NYT reporter James Risen may not be able to quash subpoena

The third time may not be a charm for New York Times reporter James Risen, who may not be able to quash yet another subpoena from the Justice Department.

Risen filed a motion to quash a subpoena last week that would require him to testify in a criminal court case against ex-CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who is accused of leaking information to the reporter about a CIA operation to harm Iran’s nuclear program.

The information on the program was reportedly published in Risen’s 2006 book “State of War.”

A November 2010 ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, which was made public Tuesday, said that the second subpoena against Risen would be quashed.

But Brinkema also said in the ruling that the longtime NYT reporter may have a tough time escaping a subpoena requiring him to testify in the case, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

With a criminal trial like Sterling’s, Brinkema said in the ruling that the government may fulfill the legal standard needed to beat Risen’s motion to quash.

If the subpoena holds up, Risen – who has said he won’t reveal any confidential sources – could go to jail for refusing to testify.

Whistleblowers ask Congress for more protections

More than 30 whistleblowers signed an open letter promoting the need for President Obama and Congress to provide better whistleblower protections.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2010 passed in both the House and the Senate, but was kept from becoming law by an anonymous hold that killed the bill at the end of the congressional session in Dec. 2010.

As of this week, it’s been six months since the bill – then in its third version – died in Congress.

The letter calls for Congress to quickly bring back a reincarnated version of the whistleblower protection bill and finally get it enacted into law, according to a Project on Government Oversight blog post.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Ex-ATF agent accuses agency of retaliation over Project Gunrunner

An agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has accused his employer of retaliating against him for publicizing information on an agency scandal.

Vince Cefalu said he was given notice of his termination last week in a move he argues is motivated by his decision to speak out against “Project Gunrunner,” a scandal that revealed the ATF’s role in permitting thousands of guns to be sent across the U.S.-Mexico border and end up in the possession of Mexican drug gangs.

Cefalu’s termination letter doesn’t mention the Gunrunner situation, according to Fox News. One of the main reasons for firing him stated in the letter was his decision to leak documents on CleanupATF.org, a website Cefalu helped establish.

The Project Gunrunner fiasco led to congressional hearings on the issue and a public statement by Obama that the operation was a mistake.

Two days before Cefalu was notified of his firing, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sent the ATF a letter telling its officials to refrain from retaliating against whistleblowers.

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, posted a short comment online stating that the only acceptable response to this action by the ATF, if it turns out to have actually been whistleblower retaliation, is for a race between a few legislators and Obama to be “the first to kick the ass of the idiot at ATF who tried this.”

Wired editorial: Open data initiatives not sufficient by themselves

A Wired editorial by Jesse Lichtenstein examines the push for open data programs throughout the world, noting that dumping tons of government information online doesn’t mean transparency has been achieved.

Putting more government information online – as at least 16 countries have been doing via open data initiatives – is a step forward for transparency, but it can backfire.

Lichtenstein mentions the Bhoomi Project, which aimed to digitize about 20 million land titles in the Indian state of Karnataka, as an example of how data dumps can cause problems rather than provide open government solutions.

Instead of helping small landholders, the project helped corporations and wealthy tycoons that used the newly revealed data to challenge titles and find potential bribery targets.

If people aren’t taught to access and sift through the data governments put online, then the so-called data divide will widen and open data initiatives will fail to provide countries’ whole citizenry with better transparency.

Read the entire Wired editorial.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Even at a public meeting, journalists aren’t always free to report a story as they see fit.

U.S. Park Police officers arrested two reporters at a June 22 Taxi Commission meeting in Washington, D.C. A commission staff member told the officers to make the arrests, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

Peter Tucker of thefightback.org was arrested for taking photographs of the meeting, while Jim Epstein of Reason TV was later arrested for filming the initial arrest.

Check out Epstein’s personal account of the incident.

They were arrested for “disorderly conduct and unlawful entry.” But “unlawful entry” of a public meeting?

D.C.’s open meetings law doesn’t include specific provisions addressing the photographing or filming of public meetings, according to a Washington Post blog.

Unless taking photos or video of a public meeting specifically violates an area’s public meetings law, reporters shouldn’t be punished – and certainly shouldn’t be arrested – for doing so.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Google: U.S. government biggest requester of private info

Google released transparency information showing the U.S. government to be the biggest requester of private information.

From July to Dec. 2010, the U.S. requested user data 4,601 times. Google complied with 94 percent of those requests, according to a Guardian article.

Brazil had the second-highest number of requests at 1,804, while India took third place with 1,699 requests. The United Kingdom placed fourth with 1,162 requests.

Google’s compliance rate varied by country – India had 79 percent of its requests filled, while the U.K. had 72 percent of them partially or entirely completed.

Private user information was requested more than 14,000 times in the second half of 2010 in 26 developed nations.

NYT articles scrutinize open government under Obama

Two recent New York Times articles took aim at transparency under the Obama administration.

The first piece, a June 25 story by Natasha Singer, focuses on the need for faster, more comprehensive FOIA compliance and overall transparency at the federal level.

Obama called on government agencies to become more open on day one of his presidency, yet only 49 of 90 agencies have made changes to their FOIA procedures in the two-and-a-half years since Obama entered the Oval Office, according to a National Security Archive study.

The story explores some problematic government practices regarding FOIA and methods being pursued to potentially improve the situation, such as the Faster FOIA Act.

It also looks at the still-undisclosed records regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two mortgage companies bailed out by the government using taxpayer dollars, as examples of government information that should be readily available but remain private.

A June 26 NYT editorial by Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, questions whether Obama has been a strong supporter of transparency as president.

The verdict: Kind of, but not really.

Stone acknowledges that Obama has taken some action to scale back the Bush administration’s legacy of anti-transparency, but he also points out ways in which Obama has perpetuated it.

One open government success for Obama was his repeal of a 2001 directive by Bush-era Attorney General John D. Ashcroft that allowed the government to classify any information that might hurt national security if disclosed.

As for Obama’s transparency failures, Stone mentions a few key problems. These include the president’s lack of support for whistleblowers and his flip-flopping on the issue of a federal journalist-source privilege, which would allow reporters to better protect their sources’ identities.

When he was a senator, Obama supported the Free Flow of Information Act, which aimed to provide federal protections for journalists. As president, he raised objections to the proposed bill before it later stalled in the Senate.

SPJ has been one of many journalism organizations and news outlets calling for such a law.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

The government released a classified Pentagon report from 2004 that supports National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake’s claims of waste and abuse within the department.

Drake pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in June after various news outlets published stories questioning the Justice Department’s decision to level felony charges against him. He was indicted after he leaked information on the NSA’s problems to a Baltimore Sun reporter.

The report from the Defense Department Inspector General was prompted by complaints about NSA troubles from Drake and other employees, according to a Washington Post article.

It upholds Drake’s claim that the NSA was wasting money on a program called Trailblazer when another more effective program had already been developed.

As a result, Trailblazer sucked more than $1 billion out of the government budget and was abandoned in 2006 due to technical programs and its hefty cost.

The Project on Government Oversight obtained the classified report through a FOIA request and released it Wednesday (heavily redacted, of course).

Court repeals FOI metadata opinion

A New York federal district court repealed its February opinion that declared that metadata – any information for an electronic document that deals with the record’s management or history – must be included in public records.

The opinion was issued in the National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency case, which was settled June 17.

It was the first federal court opinion addressing the issue of how FOIA rules apply to metadata, according to a Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

The folks here at SPJ are dedicated to providing high-quality tips and training for professional journalists on topics ranging from social media to narrative writing.

But one of the pillars of journalism most dear to our hearts is, without a doubt, the public’s right to freedom of information.

Public records provide journalists with some of their hardest-hitting stories, and this week SPJ added new training videos to its website to show members how to get the most use out of public records in their communities.

We posted five new FOI training videos to the site Monday that are accessible to all SPJ members. (If you’re not a member of SPJ, you won’t be able to access them. Unless, that is, you head over to the website and become a member – thereby gaining access to the FOI videos and loads of other useful training materials.)

The videos focus on various aspects of FOI, including how to request electronic records, overcome wrongful agency denials and get speedier responses to requests.

The videos feature tips from SPJ FOI Committee Chairman David Cuillier and include cameos from your SPJ HQ staff.

Once you’ve finished watching the FOI videos, you can hone your freelancing chops by checking out the new freelance-focused videos we just added as well.

All videos are part of SPJ’s ECAMPUS: Where Journalists Go to Know training program.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2011 to go to House floor

After getting approval from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, the DATA Act’s next step is to go to the House floor.

The bill would create a Federal Accountability and Spending Transparency Board with authority over federal spending. The board would assume control over USAspending.gov from the Office of Management and Budget.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who introduced the DATA Act, is also involved with President Obama’s June 13 executive order that established a Government Accountability and Transparency Board headed by Vice President Joe Biden.

The bill, if passed, has an expiration date. All provisions will expire in seven years unless Congress reauthorizes it.

The DATA Act would also repeal the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created USASpending.gov. It would overhaul the FFATA system, which depends on agencies to report spending information, and would instead get spending reports from federal fund recipients.

Check out this OMB Watch blog post that analyzes the potential effects of the bill.

Illinois launches government data clearinghouse website

The State of Illinois launched a website Tuesday that compiles searchable information from state departments and aims to give citizens a clearer picture of government operations.

The  State of Illinois Open Data website will also encourage people to use state government information. The creation of mobile device applications that could use the data is one potential method for taking the information the website is providing and putting it to good use.

The Illinois Innovation Council, which focuses on promoting innovative economic initiatives, is responsible for the website.

While the ultimate goal is for the website to eventually become a clearinghouse for information from all Illinois agencies, for now it includes data from only a few departments.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

This week’s triumph goes to Texas, which became the 27th state to adopt anti-SLAPP legislation when Gov. Rick Perry signed an anti-SLAPP bill into law on June 17.

The law is called the Citizens Participation Act and protects citizens facing SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

These lawsuits are usually used in retaliation against people for using their right to freedom of speech. The purpose of such a suit isn’t always to win the case, but to intimidate critics.

In addition to Texas and the 26 other states that have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation, the District of Columbia also has a similar law. North Carolina and Congress are also looking at similar bills, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The Texas anti-SLAPP law includes provisions for people facing a SLAPP that allow them to bring a motion to dismiss within 60 days of when the lawsuit is first brought against them.

If a person can prove that his or her speech is constitutionally protected, then the other party must prove that it is still likely to win the lawsuit. If they can’t, the case is dismissed.

The losing side must pay court costs for both sides, and a judge can choose to sanction the party who filed the lawsuit to deter that person from filing similar suits later on.

The new Texas law also provides a broad definition of the kinds of situations in which one is considered to have spoken out on an issue of public concern. Applicable topics include health issues or comments on various products and services.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Colorado governor’s cell phone records kept private

The Colorado Supreme Court may have handed public officials a new way to keep business discussions free from public scrutiny – make the calls on a private cell phone.

The court ruled Monday that former Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s private cell phone records would remain private, crushing The Denver Post’s three-year fight to obtain the information.

In a 4-2 decision, the court decided that the records aren’t covered under the state public records law because Ritter paid for the phone personally with no state reimbursements and didn’t give billing statements to a state agency. He only kept the statements for payment reasons, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The Post tried to convince the court that the phone records should be public because the governor used his private cell to make calls during business hours and to discuss official issues.

This ruling could allow other public officials to keep business matters off-the-record by discussing them via private cell phones – an allowance that could cloud government transparency efforts.

NYT reporter James Risen fights subpoena

New York Times reporter James Risen and his attorneys requested Tuesday that a court quash a grand jury subpoena that would force him to testify in the case against CIA leaker Jeffrey Sterling.

The ex-CIA officer is accused of providing Risen with classified information.

Sterling allegedly provided information on CIA sabotage efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program, which later appeared in Risen’s 2006 book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.”

Risen’s attorneys argued that the subpoena represented a government effort to retaliate against the reporter for writing critically of the government and that the information sought by the subpoena was protected under the reporter’s privilege supported by the First Amendment and through federal common law.

Check out Risen’s affidavit on the issue and a response from Sterling’s attorneys also arguing against the subpoena on the Federation of American Scientists’ Secrecy News website.

Risen’s motion to quash the subpoena is scheduled for a court hearing on July 7.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).

Despite the watering down of the whistleblower case against former National Security Agency employee Thomas Drake from felony charges to a single misdemeanor, the Obama administration is pressing forward with its next court case against a leaker.

The next target for the Justice Department is Stephen Kim, a South Korean arms expert accused of violating the Espionage Act by providing classified information to Fox News.

A New York Times article outlines the case.

Prior to being charged by DOJ, Kim spent years discussing the potential threats posed by North Korea with various government officials.

The DOJ does not seem to be considering changes to its campaign against leakers despite the collapse of its high-profile case against Drake.

Kim is one of five leaker cases the government has pursued thus far, compared to three in all previous presidential administrations combined. There is also an ongoing grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks, the group responsible for publishing U.S. diplomatic cables and other secret documents online.

Kim began speaking about North Korea-related issues with Fox News reporter James Rosen in March 2009 after a press officer with the State Department asked him to do so.

Kim sent some emails using the pseudonym “Leo Grace.”

In June 2009 Rosen reported that the CIA had learned that, in response to a United Nations resolution expressing disapproval for North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests, the government centered in the national capital of Pyongyang would probably react by increasing the number of tests and related activities.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).