Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • A.J. Sutter on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • A.J. Sutter on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Tony Antognoli on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • Corey Yung on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • PrometheeFeu on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Tony Antognoli on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity

    • Andrew Selbst on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • PrometheeFeu on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Joe on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Andrew Selbst on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Mary Dudziak on Announcement for the Paul Murphy Prize

    • Brett Bellmore on Negative Liberty and What the First Amendment Ought to Be

    • Joe on The Greatest Supreme Court Opinion?

    • Joe Miller on The Greatest Supreme Court Opinion?

    • Andrew Carlon on The Congressional Regulation of Inactivity
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Template for News Stories on Government Data Gathering

posted by Daniel 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.”


 June 23, 2006 at 1:32 pm   Posted in: Humor, Privacy, Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Law Enforcement), Privacy (National Security)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (23)

  1. Andy - June 23, 2006 at 2:56 pm

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

  2. bob - June 23, 2006 at 3:02 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.”

  3. Luke - June 23, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    LOL! Too funny!

  4. bob is a tool - June 23, 2006 at 5:19 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.

  5. T, - June 23, 2006 at 8:23 pm

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

  6. N.Stein - June 23, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    I’m forwarding this link to our yahoo group this afternoon.

    Please visit us at http://www.nlgchicago.org

  7. Kevin H. Feeley - June 23, 2006 at 11:29 pm

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

  8. Tony - June 24, 2006 at 10:20 am

    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.

  9. thomas J. Herling - June 26, 2006 at 6:51 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

  10. Thomas J. Herling - June 26, 2006 at 6:55 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

  11. Zach Pickens - June 26, 2006 at 9:57 am

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

  12. Lynn - June 27, 2006 at 12:20 am

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

  13. Robby - June 27, 2006 at 5:00 pm

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

    Anyway, sadly accurate parody.

  14. Michael Hampton - June 29, 2006 at 8:23 am

    Hey! You stole my idea! :)

  15. cshardie - June 29, 2006 at 10:56 am

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

    Sheesh.

    Good post.

  16. dschist - June 29, 2006 at 11:42 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.

  17. Richard Keeney - June 29, 2006 at 11:49 am

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

  18. Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu - June 29, 2006 at 2:24 pm

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

  19. Lauren - June 29, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Too true. :P

  20. Jamie - June 30, 2006 at 9:39 am

    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?”

  21. Zerra - July 1, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    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

  22. Michael Vail - July 18, 2006 at 6:24 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.

  23. Ron - February 12, 2007 at 9:58 am

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

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

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

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
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
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress