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.
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?
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.
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
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).
Of course. These people have no principles. They believe in nothing other than their own indulgence and selfish advancement. Their most heart-felt beliefs are determined by the way the winds are blowing. They are utterly decadent and, if you will, soul-less. That's why the same police-state shit is okay if "their guy" is doing it, but a horrible outrage if the "other guy" does it. Really, the only thing they can't stand is that the puppet performing the action doesn't sport their logo.
It will be "change we can believe in!" all over again and people will eat that shit up because they so badly want to believe it. After the warm fuzzies start to fade away, it will be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". The masses will be surprised by this because they are shallow, so they see that this puppet figurehead is different from the last puppet figurehead -- what they fail to see is that the exact same economic and political forces choose all of the puppet figureheads. Fish in a barrel is what they are. It is what they will remain until they wake up and start wanting something better for themselves.
To further reinforce the point, I'll borrow a quote from Matthew Parris, regarding television shows:
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?
Yes, it is dishonest. They do that because it takes a lot of money and effort to produce a show and reach a large audience. The people who are putting up that money want some assurance that there will be a return on their investment. So they don't want just any person to offer just any opinion, because that's a wildcard, an unknown. They want exactly what they pay for.
Politics works this way. Only the fellow with the requisite political beliefs and lack of principles will be invited. The monied interests that lobby and pay for campaigns do this because it takes a lot of money and effort to fund a campaign and provide the support it takes to get someone into high office. They want a return on their investment in the form of someone who represents their interests. The voters are taken for granted, for time after time it is the well-funded darling of the media who is never seriously scrutinized, who is always portrayed as a great guy, who gets the votes.
Until you fix that it really doesn't matter what the President's name is.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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
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
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
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.
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).