Slashdot Mirror
US Justice Department Dug Up Reporter's Phone, Bank Records
tripleevenfall writes "A court filing provides new details about the extraordinary measures Justice Department prosecutors are using to identify government leakers. Prosecutors obtained a suspect's telephone, credit and bank records. Lucy Dalglish, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said, 'This tells us the Obama administration will do almost anything to figure out who is leaking government information.'"
...journalists should learn about Tor, email encryption, steganography, and other privacy protecting technologies. It is unfortunate, but if journalists wish to protect their sources, these are the lengths they will have to go to (if not now, then in the near future).
Palm trees and 8
The summary says prosecutors obtained the suspect's records. But the title has it right; DoJ pulled bank and credit records on someone not suspected of a crime. If I were the news man, I'd demand to see the warrant.
What's next? Slashdotters complain that the US Gov doesn't nothing to locate leaks because they are incompetent? Can't have it both ways...
Of course we can -- it's Slashdot!
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You're wrong.
Leaking GWB gov secrets is good
Leaking BHO gov secrets is bad
Or Visa Versa. People want it both was all the time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, because the terrorists, criminals and child pornographers win unless we stoop to their level.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Should read
"This tells us the Obama Administration will do everything that the Bush Administration did"
And that applies to a lot more than just matters of "national security".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How, exactly, is this news?
I think this is supposed to be news because the President who did it wasn't named 'Bush'. Though we generally expected more from Obama (eg, less of this stuff) we're all being reminded that whomever runs the show acts more like the one they replaced then we wanted/hoped.
No, Obama hasn't been in for 6 years. However, we are in the start of the 11th year of the Bush Administration and their agenda.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
TFA specifically says that they haven't commented yet on which administration, Obama or Bush, was the one that actually began the investigation
Why would it matter? The two administrations have repeatedly made the same decisions at every opportunity thus far. We were led to believe that Obama was going to do things differently, instead what we see is that Obama is doing things exactly the same as Bush. Had Bush managed to steal a third term in office, we would have likely seen the exact same policies come to fruit that we've seen since Obama's inauguration in 2009.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Repeal the Patriot act? Hell, on Friday he signed a three-month extension of it.
They are investigating a crime. The guy they pulled the records on is directly linked to it (albeit not a suspect himself due to the nature of the law). They've got a warrant for it too, right and proper. And it's not something unusual in general - quote :
because subpoenas for financial records are standard practice in criminal investigations, there is no reason for the Justice Department not to use them to obtain records from journalists in leak probes. The data from credit and bank records would allow prosecutors to home in on where journalists have traveled, lunches or dinners they might have paid for, and other information that could help identify their sources for a story, the former prosecutor said.
So what's the big deal?
From the article:
Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, declined to comment on the court filing or say whether department subpoenas for Risenâ(TM)s bank and credit reports occurred under President Barack Obamaâ(TM)s attorney general, Eric Holder, or earlier, during the Bush administration, when the investigation into Sterling began. A lawyer for Risen also declined comment.
So we don't actually know under which administration the subpoenas were issued.
Therefore most of the comments on the story putting forth the idea that Obama = Bush in this case are speculation. It's also interesting to note that the information was obtained with subpoena, so due process was followed.
It's news because it is yet another example of Obama's public campaign (and in-office) lies. This is yet another promise he made during his campaign and in office (protecting confidential news sources) that he broke at the first opportunity, and continues to do.
Let's face it: Obama tends to say one thing publicly, then behind everybody's back does the opposite. By now you can't convince me that it isn't his real policy, because he's done it too often.
because we had the press vigorously pursuing every perceived and real attack on our privacy and rights while he was there. Now I am stuck with Fox to do it and have to screen everything they print/show to make sure I am not falling for something from the paranoia side. Worse, all those screaming voices on the Democratic side of Congress are woefully silent with regards to everything our President chooses to do.
If the press rode his ass like they did Bush we would be better off, it might make him live up to his promises/promise. Now all I want is to see him a one term President so we have a chance of something better next time.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There seems to be this delusion that the USA is a dictatorship, where the President can simply enact or repeal any law he desires.
Contrast that with reality -- it is Congress that makes the laws, and the President can, at best, ask them to make laws he likes, or veto newly passed laws that he doesn't like.
Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?
Sorry but if someone is not prepared to take responsibility for the actions of their underlings then they are not fit to be in a position of authority. It's alright, plenty of people are not cut out for leadership just like plenty of people are not computer technicians. I don't buy the phony distinction of "conscious policies" and "unconscious policies". If you are in charge and you don't know what your underlings are doing, you're incompetent; if you're in charge and you know what your underlings are doing and you do not require them to change, it is because you approve whether this approval is stated or unstated.
Anyone who thinks that's a tough standard is free to find a job less demanding than the Presidency.
I would say that if that's all it takes to get someone to believe a lie, especially about anything important, then their love of truth and commitment to objectivity were non-existent anyway. They are soft-minded, naive, and their deceit is inevitable. The only question is who will fool them first. I wish it weren't so easy to deceive so many people but that's the reality.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The party and political inclination of the POTUS has everything to do with it. When W was elected, his DoJ decided to stop investigating/charging MS for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, although Clinton's DoJ put a lot of time/money into it. Now O's DoJ has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and unenforceable, something that W's DoJ would never have done. Different administrations, different slants on things.
- doug
PS: I'm not saying that W or O had any direct influence over either of these choices. But the president does get to nominate a lot of the top people in the DoJ, and everyone in the executive branch works for the president. And it is a good thing that the president's views come out in DoJ, because that is the whole point of having elections.
Excuse me, but often today's leaker turns out to be tomorrow's hero.
For example, after the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, it showed that a number of presidents had lied to the American people and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. That leak helped to end the Vietnam war.
Daniel Ellsberg, the leaker and the first person ever to be prosecuted for a leak in the United States, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. This act had been designed for espionage and, until that time, had never been used for anything else except to prosecute spies: those who act with the express intent to harm the US or help a foreign power. However, against Ellsberg they used a clause within the act that says only those with legal authority may publish classified documents. The same clause is now being used against Bradley Manning.
Why use the Espionage Act against leakers? Because, unlike Great Britain, the US has never had an Official Secrets Act: a law that would criminalize any and all disclosure of classified information. Efforts have been made by Congress to pass one -- the last time under Bill Clinton (which he vetoed) -- but this has never succeeded, because lawmakers have always considered that it would be too much at odds with the First Amendment. Yet, that's the way the Espionage Act is now being used.
Finally, is it not highly ironic that, even as the government prosecutes Bradley Manning, the State Dept. is promoting a documentary film that celebrates Daniel Ellsberg and his leaking of the Pentagon Papers? (see this link).
You're saying that Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to obtain this information?
Wow, that's like no other government I've ever seen, and I've lived and paid taxes in a lot of countries. Mostly, what I've seen is governments that are not under the effective control of any one person. Most large bureacracies are so ponderous that even very deliberate changes in official policy have marginal effect on entrenched attitudes and behavior. But I guess the United States must be an exception. Obama has some special power to change all this, a power that he's failing to exercise?
In a word: yes. He has. The U.S. has three branches of government. The President has no direct control over the legislative and judicial branches. However, the President is the undisputed leader of the executive branch. Every other member of the executive branch is his subordinate. If the head of an executive department will not comply with the President's wishes, the President can fire that person and replace them with someone else.
For example, Obama disagrees with what is called the "Defense of Marriage Act". Eric Holder is the Attorney General, that is, Holder is the head of the Department of Justice. The DoJ is part of the executive branch. Obama has directly instructed Holder to refuse to enforce this particular law. Holder has three choices in the matter: 1) comply with Obama's order, 2) refuse to comply and be fired and replaced, or 3) resign and be replaced. (Incidentally, this is an attack against the concept of rule of law -- the way we are supposed to deal with laws we don't like is to get them changed, not to selectively enforce them, but I digress).
Obama could absolutely require the DoJ to stop obtaining this information. He doesn't do this for one reason and one reason alone: he does not wish to.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
slightly off-topic, but what Obama did with regards DOMA was about as huge a grab on executive power as you can get. He's basically decided that he shall be King and decide which laws he likes to enforce and which he does not. We are now at the point that whatever political party comes to power will simply non-enforce laws with which they disagree. Even if Obama had legit concerns over this law (or any other) it is SCOTUS, not President, who determines the constitutionality.
I predict that anyone with media presence who seriously raises that question will be portrayed in the rest of the media as some kind of irrational lunatic. Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
These days you're some kind of nutter if you want to know whether your elected leaders are legitimate. A nice catchy word will be coined for you, like "Birther", and by repeated association it will come to mean something like "devil". I say we should not have such unresolved questions about the holder of our highest office, and if someone wishes to have maximum privacy that person can always choose not to become a public figure with a great deal of political power. But what do we actually get? Excuses, obstruction, a "certificate of live birth" that means next to nothing, and a great deal of effort to make sure that attempts to resolve what should have been a simple and straightforward matter are widely ridiculed.
It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad. It's a classic smear job. The message there is quite clear: sit down and shut up, applaud when we tell you to, and enjoy the pep rally, or we will invade your privacy and air your dirty laundry. It's disgusting.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Blame travels up the chain of command. The pervasive abuses carried out by DOJ, FBI, and others year after year are not the result of a bunch of peons/scapegoats acting alone, it's them reacting to the guidance of their supervisors. Their supervisors, in turn, react to the guidance of their superiors all the way up to the president.
That doesn't mean that each and every individual action is the President's personal responsibility, but it does mean that the pattern of behavior is his responsibility.
I was already quite confident that you're not Barack H. Obama. That's why it wasn't a literal suggestion. It was a way of making a point. The point is that anyone who wants to be President is going to have the entire executive branch at his or her disposal if they are elected. If that is too much for them, if it is beyond their leadership abilities, then there are better and more fit candidates available. I'll never understand why people are so eager to give Obama a pass on this when the inability to get your subordinates on board with your intentions is a very bad trait for a President.
(emphasis added)
You don't understand why that statement contradicts itself, do you?
Also, do tell me why he would need infinite time? The President interacts with members of his Cabinet to get these things done. In case you don't know, that's a small roomful of people. Each person in the Cabinet is the head of an executive branch department. All Obama would need to do is announce to his Cabinet "from now on, this is how we're going to operate". It would be up to each department head to either get it done or be replaced by someone who can. Have you never seen how any large institution is managed? By your logic no CEO could ever be expected to have any control over a company. You're clutching at straws here.
Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.
Bear in mind that his entire platform was "change". Specifically, he called it "change you can believe in". What part of retaining holdovers who still want to do things the way the old administration did things constitutes "change", exactly? One of the biggest reasons Obama was elected is because people were getting tired of the police-state bullshit Bush was doing. This is more of the same, only now it's not under Bush's watch. That means we can add hypocrisy to everything else I have already explained.
Look, if you think no one should ever call out Obama's failures because he's such a great guy, so charismatic, because you like him so much, etc., that's fine, but call it the emotional argument that it is and acknowledge that you are disregarding the facts of the matter. If you want to be consistent, you can also view Bush's actions through such rose-tinted "but he couldn't possibly have done any better" glasses, but it's understandable if that is too much to ask since he's far less charismatic. That charisma is more important than a hard look at the facts of the matter, isn't it? If you're likable you get away with murder. If you're not, people question your every step. How typical.
Ignorance alone isn't so bad. Ignorance that does not recognize itself is a great definition of naivete. When people are ignorant about a thing and proceed as though they were not ignorant about that thing, then they are being stupid. For example, I am quite ignorant about neurosurgery, and that's okay because I won't be operating on anyone's brain. It
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I seem to remember Bush getting railed all the time for just about anything
You remember wrong. Nobody asked Bush any of the important or difficult questions, especially when they should have and it may have made a change. From the start, Bush got a free ride - and the Republican noise machine took care to drown any questions, and to paint all dissenters as un-American, traitors or worse.
Here are just a few examples (we could easily find hundreds more): Bush's whole budgeting was based on the projection that the economy will continue growing forever as it had during the Clinton years; however, when the economy tanked in 2000, nobody asked why he doesn't have a plan B, and why does he continue with his tax cuts. When he doubled the deficit, nobody asked him what he plans to do about it - Cheney even famously said "Deficits don't matter", and nobody challenged him. Nobody asked why it's a good idea to divert resources to Iraq instead of using them to get Osama and destroy Al-Quaeda when there was a chance. Nobody asked where the famous weapons of mass destruction are, nor did they ask why Bush and his cabinet pressured analysts, distorted facts and wilfully ignored all the information about the real situation in Iraq. Nobody asked him to resign when it was shown he had lied to America and the world about the WMDs, and he had pushed the country into the longest and probably the most expensive war it ever got into. Nobody asked why he's naming incompetent but loyal Republican cronies to handle the administration of the conquered countries, leading to the complete current mess America still pays for. Everybody on Slashdot is probably aware of the FISA court issues, but nobody asked Bush why is he breaking the laws of the nation and the constitution he'd sworn to uphold,
And it goes on, and on; what amazes me the most is that there still are people ready to defend him even after all the outrageous stuff he did.
Name one president who kept every promise, or even most of them?
you can't because there are none.
what does that say about our government?
That it's the kind of government a bunch of fat, stupid, shallow, naive, emotionally childish busybodies have made for themselves.
You may think that's malicious. When it's not what anyone would ever want to hear, the truth can seem that way.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
One problem, with precedent, is what if the executive branch declines to enforce the law, especially if the majority gain from the law not being enforced?
I am not comparing Obama with Jackson, but just using a historical event to illustrate a weakness in our checks and balances. Look up Indian Removal Act or Worcester vs. Georgia. My favorite quote from that bit of history:
John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can. - Andrew Jackson
.
Remember too, that legal != just, further muddying the water.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
Just like the smear job that was performed against those who wanted to know if this man who was completely unknown prior to suddenly becoming President and spent a great deal of his childhood in Kenya does, in fact, meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen.
Dude, you are smearing yourself. If you can't tell the difference between Indonesia and Kenya - a country Obama never saw before his 25th birthday - you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.
It's a group application of a similar strategy to the one that was used on Joe the Plumber, if you remember him. He asked the President some decently tough, decidedly non-scripted questions. Next thing you know, the media starts trying to dig up dirt on him and leaves no stone unturned in an effort to make him look bad
Gee, as I remember it the GOP adopted him as a postertool and THAT is what caused anyone to give a damn about his background. Funny how he now thinks McCain and Palin used him for their own purposes. Surprised it took him so long to figure it out.
Just because you see conspiracy doesn't mean there is one, chances are the problem is you just don't have enough information.
Sooooo, it would be okay then for the DOJ to have standing taps on all communications going to all reporters and reporting agencies? After all, criminals, including those illegally reporting illegal activity, would go to reporters.
No, because you need to be investigating some specific crime first, one that you know has happened. Furthermore, you need strong evidence that the reporter in question has actually been in contact with the person who is either the perpetrator or an accomplice.
Would the DOJ, or your local law enforcement, be okay to trail you, because you met with a suspected criminal?
Depends. If, after said meeting, I have communicated some information that indicates that I have talked to him about criminal matters, and if they believe the subpoena may help pin the suspect down, then sure - so long as they get a proper warrant (i.e. can convince the judge that all of the above hold true).
Back in the day, some (LAPD comes to mind first) agencies would tap pay phones, just trolling ALL of the conversations
That is illegal.
Maybe the first question ought to be do the ends justify the means?
Depends on the ends and the means. Mass "preemptive" surveillance is never justifiable. Surveillance of one particular person, when the "end" is specific and not vague, and when there is reasonable belief that it may be of help, can be justifiable.
I'm not sure I buy this.
When Bush did this stuff, no one could say they were surprised. Whatever you might say about the Republicans, you can't say they're deceitful. They're completely blatant and open about their motives and methods. The Democrats are worse, because they try to convince you that they're for "hope and change", that they're completely the opposite of the "evil Republicans", but when they're in power, they do the exact same thing. The Democrats are deceitful liars, and con artists.
When you vote for Republicans, at least you know that you're voting for people who will destroy the environment, quash your personal liberties, persecute you if you're a homosexual, etc. The Democrats, however, campaign on promises that they'll change these things, but instead, when they're in power, they destroy the environment (check out Ken Salazar's actions; he's a big proponent of shooting wolves from helicopters just like Sarah Palin), quash your personal liberties (TSA's Enhanced Groping Procedures came out under Obama), and persecute you if you're a homosexual (Obama directed his DOJ to defend the DOMA in courts).
At least the Democrat voters can genuinely claim they were duped.
Because if he changed it merely to get his ticket punched, it'll whither on the vine after the next election.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Interesting... I don't know a single "liberal" who likes Obama at this point. Almost every progressive person I talk to says Obama is a disgrace. From where I'm sitting here's his track record:
80% - Percent of Campaign Promises Broken
18% - Percent of Campaign Promises he attempted to fullfill knowing ahead of time they would not, to give the illusion he is "trying"
2% - Percent of Campaign Promises he has actually kept (usually the conservative ones with a few exceptions).
Government employees leaking information is still a federal criminal offense. From TFS, it doesn't appear like his administration did anything outside of standard police investigation to locate a suspected leak.
This rhetoric of "will do almost anything" is entirely ridiculous... when he starts TORTURING people for information, and confessions, then you can start telling me that he will "do almost anything", until then, it looks like he's willing to use proper due process to accomplish a justifiable goal.
"But it's not the transparency he promised us! *whine whine whine*" Look, I know you're upset that he hasn't been as transparent as you would like, and I would agree in some respects. He has however been perhaps one of the most transparent administrations in modern history. If you're complaining about him not being entirely and wholly transparent, wtf? He can't do that. There is still sensitive government information that we would like to keep close to the chest... it's just the way things go.
Obama is not being some megalomaniac dictator with this action, and he's not being against transparency... he simply wants to control at least some information flow.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Actually I think you may have it reversed. I think Obama's tepid defense of those policies was politics over principles. I think Obama may have abandoned those policies as it's now clear that he gains nothing from defending them. You do have to remember that Obama is a centrist politician who believes in bridging people's differences and bringing about consensus. He's not doing very well at that because he fails to recognize that the Republicans have the opposite goal. They intend to get elected by creating divisions and exploiting them.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Of course, sometimes people who are portrayed in the media as irrational lunatics are just that. As I understand, Obama's campaign released a scanned copy of his birth certificate in June 2008. Bush's eligibility should have been more questionable since there was documented evidence that he should have been dishonorably discharged for dereliction of duty. Hell, even McCain wasn't born in the United States (but he's a natural-born citizen because both his parents were).
Snopes
Politifact
You might be forgiven for asking those questions in 2008, but now, you're just a desperate lunatic clinging to your own delusions.
Fanatically anti-fanatical