Data Comparisons

NYT policy on posting illegally obtained documents?

21 Comments

Jonathan Adler of The Volokh Conspiracy weighed in on the NYT apparent change in policy with regard to publishing these sorts of materials here asking

Am I wrong in thinking that this is a change in policy for the NYT? Hasn’t the Grey Lady published illegally obtained documents on national security and other matters in the past?

I suspect this question is rhetorical, and Professor Adler is pretty darn sure they did publish such documents in the past. Quite a few commenter at the popular law blog are also pretty darn sure the NYT has published such documents in the past and moreover some periodically note practice is quite legal. However, the policy to not publish the contents of the emails my be Andy’s and not that of the NYT.

For what it’s worth: The decision to not post actual content is rather meaningless. The full content of all emails are on line and bloggers link to full content of each email when providing the summary or the contents.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to find confirmation that the news media have published the contents of illegally obtained documents, that those at law blogs are not suggesting the practice is illegal. This may be of little interest to me, but I have received some private emails advising against posting contents. (No, they weren’t suggesting ‘ethics’ as the reason.)

Prediction: Some will complain the observations at the law blogs as “legalistic”. 🙂

21 thoughts on “NYT policy on posting illegally obtained documents?”

  1. Charles at WUWT offers a very plausible 3rd theory – incompetence:

    I would like to offer a third possibility based on a bit of circumstantial evidence I noticed on the Web Saturday afternoon.

    There’s an old adage, never assume malice when stupidity or incopetence will explain it. . . .Many have begun to think that the zip archive FOI2009.zip was prepared internally by CRU in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOI requests, in parallel with attempts to deny the request in case the ability to refuse was lost. There are many reasons to think this is valid and it is consistent with either of the two theories at the beginning of this post. Steve McIntyre’s FOI appeal was denied on November 13th and the last of the emails in the archive is from November 12th.

    In the past I have worked at organizations where the computer network grew organically in a disorganized fashion over time. Security policies often fail as users take advantage of shortcuts to simplify their day to day activities.. . .When this occurs, if the organization does not lock down their network thoroughly, the security breaches which could happen by accident are far more likely to occur. . . .

    A few people inside CRU possessed the archive of documents being held in reserve in case the FOI appeal decision was made in favor of Steve McIntyre. They shared it with others by putting it in an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver, or even worse, was an on a shared drive somewhere to which the webserver had permissions to access. In other words, if you knew where to look, it was publicly available. Then, along comes our “hackers” who happened to find it, download it, and the rest is history unfolding before our eyes. So much for the cries of sophisticated hacking and victimization noted above.

    If I had to bet money, I would guess that David Palmer, Information Policy & Compliance Manager, University of East Anglia, has an even chance of being the guilty party, but it would only be a guess.

    To repeat the basic premise of this theory.

    There’s an old adage, never assume malice when stupidity or incopetence will explain it.

  4. encs,
    So you are OK with suppressing the e-mails that show collusion and fraud?
    Global warming is now more important than the truth?

  5. Lucia,
    Publishing the e-mails is not illegal in the United States.
    By the way, Gavin’s story about his site being ‘hacked’ makes no sense at all.
    He was sent the same e-mail that was sent to many other climate blogs. he chose to delete it and to tell his friends (the ones exposed) about it.
    Leaking evidence of a crime is not criminal.

  6. If I had to bet money, I would guess that David Palmer, Information Policy & Compliance Manager, University of East Anglia, has an even chance of being the guilty party, but it would only be a guess.

    Whoever hacked CRU tried to upload the spoils to RC’s webserver from and IP address in Turkey. Does that sound like something an Information Policy & Compliance Manager would do?

  7. encs you really should read before commenting, it stops you looking like a prat. The WUWT Moderator does not think that David Palmer was responsible for circulating the file, he thinks Palmer was possibly responsible for leaving the incriminating file on the CRU Server in full public view.

  9. As a journalist trying to cover this story, I have some questions.

    1. The code contained in the leak–do we have any way of knowing if it’s actually the execution used to make recent published calculations?
    2. Does it execute? If you put numbers in, does it actually compile a list of temperature anomalies?
    3. If so, does it bear any resemblance to reality?
    4. Do the fudges referenced here and on other sites confound reality, or do they actually try to compensate for deficiencies in the code or data collection procedures?
    5. Is there evidence of data being passed over or ignored?
    6. Is there evidence of data being changed to obtain a desired result?
    7. Has the program been maintained and documented in accordance with professional standards?
    8. When was the program originally written, and when was it last updated or used?
    9. Is it possible that deficiencies are attributable to an academic environment (maybe hordes of grad students hacking at it for a few months at a time and then passing the torch to the next grad)?
    10. Can someone produce a similar program (not in function, but in size and complexity) that is maintained and documented in such a way as to highlight errors made in this program?

    Answers to these questions would help me and other journalists.

    Thanks

  11. Tom,
    I’m not sure I’m the most informed person, but maybe some of my readers will answer. In some cases, it’s just going to take a lot of time for people to know the answer to the questions you ask.

  12. Mark–
    I have to admit that initially, i formed the word “hacker” in my mind. I now lean toward a “leak” theory. However, I don’t know if it’s “whistleblower” or just “leak”.

  13. – Even if the files were removed illegally, no one in the blogosphere who ahs received them, whether the link to first .ftp, or downloaded them later, has committed any sort of crime. Period.
    just like other jacked files, including CIA files stolen from the CIA, are open once they are dissiminated on the internet.
    Gavin Schmidt, who has been shown to make up things regarding posts at his site, has a story about his site being hacked to somehow force the upload of the files in questions.
    That story does not hold up under any sort of resasonable scrutiny.
    I think he recevied the FOIA files at about the same time as everyone else, and he realized what they are and deleted them, raising alarms back in the UK.
    So the question stands, encs,
    Is AGW more important than transparency and truth?
    Should the world commit itself to huge expensive binding treaties based on less than clear or reputable claims?

  14. Lucia,

    Did you see the alternate explanation at Watts Up With That? Incompetence, much like Jones mistakenly making files available on an open FTP site. Makes a lot of sense but I can’t get past what was in the released file. Perhaps the person tasked with compiling the data for a successful FOI request was not as predictable as they thought.

    Whatever the case, this is fun to watch.

  15. Tom the code is in multiple modules and requires data files in a code recognized format. I haven’t seen the data as yet. Also, there are multiple code files from different projects. It will likely be a while before we figure it out. ChiefIO has been working on GISS and he has a good description on his first impressions of this code up.

  16. I would bet it’s Andy’s policy-it definitely isn’t NYT’s-that’s historical fact. But it’s a little hypocritical to be writing for a magazine with no such qualms while personally upholding them.

    I personally think the situations are very different, but also believe that the way it is working now is bass ackwards.

  17. hunter (Comment#24369)

    “Global warming is now more important than the truth?”

    I think many rabid global catastrophic zealots would argue that it is.

    The truth is that we are in, at worse, a so far so good position.

    The GREATER TRUTH is that this is an illusion, for our minds are infected by a malaise that prevents us from realising that we are actually only a few years, sorry months, sorry days, sorry a short boat ride to Copenhagen away from irrevocable catastrophy. But we can not see it. We are so consumed by mundane reality that we simply cannot grasp the greater truth. It is this infection by reality that makes us ignorant of the greater truth, the truth to come, the truth that is not yet true.

    Just because a truth is not evident, is no reason, for no action. We must save the world from all conceivable outcomes, and defeat all false doctrines, no matter what that hazards. That includes the precautionary principle, we must save ourselves from that at any price.

    Alex

    Alex

  18. Alexander H,
    The silence of the true believers, so far, on this issue is very telling. Monbiot has set the mark in demonstrating integrity, being the first on the AGW side to admit this is a big deal. I believe he will not be the last. But I am at heart an optimist.

  19. New York Times: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here”.

    Guidance for Staff at the UAE (http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance):
    “As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional”

    Every staff member was or at least should have been fully aware of their emails being potentially published.

  20. The documents, as has already been pointed out, contain almost no personal matter at all. At best there is some mention of Briffa’s ill health. I’m so glad the NYT takes this to mean therefore that 3,000 emails must not be disclosed otherwise the world might find out Briffa was unwell, needed surgery, and has had a long post-op recovery. I wish him well. I wish the NYT would grow some ….. and simply admit to the truth for once – what they don’t want to publish they don’t have to. Please don’t use this privacy or illegally gained excuse.

  21. The NYTs policy is that the NYT will be the sole judge of what they publish. They can flatly defy restraint by any administration. So far they sullenly obey court orders. Then they try to evade the court order without technically violating it.

    That commitment to a free press is commendable. But it does not mean every side effect must be good. One side effect has been to supercharge their self esteem.

    A lack of consequence or responsibility usually leads to arrogance. Gradually the people at the NYT came to worship themselves. Now they can no longer imagine why all mankind should not.

    It would make matters so much simpler and pleasant. They would tell others what to think and everyone would be better for it. They know who has been good or bad. Sort of like Santa Claus.

    No bias is involved at all. Universal truth is free of bias. They know they are the one Universal Truth.

Comments are closed.