FBI Monitored Anti-War Website in Error for Six Years (Antiwar.com)
Source: The Guardian
FBI monitored anti-war website in error for six years, documents show
Monitoring began after antiwar.com editor passed along to the bureau a threat he received against his own website
Spencer Ackerman in Washington
theguardian.com, Wednesday 6 November 2013 13.02 EST
The FBI monitored a prominent anti-war website for years, in part because agents mistakenly believed it had threatened to hack the bureaus own site.
Internal documents show that the FBIs monitoring of antiwar.com, a news and commentary website critical of US foreign policy, was sparked in significant measure by a judgment that it had threatened to hack the FBI website and involved a formal assessment of the threat the site posed to US national security.
But antiwar.com never threatened to hack the FBI website. Heavily redacted FBI documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and shared with the Guardian, show that Eric Garris, the sites managing editor, passed along to the bureau a threat he received against his own website.
Months later, the bureau characterized antiwar.com as a potential perpetrator of a cyberattack against the bureaus website a rudimentary error that persisted for years in an FBI file on the website. The mistake appears to have been a pillar of the FBIs reasoning for monitoring a site that is protected by the first amendments free-speech guarantees.
The improper investigation led to Garris and Raimondo being flagged in other documents, and is based on inappropriate targeting and sloppy intelligence work the FBI relied on in its initial memo, said Julia Mass, an attorney with the ACLU of northern California, which filed the Freedom of Information Act request, and shared the documents with the Guardian.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/fbi-monitored-anti-war-website-in-error-documents
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)My ass.
1000words
(7,051 posts)They really think we are idiots.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,326 posts)It's the cyber version of calling the police and having them beat the fuck out of you and charge you with resisting arrest.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Damn, I was looking for an analogy, and that perfectly fits the bill.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)They have zero credibility.
indepat
(20,899 posts)must be monitored if not crushed: speech, unlike guns, will be controlled 'cause people, not guns, kill people.
kitt6
(516 posts)Now!
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)bobGandolf
(871 posts)Give me a break.....that's bs.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I'm not sure I get this.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Just in case.
I bet a decent cache was assembled in error...