[Updated] DOJ attempts subpoena for list of 24,000 Amazon customers
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:32:31 PM PDT
(Update at bottom)
As a writer and avid reader, this really hits home with me. As if our daily lives haven’t been oppressed enough lately, the Bush regime has tried to do the unthinkable; [how many times we'll probably never know, exactly] what they said they would never do – except perhaps in the most extreme of exigent circumstances – subpoenaing libraries for the books we read.
Shades of Hitler's Germany -- circa 1939?
Newly unsealed court documents reveal that United States prosecutors have decided to withdraw a subpoena that sought the identities of thousands of Amazon.com Inc. customers. The abrupt withdrawal came soon after a judge ruled that customers indeed have a right to keep their reading habits from the government.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker stated in a ruling unsealed last week:
"The (subpoena's) chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America. Well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon's customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases," the judge wrote in a ruling he unsealed last week.
For their part, Amazon.com said in their court documents that they hope Judge Crocker’s decision will make it more difficult from here on out for prosecutors to obtain records involving book purchases. But, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Vaudreuil conceded no such ground, commenting on Tuesday that he doubted the ruling would hamper any further legitimate investigations.
For me, the operative word there is "legitimate."
Wednesday’s International Herald Tribune has the troubling story:
Crocker — who unsealed documents detailing the showdown against prosecutors' wishes — said he believed prosecutors were seeking the information for a legitimate purpose. But he said First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech were justified and outweighed the subpoena's law enforcement purpose.
"The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."
Federal prosecutors issued the subpoena last year as part of a grand jury investigation into a former Wisconsin official who was a prolific seller of used books on Amazon.com. They were looking for buyers who could be witnesses in the case.
The official in question, Robert D’Angelo, was indicted last month on money laundering, fraud and tax evasion charges. According to prosecutors, D’Angelo ran a used book business out of his city office and did not report any income from the venture. He’s since pleaded not guilty to the charges. Apparently, D’Angelo sold books through the Amazon Marketplace feature, and then buyers paid Amazon, who extracted a commission from the process.
Vaudreuil said:
"We didn't care about the content of what anybody read. We just wanted to know what these business transactions were. These were simply business records we were seeking to prove the case of fraud and tax crimes against Mr. D'Angelo."
Amazon turned over many records but refused to identify the book buyers, citing their right to keep their customers’ reading habits private, when served with the subpoena, requesting records of 24,000 transactions dating back to 1999. Later on, apparently, prosecutors pared down the scope of the subpoena substantially, asking Amazon for a much trimmed 120 customer identities.
To their credit, Amazon.com stood firm, and obviously Judge Crocker saw through the suddenly mitigated postulation and attached appropriate (un)importance to the government’s request. Instead, Crocker proposed a compromise in which Amazon.com would send out letters to the 24,000 customers in question describing the government’s investigation and request, and asking anyone of them wishing to cooperate, to voluntarily contact prosecutors if interested in testifying.
Judge Crocker reportedly scolded prosecutors back in July for not seeking alternatives earlier when they disclosed that the reason they needed the information was because computer analysts initially failed to recover the data from Vaudreuil’s computer hard drive.
The judge was apparently angered further by the fact that prosecutors told him they were able to retrieve the data on the second try – after requesting the subpoena.
"If the government had been more diligent in looking for workarounds instead of baring its teeth when Amazon balked, it's probable that this entire First Amendment showdown could have been avoided," he wrote.
So, not only is our government acting flagrantly, egregiously unconstitutionally, they’re also being lazy about doing it. That’s got to be an added insult to our beloved U.S. Constitution.
Hmm, I wonder if that constitutes a ‘high crime or misdemeanor?"
How much more will We the People take?
[Update:] As an aside, I'd feel remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to remind everyone that there's a highly insidious bill GovTrack H.R. 1955 passed by the House and due for a vote in the Senate next week. Please read it then contact the senate.
It's also depicted in this diary: But mom, you said it couldn't happen here!
We need to stop this poison pill!
Impede, impeach and imprison.
Peace
