Sure. But it's prudent to assume that they'll do whatever they think is necessary, regardless of some particular reading of the Constitution. I mean, the Supreme Court could bless this practice, and who would stop them?
I do think the government has a certain prerogative to prevent leaks. Leakers need to realize the seriousness of the game they are playing and act accordingly. The Times and Post in particular make at least superficial efforts to ensure their sources are using good opsec, but I do wonder how hard individual reporters push back against using unsecured channels.
Nonetheless. In this case the reporter had a years-long relationship with the alleged leaker, that makes it much harder to cover all of your digital tracks vis-a-vis casual exchanges. We don’t know what exactly they have on this guy, but apparently it’s enough to establish that he lied to the FBI about his contact, if not anything pinning the leaks on him squarely. From the sounds of it, prudence may not have been sufficient.
> but apparently it’s enough to establish that he lied to the FBI about his contact
Yes, that's likely the key issue. Once the FBI etc are asking questions, it's already too late. So it's crucial to avoid attention. But that's very hard for leakers like this, where there are few possibilities, and all will likely be questioned.
> Investigators sought Ms. Watkins’s [sic] information as part of an inquiry into whether James A. Wolfe, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s former director of security, disclosed classified secrets to reporters. F.B.I. agents approached Ms. Watkins about a previous three-year romantic relationship she had with Mr. Wolfe, saying they were investigating unauthorized leaks.
Damn, I missed that.
So I wonder if Ms. Watkins can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Or is she immune because she's a reporter?
Shortly before she began working at The Times, Ms. Watkins was approached by the F.B.I. agents, who asserted that Mr. Wolfe had helped her with articles while they were dating. She did not answer their questions.
I did see that. But she must have said something to them. Just "no comment"? Or maybe she referred them to her attorney? And then her attorney asserts her right to keep sources confidential?
But when the government manages to plug a leak that happened to hand things to the media (compared to leaks that handed things to, say, foreign governments), people are surprised that the Constructionally guaranteed freedom of the press doesn’t actually include a right for the media to keep sources confidential. That’s why Judith Miller ended up in jail (and the story I heard was that her first legal team thought she had a right to keep sources confidential, which is why she spent so long in jail).
> people are surprised that the Constructionally guaranteed freedom of the press doesn’t actually include a right for the media to keep sources confidential
Is this really true? As opposed to the right getting trumped occasionally through some technicality? If it's true, why do reporters so commonly expect to keep sources private?
But maybe I've missed the point. To remain private, the source must not share their identity with the reporter. Is that it? That's why the NYT etc have Tor-based leak drops.
I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier. My comment was based on what I remember from attorneys discussing why Judith Miller was in jail for refusing to name her source, and why she only got out of jail when Libby told her she didn’t need to keep protecting him.
According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter%27s_privilege ) there is some kind of legal privilege, in some cases. But since reporters do end up in jail for contempt of court, it certainly doesn’t go as far as they seem to believe.
