the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Yale University Press

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Recent Comments

Ron on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Michael Vail on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Zerra on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Jamie on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Lauren on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Richard Keeney on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

dschist on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

cshardie on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Michael Hampton on Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

Archives

May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

 

« Massive Government Data Mining of Financial Records | Main | This One Is For You, Paul Gowder! »

June 23, 2006

Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

posted by Daniel J. Solove

surveillance3.jpgNSA warrantless wiretaps. NSA collection of phone records. CIA gathering of financial records.

The stories are endless. To help out reporters, I thought I'd just write a quick and easy template to make reporting a little bit easier. So here it is:

Under a top secret program initiated by the Bush Administration after the Sept. 11 attacks, the [name of agency (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.)] have been gathering a vast database of [type of records] involving United States citizens.

"This program is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism," [Bush Administration official] said. "Without it, we would be dangerously unsafe, and the terrorists would have probably killed you and every other American citizen." The Bush Administration stated that the revelation of this program has severely compromised national security.

"This program is a threat to privacy and civil liberties," [name of privacy advocate] said. But [name of spokesperson for Bush Administration] said: "This is a very limited program. It only contains detailed records about every American citizen. That's all. It does not compromise civil liberties. We have a series of procedures in place to protect liberty."

"We're not trolling through the personal data of Americans," Bush said, "we're just looking at all of their records."

The [name of statute] regulates [type of record] and typically requires a [type of court order]. Although the [name of agency] did not obtain a [type of court order], the Bush Administration contends that the progam is "totally legal." According to the Attorney General, "we can [do whatever we did or want to do]. The program is part of the President's emergency war powers."

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at June 23, 2006 01:32 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1015.

Comments

The sad thing is that the media will probably use it.

Posted by: Andy at June 23, 2006 02:56 PM


One correction:

The line that says; "It only contains detailed records about every American citizen" should read "It only contains detailed records about every American citizen that is currently in communication with a known terrorist."

Posted by: bob at June 23, 2006 03:02 PM


LOL! Too funny!

Posted by: Luke at June 23, 2006 04:04 PM


All citizens records are included. Only the records of citizens that are currently in communications with a known terrorist will be examined. Or perhaps the records of citizens that are in contact with citizens that are currently in communications with a known terrorist. Or at least someone the administration calls a terrorist. Or perhaps someone who looks funny.

But only those guys. Otherwise, totally restrainen and in control. Anything else would should utter contempt for the rule of law.

Posted by: bob is a tool at June 23, 2006 05:19 PM


Al Qaeda doesn't need an intelligence program when they can just subscribe to the New York Times.

Posted by: T, at June 23, 2006 08:23 PM


I'm forwarding this link to our yahoo group this afternoon.
Please visit us at www.nlgchicago.org

Posted by: N.Stein at June 23, 2006 08:25 PM


I've created a little dynamic version of this press release template at my website. Hope you enjoy.

Posted by: Kevin H. Feeley at June 23, 2006 11:29 PM


Perhaps it would be helpful to journalists if it were grammatically correct as well.

"Without it, we would ??be?? dangerously unsafe, and the terrorists would ..."

But then again, no one edits online news stories anyway.

Posted by: Tony at June 24, 2006 10:20 AM


This is scarily much like the old Mad Magazine "write your own news story" articles, which, unfortunately like all good parody, came very close to the truth.

The real problem is that we hear and read these same type of stories so often that we begin to get used to them.

Also, isn't the standard Administration line the hopelessly vague "information about persons or organizations with suspected 'ties' to al Quaeda?"

TH

Posted by: thomas J. Herling at June 26, 2006 06:51 AM


Whoops! I've just used the name "al Quaeda" in a communication, so now I'm going to be tracked by the NSA because now I'm a person with "suspected ties..."

TH

Posted by: Thomas J. Herling at June 26, 2006 06:55 AM


haha, very nice. It's like Mad Libs, a very sad, unfortunately accurate, version of Mad Libs.

Posted by: Zach Pickens at June 26, 2006 09:57 AM


*ha*!! thanks for the laugh > very clever.

Posted by: Lynn at June 27, 2006 12:20 AM


You've been EFF-ed. Kinda like slashdotted...but not.

Anyway, sadly accurate parody.

Posted by: Robby at June 27, 2006 05:00 PM


Hey! You stole my idea! :)

Posted by: Michael Hampton at June 29, 2006 08:23 AM


How dare you make it easier for the media to tell the terrorists our government is watching them!

Sheesh.

Good post.

Posted by: cshardie at June 29, 2006 10:56 AM


Good stuff. But I think you're missing a paragraph or two:

Administration officials expressed anger at the disclosure of the program by the [newspaper or magazine breaking the story; default value: New York Times]. "Some in the press have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," [high-ranking administration official] said, adding that the program provides 'valuable intelligence' and has been 'successful in helping break up terrorist plots,'" though no specific examples of intelligence or foiled plots could be recollected.

Other supporters of the Administration went further. [Representative/Senator] [rabid, boot-licking, pseudo-fascist congressman], [Republican/Democrat] of [state] and the chairman of the [rubber-stamping committee of some kind], released a letter in which he called on the attorney general to investigate whether [publishing newspaper]'s decision to publish the article violated the Espionage Act.

Posted by: dschist at June 29, 2006 11:42 AM


Its one of those sad things that everybody knows is true, but nobody knows what to do about except laugh.

Posted by: Richard Keeney at June 29, 2006 11:49 AM


Should've included a line about not needing warrants to collect the information because 9/11 changed everything. Other than that, superb.

Posted by: Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu at June 29, 2006 02:24 PM


Too true. :P

Posted by: Lauren at June 29, 2006 06:56 PM


My guess is the person that wrote this and the people who think it is funny are the same people who would be screaming at the Administration if they weren't doing anything and there was another attack. Then it would be "How could you let this happen? Why didn't you do something to prevent it?"

Posted by: Jamie at June 30, 2006 09:39 AM


I've taken the liberty of making a Canada-friendly version of your template. On my blog at

http://www.rustynode.com/undertow/?p=71

Posted by: Zerra at July 1, 2006 04:47 PM


The media playbook on government data mining is well known. They will make it known that the [name of agency] is busy protecting you from those bad terrorists and they are busy keeping you safe.There is also a subtle question which attempts to keep civil liberty groups from making a big stink. We have heard this same question on Fawx News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC, "You’re not with the terrorists are you?" We are at war with East Asia and you cannot critize our government when we are at war. This excrement is spammed by the establishment poster boy Sean Hannity almost three times a week. These media mockingbirds are singing the same song and they get their music sheets from the white house.

Posted by: Michael Vail at July 18, 2006 06:24 PM


http://apr-card-credit-low_0d6f6xe2.aweb4.org

Posted by: Ron at February 12, 2007 09:58 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

William Birdthistle
Elaine Chiu
David Fontana
James Grimmelmann
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
William McGeveran
Michael O'Shea






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member