If people intend to have these subpeonas quashed, there is another thing that must be done NOW: ENCRYPT or DESTROY any and all video you don't want the pigs to get anyway by raiding homes, "burglaries," or by over-the-internet computer surveillance. The latter two produce stuff they can't admit to having, but still find useful.

Sometimes if they think a subpeona won't hold up in court or won't be complied with, they get a search warrant and raid homes instead, stealing computers, disks, cameras, flash drives, and anything else that isn't nailed down.
Encryption can make such raids useless, just as good legal representation can make subpeonas useless by getting them quashed.

As for demanding access to encrypted media, here's what US courts have held to date: If you write down the password or store a key,electronically, they can subpeona that, but if you store it in your HEAD, the 5th Amendment applies and they cannot order you to provide it.

Police harassment aimed at me provides a case study in this shit:

In 2007 the former police chief Ramsey sought a subpeona against me in a case related to the Peoples Strike. When I lawyered up, they dropped it. Next time, they didn't waste time on a subpeona but raided my home instead-but telegraphed it by getting caught photographing my home a week before.

They wanted unpublished video, just like what they are seeking in NY, and knew it was an absolute certainty that a subpeona would not work because I would not snitch even to save my own life. After what happened to the subpeona they DID try(for Ramsey), they get a search(raid) warrant instead.

Fortunately, the video they wanted was never shot-and I had encrypted most "important" files after spotting pigs photographing my home the previous week. They telegraphed, and they missed.

Even if you intend to comply with a subpeona, if they don't know something exists they cannot prove you destroyed it after receiving the subpeona.

Consider this subpeona to be a warning that the servants of the Enemy may seek to obtain this video legally or otherwise, by subpeona if possible or otherwise by raid or by online theft(remote computer surveillance online).

If you have an online computer, make sure the operating system is up-to-date and a firewall used-expecially if you are using Windows.

DESTROY anything incriminating that you can plausably deny having-or that you are willing to defy the courts to protect, and do it TODAY.

please ignore the above summation of what courts have held to date. luke doesn't know what he is talking about. when responding to a subpoena for someone else's criminal matter, the 5th amendment won't protect you from having to disclose the password.

in your own criminal matter, you might be able to plead the 5th, but only if the data trying to be had is incriminating. read the decision in In Re Boucher - www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf

Actually, I just read the pdf you provided(www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf)-and here is the quote that matters:

"A password, like a combination, is in the
suspect's mind, and is therefore testimonial and beyond the reach of the grand jury
subpoena."

While this case was a 5th Amendment case, other wording of the decision clearly distingishes between "thought contents" and physical objects like keys. It is that wording that suggests (untested in court to my knowledge) that a pievce of paper with a password on it could be subpeonaed if the Enemy can prove its existance.

This case GRANTED a motion to quash a subpeona in a case where the government was unable to crack a "drive Z" on an encrypted laptop(they said it was PGP but from what I know of PGP you would use something else to encrypt an entire drive).

The motion to quash was granted even though when the laptop was captured it was running and KIDDIE PORN was found on Drive Z! Someone shut off the machine(or the battery ran down) and the pigs apparently were unable to ever get back in, with their computer expert predicting YEARS of guessing passwords as the only way in.

If a judge were to hold that Boucher only protected activity in which you were alleged to be breaking the law, here's one possible response: the law of RIOT. If your attorney were to convince the judge that it would be legally possible(no matter how remote) that participants in protests alleged to be in the photos/videos could be charged with riot, that INCLUDES the videographer.
www.volokh.com/files/Boucher.pdf
Therefore, the videographer, by showing posession of videos that could only be taken from inside the action, would be placing him/herself in legal jeopardy.

Therefore, without a grant of legal immunity, the 5th Amendment again applies. Since it would time and political heat to get that grant, that's enough time to get out of the grand jury room and reconsider your options.

Finally, remember this: Any file they cannot prove you posessed in the first place it would be hard to argue you have failed to provide!

In order to make claims that things were shredded prior to receiving a subpeona stick, if you wait until a subpeona to shred files, set your machine's calender back BEFORE shredding(hard overwriting), then set it forward again. In some older machines, simply removing the BIOS battery can do this-and it is legally plausable that the BIOS battery died on its own if they manage to show you did this.

Who in 2004 among us would have had a computer new enough at that time to have a flash BIOS anyway?

Don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about-I have been fighting these mother fuckers since 1982 and I am still here, without going to jail, snitching(the worst thing you can ever do...), or any of the rest of that bullshit. I am still here and still free, so I must be doing something right...

"In order to make claims that things were shredded prior to receiving a subpeona stick, if you wait until a subpeona to shred files, set your machine's calender back BEFORE shredding(hard overwriting), then set it forward again. In some older machines, simply removing the BIOS battery can do this-and it is legally plausable that the BIOS battery died on its own if they manage to show you did this."

The files will still be in the same physical location on the drive regardless of what you set as the date.
A forensic scientist would be able to look at the dates of files around them, and could instantly tell when you actually deleted these files.

"Who in 2004 among us would have had a computer new enough at that time to have a flash BIOS anyway?"

Pretty much anyone who had purchased a computer built in 1997 or after.
But whether or not the BIOS is flashable is not relevant to your point anyway.

^I'd be careful about making snippy remarks about what someone else knows about how the law applies here. Do you know the relationship between I-Witness Video and all of the videographers? If some footage might show that some videographers were, for example, disobeying an order to get off the streets, were inside a police cordon, etc, then the footage could be self-incriminating.

Further, not knowing what is on the tapes, or what attempted claim could be made regarding the airing/posting of the footage, I can think of a number of ways in which a 5th Amendment claim could apply.

Most importantly, however, notice Luke is talking about encrypting ALL of your files, so the fact is that retrieving the password to get access to SOME of the files would inherently provide access to ALL of them, which could include other files and materials regarding which a 5th Amendment claim might apply.

So, do you know the relationship between the videographers and I-Witness Video? Do you know the scope of the subpoenas? Do you know how and where the footage is archived? Do you know what other files I-Witness Video might have? Do you know the differing directions in which the investigation intends to go, or that it might go depending on what is contained in all of the footage? Do you know the relevant court cases concerning the multiple situations that might be involved or might arise here?

Probably not, right? Right. So you have no idea if any 5th Amendment claim might apply. People use their 5th Amendment claim in other people's criminal cases, including in relation to disclosure of evidence that might also be used against them or to instigate an investigation that could possibly incriminate them.

Before making snide remarks about Luke, perhaps you should make sure the remark doesn't apply equally or more to yourself next time.

The problem Drew is that reading a few PDFs doesn't give you a law degree.
I hope if you ever end up in court you have a very competent attorney to repreesnt you as your understanding of the 5th amendment is superficial at best.

^Note: my above comment was in response to another poster's insult about Luke. It's not a response to Luke's post.

fact is that luke's summation of what the court's have held to date is wrong and misleading.

There is more at stake in any subpeona case than simply staying in compliance with any law made by the servants of the enemy.

The first principle is this: you do NOT snitch, you do NOT cooperate with ANY investigation of fellow activists. You first use the law to attempt to quash these subpeonas, but you are OBLIGATED as a member of the Resistance to refuse to comply if your lawyers fail to kill the subpeona. This is a risk you agree to by participating in unpermitted protests even as an embedded journalist.

Remember, the Enemy owns the courts, so if the case really matters(like upholding the draft in WWI), the law is often ignored by them.

Protection of fellow activists takes absolute priority over your own personal safety. There is no excuse-ever-for providing information to law enforcement concerning another activist.

It is worth taking these things to court, as it can spare you(and others by legal precedent) the difficult path of being a grand jury resistor, but understand that if you are an activist and NOT a "neutral" journalist you have obligations to those whose lives and safety are in your hands.

While this case concerns the government trying to defend itself from lawsuits, those lawsuits flow from illegal mass arrests and brutality during the 2004 RNC. The enemy did things there like surrounding whole blocks with orange net and arresting everyone inside-non-protesters included!

Assisting the government in defending themselves in a case like this would be tantamount to helping future mass arrests take place.

Enemy?
Resistence?
What war are you in?

"The problem Drew is that reading a few PDFs doesn't give you a law degree."

Hahaha, well at least I was pre-law in college, worked in a legal office preparing summaries of relevant case law for upcoming trials (constitutional law cases, by the way), and am married to a lawyer. So don't pretend to know me, or to know how informed my opinions are, okay? Are you by any chance an attorney?

"I hope if you ever end up in court you have a very competent attorney to repreesnt you as your understanding of the 5th amendment is superficial at best."

So point out what I was wrong about, then. Demonstrate your legal knowledge and background, since you questioned mine and Luke's. Prove why you are right besides linking to a PDF online (funny, in light of your subsequent remark about reading PDFs online, another reason demonstrating that you do have a law degree would help your arguments at this point). Demonstrating that you are in fact an attorney would be a good start, if you are one. Then demonstrate (not just say it, show it to be true) which portions of my remarks are inaccurate, and make sure you cite your internal knowledge of the specific case here, and your knowledge of I-Witness Video's specific situation in relation to other data they have, the content of all video they'd have to turn over, and the nature of their relationships with all the videographers.

Because if you aren't a lawyer or have no personal background in law, your remarks about other people's background certainly look uninformed and hypocritical in light of your remarks about Luke and me. And if you don't have all that relevant info about this particular case, you don't even have enough knowledge of the case to even begin to make an informed point refuting Luke's remarks or mine.

And an attorney would have realized the latter points immediately. At least, a competent one would have. So I don't think you're an attorney, and I don't think you have any inside information. And the fact that you'd make your comments while lacking enough legal knowledge (or at least competent legal knowledge, and background details on this case) means your own understanding of constitutional law and the 5th Amendment in particular are woefully inadequate, at the very least in the context of this discussion.

So I suggest not getting yourself too far down this hole you're digging by slinging accusations and insults about other people's knowledge or information, since you've already demonstrated your own lack of it where it's relevant to this case. If you just didn't realize the potential other issues involved, and just had a misunderstanding about the relevant case law, that's fine and you should merely note that you shouldn't have worded your comment about Luke personally so strongly, but that you just disagree that these are the best ways to handle it etc.

The question of whether certain actions are or are not in someone's best interest regarding how to respond to a subpoena, and discussing it in a public forum where one's identity is known, is another matter entirely, obviously. But the criticisms of Luke's (and my own) remarks about the 5th Amendment are simply uninformed commentary, precisely what you are accusing Luke of here.

So far it hasn't gotten "nasty", but it's possible to discuss this stuff and debate it without personal attacks, so try it that way and make your points and defend them with informed comments. I've explained why in fact the 5th Amendment could apply here, but I have not claimed it DOES. I don't have enough inside knowledge of the case and the people involved, and neither do you it seems. An intelligent discussion about if and when 5th Amendment rights apply in these situations would be welcome and helpful, mere assertions that so-and-so is wrong and insulting them isn't.

I replied only to you, not Luke.

Your confusion is understandable though as so many people post as anonymous.

^Ah, indeed. My apologies for thinking you were the same person.

You don't need to give them all the keys. Just make a truecrypt hidden volume and give them the password to the outer one. They can't prove (or detect) the presence of the inner volume, and you've co-operated fully.

This is a better outcome than doing 10 years for contempt of court.