DOJ Unconcerned About The Constitution, Obtained AP Reporters' Phone Records
from the freedom-of-the-press?-ha!-what's-that? dept
We've talked quite a bit about how the federal government has been pretty aggressively shattering any remnants of the 4th amendment, and while there are some parts of the 1st amendment that are still respected, our government doesn't always seem so keen on that one either. Apparently, they've decided to kill two birds with one stone recently, in obtaining a broad collection of phone records concerning Associated Press journalists, which is almost certainly in violation of the law. The AP only just found out about this on Friday, despite the data already being obtained, and covering more than 20 separate phone lines (including work, home and mobile phones) for multiple AP journalists -- and a period covering approximately two months in early 2012. The AP has sent a quite reasonably angry letter to Attorney General Holder about this collection.There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.The AP also (again, quite reasonably) notes that this appears to be a "serious interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news" and demand that the government destroy all copies of the data it received.
That the Department undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation, is particularly troubling.
The sheer volume of records obtained, most of which can have no plausible connection to any ongoing investigation, indicates, at a minimum, that this effort did not comply with 28 C.F.R. §50.10 and should therefore never have been undertaken in the first place. The regulations require that, in all cases and without exception, a subpoena for a reporter’s telephone toll records must be “as narrowly drawn as possible.’’ This plainly did not happen
This really is an incredibly broad move by the government. Especially when it comes to reporters, the government has generally respected the right for reporters to keep their sources private, even if this administration has been known to threaten reporters if they won't reveal sources. In case you're wondering the law here is pretty clear about the limitations on getting this kind of info.
There should be reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the information sought is essential to the successful investigation of that crime. The subpoena should be as narrowly drawn as possible; it should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period. In addition, prior to seeking the Attorney General's authorization, the government should have pursued all reasonable alternative investigation steps as required by paragraph (b) of this section.I'm sure that Eric Holder will try to tapdance around this one as well, but the claims here are very serious. On the positive side, perhaps this will finally help the press wake up to the continued expansion of the federal government's surveillance operations and their general disdain for the constitution if it helps them go after whoever they want. The press likes to go nuts when some startup accidentally leaks some data or tracks what people are doing online, but routinely ignores how the government seems to feel entitled to any bit of private data about anyone, often without a warrant. Perhaps having the press have their records taken will wake some of them up to the fact that it impacts them as well (perhaps even more than others).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, confidentiality, doj, eric holder, reporters, sources
Companies: associated press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We are now in a full-blown totalitarian state
Eric Holder is at least busy when he is spying on the 4th estate. Not so busy when he is avoiding investigating and prosecuting Too Big To Prosecutve bankers for being instrumental in some $15 trillion in global asset transfers from the middle to the upper classes (and counting at a pace of $160 billion per month).
In summary: Obama has a free ride from the press and he is even going to fuck that up....classic
So, let's see if the AP reporters finally take off their kneepads...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We are now in a full-blown totalitarian state
...and nobody cares."
Where have you been for the past decade+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We are now in a full-blown totalitarian state
Citizen Slave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We are now in a full-blown totalitarian state
They are the ones who should be screaming on the front pages about corruption and government blackmail and the fact that congress only has a 13% approval rating.
They should be explaining what this means to people and explaining how both sides of the isle are corrupt.
But no they don't want to get involved because their financial backer are some of those involved in the corruptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution or not?
http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/home/
I hope they actually put some meat into it. I only saw portions of the first segment, and was interested. I will need to watch it, since I just found it above.
Along with information, there needs to be some plan, or as a strategist might say, plan of attack. There is only so much one can do as an individual, given the Citizens United decision. I would argue for taking ALL independent money out of politics and fund elections solely by the the government, whereby someone with no money could win the presidency solely by his positions and ability to expound that. Here's another idea:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.htm l
I am not sure, yet, about all of his conclusions, but it is sure a hell of a lot simpler that what I envision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is no excuse as the Criminality isn't "hidden in plain view" anymore. It's has been for quite some time now, out in the open for everyone to see.
Fast & Furious
Bengazi
Libor
MF Global
Torture
Rendition
NDAA / Patriot Act I II / John Warner Defense Act
Illegal Wire Tapping
Illegal Wars of Aggression
War Crimes / Murder
Arming, Funding, and Training AL CIA duh and destabilization campaigns into soverign countries
CIA drug running and arming the Sinoloa Mexican drug cartels to fund the Black Ops and laundering the money through the TBTF tax payer bail out Criminal Banksters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power corrupts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Power corrupts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the AP can't even complain about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great big story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great big story
Now let's see if the press gets mad, turns and fights, or plays dumb and continues to dance along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immediate Investigation
...into who at the Justice Department leaked this information to the AP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-doj-leaks_n_3268932.html
"It was later revealed that the "would-be bomber" was actually a U.S. spy planted in the Yemen-based group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. On May 18, U.S. and allied officials suggested to Reuters that the leak to the AP had forced the end of an "operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not news
"Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home."
Print approved leaks, and not unapproved leaks, or you will be punished. It's simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ten times ... no wait, twenty times worse than Watergate
yeah, that's the ticket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got off the gold standard, got us out of Vietnam (though he did some stupid crap along the way with that), opened up relations with China, started the EPA, ended the draft...
And lots more.
Seriously, if you look at what he managed to accomplish in 5-6 years, it was a LOT more than most Presidents have ever done.
Criminal he might have been, but Nixon was actually a good President when he was doing his job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In retrospect, that wasn't such a good thing, considering how many American jobs have been outsourced since then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
he did accomplish some good stuff (although a lot of what is credited to him was really the work of Congress).
However, a criminal president can never be a good president, regardless of the list of accomplishments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even more important, perhaps it will wake up everyone else as well and make them realise that the things the USA was founded on are now just distant ideals and the country has become the very thing it fought against in the beginning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Although, those yelling 'thanks Obama' should probably remember that he doesn't sign off, or even know about, everything the Government does. Most departments of which are still headed by Bush-era appointees, [that's GW and HW Bush!] when they're not being run by Regan or Nixon era guys. Hence the political inertia.
Still nothing new though... anyone else remember what Watergate was all about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Thanks Obama is a sarcastic response to the never ending attempt to dig up dirt and claim it goes all the way to the top all while stopping most government function blaming Obama for the lack of anything getting done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope the hypocrites get this thrown on their faces when they complain about Venezuela, Argentina, China...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you manage to avoid mentioning that this was done pursuant to a warrant? You know, permission from the courts? Why is this a DOJ issue? The courts granted the request for a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 38
the court did not pursue to break the law here, the doj did.
now it is still a matter for the court system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is at least partly one of continuity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I heard Prenda lawyers are looking for work. They have years of experience tapdancing around the law and pretending they are above it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiretapping the press
There are many things I like about Obama, but this sort of thing I DON'T like. I should not be tolerated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]