WWW.impact.NET/privacy/lavabit.com

"Choose an online news article published by Time, The New York Times, or The Huffington Post and track its cited sources. Visit each source online and evaluate its credibility based on the guidelines set in Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources. Draft a blog post that briefly states a potential impact of unrestricted web publishing through mass media as it relates to this article."

 ***

Subject topic link: 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/snowden-lavabit-fbi_n_4036366.html

HuffPost Tech had an article I found interesting in relation to privacy and the internet, national security issues, and how these impact internet business. The article was entitled "Snowden Email Provider Lavabit Went To Great Lengths to Foil FBI", dated 10/3/2013 with no author cited. The title itself almost suggests neutrality but slightly maligns the owner of Lavabit as intentionally foiling the FBI. In live interviews with Ladar Levison, owner of Lavabit, he suggests that he attempted to comply with the government's orders, within the confines of the law and his company's ethical guidelines and operating policies.

Without an author listed, it is difficult to assess personal bias. But as a political e-zine, The Huffington Post has a reputation for being left-leaning based on the originator, Arianna Huffington, who is a regular commentator on many mainstream news and political opinion programs. She offers party-line conversation. The Huffington Post was started as a news aggregator and blog, going on to win the Pulitzer Prize in 2012 according to Wikipedia. Although HuffPost has changed owners twice, including AOL's new acquisition, Huffington is still the managing Editor-in-Chief.  

The HuffPost Tech team which edited and takes responsibility for the anonymous article, would consist of their Chief Technology Officer, John Pavley. Pavley has extensive technical background and expertise in computer coding and applications, having authored many articles on computer tech and education as well. His background seems transparent as he has listed his credentials on several sites including Facebook. 
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-pavley/
http://blog.ebyline.com/2013/03/secrets-to-becoming-the-next-media-disruptor-from-huffpo-cto-john-pavley/
http://www.crunchbase.com/person/john-pavley

Also Executive Tech Editor: Bianca Bosker;  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-bosker/
and HuffPost Live: Anya Strzemien
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anya-strzemien/


The author(s) use previous HuffPost articles and live video interviews with Levison as sources. Mr. Levison, a participant in the legal action, is interviewed live on set, streaming video and in text. He seems credible as a first-hand witness to the shuttering of his company. He is under subpoena currently by the FBI so everything he says in interviews could be used by the District Attorney against him. Levison's attorney is also interviewed, who gives legal background. Ladar also posts on Facebook, and his business website opens to a letter explaining why his company has closed. He regularly updates his experiences and announcements that coincide with the interviews on HuffPost, Wired and the New York Times, which can be cross-referenced for credibility.

HuffPost's Tech team also embed copies of legal documents from the Fouth District Court of Virginia into the article, chronicling the redacted paperwork, and silent gag-order that Judge Hilton imposed on Levison until recently overturned.  The information was timely and up-to-date.

Other sources are Wired, the technical e-zine, and the New York Times for their first-hand interviews and articles.  Both of these sources are reliable and credible for their trustworthy news articles. If there is any doubt about the information in articles written by these highly visible and profitable corporations, then they too should be vetted.

This was a good piece of journalism in my opinion, written with the intent to educate and report. Unfortunately it does not include differing opinion from the DA or government. The NSA and FBI are historically closed to interviews in the process of an investigation, so no spokesperson is featured for the opposing side. 

In the question of ethical regulation of the world-wide-web and unrestricted web publishing, we must look at both the pros and cons; could regulation work against the people's constitutional rights? Would regulation force opposing opinions to publicly qualify their actions in a case like this? Historically, regulation only regulates First Amendment rights of the people, mostly those that cannot afford long Supreme Court battles. All people, no matter their opinion, should be able to post anything within the confines of our Bill of Rights, including those opposed to government regulations and actions that should see the light of public inspection.

As the Purdue Owl's article "Journalism and Journalistic Writing" states, we should ".. (s)upport the exchange of views, even views you might find repugnant."  (Associated Press Stylebook 2012)




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/snowden-lavabit-fbi_n_4036366.html
www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/
 blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/08/08/snowdens-email-service-shuts/
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/snowden-lavabit-fbi_n_4036366.html
 www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130808/us-nsa-surveillance-email-shutdown/
 lavabit.com
live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/lavabit-founder-ladar-levison-live/520ab2582b8c2a2eda000184
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/how-lavabit-edward-snowden-email-service-melted-down.html