Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
Tue May 14, 2013, 12:52 PM May 2013

When you obtain someone's phone records to determine EVERYONE they called, that is spying.

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Justice Department Subpoena of AP Journalists Shows Need to Protect Calling Records


According to the AP, "the records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery." In all it included more than 20 telephone lines from April and May 2012.

....

The widespread collection of information, as well as the apparent delay in notifying AP, both appear to be yet another violation the government's own regulations, 28 C.F.R. sec. 50.10. In 2010, the DOJ Inspector General reported on three other violation, involving the Washington Post and New York Times. The regulations require that, "wherever possible" subpoenas of records of the news media should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter, should cover a reasonably limited period of time and should avoid requiring production of a large volume of unpublished material."

None of those limits appear to have been observed here. It seems impossible to imagine how a subpoena for all the records of call to and from AP's main switchboard, for example, is as narrowly tailored as the law required. Importantly, the regulations anticipate negotiation with the news media prior to subpoena, which also didn't occur. And in any event the regulations require notification to the news media within 45 days of any receipt of any information. with another 45 days possible with additional authorization. Since the timeframe of the records is a year ago, it seems likely that the government did not abide by this regulation either. While the regulations do not allow a lawsuit, violations of them can be grounds for discipline for governmental officials.

It is disturbing enough that the government appears to have violated its own regulations for subpoenas to the news media. However, this revelation also shows that we have a severe problem in protecting the privacy of our communications. It is critical to update our privacy laws and our understanding of the Constitution, and reflect the realities of what law enforcement can determine from our records and other metadata about our communications stored with our communications providers, be they phone companies, ISPs or social networks.


https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/doj-subpoena-ap-journalists-shows-need-protect-calling-records
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
2. And if they don't know the numbers called? How else would they find out?
Tue May 14, 2013, 12:59 PM
May 2013

It would be 'spying' if they wiretapped the lines. They did not. They requested phone records, and most likely in a legal manner.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
3. Overly broad, done in secret, and targeting journalists for reporting
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:11 PM
May 2013

leaks that originated from their own administration.

EFF's point is that, even if legal (and we haven't a clue as to the legal justifications for it yet), the laws need to be changed to protect personal privacy and journalists. We should have Constitutional protection from 3rd party collaborators.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
5. Press freedom is not the same thing as subpoenaing phone records.
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:17 PM
May 2013

Leaks of national security documents need to be taken seriously. I WOULD have an issue with the DOJ tapping a reporter's phone lines if not done with the proper authorization and oversight.

But getting numbers and times -no content- from the phone companies? I don't think it's all that worrisome. Again, if done legally and with proper oversight. Details are still sketchy about this aspect.

Done in 'secret' is AP's take on this and they are biased. The DOJ is under no obligation to go out of its way to inform AP of its investigations, even -or especially so- when they are a part of the investigation.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
7. Two months worth and over 100 journalists affected. It is a fishing
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:22 PM
May 2013

expedition and bound to turn up far more information on sources than the alleged target of this "investigation".

Everything is fucking national security these days and the government doesn't even have to illustrate that assertion. They merely have to say the words, with no probable cause, and the judicial branch rolls over.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
13. So what's the acceptable number of journalists for you?
Tue May 14, 2013, 02:42 PM
May 2013

Given that we know nothing about how the subpoena was issued and how the DOJ needed to go about finding the information it wanted, I think it's premature to assume anything at this point.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
14. None. Journalists should be able to ensure confidential relationship with their sources.
Tue May 14, 2013, 02:52 PM
May 2013

The DOJ went about this backwards. They should have subpoenaed the communications of suspected leaker in the admin rather than go after a fishing expedition against journalists.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
4. Oh, that "freedom of the press" thingy is soooo 1789. And, so very inconvenient.
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:16 PM
May 2013

We should just trust the government...it never, ever, lies or tries to hide what it's doing to..er,..for the people

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. When you
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:18 PM
May 2013

"When you obtain someone's phone records to determine EVERYONE they called, that is spying."

...subpoena phone records, that's called an investigation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022840983
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841561

"According to the AP"

The initial reaction to this story is based on the AP's account of events, and the conclusion are faulty. The journalists were not the targets.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
8. As if journalism won't be negatively affected. Who would be wllling to be a source
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:28 PM
May 2013

under these conditions. It was bullshit when the government collaborated the telcos outright illegal spying, it was bullshit when the telcos were given immunity from prosecution, it IS bullshit that a secret legal framework has been established to allow this unfettered spying on citizens and journalists.


And I won't click on your water-carrying blue links.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
9. People
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:32 PM
May 2013

"As if journalism won't be negatively affected. Who would be wllling to be a source"

...whistleblowers? Leaking classified information doesn't make one a whistleblower, ask Scooter Libby.

President Signs Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021890422

"And I won't click on your water-carrying blue links."

Suit yourself.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
10. Yes. Because information should ONLY be available to the public when approved by
Tue May 14, 2013, 01:36 PM
May 2013

the government. Those who act illegally should be investigated. Hands off the press.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»When you obtain someone's...