I think there are several actions and states mixed up here and it makes it difficult to extract the most pertinent opinions. I'm as guilty as anyone of mixing the stuff together. I'll try to be more specific this time. Let's start with the type of information the TX reporter might have. This information might be divisible into four classes : A) documents freely given by their owners B) documents of dubious provenance C) documentary works D) editorial works For information let's stick with C) and D). No real need to muddy the waters. The sense of outrage is most keen when it comes to works created by the reporter. There are a fairly small set of states to be accounted for : 1) unaware that the information could become the object of a court action 2) aware that the information could become the object of a court action 3) aware that the information was in fact the object of a court action Now my sense of right and wrong says states 1) and 2) are equivalent and that only state 3), awareness of a subpoena, is potentially relevant but our relevant pro bono guy says not. There are a few actions that are of interest i) disclosure ii) destruction iii) revocable storage of copies iv) public distribution of copies v) irrevocable storage of copies Whether it was clear or not, and despite it's being a frequent topic, I don't think anyone was all that interested in the destruction of evidence or the withholding of information, so that leaves iii), iv) and v). Another frequent element of discussions here is the ease and accuracy with which digital information can be copied and distributed but I think most would agree that iii) is not interesting legally or technically since like i) and ii) it comes down to can you conceal information or not - a plain old ordinary fight. We're really left with three states : Perception and awareness of the court's degree of interest none, potential, forceful and two actions : irrevocable storage of a copy as public or private that are interesting. Narrowed down in this way my sense of right and wrong says the author of the information can do as they choose and should not have to rely on officially approved excuses to avoid incarceration. I feel this way pretty much across the board for all types of works but for the moment let's stick with non-software items such as a reporter is likely to author. It seems as though, in the interest of justice, a court should not have the power to confiscate or suppress an author's own work. Examine it prior to publication? Possibly, but seriously debatable. Aren't there any limits or controls on the actions of the court with respect to an author? Aren't there some things that a court is simply not allowed to do and will never even attempt? Is the only recourse in the case of genuine abuse a long expensive losing battle against the forces of darkness? To allow a court to punish the publication or distribution of one's own works, even under subpoena, seems like an open invitation to abuse. Oddly, thinking about this topic has made me remember some interesting discussions with the person responsible for forcibly shutting down the radio stations, television stations and newspapers as part of a ( successful and longstanding ) coup. It's a bit scary. I don't think the power to destory^H^H^Hroy the press should be a fundamental part of the structure here. Maybe we accept the actions of a police state more peacefully when they're neatly clothed in formalities and done by baby steps but that doesn't alter their underlying nature. As with a coup, let's require full-blown military intervention to shut down the press. At least then we'll have no doubts about where we stand. Mike BTW - it will be interesting to actually find out detailed facts in the case of this TX reporter. I'm sure Jim will graciously forward a link.
Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't really comment on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible." What will not amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or disclosure in anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble. Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or spoliation (much more serious). ("The intentional destruction of evidence... The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but I would certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. Encrypting the stuff sure _looks_ like spoliation, particularly if it seemed likely that the evidence would be the subject of a judicial action. "Knew or should have known" will likely be the standard with respect to the stuff being the subject of judicial action and they can use actions to demonstrate intent. In this light freenet might be the _worst_ place to put it because its only purpose is (I believe) to avoid censorship or seizure of the data. Why would you have used this relatively obscure and very specialized service if not in anticipation of court action which would later prevent the distribution of the data? Who else was threatening the manuscript, document, etc. to such a degree to require you to use freenet? (Not only that but spoliation carries with it the permissible inference that the data was detrimental to you and the jury gets to hear that).