I dont even know what to say about this

[johnridley]

If even partially true, this is unconscionable. I\'m starting to believe that this administration will stop at **nothing**. We must have a free press, especially with an administration like this. But of course, they know that...


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

\"It\'s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,\" the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA\'s secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.

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.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.


(sorry about the backslashed quotes, I\'m posting via a proxy)

Comments

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

Let me get this straight: there was a press riot demanding that the Feds look into the the Valerie Plume leak, but henceforth no more leaks should be investigated?

What the heck did they think would happen? The can of worms is open, and it's not going to be easy to close the lid again.

And, of course, I have to wonder how much of this is pure paranoia. "Get a new cell phone" is a laugh — as if though changing the number is going to make a difference if the Justice Dept. is looking at your files?

[dek9.livejournal.com]

As someone else said about this "Somebody exhume McCarthy. He's missing out on all the fun."

The problem isn't that the Justice Department is looking at your phone records - in fact the problem is that the Justice Department ISN'T looking at your phone records. If there was some sort of judicial oversight of the program, people would be a lot happier (obviously I'm not just talking about this case).

Federal case law expressly prohibits the government from breaking into a journalist's home and stealing his/her notes regarding stories and sources. But phone records? We've already got a precedent for spying on phone calls without search warrants.

ABC states that the FBI told them is was being used to look backward for leaks. Remember, it was members of the press who went to jail to protect their informant in the Plame case.

The administration is trying to scare informants into hiding - keep them from leaking information that the government doesn't want out (as opposed to leaking information that they DO want out, like the name of a CIA operative married to someone publicly criticizing the current administration).

As an aside, there is a fascinating article in this month's Rolling Stone, about the administration's spin doctor (think Robert De Niro's from "Wag the Dog"). Can't seem to find the link at the moment - I'll try and dig it up if anyone is interested.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of different ideas jumbled together in the original post and in your reply.

First of all, if the Feds are pursuing a criminal investigation, then they will get a warrant to look at the records. If they have a warrent, then the idea that an "informant" inside the CIA has special privledges to disclose classified information at will, and that reporters are above the law when it comes to speaking to informants, is a popular but untrue notion.

The press raised a hue and cry over the Plume affair, then complained when the wrong reporters went to jail for refusing to testify as they are legally required to do.

As for scaring "informants" into hiding: why, yes, that's exactly the point. The "informants" disclose classified information, illegally — the laws exist to prevent those disclosures. Or are you arguing that post-hoc a court decide between "good" disclosures and "bad" disclosures, based on prevailing notions of political correctness and the personal predilictions of the judges?

[drsulak.livejournal.com]

The Valerie case is not the best to use as an example, since it appears it was sanctioned by the Administration.

Anyway, an administration vigorously pursuing (and dissuading) leakers is old news to seasoned reporters. Any administration is going to use all tools at their disposal. We rely on them to use useful *and* legal tools.

An open question here - since the NSA has had a significant fraction of all phone records since 2001, we should have already seen an effect. Unusual numbers of generals, administrators, analysts, etc should have been found out by now and charged (or at least "taken into custody"). I don't see this, so I'm left to postulate:
1.) Using this DB for leakers doesn't work - too many false positives to be useful
2.) So instead, it's being used as an additional method to scare leakers and reporters

This does not diminish the real fear the DB will be abused in other ways, but I think the reporter angle is overstated. For now.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

Excellent point, thank you for the ideas. However, I suspect that the database is being used for surveillance of terrorist networks, not for routine law enforcement.