Judge doesn't trust DOJ with search of devices seized from Wash. Post reporter

"The court rejected the government's first two requests for a search warrant because they were too broad. The court was "concerned about both the scope of the proposed search warrant and the government's apparent attempt to collect information about Ms. Natanson's confidential sources." The search warrant ultimately approved by the court was limited to information that Natanson received from Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones and information related to Perez-Lugones that could be evidence in the case against him."

"The Court learned that Ms. Natanson was not a focus of the investigation only through press reports published the day the warrant was executed. The Court takes the government at its word, while acknowledging the well-documented concern that the government has at times overclassified information to avoid embarrassing disclosures rather than to protect genuine secrets."

"Judge Porter was right to treat the seizure as a prior restraint and to limit the government from fishing through the irrelevant data it seized to snoop on reporters, and right to reprimand prosecutors for the omission in their search warrant application. But the order didn't go far enough."

A court rejected the government's initial two search warrant requests as too broad and concerning regarding protection of confidential sources. The approved warrant was narrowed to information specifically from one individual and related evidence. The judge noted the government failed to disclose whether the journalist was a target of investigation, learning this only through press reports after warrant execution. While acknowledging national security concerns, the judge expressed skepticism about government classification practices, noting documented instances of overclassification to avoid embarrassment. The Freedom of the Press Foundation praised the judge's treatment of the seizure as a prior restraint and reprimand of prosecutors but contended the order should have provided stronger protections.

Read at Ars Technica