Are most of the people worried about catching the attention of the US government really going around just taking people's word on things?

Fed: "Yep, I'm a reporter."

Leaker: "Great, let's talk."

It just doesn't really scan.

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with what the FBI is doing (I guess I'm not sure about that), I'm wondering if chilling effects are an important aspect of it.

Whether it scans is just a question of how much effort goes into any given investigation, surely?

I mean, if one fed says "I'm a reporter", and a second says the same but also has AP business cards, and a third also has an authentic-looking AP badge with his photo and the name of a real AP journalist, I don't guess there's any bright line between those things. Once the feds decide to impersonate a journalist they could be arbitrarily convincing about it, couldn't they?

If I wanted to leak something, I would choose the reporter.

I would probably go to a library and evaluate the writings of several reporters, and choose from there.

I would then figure out how to identify the chosen reporter using materials that they did not provide to me.

I would not rely on my ability to authenticate an AP badge.

I don't think any of that is particularly sophisticated, so I would expect many leakers to at least take that first step (and hopefully they would usually see the problem with using information provided by the reporter to evaluate the identity of the reporter).

Your extrapolating from your own course of thought and actions and assuming that everyone in the world makes similar enough decisions as you do that it's not worth considering alternate scenarios.

Not everyone has the luxury of deciding if some proof is good enough in a a consequence free thought experiment where they can also shape the constraints. IRL constraints and persuasion tactics shift the ability to verify, and someone with legal considerations can't afford to be wrong even once. It shifts the decision making process in such a way that the fact "cops have posed as reporters" plus an abundance of caution means nobody talks to reporters. Exactly the circumstances the AP is afraid of.

We are talking about people choosing to commit a federal crime out of the belief that it serves the greater good. If they aren't capable of being cautious, I first don't want them handling sensitive government information, and second, I don't want them making the decision to share it with the public.

Sure, but don't you see that your personal opinions don't apply directly to someone else leaking information, or more generally, chilling effects on things that aren't federal crimes?

I don't think this issue particularly concerns leakers. A typical journalist spends most of their time contacting people to ask questions, and it would affect the functioning of the press if everyone had reason to suspect it might actually be the FBI calling. That's where I'd think the chilling effect comes in.

Edit: sorry, I'd overlooked that the top post in the thread was specific to leakers.

Don't leakers generally initiate contact with reporters? You raise a good point (eg whether people who would be committing a crime by revealing classified information might feel chilled), but I think you're overstating the severity of the effect. If I was working with classified material and someone approached me as a reporter soliciting classified information, it would be part of my job to suspect espionage and report the contact. Instances of legally privileged rather than classified information would be broadly similar, possession of privileged information usually involves some sort of fiduciary obligation towards the person who entrusted you with it.

OK, but do you think the FBI cares? They're cops.

He's pointing out that this may be the governments's intended outcome. To stop leaks which paint the government and government officials in bad light. So no, the FBI could very well "not care" that there would be fewer leaks... that's what the government might be aiming for.

Corrupt and evil people realize that FUD is their friend. If a society and civilization can't trust one another then the truth can't get out. Look at North Korea.

Precisely. We've seen the IRS, OSHA, BATF, and other 3-letter agencies turn into the play-toys of the powerful (to say nothing of militarized police and swatting). It's no longer unreasonable to think the FBI could be used for political shenanigans (and depending on how you read history, that's part of the FBI's origin anyway).

It's interesting, after all, that Catherine Engelbrecht never had the trouble she found herself in until she got involved in politics. (and it's also interesting that the 7 of Lois Lerner's hard-drives under Congressional subpoena could have magically failed simultaneously) Not that it's one-sided, either: power corrupts, and I'm suspicious of both parties (and no, the answer isn't: well let's just make sure we always keep the other party out of power).

The FBI may not want to silence potential leakers, but the FBI answers to someone who may think differently, depending on how the political winds blow.

Perhaps this is exactly what they want, leakers not being able to trust reporters.