Slashdot Log In
Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon May 15, 2006 02:56 PM
from the not-so-confidential-informant dept.
from the not-so-confidential-informant dept.
jackbird writes "Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks. Apparently reporters for the New York Times, ABC News, and the Washington Post are being scrutinized. The fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become."
Related Stories
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later? 1272 comments
gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Good stuff! (Score:5, Funny)
Send all these freedom-hating reporters who seek the so-called "truth" to Gitmo!
Re:Good stuff! (Score:5, Funny)
I (heart) Big Brother! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.
Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
Re:I (heart) Big Brother! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than even that, actually. What makes you think that people inside the government won't misuse their power and access to information for purely private purposes?
For example: If you run a business and one of your competitors has an inside track to the gatekeepers of this information, I'd say it's time to start worrying...
I got $20 that says Fox News won't be checked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal
Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not reply to this other than 'we don't think the president would do this'
Well... "conservatives"... this wasn't the point of founding this country What about the next president, or the one after that... still trust them?
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
The justice department attempted to investigate the NSA spying program, but they were denied a security clearance [msn.com]. With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget that... the Congress has to rely on leaks to know what's going on! Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps. Who knows how many were briefed on this new privacy invasion.
Re:Ah Ain't No Crook (Score:5, Insightful)
The JD (Governement) was denied a security clearance to investigate the wired taping by the NSA (a Governement's agency)?
WTF???
I am dreaming this or what?
You're seeing the oversight in action (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also taking a good-sized risk of winding up in an unmarked jail cell, or grave.
They're good people, they are saying "this is out of control and the citizenry must not take it any more".
Re:You're seeing the oversight in action (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten...and whoever is doing this leaking is going to go through absolute hell should they ever be found out.
Ignorance is Strength (Score:5, Funny)
If leakers are allowed to reveal to reporters how incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest our leaders are, the terrorists have won.
[/searing sarcasm]
"There is no crime in the Soviet Union" (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening.
The United States is truly starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in so many ways. The Soviets had official state media; we have totally co-opted media outlets. The Soviets had strong controls on copy machines; we have DRM'd/watermarked copy machines (and output devices). The Soviets had one party rule; we have outright one party rule right now, which stemmed from effective one-party rule of the past (seems that the Democratic-Republican party has split, and one side came out on top). The Soviets had no expectation of privacy... and soon, neither will we.
The big difference is that the Soviets used an iron fist, as opposed to the USA's velvet glove, to smother freedom. The net result is the same.
What a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is about as good as tapping phones. Anyone who sees it differently has WAY too much trust of the U.S. government.
And I know that they'll argue that these leaks somehow put us in danger of a terrorist attack. I mean, if the subject had been something as mundane as outting a CIA operative, then of course, they'd be sure to overlook it, particularly if the leak came out of the offices of the President and Vice President.
It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
We can blame Bush and his administration, but when it comes down to it, they're not to blame. Because we know what they're doing and we're not kicking their asses out on the street.
Re:What a surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll be right behind you. Go, march, at LEAST yell and scream. Donate to the EFF [eff.org]. CALL your representatives, city, state, and federal. If you already have, choose one and do it again. Once is not always enough.
Nixon was an amateur (Score:5, Insightful)
How awfully nice to have the technology to spy on everyone in the country at once, and sufficiently rabid supporters to shout down anyone who questions the practice.
Read the ABC blog comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
Stop using soldiers to hide bad policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: if guaranteeing the 1st and 4th amendments (free press and unreasonable searches, for those of you who slept through Civics class) means we lose a few good guys, then that's the cost of doing business. Cold, but true.
And, for all the chickenhawks out there who use soldiers as shields for illegal acts-- to quote my favorite actor, "Pick up a rifle and stand a post."
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
look at both ends of that phoneline, bicches! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who the enemy is? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.
They are a national security threat.
So are their defenders.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.
But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake..
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Funny)
My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing
Which was followed by:
If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide?
Why in the hell would someone openly try to be punished for doing the right thing from those who are doing wrong or evil? Have you ever heard of the Witness Protection Program? Why do you think they hide witnesses?
Guess people shouldn't expect someone with a sig of "666" to understand right from wrong or complex subjects like morality.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one don't believe that an oath to secrecy trumps the constitution, or the risk of the destruction of our nation from corruption. Obviously the people releasing this information agree. They believe that our rights and freedoms are more important than keeping damaging secrets. They of all people would know that the goings on that we're not aware of are more damaging to our nation than they are helping. They wouldn't release it otherwise.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could. No administration is happy to have their corruption or other illegal activities released to the media, but if we allowed the government to do whatever they think is necessary, then we are pretty much guaranteeing that they will do things which are not authorized under the Constitution.
Look, I am a Republican myself, and am very politically active. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, both parties are capable of horrendus corruption when they don't have the media actively trying to keep the public informed. I won't hesitate when stating that I am not comfortable with the activities that Bush has gotten involved in lately, but I am confident that if we allow the public to know as much as is possible about what is going on, it will serve as a check upon his powers. This will also encourage him to think twice before he does something really raw...
Allowing the administration to hide behind the cover of "national security" is very dangerous.
Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the Bush Administration going through phone records to identify who leaked the stories which exposed their program of going through people's phone records?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:
But what happened to this rule-follower?
Certainly she didn't just give up did she?
So, following the rules, a translator reports the fact that her supervisor is inept, that there might be compromised agents in the FBI and that some of the materials involved in 9/11 were translated improperly and what happens? She gets fired. She follows the legal option and the Bush administration uses the State Secres Privelage to have her case dismissed entirely.
Seriously, if you were riding on a bus and the driver were drunk, wouldn't you want someone to say something? Or would you rather they wait and call headquarters at the next stop?
Source article [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res200
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional.
Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing.
Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.
*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!!
*self-five*
In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals.
The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.
Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.
That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.
That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'd rather that Watergate never happened because Deep Throat was thrown in jail?
The Press should be the ally of the People. (Score:5, Interesting)
When the Government considers the Press to be the Enemy, that means that the Government considers an ally of the People to be the Enemy.
That's one step away from considering the People to be the Enemy of the Government.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Informative)
I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list [wikipedia.org]?
The primary issue with all of this news regarding government snooping is oversight. Don't give me this "we're at war," "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" crap. We should have a goverment of checks and balances, which were designed to limit the (almost invariably corrupting) concentration of political power. What happens when the Administration alone gets to decide what constitutes what is "wrong?"
I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism [wikipedia.org] in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:
The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering. [snopes.com]
I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Insightful)
* The CIA running secret prisons in East Europe
* The NSA's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens without oversight
* The CIA secretly extraditing terror suspects (even from non-US nations) to countries which often use torture, such as Egypt and Afghanistan
I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks. In fact, they seem like perfectly normal whistle-blowing on a Govenment which is grossly overstepping the bounds of the power granted to it, and avoiding the Congressional checks and balances which exist.
But there's one more leak:
* The exposure of Valerie Plame and an entire CIA front company. Now there we have a leak which actually had the potential to endanger lives. But wait.. who was behind that leak? The White House themselves. - And for what? Petty revenge on a critic.
So we've got an administration here who themselves leak classified intel when convenient to them, who harshly persue those whistleblowers who leak anything which might be damaging to the Administration. An administration who misconstrued, misrepresented, and outright lied about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
And now you expect me to believe that this same Administration, in their quest to find out who's talking to who, is not interested in finding whistleblowers and critics, but rather acting purely out of an interest of protecting national security and saving lives?
Bullshit.
No administration has ever used the intelligence community for partisan poltical gain to the extent that the current one has. None. There are people in the intelligence community, be they Democrats, people critical of these wiretaps, or simply professionals who are pissed off of having their agency's work misused for partisan political goals, and then being the scapegoat once things turn sour. What this bullshit is about is nothing less than an attempt by the administration to purge the agencies of these critics.
It is not about national security. It's not about saving lives. People working in intelligence don't look kindly on that kind of leaks. It is their lives which are at stake. But leaking the fact that they're secretly running prisons - knowledge of that is NOT a threat to national security or lives in the intelligence community.
The only thing that knowledge threatens is the political goals of the Bush administration. If that's what they're going to use the CIA for, then I fully support any CIA employee who does the moral thing and tells the American people what the heck their government is up to behind their backs. Those people are not leakers and traitors. They are heroes and patriots.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, and to the grandparent, I would go a step further.
Even if/when you can trust the gov't, it is your duty as a US Citizen to not trust the government. Try reading the Declaration of Independance sometime. It makes it pretty clear that your obligation as a citizen of this great nation is to defend it against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. Defend the nation, not the government. It is not necessary now (IMO), but may someday become necessary to defend this nation against the government, just as was done in 1776. The media is the fourth estate that guarantees that it is possible for us to know when we must fulfill that duty.
To make it more explicit, while I do not know nor automatically believe that such is the case here, any attempt to prevent the media from fulfilling their role as the fourth estate is every bit as treasonous as trying to short-circuit one of the three branches of government.
If you don't feel you can live up to this obligation, you are not required to stay in this country. Our Founding Fathers had some very big and difficult goals. It is times like these that test our resolve to live up to their ideals.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem.
The article you cite says "De Vries [the CIA-abuse denier] came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture".
Asserting that the EU investigated and found no proof of CIA kidnapping may have a comforting feel of "truthiness [wikipedia.org]" for you, but I'm afraid that reality once again is showing a liberal bias [dailykos.com].
What's scary are the comments left on the ABC blog (Score:5, Informative)
You know, we spend a lot of time teaching our children about the men that founded this country, however flawed personally they were, and the ideals they believed in. Maybe it's time we actually stood by those words.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Quotes from ABC News Blog by members of the public:
"Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!"
"'Bout time you guys are roped in."
"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."
"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know""
"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."
"Well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."
"You didn't inconvenience someone, you broke the law. It's called a criminal investigation!!!!"
"I believe that it is a great idea to maintain telephone surveilance over news organizations who disclose classified and sensitive secret information. Lets nail the government employees who knowingly break their oath to not divulge classified information."
"GOOD! I hope they find out who is reporting all of these leaks. And I hope you are tried and perhaps spend some time in jail for it. KEEP CALLING and I hope they track your every word!"
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
You remember the Pentagon Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine and a researcher for the RAND corporation surreptitiously copied "the Pentagon Papers", a multi-volume history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Hoping to inform the American public of U.S. mistakes in Vietnam, Ellsberg then released the papers to the New York Times.
President Nixon attempted, on national security grounds, to halt their publication. When the Supreme Court declined to uphold the suppression of the papers, Nixon ordered G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break in to Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, hoping to find information with which to publicly smear Ellsberg.
That break-in, and the others that followed at the Watergate Building, became known as the Watergate conspiracy.
It also destroyed the government's case against Ellsberg: because of the break-in and an allegation that Nixon had ordered the CIA to "totally incapacitate" (e.g., kill) Ellsberg, the government's case against Ellsberg for conspiracy and espionage was dropped.
Re:lives are at stake with leaks. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}
Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean how Bush outed Plame and thus caused the undercover company that watched Iran's nukes to fold? That kind of leak?
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time the New York Times or the Washington Post leaks about some secret program that is used in the war on terror, therefor invalidating it, I wonder to myself if they will take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.
God Forbid the terrorists be blamed for the attacks. Much better to use the fear of terrorism to fight against whatever political beliefs you disagree with, right?
Man, they've sure taught you well haven't they...
Re:Haha.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because media that's critical of the government is a cornerstone of communist regimes.
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.. when you have a warrant or subpoena. Neither of which they have now.
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Insightful)
Subpeona? Search warrant? Crime or no crime, this article makes no mention of those. Have you been reading the news lately?
Standard Police procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, I doubt the administration bothered with technicalities like "warrants".
Re:Wrong again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along (Score:5, Interesting)