Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks

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."

Comments

Re:Haha..

[crotherm]

You mean how Bush outed Plame and thus caused the undercover company that watched Iran's nukes to fold? That kind of leak?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[AuMatar]

Lives aren't at stake. The reporters aren't giving out troop movement and defence plans. They're reporting about things like highly illegal wire tapping and domestic surveilance. THis is a heavy handed attempt by the administration to scare whistle blowers out of telling the American people things they need to know. We have laws to protect these people for a reason, the US goverment is flaunting them.

Leaks Save Lives

[Doc Ruby]

The part of you that's shuddering is your conscience, which is doing its best to protect you.

The only way Americans have to get important info from our government that officials don't want to release because it reveals their wrongdoing (eg. negligence, crimes or both) is from leaks to the press. We've got entirely too little government disclosure to the press, and press publication.

Where's the evidence for these leaks endangering lives of agents, or any other real security problem, that overbalances the security gained from publishing stories of inside government problems? The best-known one is the Plame leak, by the Cheney, Rove, Libby crew, to attack an ambassador whose investigation showed Bush was lying in the State of the Union about fake Niger uranium going to Iraq. We need more disclosure of how those officials leaked their attack to the press, not less. If more Bush administration people who knew Bush was determined to go to war in Iraq, even at the expense of stopping the Qaeda and bin Laden (where is bin Laden?), leaked the truth to the press, we might not be down thousands of killed Americans, tens of thousands of gravely wounded Americans, and even more killed and wounded Iraqis. Or facing the prospect of many times that amount of deaths, if the Iraq catastrophe even stays at the current unacceptable scale of killing.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

And "DeepThroat" spoke up, not because of some feeling of patriotism. He spoke up for he same reason most of them did. He felt he was slighted and struck out.

(He felt that he should have become head of the FBI, when nixon named someone else, deepthroat was born...)

A global trend we sure could live without?

[D4C5CE]

Over in Europe, another agency's hands have allegedly just been caught in a very similar kind of cookie jar indeed.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[syphax]

(shudder, I suspect I'm going to get hammered on this one)

I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list?

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?"

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Martin Niemoller

I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering.
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?

Here's the al-queda connection?

[ugmoe]

>> I thought the u.s. government was only supposed to be looking at calls

>> to/from al-queda persons. At least that is what they keep repeating in

>> defending their nsa spying on u.s. citizens fiasco. I guess it's just

>> another lie.

1) This article is about the call records (number, duration) - not the contents of the calls was the case in the NSA monitoring calls between U.S. citizens and Al Queda members (where one party was outside of the U.S).

2) Then ABC revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan, it certainly does touch on Al Queda.

The Afgnanistan/Pakistan border area is reportedly a site of Al Queda activity. Pakistan does aid the U.S. in this area, but also has an internal situation that makes it difficult for them when Pakistan's government is revealed as aiding the U.S. in this area. So, revealing information about such aid makes it more difficult to secure future aid because the Pakistan leaders will be worried that the U.S. will be unable to keep their assistance secret.

So, if ABC news used leakers inside the CIA as the source of their story on the predator missiles inside of Pakistan they are directly interfering with the Al Queda situation.

The friendly article touches (very lightly) on this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federa l_source_.html

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material.

Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:

While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.

But what happened to this rule-follower?

She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Certainly she didn't just give up did she?

Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds' case, citing the government's state secrets privilege.

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/18828res2005 0126.html]

Re:Apples and Oranges

[orthogonal]

Watergate had nothing to do with classified information/national security

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:What a surprise...

[inKubus]

It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House.

I'll be right behind you. Go, march, at LEAST yell and scream. Donate to the EFF. CALL your representatives, city, state, and federal. If you already have, choose one and do it again. Once is not always enough.

What's scary are the comments left on the ABC blog

[inertialmatrix]

The part I find incredibly frightening is that it seems so many citizens of this country do see a problem with this. Sure, they are coming for the communists first, but then what? I am afraid of the hysterical masses that are willing to hand over MY rights to the government. I grew up thinking that the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect me and others like me from the wacko majority?

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!"

Does The Constitution Still Matter?

[viewtouch]

The Constitution specifically states that there can be no laws which abridge (i.e., curtail) the freedom of the press. In plain English that means that The Constitution specifially withholds from the government any authority to even investigate the activities of the people when they are about the business of publishing information.

There are no exceptions to this - not even 'national security'.

Of course if The Constitution is considered merely to be a 'Goddamned Piece of Paper', as Bush has described it, and if the people who are involved in violating The Constitution don't care about adhering to it, then all bets are off, which is pretty much where we in the US are at these days.

What could possibly be wrong with surveillance?

[Malakusen]

Well, here's something. Of course, nobody would ever misuse a government agency for political goals.

SF-312 Nondisclosure Agreement

[aquatone282]

Did the leaker(s) sign the same Standard Form 312 I and every other government employee with access to classified information did?

Please take note of Paragraph 3:

3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Also, please note paragraph 4:

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United StatesCode, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence IdentitiesProtection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right toprosecute me for any statutory violation.

It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.

The only Al Qaida Affiliates

[Philip K Dickhead]

In the US are in the CIA.

I'll probably get more Troll mods for this one. It's not.

http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/ 002721.html

http://invisionfree.com/forums/4th_Space_Cafe/inde x.php?showtopic=285&view=getnewpost

Re:Wrong.

[Mr. Slippery]

Not to be an ass, but what secret CIA prisons? The ones that the EU investigated and found no proof of...

Ahem.

"The CIA has, on several occasions, clearly been responsible for kidnapping and illegally detaining alleged terrorists on the territory of (EU) member states, as well as for extraordinary renditions," Claudio Fava said in his first interim report of the European Parliament's probe into the alleged CIA abuses.

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" for you, but I'm afraid that reality once again is showing a liberal bias.

Re:Standard Police procedure

[jsac]

We know that they did not bother with such technicalities. They explicitly refused to get an order from the FISA court, when Qwest asked for one.

Re:The most worrying part...

[chgros]

Without reading the article, it's not obvious at first glance which country the summary's referring to...
Well, any country with a New-York and a Washington.

Shocking recollections in spite of Godwin's Law

[D4C5CE]

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?

Then at least the arguments of someone even higher up in that particular hierarchy that's fortunately history probably will...give everyone the creeps:
Shirer (1959) has this translation:

If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge (oberster Gerichtsherr) of the German people.

Re:Good stuff!

[TubeSteak]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tru thiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

The truthiness of this statement is 100%

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is almost too appropriate. I mean, they are going after people who are leaking things about illegal programs using those illegal programs!!! All the while being under investigation for leaking things!!!

Plus, they're denying security clearances to the people who are investigating them: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12727867

Everybody who wants to do something wrong/illegal/unethical, just take a lesson from this administration: do it as BLATANTLY as possible, then say you have your reasons, and don't say anything else. You'll get away with it.

You on a fact-free diet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Billy went through the legal process (look up FISA). Bully does not.

Nice "talking points", Mr. Shill.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.

Today was my first day at work. In addition to filling out paperwork for benefits, medical forms, and getting a little badge, I signed a paper containing an Oath of Office:

I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Sometimes leakers have to decide between their oath to keep things secret, and their oath to defend the Constitution. Heaven forbid I should be placed in such a situation, but if I do I pray I have the strength to do the right thing.

Re:I got $20 that says Fox News won't be checked.

[Facekhan]

FOX actually stands for Fueling Our Xenophobia.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[EQ]

Shamne is you have one point completely wrong:

The "wiretapping" is legal - as long as at lesat one end is in a forgien nation, the NSA, as directed by the PResidane under article III of the Constitution, does have the power to "wiretap" without warrant. This goes back to WW2 and FDR.

As for the CIA secret prisons - try fact checking - the Boston Globe (hardly a right wind bastion that) investigated as did others and there is no evidence that such prisons exist or existed - the conlcusion many have come to is that it was a fabricated story used to entrap leakers.

"I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks."

And you were trained as an intellgience analyst when and where? Your criticisms of this on an intelligence basis are as invlaid as they would be to a neurosurgeon (unles you happned to be either an intelligence analyst or a neurosurgeon of course - then again you're posting flames to slashdot so...)

Certainly such severe accusations as you make require at least amodicum of proff, none of which has been produced.

Stop the conspiracy truck, take off the tinfol hat and *gather*evidence* - all of it, not jsut what agrees with you and dont discard that which disagrees with you (like evidence that there is atrror thret to the US). Paranoid hysteria is not the right way to bring such charges (your error), nor is it a way to secure the nation against an implacable enemy (Bush's error).

Re:Yeah!

[finkployd]

As for the definition of covert status, look it up yourself. Oh, wait you already did that, but in true MMoore fashion, you ignore and hope nobody will bother to find out for themselves.

Oh no you do not. Take it back, that is a massive (pun intended) insult :P

Let's play this game. She was not a covert agent, there was nothing wrong with "outing" her (in fact as non covert, she can't be outed). We both can accept that so far right?

So why did the CIA throw a hissy fit when her non-covert identity was revealed? Why was Bush so upset that he (1) said that nobody in his admin leaked her non-covert identity, (2) if anyone did they would be fired and (3) appoint a special prosecutor to find the source of the leak. For that matter why was a reporter held in jail over the leak of a non-covert agent?

Can someone please explain why Bush would waste so much time, effort, and money if there was no problem with revealing her identity?

Are we just supposed to pretend he didn't say this?

"Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." --10/7/03

Or this?

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." --7/18/05

Both of these are reponses to direction questions regarding Plame, not NSA wiretapping, not our CIA torture chambers, not any of the other things that they are pissed were revealed - Plame. So why say these things instead of just coming out and saying "It is a non-issue, she is not covert, and I can unclassify anything I damn well please. Next question". While that answer would have probably pissed off some, I would have welcomed the rare honesty.

Look, I am not a Bush basher by trade, and I consider myself pretty conservative (in the Gingrich/Regan sense) but I am also not an idiot. I know the constitution and I can detect hair splitting, sorry excuses bullshit when I hear it. Everything lately coming out of this admin regarding NSA spying, warrantless games, and the Plame affair sounds a whole lot like total weaseling bullshit. The defenses for these actions are getting weak and pathetic to the point where I cannot imagine how anyone is delivering them with a straight face. It seems only those paralysed by fear that Osama is lurking in every shadow and blinded by the belief that the government can do no wrong are still buying it. The rallying cry is "we are at war, the president can do everything he wants. Anyone calling for oversight or accountability in governemnt wants our children to die".

It still amuses me that those who somehow believe that Islamic terrorists are only after us because they hate our freedom consider removing those freedoms the best protection.

Finkployd

Re:Quick Question

[igaborf]

The differences are:

1) The IRS is collecting information openly, with the acquiescence, albeit grudging, of the American people.

2) The IRS' use of the collected information is constrained by law, and they follow those rules.

3) The IRS' activity is monitored by Congress, which can and does call IRS officials to account for the actions of the agency.

Get it now?

moronic

[commodoresloat]

I can't believe I'm taking this bait but here we go. If Valerie was not covert, the CIA would never have asked for an investigation. If leaking her name was legal, the whole issue could have been settled with a simple phone call (not even a tapped one!) from Fitzgerald to the CIA. The CIA is the only entity in any position to tell us whether or not VPW was covert. Finally, Scooter is being charged with lying and obstructing justice, not with violating the IIPA.

These people defending Libby make me sick. It's one thing to minimize the nature of his crime, or to claim that the CIA wasn't doing a very good job of protecting VPW's cover, but it is quite another to act like Scooter is some kind of hero for this. Who knew that the Republican party would have a wing that is openly pro-treason.

Section 2701?

[TubeSteak]

I'm surprised no one has called you on this yet.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html

I read Section 2701 and all the Sections it references: 2703, 2704, 2518
For good measure, I read 2702.

None of those sections ever state that the FBI/Police can get any information without a warrant or subpoena signed by a judge.

Your statement that: "The surprising thing is that they dont even need a warrant - a simple "Section 2701" court order suffices - and the law even orders that the judge "Shall Issue" such an order when it comes to these kinds of records," is only partially correct. I say partially, because instead of a warrant, they can get a subpoena.

The law says nothing about 'the judge "Shall Issue"'

If you had read the law you referenced, you would have learned that the police/FBI must detail with specificity who/what/when/where/why in their application for a subpoena or warrant.

Possibly you meant Section 2709?
Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

To get any information that way, "The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director" must certify that their request(s) "are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"

And that section of the law requires that the FBI inform Committees in both the House and Senate on a semi-annual basis.

Midterm Elections in 6 months

[Phoenix666]

The only way to change this situation is to get a Democratic majority in Congress. Sorry, Republicans and Independents, the Republican majority has already substantially demonstrated they have no interest in protecting and upholding the Constitution. They must out. A Democratic majority will investigate and impeach, and the Republic will be safe once again. Conservatives have an edge in SCOTUS; fine, they can stay for a while so we have balance again. But the administration and corrupt members of Congress must be impeached and imprisoned.

How do you make this happen? Work for a Democratic candidate where you live and help elect them. If you're in New York, there's a great organization called New Democratic Majority (newdemmajority.org) that has been working since 2003 on the grassroots level to win seats back from Republicans. Elsewhere there are lots of organizations working on the same thing. Pick one and pitch in. Personally, I like grassroots because you can do more interesting things than stuff envelopes, but pick whatever suits your fancy. Just do something. Heck, even if you're a disaffected Republican, it's really important to the future of the country that you put your shoulder to the wheel too. There are lots of groups that aren't loosie-goosie hippy-cum-bleeding hearts, in fact. Most are eminently reasonable and pragmatic.

Just do it!

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[cold fjord]

You should reread the article. The Justice Department wasn't reviewing the NSA program, an office in the Justice Department wanted to review the role of the Justice Department's own lawyers who were advising the NSA. This looks like it may have been politically motivated at the request of Rep. Maurice Hinchey.

A key sentence in the article is this:

In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of their own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.

To put is simply, this was never their turf to begin with. They overstepped their authority and were denied. Nothing to see.

With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.

The public has no right to know the details of the most highly classified intelligence programs the country has. How do you think that 300,000,000 people are going to keep the secret from the bad guys? Oversight is the role of Congress and the rest of the Executive branch. Congress was notified, as is customary, and the Court was briefed about this program.

A significant part of your fear seems to be based on misunderstanding.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[joss]

> We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government.
> There is a huge difference.

No, there really isn't. In no war that I can think of did
the aggressors not claim they were attacking the regime
rather that the country or its people. eg Germany claimed,
and even somewhat believed, that when they invaded Russia
they would be greated as liberators for freeing the Russian
people from Stalin's yoke. [btw, fuck Godwin]

> FYI, you forget a couple of things: the term "illegal"
> has no meaning outside the context of a nation,
> and "war crimes" is supposed to describe actual crimes
> committed during wartime, not simply an unjust war itself.
> Tone down the rhetoric.

Part of a nations law depends on the treaties that it has signed up for.
A signed treaty is considered by the constitution to be legally binding
so breaking it is illegal.

> "war crimes" is supposed to describe actual crimes
> committed during wartime, not simply an unjust war itself.

Wrong again, launching a war of agression is the number one war
crime from which all others flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

What is it, opposite day ?

Opinions?

[Lagged2Death]

I wish people such as yourself would stop confusing "strong opinion" for "fact".

Could you be more specific? I don't think I'm doing that here.

Speak softly and carry a big stick; which in this case would be credible (read: not left-leaning blogs) citations.

You're implying that my sources are no good without actually making a specific accusation.

My three links were:

1) A video and transcript of the opening of the Senate Judiciary Committee session. A factual record, not an opinion piece.

2) A Washington Post news story. Not an opinion piece. Not a left-leaning blog.

3) Remarks concerning the PATRIOT act by President George W. Bush, which included links to the official transcripts.

None of these items are matters of "strong opinion," and I frankly think that would be clear from even a cursory examination of the actual linked pages rather than just the domain names. The sources in these cases are ultimately 1) The Senate 2) The Attorney General 3) The President.

Phone Evasion tips for Reporters and Leakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Purchase prepaid cell phones!

A completely anonymous cell phone loaded with a few hundred minutes can be had for under $50. I've seen some for as little as $29. Some companies like TracFone specialize in this market, but many leading cell phone companies are now into the game. For instance, one can walk up to any T-Mobile outlet and purchase any of their prepaid phones. They may ask for a name and contact info, but for cash transactions no ID is necessary, any name given will be accepted.

Purchasing a phone at a retail outlet or convenience store is even easier and more anonymous; they'll never even ask for contact information. Some phones purchased at retail are packaged with only a very small number of minutes. Additional minutes can often be purchased online, but that would defeat the purpose of this exercise. Typically, the retailers that sell these phones also sell phone cards specific to the phone.

Some other keys to staying anonymous with a prepaid cell phone:

ONLY purchase with cash. This should be obvious, but both the cell phone and any prepaid cards should be purchased with cash.

ONLY use the phone to call your contact. If the phone is EVER used to call your home, your work, or any of the people you typically call, then an investigation of the Local Usage Details (LUDs) from those other phones could tip investigators to the presence of the prepaid cell phone.

Regarding the recently revealed NSA phone number database. Reports suggest the NSA has developed a "spider" technology allowing suspect numbers to be easily associated and identified. One might gather that the phone numbers of prepaid, anonymous cell phones would be of particular interest to the NSA. These phones may even be automatically red-flagged by the system. One can see how the use of this anonymous phone to make even a single call to the phone owner's home or office could completely compromise the phone's anonymity.

Keep the phone OFF except when using it for a call. Better yet, take out the battery.

Don't ever turn the prepaid phone on while at or near your work or home, not even to simply verfiy that it is working. When a cell phone is on, the physical location of the phone can be determined by triangulating the phone's signal between any 3 cell phone towers. No, this isn't GPS, but it may as well be.

Location triangulation has been possible as long as cell phone networks have been around, even in the analog days. No mater the age or design of the phone, this triangulation is technically feasible. (Many if not most of the "GPS trackers" used by law enforcement and other investigators don't use GPS at all, they use the triangulation capability of the cellular network to follow suspects. So if one were worried that such a tracker had been attached to their vehicle, one may wish to invest in a cell phone jammer...)

While there is no evidence that this triangulated location information is being stored or shared with the government, one must remember that modern cell phone switches are just computers. And as computers, these switches are certainly "capable" of storing the location history of any cell phone, as long as that phone is turned on.

Don't forget, the location of your every-day personal cell phone can be triangulated as well. So if you plan to keep your personal cell phone or Blackberry (Blackberry uses cellular networks) with you while making the illicit call, turn them off well before activating the anonymous prepaid phone. For these protections to be complete, one would turn them off in another location. Even better, leave any personal cellular devices at home or at work, then relocate yourself before activating the prepaid phone.

Use one phone per contact. If you have multiple contacts, purchase multiple phones.

When done with the phone, wipe the memory, wipe the phone for prints and leave the working phone (with charger) at a bus stop or ot

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[SmokedS]

Basing a war on lies is wrong for the person who does it, but our soldiers, the people GP was talking about, did not base their actions in this ware on lies. They based them on fairly accurate opinions of the Iraq situation built up over the last 12 years.

You know I'm amazed some americans still believe this.

The Downing street memo
Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq
Bush talking on the political advantages of war in 99

We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government. There is a huge difference. The country as a whole still suffers consequences, but that doesn't diminish the distinction.

The people of Iraq may not agree. I sure as hell don't. Collateral damage is newspeak:
U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq
THE REAL WMD'S IN IRAQ - OURS
Displaced Iraqis 'living like animals'
'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
The Missing Girls of Iraq