn over passwords and safe combinations.
Today, there is little that will withstand a full-blown Patriot Act challenge.
- Ron Whittaker
The Freedom of The Press Foundation has addressed the issue of protecting press communications at Digital Security.
** NOTE: No encryption approach is totally safe from the NSA, the FBI, the agencies they subcontract work to, or the countries they share information with. Even local police departments have requested access to citizen computers and cell phones.
All this notwithstanding, the information in this article will greatly complicate and confound eavesdropping.
In the best of circumstances the government should not be the enemy of responsible newsgathering.
Unfortunately, in the quest for ratings sometimes newspeople sacrifice the principles of responsible journalism just as government officials sometimes sacrifice the standards of conduct we expect from them.