State Police E-Mail Spying on DeStefano in 2006?

you may want to redact names and email addys (0.00 / 0)

just a suggestion

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 10:48:37 AM CST

Email addresses have been redacted. (4.00 / 2)

I should have done that sooner.

CTBlogger argues that the names should be redacted because it is a double violation of privacy. I disagree, and I told him he is free to remove this post from MLN if he so chooses.

But my thoughts are a) most of these names are of public figures or limited purpose public figures; and b) this is news that these people were snooped on by the CT State Police.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for their names because the value of showing that the police are interested in normal people and state officials outweighs their right to have their names protected.

What value is there in redacting Dave McCluskey's name? McCluskey is a sitting state representative. This document that shows the state police were spying on political parties. The remove his name lessens the impact of the document.

This is what ConnecticutMan 1 below is talking about. Perhaps I am crazy and the rest of America is sane, and that in a post-9/11 climate we should expect e-mails and political blogs to be watched by law enforcement. But this is KGB crap here.

Why do the state police need to use surreptitious means to learn that the Democratic party candidate for governor is holding a pre-debate rally?

They don't. They are overstepping their bounds, and this frankly scares me because it is a repressive police state tactic from a KGB/CIA client state playbook. Look at the slippery slope that this sets us on. The state police in Maryland actually infiltrated police groups. What's next is that they remove our right to speak.

I know the argument goes that hey, the FBI did this with Cointelpro, and nothing has changed. That's the problem. We should be outraged, and we should be aware that the state police are probably reading this post, too.

Ask yourself: what does MLN do that ever, ever, ever violates the law? Nothing. This blog has never suggested civil disobedience, let alone violent revolt. But because Green is the New Red, because protest is a questionable activity in this 9/11 world, we are all suspect.

We must confront this lest we live in fear of being plucked off the street for advocating for our rights.

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 13:20:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

okay okay if they're on the state's dime (0.00 / 0)

the names should be public, I'll grant you that.

I just saw a bunch of AOL and yahoo accounts (is AOL still around?) and I have no idea who any of these people are..

and there's nothing worse than getting spammed because a bot picked up your email address (yes even in a PDF).  

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 13:47:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

some are on the state dime (0.00 / 0)

Others (most) are just ordinary activsts.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 16:08:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

. (4.00 / 2)

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for their names because the value of showing that the police are interested in normal people and state officials outweighs their right to have their names protected.

Really? Is "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy if the police are interested in you" a bedrock legal princple that's written down someplace, or is that something you came up with just recently?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 16:06:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See Katz v United States, n389 US 347 (1967) (0.00 / 0)

This interpretation of Justice Harlan's decision in Katz comes from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The Fourth Amendment only protects you against searches that violate your reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy exists if 1) you actually expect privacy, and 2) your expectation is one that society as a whole would think is legitimate.

Can you expect privacy in an online bulletin board? Not likely.

The argument here is about societal legitimacy.  In order to show the full recklessness of what the state police, I see the need to show the extent of the people captured in the unreasonable dragnet.

Public figure or limited purpose public figure law orbits around Times v. Sullivan, which is a libel/defamation case. Are these people being defamed? Not by my publishing of their names.  Truth is an absolute defense to libel. I am not saying anything about these folks that is untrue - their names and addresses were on a political email collected by the Connecticut State Police.

The funny part here, to me, is that we are debating my action in running the email with the names, and not the fact that the police did this in the first place.

Does the police collecting information on them even in such a limited way as to eavesdrop on a digital conversation violate their rights to privacy? If you think so, then the beef isn't with me for reporting it.

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 16:25:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see that there is some circular logic to the argument (0.00 / 0)

If you are involved in politics, it is public. If these people protest, they are limited purpose public figures.

But protest is not illegal, and the police have a mandate to stay out of politics and protest. So herein lies the catch-22.

So even though a political conversation on a billboard doesn't bring with it a reasonable expectation of privacy (anyone can sign up to the yahoogroups.com email billboards, which seem to be the regular target of the state police), the state police shouldn't be snooping for political purposes in the first place.  

---

by: ken_krayeske @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 16:30:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We still have ZERO comment on (4.00 / 1)

the names of all the people that were on "The List".

Not from politicians on the right, not from the left and not from any of the people that were tracking people on said list.


Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 12:34:46 PM CST

Shhhh! (4.00 / 1)

.
Can't be aiding the terrists on that list...
.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 13:49:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, no need to flesh that out... (4.00 / 1)

If the names did get released, I wouldn't know what to tell my Momma.

"Hey Mom, I'm completely innocent. Really I am."

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 15:40:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]