Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy 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.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • MYarnell on Curricular Reform Revisited

  •  

    Site Meter

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

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

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

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
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
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
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress