The FBI didn't publish a story, they just posed as an AP reporter, and only to the suspect. This seems like a perfectly fine tactic to me, it's basically just going undercover.
I see your point about going undercover. But I think the fact that they said they were with the AP modifies things slightly. If they had pretended to be a reporter from some made-up news agency, then sure, I could see it as "just going undercover". But they used the reputation of the AP to carry that out. It isn't quite impersonation, but it is close. And it potentially harms the credibility of the AP. So, in that sense, it is more than "just going undercover".
It would be interesting to see whether the AP could sue the FBI under the 'takings' clause of the constitution, because the FBI has taken some of their reputation, and harmed the AP's ability to conduct its business.
Well now people are going to be skeptical of anyone claiming to be an AP reporter. This is the same exact scenario as the CIA claiming to be an NGO giving out vaccinations in order to track down Osama bin Laden. Of course some folks will say "The ends justify the means".
Would it be outside the realm of possibility to have people outright refuse to cooperate or even harm actual AP reporters because they are now suspect? Claiming reporters to be spies is a fairly common phenomenon.
I clearly see the issue with spying under the guise of humanitarian organizations. My guy says it's a little less severe with reporters, but still an issue.
I wonder where the lines are? Who else should law enforcement not impersonate?
In general, I would say impersonating a criminal in order to get into an organization isn't bad. Generic impersonations can also work as well, but it starts to get fuzzy there. Impersonating an NGO could still harm other completely unrelated NGOs. Then you get into impersonating a known entity and you have the potential to cause real damage. I don't want someone impersonating me or my family, that could cause a real, lasting damaging impact even if just by a bad reputation.
I can certainly understand a company having the same thoughts and issues. That's why banks spend money on fighting phishing attacks, someone leveraging a banks branding to hurt consumers hurts the reputation regardless of the bank's lack of involvement.
The point is that if the FBI makes a habit of impersonating journalists, anyone contacted by a real AP reporter would have good reason to doubt their motives. It's a contentious issue with a long history.
> The point is that if the FBI makes a habit of impersonating journalists, anyone contacted by a real AP reporter would have good reason to doubt their motives
Why? I could see that being the case if the FBI agent was actually working for AP, but in this case a simple phone call to the AP would have proven that the journalist didn't actually work there, no?
I suppose that would depend on whether the FBI used the name of a real journalist. But it's more a matter of principle, I'd say, than a question of whether the person could conceivably have checked if it was a real reporter.
If you're a criminal, talking to the press is an incredibly bad idea to begin with as 'reporter's shield' laws are wildly inconsistent. A lot of criminals get convicted because they just can't keep their mouths shut.
If anyone contacts you it could be anyone. Isn't this only an issue if you're divulging something about yourself that you need to keep secret? Are you really going to confess to crimes to a random person who calls you on the phone? No, you're going to try to find the name of a reporter who can be trusted and call him.
No one said confidential, and I'm sure this all come out via the public case, but they only represented themselves as a reporter to the target. They didn't publish fake stories or build a public fake persona.
Given that the results of said techniques have become public knowledge, I'm not sure how you can argue that no harm was done to an innocent party's reputation by the fact that it wasn't done in public initially.
