Crime movies

Are you ready for your closeup?

Well, maybe you shouldn’t be. The people behind those cameras could be feds.

Let’s say you’re a criminal or maybe a crusader for justice violating the law to make a point. Do you confess on camera?

You would think not, but you’d be wrong. We know this now because we’ve learned that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents enjoy pretending to be filmmakers and at least some criminals enjoy what they think are their moments of fame.

I have no idea why a guilty person would spill their guts in front of a journalist — real or fake — but “there is no dispute that agents impersonating filmmakers is a law enforcement technique.”

That’s a quote from a recent D.C. federal court ruling on whether the FBI has to turn over records about its cinematography work.

The FBI didn’t want to reveal anything about its artistry, according to the court, because: “It makes sense that wrongdoers could misuse information about where and in what circumstances the Bureau has used the filmmaker technique over the past eleven years. If a certain FBI field office is associated with a high number of responsive documents, for instance, wrongdoers in that office’s footprint may be more cautious when approached by agents undercover as a film crew.”

Does it make sense? Really?

Picture criminals poring over FBI filming records to decide where to do interviews. The FBI (or its lawyers) have pictured it.

According to the court, the FBI “argues that wrongdoers could piece together that information to ascertain ‘the scope of the FBI’s reliance on the [filmmaker] technique (or lack thereof) by geographical area and the targets and/or types of investigations in which the technique is most effectively used.’ Supposedly, wrongdoers could then ‘alter their patterns of activity, geographic areas of operations, contacts, and other behaviors in efforts to circumvent FBI detection.’”

I’m assuming wrongdoers do this in consultation with their public relations people.

If criminals are going to confess or accidentally provide evidence, you might wonder why it matters if they’re doing it for a real or fake journalist?

The answer is that there is one significant difference between a real and a fake filmmaker: the real ones actually make movies or report on TV. With an FBI agent, you don’t get a movie or a moment of fame. Your hopes and dreams are dashed. We’ll see infliction of emotional distress suits about this.

Bubbles and tantrums. I’m not sure what to make of this, but I’m going to report it anyway: a suit was filed in federal court in D.C. last week complaining that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System had turned down requests for documents containing the words “bubble” and “tantrum.”

The complaint was filed on behalf of a guy who is described as a “data journalist” who runs an information website. I’d tell you more, including his name, but if you Google who he is, you’ll realize why it’s not worth the potential trouble.

The internet is a treacherous place.

Advice to the Fed: this is not worth years of stress and litigation — just send him some stuff. There can’t be too many bubbles and tantrums in your records — unless one of the governors has been talking about bathing a baby.

No reason to hide that.

Subscribe to our columns

Want new op-eds sent directly to your inbox? Subscribe below!

Email *

Author

Submit