Discovering a journalist's source: yeah or nay?

[viper37]

News article

Talk of the town since last Friday.

First it was one journalist spied on by the Montreal police.  Someone was leaking info to the press, some articles published by this journalist, Lagacé, other confidential information appearing in other journalist's articles.

So they spied on him.  They got a warrant to retrieve all the numbers to and from his cell phones.  They got a warrant to use the GPS of his phone to track his movement, which they apparently did not use.  They got a warrant to record his conversations, which they say they didn't do (it's suspicious that they would ask for a warrant, get the warrant, get the extension to the warrant, but never record the actual conversations, but let's say it's true).

This week, we learnt that other PQ leadership, when a union leader complained about the press leaking info about the official provincial police investigation on him, and some media airing recordings of his phone, the Minister of public security asked the police to track down the source who was leaking information to the media.  Following this, the Sureté du Québec spied upon 6 journalists, including one who never published on the story but is married to a journalist who reported on the matters of the FTQ (main union in Quebec, scumbags among scumbags, right at the center between corrupt&coerced businessman, mafia and politicians).  Again, they say they did not record conversations, only obtained the phone record to see who the journalists were talking too.

Obviously, journalists are pissed off.  They got Snowden to comment on it, of course.

The first journalist is a diva I don't particularly like, the others are the usual bunch, they often take some liberties with the truth when it suits them and I don't recognized any kind of special status to them.

Still, it's worrysome.  Upon a phone call from a union leader, the government starts investigating journalists to find their sources, even if they deny they ordered the police to do so.  Yeah right.  Generally speaking, I don't think journalists should be spied on if they aren't suspected of any crime.  Unlike the US, there are no laws in Canada that protect a journalist sources and the Supreme Court has previously ruled that there's no special protection (see Daniel Leblanc, in the sponsorship case).

I think it could be legitimate for police officers to track other officers and their contacts to see if they are leaking confidential info that could derail an ongoing investigation.  Up to recording a journalist's phone calls and tracking his movement?  Even if I don't like the guy, it's going too far.

[Grey Fox]

They are not looking for journalistic source, they are fishing to find out who the leak in their departments are. Way worse.

I can't believe judges are approving these warrants. Spineless the lot of them.

Also, the FTQ is not evil, viper just thinks that because he's an employer & they don't let him underpay his employees.

[viper37]

Let's see about the FTQ.
- Using the workers fund to finance their strikes. Check.
- Giving lower returns than other funds and counting on a double tax deduction to make up for it, at the expense of everyone.  Check.
- Despite their promise, use less than 20% of their worker's fund to finance projects in Quebec that will generate employement. Check.
- Using intimidation to establish dominance in the construction industry. Check.  3 Inquiriy boards confirmed this.
- Building condos reserved to top leaders of the organized crime and top leaders of the FTQ with funds designed specifically to generate business growth. Check.
- Using intimidation to convince workers to pay them 100$/week, cash, on top their usual fees to maintain the right to work on a construction site.  Check.
- Determining what laws should apply to them and how they should apply. Check.
- Cheating their own employees out of their pension fund.  Check.
- Using intimidation, violence and vandalism to achieve their goals. Check.
- Threatening to burn your house if you don't comply. Check.
- Establish control through violence, reduce productivity on a business and count on the government to pay for the difference.  Check.
- Have the leader of the italian mafia determine who should control the FTQ. Check.
- Organize corruption between the Liberal Party, the PQ, and the Hell's Angels. Check.

To me, that seems a lot like organized crime.

[viper37]

They are not looking for journalistic source, they are fishing to find out who the leak in their departments are. Way worse.

Nah, not worst, just the same.  In many cases, the police was spying on their own members, who happenned to meet with the journalists.

[Grey Fox]

They are not looking for journalistic source, they are fishing to find out who the leak in their departments are. Way worse.

Nah, not worst, just the same.  In many cases, the police was spying on their own members, who happenned to meet with the journalists.

I think it's worse. I give the cops the right to ask for anything. They didn't do this illegally, they ask judges & the judges agreed to issue warrants.

The fact that those warrants are legal & were approved is totally baffling to me. As Lagacé said on Twitter : "If the judges say yes to this what do they say no to?!"

[viper37]

I could ask Lagacé a similar question: If journalists lie on a subject I know, what do they do when I don't know?

He's acting like a princess.  He is partly right, they went too far.  But I don't disagree with cops watching journalists over the course of an investigation into a criminal act.

And more disturbingly, the SQ acted after the FTQ President asked the government to act on this.  That became their top priority.

[Berkut]

I'm not sure I understand the outrage.

In the US a journalist is allowed to protect their sources, but that doesn't mean the source has a right to blab anything they like to journalists and expect that there is some magic that protects then from repercussions for violating their own agreements or legal obligations to protect information under their control.

We want people to be able to talk to the press without worry that the press will reveal their sources. That doesn't mean everyone and anyone has carte blanche to say anything they like to the press, nor does it mean that those whose confidence has been betrayed don't have the right to try to find out who did so...they just can't expect the journalist to tell them.

[Oexmelin]

I could ask Lagacé a similar question: If journalists lie on a subject I know, what do they do when I don't know?

That is a very poor analogy. Judges decide on issuing mandates when asked by the police - with profound repercussions on the fabric of justice and civil rights in the country. The question is what it takes for judges to resist police pressures and therefore protect people's rights from abuse of authority. Judges cave in to police pressure, you can be in jail, spied upon, tracked. The resources of the state are directed towards you.  Journalists cave in to other pressures - you are misinformed. It is not a trivial matter, to be sure, in a democracy - but it is not on the same order of magnitude as the other, especially as there are other journalists out there, and other sources of information.

[Oexmelin]

In the US a journalist is allowed to protect their sources, but that doesn't mean the source has a right to blab anything they like to journalists and expect that there is some magic that protects then from repercussions for violating their own agreements or legal obligations to protect information under their control.

What does it take, in the US, for the police to be able to tap into a journalist's phone, to bug a journalist's phone, or to retroactively have access to a journalist phone account for the past five years? In this case, it was not clearly established that some of these journalists were indeed the contacts for the leaks. The police went fishing.

They also tapped the phone of the most high-profile team of investigating journalists in town. Knowing that journalists would not tell them their sources - they tapped the journalists phones in the hope of finding out who it was. Part of the outrage, in this case, is also due to the fact that the police seemed more concerned about finding out who tipped the journalists, rather than who tipped the guy under investigation that his phone was also bugged.

[Grey Fox]

I'm not sure I understand the outrage.

In the US a journalist is allowed to protect their sources, but that doesn't mean the source has a right to blab anything they like to journalists and expect that there is some magic that protects then from repercussions for violating their own agreements or legal obligations to protect information under their control.

We want people to be able to talk to the press without worry that the press will reveal their sources. That doesn't mean everyone and anyone has carte blanche to say anything they like to the press, nor does it mean that those whose confidence has been betrayed don't have the right to try to find out who did so...they just can't expect the journalist to tell them.

Because the police went fishing. There are leakers in the Police so the Police asks to tap Journalist phones. Targeted popular Journalists for their popularity more than anything else.

[Berkut]

Wait, the police tapped the *journalists* phones???

OK, that is fucked up.

[Grey Fox]

In 1 case, the police ask for a warrant for *retroactive* 5 years of Call data.

Can't believe Judge said yes to that.

[Martinus]

I'm not sure I understand the outrage.

In the US a journalist is allowed to protect their sources, but that doesn't mean the source has a right to blab anything they like to journalists and expect that there is some magic that protects then from repercussions for violating their own agreements or legal obligations to protect information under their control.

We want people to be able to talk to the press without worry that the press will reveal their sources. That doesn't mean everyone and anyone has carte blanche to say anything they like to the press, nor does it mean that those whose confidence has been betrayed don't have the right to try to find out who did so...they just can't expect the journalist to tell them.

Yeah. This is about a right of a journalist to refuse to disclose the source without facing prosecution. It's not like the police is prohibited from trying to discover this via other means.

[viper37]

I could ask Lagacé a similar question: If journalists lie on a subject I know, what do they do when I don't know?

That is a very poor analogy. Judges decide on issuing mandates when asked by the police - with profound repercussions on the fabric of justice and civil rights in the country. The question is what it takes for judges to resist police pressures and therefore protect people's rights from abuse of authority. Judges cave in to police pressure, you can be in jail, spied upon, tracked. The resources of the state are directed towards you.  Journalists cave in to other pressures - you are misinformed. It is not a trivial matter, to be sure, in a democracy - but it is not on the same order of magnitude as the other, especially as there are other journalists out there, and other sources of information.

See, I don't have a problem with the principle that journalists could be spied on, just like I could be spied on.  In this case, I have a lot of uneasy feelings about the scope of the investigation, phone tapping - even if they say they didn't do it - , the duration - 5 years in some cases - , the number of journalists that were spied on - we're close to 10 now, I think (I'm a little late on my news this week)- , etc.

But on the general principle, that a police corps could look at a journalist's phone record, during the course of a criminal investigation, that does not bother me too much.
I am much more concerned with journalists going to jail or being fined for refusing to divulge their sources.

[viper37]

about finding out who tipped the journalists, rather than who tipped the guy under investigation that his phone was also bugged.

Police officer eventually informed his superior officer, who informed the police chief who then called the PM, who then had someone cal that person because spying on a union is just not something you can do in Quebec.  Spying on ordinary people, accusing them of false crimes when you can't prove anything, spying on journalists, that his all kosher.
But God forbid you ever investigate a corrupt union leader.  The entire system would go down.  And the government would have a hell of a hard time doing anything without massive protests in the streets that would dwarf the Printemps Érable, for causes even more ridiculous as this one was.