Think DOJ Spying On Reporters Was 'Unprecedented'? Think Again
from the common-practice dept
We've already written about how the DOJ has a bit of history of spying on journalists' phone records without following the rules, and that was only scratching the surface. On Monday we showed that to be the case with the revelation about the questionable spying on a Fox News reporter. The DOJ didn't just spy on him, but also suggested he was a co-conspirator, for merely doing basic journalism. Over at Mother Jones, Julian Sanchez has an article, which was written prior to the revelation about Rosen, but talking about how everyone claiming that the DOJ's actions with the AP are "unprecedented" is probably wrong. The Justice Department has a variety of loopholes it can jump through to claim spying on reporters is legal. Often, this seems to happen because the FBI/DOJ seem to believe that they get to interpret the rules however they want to interpret them with little or no oversight:Only in January 2009 did the FBI think to ask the Justice Department's in-house lawyers whether the press restrictions apply when reporter records are obtained through indirect means such as community of interest requests. Government lawyers said yes, but the FBI concluded it didn't have to tell the press in the specific case it had inquired about, because agents had not "understood at the time the subpoenas were issued that the subpoenas called for reporters' records."As he points out, the real story around all of this might not be the "unprecedented" nature of spying on reporters, but rather how common it is, without anyone knowing that it's happening (and while the DOJ's publicly stated rules suggest that this kind of spying won't happen).
The real scandal may be just how much snooping on the media the current rules permit. To fully understand the AP seizures, the media and the public need a clearer picture of the rules governing all forms of spying on media—and how often such info-grabs have happened. Maybe the seizure of AP records is an extraordinary case. Or maybe the only extraordinary thing is that we're hearing about it.So, instead of being outraged about just how unprecedented these events appear to be, perhaps we should be outraged over how common they probably are -- and how the DOJ appears to have a totally cavalier attitude towards spying on journalists.
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: doj, journalists, spying, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's only half of the story...
But along with how this administration, and in this case the DOJ seems to be able to write their own rules and do what they want are some facts that make this story a bit more chilling.
Holder just testified last week to congress (under oath I believe) that he did not and would not do this...along with saying he recused himself from the AP scandal. Recused, but didn't write it down, remember when or tell anyone as far as I can tell.
Now Obama had asked Eric Holder to investigate the situation, in effect to have Holder investigate Holder.
These idiots must have a very large set to lie directly to congress and feel they are immune to any responsibility. To me that is so much more scary then saying they work in grey areas of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOJ Oversight
Interpret THIS DOJ!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]