Eric Holder Wants To Stop And Frisk The NYPD

from the competition:-who-can-abuse-civil-rights-more? dept

The NYPD really loves its stop and frisk policy. The prospect of randomly stopping exclusively minorities a random selection of New Yorkers really excites the department. And why not? The practice has done wonders to prevent crime in the city. Well, if you define “crime” as pot possession. Because the policy hasn’t accomplished much of anything else.

Now the constitutionality of the policy is in jeopardy, awaiting a decision from Judge Shira “Don’t Call Me Judy” Scheindlin, the judge the City decided to embarrass by commissioning a report accusing her of bias because the City is incredibly stupid.

When and if (OK, “when”) Judge Scheindlin strikes down the current iteration of the policy, Eric Holder has a suggestion for how to remedy the violation. And Mayor Mike Bloomberg is none too pleased…

The Attorney General’s office filed a brief yesterday outlining one option Judge Scheindlin might consider in awarding injunctive relief:

The News reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s office filed a brief yesterday requesting that if the NYPD loses the case and its stop-and-frisk policies are found to be illegal, “the court has wide discretion to enter injunctive relief,” which “may include the appointment of an independent monitor.” … Mayor Bloomberg is reportedly “outraged.”

And we all know what an “outraged” Michael Bloomberg looks like.

Alex Pareene of Salon notes:

The NYPD obviously needs a monitor. The city argues that the department’s own internal affairs bureau is oversight enough, but the IAB has failed to uncover or prosecute an array of recent examples of police misconduct and IAB veterans and plenty of cops who’ve dealt with the bureau say it’s slow, incompetent, and bordering on corrupt. New York’s Civilian Complaint Review Board is independent and thorough, but it also has no authority beyond issuing recommendations to the commissioner. A complete lack of accountability and oversight is part of Bloomberg’s governing philosophy, which holds that he should be able to appoint people who answer only to him, and then those people should be in charge forever.

Not only is New York’s IAB suspect, there are rumors (which I’ve been unable to confirm) that the Manhattan District Attorney is moving the office of the prosecutors assigned to these cases from an undisclosed location back to the main office. Placing prosecutors looking into police misconduct back in a building where multiple cops can watch potential informers enter and exit seems like foolhardy.

For all the flack that Eric Holder is taking (and all the flack Assistant AG Thomas Perez is about to get in his Secretary of Labor confirmation hearings), Holder’s handling of civil rights has been aggressive and commendable:

Holder’s Justice Department has actually had a very impressive record on civil rights cases. His Civil Rights Division, led by Thomas Perez, has not hesitated to investigate police departments for misconduct, and it has forced reforms in cities like in New Orleans. In March of this year, Perez announced an investigation into Cleveland police focusing on excessive force. Thomas Perez is decidedly one of the best things about the Obama administration. That he’d push the Justice Department to weigh in on the NYPD case, over the strong objections of Mayor Bloomberg, is laudable, especially because Obama himself has a strange obsession with winning the mayor’s favor.

If she rules against the City, Judge Scheindlin may not accept the DOJ’s offer, but it looks logical on paper. Federal agents pulling rank all over town is sure to make Bloomberg and the NYPD even angrier.

I guess the City doesn’t like being singled out and subjected to humiliating spot searches to guarantee that it’s in full compliance with the law. Go figure.

Filed Under: civil liberties, doj, eric holder, michael bloomberg, nypd, stop and frisk

Google Asks Feds For Permission To Publish FISA Requests In Its Transparency Report

from the the-feds-should-say-yes dept

In the wake of the revelation of PRISM last week, Google admitted that it does not include FISA requests in its transparency report -- which has led some to question the value of the transparency report. Now, Google has sent a public letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI boss Robert Mueller, requesting permission to add FISA requests to its transparency report, suggesting that such transparency would be helpful in clearing up how frequently the government is asking Google for information.

Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users’ data are simply untrue. However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation.

We therefore ask you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures—in terms of both the number we receive and their scope. Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Google appreciates that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google’s initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security.

It would be somewhat ridiculous for the DOJ to refuse this request, but we're used to the DOJ doing stupid things these days.

Filed Under: doj, eric holder, fbi, fisa, fisa requests, robert mueller, transparency report
Companies: google

Eric Holder's 'Off-The-Record' Meeting With Journalists Leads To 'On-The-Record' Quotes, But Not Much Else

from the blah-de-blah-blah dept

Remember how Eric Holder wanted to hold a meeting with a bunch of journalists as he seeks to revise the "guidelines" the DOJ sets up for itself (fox watching the hen house, anyone?) on how it spies on journalists? A meeting where many top news organizations refused to go because it was officially "off the record?" In the end, the media seemed to be split on whether or not to go, as summarized by the Huffington Post (who didn't go):

Not going: New York Times, AP, Huffington Post, McClatchy, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Reuters, and NBC News.

Going: The Washington Post, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times/ Chicago Tribune, ABC News, Bloomberg, USA Today.

And then, for all the fuss, at the end of the meeting, DOJ officials told the reporters they could discuss "in general some of the ideas that were discussed," though it appears that some points still remained off the record. As for what was publicly disclosed, it sounds like reporters were not impressed.

At the session, Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole expressed a willingness to revise the guidelines for such investigations, journalists present at the get-together told POLITICO.

But Holder stopped short of offering any concrete changes to the guidelines. Instead, the Attorney General sought to assure the journalists that he and the DOJ were trying to seek a balance between the demands of national security and the free flow of information, and sought suggestions from the journalists on how those changes might be achieved.

Ah, so the hens get to suggest to the fox how they'd like their rights to be violated, and then the fox gets to decide how best to "incorporate those suggestions"? I'm sure that will work out just great. As some who were in attendance noted, nothing in the meeting suggested that the DOJ was actually going to change or adjust its policies.

Filed Under: eric holder, journalists, off the record, surveillance, warrants

Reporters Tell Attorney General Eric Holder They Won't Agree To 'Off The Record' Meeting As Scale Of Journalist Spying Expands

from the thousands-and-thousands dept

A few quick updates on the continuing saga of the DOJ's highly questionable spying on the communications of reporters. First up, we find out that the AP is claiming that the DOJ's scooping up of phone records wasn't nearly as limited as some people have suggested, but rather contained records for "thousands and thousands" of phone calls. Remember, the DOJ's own guidelines say that any such record retrieval must be very targeted rather than broad.

Of course, as all of this was happening, a sympathetic story leaked to the press, claiming that Eric Holder feels tremendous remorse for the specific case of the spying on James Rosen. Though, as you read the details, it sure sounds a lot more like "political expediency" rather than honest "remorse."

The sweeping seizure of the AP phone records had thrown Justice on the defensive. But at least in that case Holder had some personal insulation; having been interviewed by the FBI, he'd recused himself from the investigation and, thus, had not personally signed off on the subpoenas. In the Fox case, however, Holder knew he bore a direct measure of responsibility. He had approved a search-warrant application that equated a reporter's newsgathering activities with criminal conduct. That put Holder at the center of the brewing controversy, all while the Obama administration was being buffeted over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups and by the continuing Benghazi tempest.

By week's end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department's credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department's internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department's actions. As one of Holder's advisers put it, the message was: "Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we're ready to make changes to find the right balance." At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan "gang of eight" to press for the legislation.)

However, he supposedly is upset that his public image is not reflective of what he thinks of himself.

But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves.

Of course, one way to avoid being accused of such things is... you know... not to do them in the first place.

In response, Holder announced that he'd be holding a meeting with news organizations to go over the DOJ's guidelines on getting access to such information. But, he couldn't even do that correctly. After announcing that this meeting would be off-the-record, a variety of news organizations, including the NY Times and the Associated Press announced they would not attend.

Of course, they could just attend and then "leak" the results. What would Holder do in response?

Filed Under: attorney general, eric holder, off the record, reporters, spying
Companies: associated press, ny times

Good Question: Why Is Eric Holder In Charge Of Investigation Of Eric Holder Spying On Journalists?

from the doesn't-make-much-sense dept

We noted earlier that President Obama has expressed concern about the chilling effects his own administration has caused on investigative reporting by aggressively spying on journalists reporting on government actions, even to the point of accusing some of being co-conspirators and/or using the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and reporters. That seemed weird enough already, but one point that was even stranger deserves to be called out separately. In asking for a review of the administration's policy, Obama has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to run that review. And that's ridiculous. It's asking Eric Holder to review his own surveillance of journalists. We're not even talking conflict of interest at this point, we're just talking ridiculous. He needs to do a review to determine if his own actions are problematic? How's that likely to turn out?

It would seem putting Eric Holder in charge of these investigations is like putting a shoplifter in charge of inventory.

While both Obama and Holder have talked about press freedom, they both have defended the Justice Department's actions and have not even mildly second-guessed the broad AP subpoenas or the “co-conspirator” label.

The only action they've taken so far is to push for a renewed debate on a federal shield bill that would supposedly protect the media's sources in scandals like these. Of course, the Justice Department already have the power to not subpoena reporters, they apparently just can't help themselves. As  Ted Boutrous pointed out, their call for a shield bill is akin to saying “stop us before we kill again.”

How can there not be someone independent in charge of exploring this issue?

Filed Under: doj, eric holder, fbi, investigation, journalists, spying

President Obama Is 'Troubled' About Chilling Effects His Own Administration Is Causing To Journalism?

from the really-now? dept

Well, this is rich. During his talk on Thursday, much of which focused on terrorism and drones, President Obama admitted that he's asked Eric Holder to review the DOJ's process for investigating leaks that involve getting information from journalists:

President Obama said Thursday that he is “troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.”

In a major speech on national security, Obama said that the “Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society.”

While it's great that he's "troubled," it's not a "possibility" that this is chilling investigative journalism, it's a confirmed fact. Not only that, but many believe that this was actually part of the goal all along. There's been no evidence of any interest in "balance." There has, instead, been what is clearly a concerted effort to intimidate whistleblowers and the press that investigates the federal government. The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act against more cases of whistleblowing to the press than all other Presidents combined. That's not about "striking the right balance."

Obama said that “journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs," but that the "focus must be on those who break the law."

Oh really? Then why did your own DOJ claim that a journalist was an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator for reporting on a leak -- just like tons of other reporters?

President Obama sounds like someone campaigning against his own policies. Either Eric Holder and the DOJ have "gone rogue" or the President is hastily pretending that his administration is not doing what it clearly has been doing for years.

Filed Under: barack obama, chilling effects, eric holder, journalism, surveillance

Ridiculous Timing: Obama Administration Responds To Spying On AP By Pushing Journalist Shield Law That Wouldn't Matter

from the oh-come-off-it dept

There was one odd side note in all of the attention last week to the DOJ spying on the AP under questionable circumstances. Right after being confronted about it, the Obama administration released some talking points about how they support a reintroduction of a reporter's shield law. There have been various attempts to pass a special shield law for journalists for a few years now, though in the past it's been blocked each time. Also, we've been fairly skeptical about the whole process, because different politicians always seek to carve out key parties, whether it's bloggers or Wikileaks. Frankly, it's always seemed to us that a shield law should protect acts of journalism. That is, it should apply to specific situations, rather than specific people.

In the past, the Obama administration has claimed to support such a shield law, but with serious limitations, such as not having that law apply when the administration decides (by itself) that it's a matter that involves "significant" harm to national security. Given that Eric Holder has already argued that this case involved such a situation (even if the evidence suggests otherwise), it seems likely that any such shield law for journalists wouldn't have mattered in the AP case. There may have been some procedural differences, but the end result would have likely been pretty much the same.

But, really, using this story as a nail to hang their support for a shield law seems pretty ridiculous. "Oh, yeah, you caught us spying on reporters -- here's a bill that we want that wouldn't have stopped that, but if you're really concerned about a pretend level of privacy for journalists and their sources, it's something, sorta."

Filed Under: eric holder, journalism, president obama, reporters, shield law, surveillance

Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'

from the oh-come-on dept

You may have heard about a fair bit about Attorney General Eric Holder testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. He was -- quite reasonably -- raked over the coals by members of both parties for the incredible decision to obtain phone records from AP reporters, under very questionable circumstances.

There was one other odd tidbit that might be worth discussing around here as well. Suddenly, in the middle of all the questions about the Associated Press, Rep. Mel Watt -- who, during the SOPA markup famously declared that he didn't understand the technology, or why tech people were concerned, but also that he didn't care and wanted to pass SOPA without bothering to understand -- started asking questions about copyright and "enforcement." Yes, Mel Watt is the ranking member on the IP subcommittee (scary enough in its own right), but it seemed completely off topic.

Most of the coverage on Watt's questioning has focused on the fact that he did most of his questioning with his two-year-old grandson on his lap, who interrupts the questioning at one point. But the questions were ridiculous, as were the answers, and deserve some scrutiny. First, despite it being soundly rejected when SOPA went down in flames, Watt asks Holder if Congress should make online streaming of infringing material a felony, rather than the misdemeanor that it currently is. There are all sorts of problems with this idea, as we've discussed in the past, but Holder embraced the idea wholeheartedly, saying that the Justice Department would love to have "another tool," ignoring just how widely the DOJ has abused existing tools to shut down legitimate companies and websites.

And then Watt directly asks about a connection to terrorism:

Watt: Are there increasing indications of links between this problem and terrorism? Have you found any of those links and would you describe them for the committee?

Holder: Yes, that's a very good question. It's something that's very worrisome. As we saw organized crime get into a variety of other businesses in order to support their efforts, we're now seeing terrorist groups getting into the theft of intellectual property. Again, to generate money to support what they're trying to do for their terrorist means. So we have to broaden our enforcement efforts, broaden the investigative efforts that we take, to examine what are the precise reasons why people are engaging in this kind of intellectual property thievery. And to consider whether or not there's a terrorist connection to it. This is a relatively new phenomenon, but one we have to be aware of.

Watt then asks about things that Congress can do to help, and Holder says he's "particularly concerned" about this problem, and he asks for "enhanced penalties" for "intellectual property theft." That all sounds very interesting. And it might be, if there were any truth to it at all. Unfortunately, there's not. We've yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting the idea that terrorists are involved in infringement. The claim has been around for years, and we've asked for evidence for years, and none has ever been provided. Because it doesn't exist. Researcher Joe Karaganis looked into the issue a few years ago and found that there were some very vague reports of organized crime being involved in counterfeit CDs/DVDs in the 80s and 90s. But that was small and short-lived -- in large part because online infringement basically made that business obsolete:

Arguing that piracy is integral to such networks [organized crime and terrorism] means ignoring the dramatic changes in the technology and organizational structure of the pirate market over the past decade. By necessity, evidentiary standards become very loose. Decades-old stories are recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes stand in as evidence of wider systemic linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low. The RAND study, which reprises and builds on earlier IFPI and Interpol reporting, is constructed almost entirely around such practices. Prominent stories about IRA involvement in movie piracy and Hezbollah involvement in DVD and software piracy date, respectively, to the 1980s and 1990s. Street vendor networks in Mexico City--a subject we treat at length in the Mexico chapter--are mischaracterized as criminal gangs connected with the drug trade. Piracy in Russia is attributed to criminal mafias rather than to the chronically porous boundary between licit and illicit enterprise. The Pakistani criminal gang D-Company, far from "forging a clear pirate monopoly" in Bollywood, in RAND's words, plays a small and diminishing part in Indian DVD piracy--its smuggling networks dwarfed by local production.

The US record isn't more convincing in this regard. Jeffrey McIllwain examined the Department of Justice’s IP-related prosecutions between 2000 and 2004 and found that only 49 out of the 105 cases alleged that the defendant operated within larger, organized networks. Nearly all of these were "warez" distribution groups for pirated software--hacker communities that are explicitly and often fiercely non-commercial in orientation. McIllwain found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" in any of the DOJ's criminal charges (McIllwain 2005:27). If organized crime is a serious problem in these contexts, it should not be difficult to produce a stronger evidentiary record.

In other words, Rep. Mel Watt, a well known supporter of Hollywood's position on copyright, tossed a bogus softball FUD talking point to Eric Holder in the middle of an important hearing about a very different subject, and Holder proceeded to make claims to Congress that have been made for decades without a single bit of evidence to support it.

Holder has plenty of other serious issues to deal with these days, but it makes me incredibly uncomfortable to see our Attorney General appear to be spreading known scare stories that have been proven bogus from decades ago as if they're new, despite a single bit of evidence concerning any modern connection to terrorism.

Filed Under: copyright, counterfeiting, eric holder, mel watt, terrorism

What National Security Risk? Evidence Suggests Embarassment Drove DOJ Spying On AP Phone Records

from the national-security? dept

The saga concerning the DOJ scooping up phone records of Associated Press has continued to expand. The DOJ sent a quick and rather disingenuous letter in response to the AP's complaint. In it, the DOJ -- contrary to its own history of abusive practices concerning reporter phone records -- insists that it was incredibly careful to only seek key information involving classified information that "can risk lives and cause grave harm to the security of all Americans."

The AP quickly hit back by calling bullshit on the DOJ's claims of a "narrowly" focused subpoena:

The scope of the subpoena was overbroad under the law, given that it involved seizing records from a broad range of telephones across AP’s newsgathering operation. More than 100 journalists work in the locations served by those telephones. How can we consider this inquiry to be narrowly drawn?

Furthermore, the AP claims that while the DOJ says that only some records were obtained, the original notification it received indicated a very broad swath of phone records.

However, the real question that's beginning to come out is whether or not this was really such a serious issue that the DOJ needed to sweep in and grab a bunch of phone records, likely revealing protected journalistic sources. We've discussed in the past how the Obama administration has been the most aggressive in history in going after whistleblowers and anyone who leaks to the press -- and, because of that, many are rightly wondering if that's what's driving the DOJ here. As more details come out, there is a very strong indication that the investigation had absolutely nothing to do with security at all.

A few years ago, we wrote about how Daniel Ellsberg (one of the most famous whistleblower/leakers of all time) speculated that President Obama's unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers were really out of embarrassment about questionable things his administration was doing being revealed. That may be the case with this particular leak and investigation as well. The AP has pointed out repeatedly that the report they published -- concerning the thwarting of another underwear bomber -- had been held back, but they only published it after the government had said there was no more threat:

We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

But the issue appears to go deeper than that. Eric Holder made some extreme claims about the leak to defend the collection of the phone records:

This was a very serious leak. A very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.

However, as emptywheel points out in the link above, John Brennan, now head of the CIA, apparently was the one who revealed to the press the fact that the bomber was a US agent and that there was no real risk to anyone. During his appointment hearings, when questioned about leaking that info to the press, Brennan explained:

I think what you're referring to, Senator, is when I had a teleconference with some individuals, former government officials from previous administrations who were going to be out on talk shows on the night that a IED was intercepted.

And so I discussed with them some of the aspects of that, because I was going on the news network shows the following day, I wanted to make sure they understood the nature of the threat and what it was and what it wasn't.

And so what I said, at the time, because I said I couldn't talk about any operational details, and this was shortly after the anniversary of the Bin Laden takedown, I said there was never a threat to the American public as we had said so publicly, because we had inside control of the plot and the device was never a threat to the American public.

When asked more specifically about this, Brennan again insisted that there was no threat because the US was in control. As emptywheel asks, if this particular leak of information -- which it seems Brennan did directly -- was really so much of a threat that "put people at risk," then why would Brennan be appointed and approved to head the CIA?

So, now we have a situation where the AP reported on information which it's pretty clear the government told them was no security risk. That resulted in the eventual "outing" that the guy who had the bomb was a US controlled agent, which is apparently why the US government was upset. But that outing seems to have come not from these reporters, but from the now head of the CIA directly to members of the press. And yet it's the reporters that are being aggressively investigated, while Brennan gets the job at the top of the CIA?

Once again, this points to an administration cracking down on leaks not because of any real risk or threat, but out of embarrassment.

Filed Under: cia, doj, eric holder, john brennan, journalism, leaks, national security, reporting, whistleblowing
Companies: associated press

DOJ's History Of Ignoring The Rules When Getting Phone Records Of Journalists

from the not-the-first-time dept

There was, of course, plenty of talk about the DOJ getting two months of phone records concerning calls involving some reporters. Since the original story came out, reporters have quickly deduced what the government was after: they were trying to figure out who leaked information about the CIA stopping a plane bombing plot, because the "would be bomber" was actually working for the US, and revealing the news apparently ended the work early. The DOJ going batshit insane over a leak to the press is, unfortunately, par for the course for the Obama administration, which has been ridiculously aggressive (to an unprecedented level) in going after anyone who leaks to the press.

And while some are still trying to argue that this is a non-story, what may be more important is pointing out what a complete bullshit response the DOJ gave to this whole thing:

Despite the seizure of the phone records, a Justice Department spokesman said the agency valued freedom of the press and was “always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.”

The "right balance"? Well, let's take a look about how "always careful and deliberative" the DOJ is on these kinds of things. Julian Sanchez helpfully points us to the infamous 2010 report from the DOJ's Inspector General detailing how the FBI regularly abused "exigent letters" (pdf) -- better known as National Security Letters or NSLs -- to get phone records. This report got plenty of attention at the time, but if you don't recall all 300 pages of it, there's a discussion about getting info from reporters' call logs starting on page 89 (of the official pagination, which falls on page 102 of the pdf) detailing heavily redacted examples of getting reporters' phone records without getting the proper authorization or approvals. What is striking is the extremely cavalier attitude law enforcement seems to have about this. Here is just one example of the DOJ's "always careful and deliberative process" when "seeking to strike the right balance" in getting access to reporters' phone records. This case was an investigation into a leak that appeared in articles in the NY Times and the Washington Post. The full story is much longer, but here are the key points:

On November 5, [redacted], the case agent sent an e-mail asking another Special Agent in the [redacted] Field Office to inquire, in the other agent's capacity as his squad's liaison to the CAU, whether the on-site communications service providers could obtain telephone toll records of U.S. persons making [redacted] calls [redacted]. The case agent's November 5 e-mail listed 12 [redacted] telephone numbers, 8 of which were identified in the e-mail as belonging to Washington Post reporters [redacted] and Washington Post researcher [redacted] and New York Times reporters [redacted] The email identified a 7-month period -- a few months before and a few months after the published articles -- as the time period of interest for the leak investigation.

[....] However, in absence of any request from the case agent or anyone in the FBI, the CAU SSA issued an exigent letter dated December 17, [redacted], to Company A for telephone records of the reporters and others listed in the case agent's November 5, [redacted], e-mail. We determined that the SSA did this without further discussion with the case agent or the Special Agent who had asked only whether such records could be obtained through on-site providers, not that the records should be obtained.

The CAU SSA's exigent letter sought records on nine telephone numbers, seven of which were identified in the e-mail exchanges described above as belonging to Washington Post and New York Times reporters or their news organizations' bureaus in [redacted].....

The exigent letter did not specify the 7-month interval noted in the case agent's November 5 e-mail, or contain any date restrictions. The exigent letter also stated that the request was made "due to exigent circumstances" and that "subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally on [Company A] as expeditiously as possible." However, this statement was not accurate. A subpoena request had not been sent to the U.S. Attorney's Office at the time the exigent letter was served, or at any time thereafter.

That's the "always careful and deliberative process"? Hmm. Later in the report, they note that even when the agent only had asked about (and never actually sought) 7 months of records, thanks to the NSL, they got months and months of records, nearly none of which was actually in the 7 month period the agent was interested in. All total, they were sent 1,627 telephone call records, and only three calls were from that 7 month period. Oh, and once they got those records, they were uploaded into a database, where they were searchable by other FBI staff and other government personnel as well.

The report notes a few other examples of agents getting access to reporter phone information without the proper authorization as well.

Of course, once this came out the FBI and DOJ insisted that this was no big deal. But, in a coincidence of timing, just before this whole story broke, the FBI was in court, seeking to keep secret the memo that gave the "legal basis" for its past use of NSLs to access phone records. While the DOJ insists that it's not using these processes any more, it still thinks it should keep the legal basis for why it issued those letters a complete secret. They claim, ridiculously, that this would "chill deliberative discussions within the Executive Branch." But people aren't asking for deliberative discussions, just the very specific claimed legal basis for issuing such letters. And, of course, the DOJ would prefer not to say.

Given all of this, is it any wonder that people suspect the DOJ of being up to no good?

Filed Under: doj, eric holder, exigent letters, fbi, nsls, phone records, privacy, regulations, reporters, rules