Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Government Monitoring Associated Press Phone Records

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the burn-the-witch dept.

Privacy 248

Picass0 writes with distressing news from the AP wire, about the AP: "The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a 'massive and unprecedented intrusion' into how news organizations gather the news." They obtained call records from a number of desk phones, and the personal phones of many news editors. The DOJ has not commented, but it may be related to the possibility that the CIA director leaked information on a foiled terror plot in Yemen last year.

cancel ×

248 comments

Impeach Bush!!! (1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year ago | (#43715215)

No one could be worse than Bush!

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43715291)

No one could be worse than Bush!

Hell yeah, if only we could impeach that Bush and get someone new (with promise of hope) instead.
Oh, wait...

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43715361)

Threw out Robert Gates, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, David Axelrod.

Got in return:
Robert Gates, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, David Axelrod.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715493)

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Well, Obama did promise change - just not the change he lead you to believe.

Captcha for this post? Givers. As in, if you have a job, you are now a Giver. Give everything you've earned to the people who are voting for a living instead of working.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (4, Interesting)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43715707)

Some of us would love any kind of job we could get. Some of us have resumes that 10 years ago would have landed us a job in a week at almost any entry level position in the great capitalist machine.

Some of us had the ability to start our own businesses and run our own lives. Before the price became to great to compete.

(Sarcasm inc) We also owe society a permanent debt. Didn't you learn that in gradeschool?

But seriously when some are above the law. And most have no chance at controlling their fate. It's really fascist of you to demand we "kill off all the chaff". Especially when we have the means of providing everyone a clean and safe environment to live in with plenty of food. It doesn't matter if their oppressed. Unwilling to fight for themselves, or unable to. The better man will enlighten them and guide them on a path to success and liberty. You don't OWN this planet, and no one does. Maybe you should learn to share it?

But the technology and means of distribution has been suppressed by the rich dynastic few. Your entitled to not believe this. But I promise you are wrong. This is about the only thing I can know with a certainty any more.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (4, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43715979)

I am very sad for all of you who have to mod -5 troll an argument for charity. What will it take to teach people to work together instead of against each other? I am not damning capitalism. I am just saying that abuses made by the rich and powerful affect us all. And the only way to combat such abuse is to unite together. Either under government or some other means.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43715933)

Heh, so a Republican is a person who fires all their employees then complains about unemployment insurance supporting those freeloaders.

We've outsourced the jobs, now if only we could outsource our unemployment. Is Australia full? We could try Antarctica next, right?

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (2)

ixuzus (2418046) | about a year ago | (#43716193)

Don't laugh. There was a bit of a scandal a while back when a New Zealand job agency that was presumably paid to get people off unemployment benefits was paying for plane tickets to send long term unemployed to Australia.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716165)

The front man changes, but the string-pulling Jews never change, do they?

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716133)

It is pretty sad how people still get wrapped up in the LEFT vs RIGHT debate as BOTH parties never did any good for the rest of us. You know, our country has serious problems with overreach by Obama, Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Holder, etc. Realize:

It is messed up to go after the press and intimidating them regardless of who is in charge.
It is messed up to target political groups that don't agree with you.
It is messed up to let 4 people die so you can call it a 'spontaneous attack' and simply to avoid political fallout after you said Al Qaeda is done.
It is messed up to go after people's firearms proposing numerous amendments after you told them you'd respect their rights.
It is messed up to appoint and install judges (without congress voting on it) only to backpedal later.

Yet you cheerleaders can't take off those Obama sunglasses. You immediately assume everyone who criticizes the current administration advocates Bush, Fox news, etc. Nope, lots of independents (and former Obama supporters) too -- but when you're so focused on defending messed shit like this it really shows your ignorance and does nothing to address it.
       

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716313)

It's a cycle, dufus. Next time they'll give us a new Republican that will continue along the same path but two halves of the country will switch bitching vs not. At least a lot of liberals call out Obama instead of follow the leader like lemmings.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (4, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | about a year ago | (#43716307)

Hell yeah, if only we could impeach that Bush and get someone new (with promise of hope) instead. Oh, wait...

You know what? Fuck your cynicism. (Not you, your cynicism.)

Speaking as someone who lives in a country with a history of consistently corrupt, dysfunctional governments, without any kind of police presence in the community, with disgustingly poor health and education services, this litany of complaint and hopelessness sounds to me like nothing more than childish whining.

It wasn't always this way, and frankly, I don't care what happened that reduced the Americans in this audience to such a useless bunch of wankers. But merciful god, could you please show at least a modicum of intelligence and - yes, I'll say it - hope?

You people really have no fucking clue what it's like to live in a broken society. But if you don't shut the fuck up, learn a civics lesson or two and start fixing things, you're going to find out. And before you tell me it's too late, I'm here to say that if you think that, you honestly don't have any fucking idea how bad things can get.

There are very definite steps you can take to curtail this kind of intrusion on press freedom, only the first of which is to shout loud and long to your representative not to stand for it. So get off your ass, shut the fuck up with the whining, and get to fucking work.

Hugs, from the developing world.

Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43715293)

As long as we all agree that "Good" is framed by ideology not behavior.

We're protecting everyone's freedom - by looking very closely at how everyone exercises it and categorising every result.

This is, because we all agree, that America was founded on the principle of Safety Assured - and we are guaranteed any freedom that promotes this.

Do not support terrorism and discuss the validity of these arguments. Your freedom is not a license to be unorthodox in civil or economic matters.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (1)

Livius (318358) | about a year ago | (#43715377)

I would mod this 'Funny', but there are so many people who actually believe nonsense like this that I can't be sure.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715419)

The reason god is so difficult to understand is because of the mouthful of balls.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#43715431)

We have specific problems right now with presidential overreach by Obama and Bush, and the solution is political change and discussion. Cynicism like yours is part of the problem, not part of a solution. The solution is to kick out politicians responsible for this.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43715503)

Oh yeah. You have a "work within the system" and "hope and change" response. Because that works out, so very well.

See this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3745845&cid=43715361 [slashdot.org]

The system is corrupted beyond the imaginings of Eisenhower - with his famous warning.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715569)

Eisenhower did not heed his own famous warning... too bad

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (2)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year ago | (#43715609)

are there enough poiliticans left after you kick out the bad ones to run the country? which party would you propose should the president be from next election? They are equally bad.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715765)

There is only one party, the Repubmocrat party. Dictators for the last century. Even if they didn't plan it that way( getting harder to believe), that's what we've ended up with. They have control of the information and disinformation, there could be no others except as a passing curiosity to hold up appearances. Slowly but surely their supposedly opposite paths went parallel and merge time and again to erase, misinterpret and even demonize our rights, freedoms we had, liberty to fend for ourselves without needing anyone.
            What can I say about this article? The press picked who they wanted in bed with them and now they complain of a chaffed sphincter. Boo f*&kin Hoo!

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (1, Interesting)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43715969)

Look at you. Above the fray, criticizing both Obama and Bush. Bush never did anything like this. You can't take your vote for Obama back, so when confronted with an undeniable scandal you make sure to always mention the predecessor in the same breath. You took sides when you voted. It's your bed. Sleep in it. Own it.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43716021)

The over-reach is equally enabled by Congress with their great ideas like FISA, the Patriot Act and so on.

It's a disgusting situation.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43716045)

The solution is to dissolve *all* of the executive branch orgs created via the executive order process, then plug the executive order hole.

Then, retract all of the legislation that has enabled these overreaches of authority over the past 50 years.

But that won't happen. Tyrants *never* tie their own hands.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43716287)

Where you stop kicking? Things were pretty clear last presidential election, and still one of the 2 candidates that were assuring that everything will still be in the same way or worse were elected. If having the chance nothing was done, even when plenty of evidence of the trend, why you think it will be done next time?

The only possibility is that the Lesters [ted.com] choose someone that will actually fix things for all, not following their goals. And even if by some miracle it happens, all those heavy investors and all their high paid consultants get fooled and choose the wrong guy, still remains the rest of the goverment.

You can keep playing lotto and hope that next time you will hit the big prize. But odds are high that things will never be fixed, the system is just too rigged.

Re:Don't Worry! America is STILL the "Good Guys" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716249)

Modded Troll for being a dipshit.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715371)

No one could be worse than Bush!

The next is always worse because of what the previous one got away with. Just wait for the one who replaces Obama.

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715715)

Yeah, impeach the utterly meaningless straw-man!

That will surely stop the perpetrators!

You Americans are dumb beyond any imaginable belief!

And THAT is the actual reason why "shit is all fucked-up".

Re:Impeach Bush!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716279)

All these Kool Aid drinkers who now want us to believe that they are down on both parties.

Your Hope and Change keeps coming back to bite you on the ass.

It's only been 40 years since Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715225)

Doesn't Obama know history repeats on a 70-80 year cycle?

Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715263)

"Doesn't Obama know history repeats on a 70-80 year cycle?"

Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.

Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (5, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43715661)

Actually, there are shorter cycles as well, kind of like harmonics.

Interesting comment you made there about harmonics.

Harmonics can be deadly: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" [youtube.com]

So, at the moment the Obama administration has the following scandals brewing:

Justice Department: Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe [ap.org]
IRS: The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting [nationalreview.com]
State Department and Office of President: The Benghazi Deception [nationalreview.com]

There are a few other things brewing in the background as well.

It might be a hot summer for the Obama administration regardless of the weather.

Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (2, Insightful)

AndrewX (680681) | about a year ago | (#43716053)

Two of those three "scandals" are things that the majority of people don't care about.

None of the Democrat's supporters, and a good chunk of more moderate Republicans, don't care about weather the President called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack or not, and for the most part, only his most die-hard opponents are still talking about it. I'm not a supporter of Democrats, and I don't care about it.

The IRS targeting Tea Party organizations might raise more hairs on the Republican side of the isle, however targeting groups that are explicitly proponents of an anti-taxation agenda (especially when nobody was unfairly cracked down on) isn't offensive enough to anyone except Tea Partiers. Again I'm not a supporter of Democrats, but the IRS imposing extra scrutiny to a group of people whose entire existence is an opposition to the IRS doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.

This AP phone records thing has my interest, however.

Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43716245)

I think you're mistaken on this, at least where it will end up.

The AP issue could easily flip the media to a much more adversarial stand against the Obama administration than they have taken to date. Rather than adversarial, they have actively covered for the administration - ignoring stories that they would have beat President Bush with all year long, minimizing others, asking friendly questions. If reporters come to understand that the administration came after them on a fishing expedition, which is what this was, they will not be happy.

The IRS scandal is one that many Americans will be concerned about. Most Americans understand that the IRS coming after people on a political basis is a very bad thing even if it is about a group that may not be their cup of tea, so to speak. This sort of thing hasn't been in the open like this since the Nixon administration. You may recall that didn't end well for President Nixon, and more than one commentator has referred to President Obamba as Nixonian at best.

But that is what makes the Tea Party aspect of this politically deadly is that there are many Americans that support many aspects of the Tea Party agenda even if they are not members.

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe [cbsnews.com]

You apparently also misunderstand the Tea Party - they oppose higher taxes and increasing spending, not the IRS or the collection of taxes. There is no legitimate reason for what the IRS did there. The IRS has admitted that it was wrong, completely inappropriate. (I admit a certain fascination in the fact that for some reason there are more than a few on Slashdot that try to defend what the IRS itself has condemned as being completely wrong. Why? It is absolute nonsense. I assume many, if not most are not Americans.)

As to Benghazi, we will see. There are important developments coming out. The Obama administration just held a private background briefing for key press members. Why? Americans were killed. The Ambassador was killed - a very rare event. The administration ignored their security needs before the attack, and then abandoned them during the attack when there were resources available to intervene and save them, and then lied multiple times at multiple levels after the fact. There is an old saying in politics that it isn't the crime but rather the cover up that does you in. There are people scurrying to cover their butt all over Washington on this, and it probably won't turn out well for the Administration.

You are entitled to your interests. I don't think most Americans will agree with you in the near future.

Re:It's only been 40 years since Nixon (5, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43716321)

You missed too big to jail [rollingstone.com] , and everything is rigged [rollingstone.com] . Nothing happened to the people responsible (more than becoming even richer). And it will keep happening.

Dontcha know? (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#43715233)

Laws are for plebeians, not patricians.

Shield laws (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43715267)

Ah yes, the good ol' US of A... showin' everyone how it's done with their abject lack of journalist shield laws. Well, it's not like anyone ever said freedom of the press was essential for democracy. *cough*

If you ask me, shield laws are kinda pointless. I mean, the EU, the UN, and many countries have made statements about how important they are, but they didn't have to worry about terrorists. We should trust that our government knows best here; I mean, if the Director of the CIA develops a conscience, it could compromise national security.

Re:Shield laws (0)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43715319)

someone leaked classified info to the press which is a crime
DoJ is investigating
what's the problem?

Re:Shield laws (4, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43715407)

someone leaked classified info to the press which is a crime
DoJ is investigating
what's the problem?

Someone stole a car in your neighborhood.
The police wiretapped the phones of everyone in town, and record the license plates of all cars at every destination.
what's the problem?

If you don't get it yet, this is how they ran East Germany and Romania. "Laws" are not inherently moral dictates. Hitler had laws that made matters of public interest "classified", too.

Re:Shield laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715497)

There was no wiretapping here. And license plates and locations are public info.

Re:Shield laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716047)

There was no wiretapping here. And license plates and locations are public info.

There's no hope...

Re:Shield laws (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year ago | (#43715479)

If the leak was ok'd by Obama then it is not against the law. Maybe the WH wanted the American people to think they were doing something about terrorism.

Re: Shield laws (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43716131)

The president cannot ok someone to break the law

Re: Shield laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716293)

The president cannot ok someone to break the law

Really? Just watch him...

Re:Shield laws (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43715521)

someone leaked classified info to the press which is a crime
DoJ is investigating
what's the problem?

Maybe we should also be asking what compelled the director of one of the most powerful intelligence organizations in the country to feel he had to tell his fellow citizens something that was so important, he was willing to risk his career and his freedom to do.

And if we judge his actions to be on the side of justice, fairness, and the principles of democracy which we say are the foundation of our laws... then perhaps we should examine more closely how a man who did right by his people is being declared a criminal by his government.

Re:Shield laws (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43716011)

Silly goose. Leakers and whistleblowers are only respected when a Republican regime is in power.

Re:Shield laws (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716243)

The funny thing is, modern democrats ARE republicans. A 2013 Democrat is a 1990's FAR right wing Republican. We have no true democratic party.

We have what is currently called democrats which is actually politically center right to moderate right, basically Republican-Lite. Then we have what we call Republicans which are moderate right to jihad extremists far right, what we call a Republican now would be called an Extremist nut job or even traitor 20 years ago.

Captcha: Infants...... so suiting for what I am describing.

Re:Shield laws (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43715567)

DoJ is not allowed to go on fishing expeditions, which is what this was.

Re:Shield laws (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43715853)

they weren't fishing, they were hunting.

Re:Shield laws (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year ago | (#43715321)

Because we need to have two classes of people: journalists and ordinary plebians. As if the mainstream media needs anything more to pump up their already stratospheric egos.

I'm just surprised the AP didn't turn over their records voluntarily. It's not like they investigate the current government - hell, the AP is simpatico with their political beliefs, so what advantage is to be gained by being antagonistic?

Re:Shield laws (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43715593)

As a doctor I am allowed to do many things that you are not allowed to do. Does that make me into another "class" of citizen? A journalist who studied journalism should certainly have both the rights AND responsibilities that go with his earned degree.

Re:Shield laws (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715713)

Yes, and you're a member of a professional org that regulate the practice of medicine. Do you want a similar org under gov't regulation dealing with what's allowed speach?

Re:Shield laws (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43715719)

As a doctor I am allowed to do many things that you are not allowed to do. Does that make me into another "class" of citizen? A journalist who studied journalism should certainly have both the rights AND responsibilities that go with his earned degree.

Perhaps, but a doctor's slip of the hand can kill. A journalist's slip of the tongue will only irritate. As well, one can argue about the appropriateness of demanding to see your papers before being afforded protection for public speech in a self-described democracy...

Re:Shield laws (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43715975)

"The pen is mightier than the sword."

Reflect long and hard on the many meanings and implications of this statement, and how it relates to the power that the press wields.

(Don't forget about how words galvanized very recent and dramatic events, like the arab spring, and the power that freely exchanged words had there, and how people indeed did die from it.)

The glib assertion that the press is a poor defenceless puppy that at most can only make you irritable when it piddles on the carpet is very much in the wrong. It's called the 4th estate for a reason, and people galvanized by it, are called the 5th column for similar reasons.

It is because the press holds such power that they too need to be accountable in some fashion, for their actions.

Re:Shield laws (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43716315)

Doctors are licensed and have at least minimally enforced professional standards. Journalists are not licensed, and professional standards of late seem to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Journalists have the same 1st Amendment rights that other Americans have. They can publish most anything without prior restraint, but there can be consequences after the fact.

*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715283)

It is time to fire the Attorney General. If he knew of this then he is a criminal. And if he didn't then he is an idiot. Neither are acceptable.

Re:*Sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715333)

Thanks to the Patriot Act, this will be swept under the rug. Holder will not be fired. Obama will not be impeached. The USA will fall.

Re:*Sigh* (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715587)

Correction. With the passage of the Patriot Act, the U.S. had failed. This is just one of the aspects of what that failure looks like.

Re:*Sigh* (2)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year ago | (#43715845)

The Patriot Act has not been used to successfully convict any US citizen of a crime. The couple of times the government tried invoking the Patriot Act the court dismissed the charges with prejudice. It's the main reason Gitmo was opened becuase the government did not want to risk the court system getting involved. The Executive and Legislative branches of government may pass new laws but the Judicial branch always has the final word on the legality and applicable of laws.

Re:*Sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715865)

...Obama will not be impeached. The USA will fall.

Obama was reelected. The USA fell. (There, fixed that for you)

Re:*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715663)

Some of us have been saying this exact sentence since 2011 when Fast and Furious broke and we found out that Holder was responsible for giving 2000+ guns to Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens (so far).

Glad to finally have you on board!

Re:*Sigh* (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43715903)

Hundreds of Mexicans and at leas 4 Americans, including Brian Terry.

Double standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715289)

Hey! We're the press here! We're the only ones allowed to lie to phone companies to obtain illicit access to phone records!

Re:Double standards (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715351)

There is a big difference between private parties breaking the law, and the Federal Government breaking the law

Re:Double standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715579)

Yeah, the difference is that when the Feds do it, they KNOW they are breaking the law. There's no excuse, and therefore they deserve nothing less than the maximum penalty for such offense.

Change (1, Interesting)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year ago | (#43715303)

Yeah some real change from the John Ashcroft days...

so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715307)

Media not disclosing sources is a form of being accessory to a crime and/or obstruction of justice. I don't want to defend shady law enforcement tactics, but I'm sort of surprised that certain media outlets can consistently and legally get away with hiding evidence and key witnesses and seldom get subpoenaed.

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715315)

"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715873)

Right wing? Ha... Yes, they're almost as bad as the establishment these days, but not close to the abuse and control the big government Dems are laying on us.

Warrant? (4, Interesting)

MasseKid (1294554) | about a year ago | (#43715323)

How is there no mention of if there was or was not a warrant for this in the summary? More over, how the hell does the TFA not even use the word once?

Re:Warrant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715405)

Warrants are used for searching someone's person, papers, or effects.
This was done through subpoena--that is, summoning the phone company to provide information it had on someone else.
None of the AP's persons, papers, or effects were searched.

Re:Warrant? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715413)

details are sparse at this time, but it appears they had a subpoena for the information. The subpoena was delivered last Friday, well after the data was collected. However, that is allowed under certain circumstances. That is, when knowledge of the subpoena would ruin the investigation. Parties of interest don't need to have knowledge of warrants and subpoenas acquired during an active investigation. How well would a phone tap work if the person being tapped was told? Same thing here.

Re:Warrant? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43715585)

details are sparse at this time, but it appears they had a subpoena for the information. The subpoena was delivered last Friday, well after the data was collected. However, that is allowed under certain circumstances. That is, when knowledge of the subpoena would ruin the investigation. Parties of interest don't need to have knowledge of warrants and subpoenas acquired during an active investigation. How well would a phone tap work if the person being tapped was told? Same thing here.

I'll assume you're more familiar with these procedures than me. Nevertheless it seems like an absurdly broad subpoena. Why not just ask for the phone records of everyone in DC (or wherever the hell the AP is).

Re:Warrant? (1)

glrotate (300695) | about a year ago | (#43715421)

That's modern day journalism for you.

Re:Warrant? (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43715561)

How is there no mention of if there was or was not a warrant for this in the summary? More over, how the hell does the TFA not even use the word once?

These are not recordings of calls, they are records of what numbers were called at what time and for how long. It is has been long established law in the US that collecting this level of information does not require a warrant. This is the same sort of thinking that makes it legal to record the headers of email messages but not the text bodies.

I think this area of law needs to be revisited, the amount of information that can be gleaned by looking at call records and cross referencing them with other databases is far beyond what the court could have envisioned at the time of the rulings that made such collections legal. But it isn't likely that we'll see any change on that front for a while.

Re:Warrant? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43716185)

Because the point is, with or without a warrant the tapping of the phones of journalists on this scale is terrifying. There is NO justification for behavior like this from our government. If they had a warrant its almost worse.

The United States (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715327)

It's actually worse than you thought (tm)

Re:The Obama Administration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715395)

It's actually worse than you thought (tm)

Fixed.

Re:The Obama Administration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715495)

Yes, such a sharp contrast to his predecessor. Clearly.

oh darn... /s (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43715427)

Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"

But, when somebody turns around and investigates one of THEM, "oh loaurd Jeezuz it's a fiar!".

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander AP. When you shamelessly cram the microscope up asses, don't act insensed or surprised when you get the microscope colonoscopy too. Simply because your shiny little badge says "news", does not make you immune to the law, and you are *not* people of priveledge.

Don't get me wrong, sunshine is good, and breaking stories about govt wrongdoing is healthy and good. Just don't foster an image of sweeping disregard for privacy, and due process while doing so, unless you want the same treatment for yourselves.

Enjoy your DoJ probing. You enjoyed probing others, so its surely right up your alley, AP.

Re:oh darn... /s (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43715571)

Everything you say about press hypocrisy is true. Nevertheless I'm glad they targeted the press, as it's probably the only thing that will get them to squawk about this.

Re:oh darn... /s (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43715627)

The press doesn't have any real power. I mean sure, there's the media, but they can't make laws and they only have as much influence as a casual reader is likely to grant them, which outside the UK isn't much. On the other hand governments intimidating and tracking reporters is a much more serious issue since what power the press does have relies entirely upon their ability to act with a free hand. Maybe not always an unbiased hand, but there are good reasons for them not to simply make up lies as a rule. The fourth estate is neccessary.

Re:oh darn... /s (2, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43715691)

Oh, without question.

The issue I have with the press, at least as incarnated in the USA (and the group being probed in the story to boot) have a very nasty habit of convicting people in the court of public opinion on national television to drum up ratings, and then routinely failing to follow up with apologies when same people get aquitted, and those people they harm have long lasting public stigmatism from this practice.

You can see that hand at work here, in fact.

AP shrieks "Oh that wicked evil government! It's unfairly investigating US, the PRESS! See how BAAAAAAD those DoJ people are, for investigating OUR role in a leak of priviledged information!?"

Just wait and see, if thet *are* complicit in illegal activity, it will be crickets and pindrop silence, but if the probe turns up nothing of interest, there will be fanfare and pointing of fingers, and soapbox gradstanding on every channel.

The news exists to inform people. Not program them and tell them what to think, and stir up mob rule.

Re:oh darn... /s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715637)

The spelling of wierd and privilege, single quotes, double quotes, and asterisks weaken the overall statement. For a full counter, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism#Role and note Dewey's view, which should explain the concern.

Re:oh darn... /s (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43715733)

The unsubstantiated opinion that less than perfect grammar or diction in any way indicates an inferior intelligence behind a statement does not make a very good argument for that position either. Education is not to be conflated with intelligence, nor should blind adhereance to convention.

All that being a grammar nazi proves, is that the grammar nazi fixates on absurdities, and should be ignored. They contribute nothing of value to an intellectual discussion.

Re:oh darn... /s (3, Insightful)

BitterOak (537666) | about a year ago | (#43715681)

Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"

The difference is, the press doesn't have the legal authority to compel telephone companies to provide call records. In fact, I suspect there are privacy laws that would prohibit them from turning that information over to the press. That's why we need to hold the government to a higher standard.

Re:oh darn... /s (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43715789)

Except when the press flagrantly violates those laws, and illegally accesses phone systems, installs malware, and deletes voicemail on dead people's phones, to get their scoops, like murdoch's newscorp scandal.

Or, when they scolicit libeleous commentary for high profile criminal investigations, and diminish the defendent's right to a fair trial.

Because the public has a right, somehow, to know things they aren't entitled to, and to ruin the lives of people involved in a high exposure court case with their opinions.

You don't really understand me here. I don't want to neuter the press. I want the press to act with integrity. As long as dirty laundry sells eyeballs, the press will NOT act with integrity unless there are real consequences for them not to.

Re:oh darn... /s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716159)

So you voted for Obama.

Re:oh darn... /s (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43716199)

No. I did not.

Nice strawman though.

How silly you must be to believe that because I ask for accountability from people who wield power over the public (both explicit and implicit), that I must have been brainwashed by the "chicken in every pot! Oh, and free gas and heathcare too! With unprecidented government transparency, and rainbows, and unicorns!" Bullshit.

Centrist: left of the conservatives, right of the liberals.

Re:oh darn... /s (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43716205)

Because Journalists are irritating. The government claims to have the right to send a hellfire missile into your living room by command of the executive branch with no over-site from any other branch of government. We need to keep tight control of one of those 2 groups... I vote for the one with the nukes.

Re:oh darn... /s (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43716259)

And I agree.

Where I disagree, is in giving the lesser one carte blanc as they transform legitimate journalism into a 3 ring circus, and incite controversy where there is none, and yes, incite violence and death, and get away with it.

They BOTH need to be watched. The press functions best when the protections intended for the press are extended to anyone doing journalism, and not just their circlejerk buddies and friends. By preventing a "thin press line" (play on "thin blue line found in police depts) by allowing every blogger and camera wielding citizen the power of the press, we service that goal far better than the AP and its insular "legitimate press" nonsense does.

This probe couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

Obviously fake news (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about a year ago | (#43715457)

This administration is the most open, and honest that has ever existed. Haven't they been telling us this throughout Obamas campaign?

Just see how open and hosest they've been about Benghazi. As soon as it happened, we learned it was only because of a video that an individual had made. It was not a terrorist attack. We even have a film producer in prison for it, so it must be true. Anyway, it all george W Bushes fault.

And then there's Obamacare, which will only cost 900 billion over 10 years. No wait, thate 2.6 trillion, since it's now law. No, wait, that only before it starts to get implemented, the price will be a bit higher than that when it really starts. But not to worry, congress plans to exempt themselves from it, because the offordable health care plan is too expensive for them. Anyway, it's all George W Bushes fault.

Then there's the new IRS targeting conservative groups. Definatle George W Bushes fault, since it started in 2011. Obama didn't take office until, ummm, 2016?

Re:Obviously fake news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43716065)

"But you have to pass the bill so you can, uh, find out what's in it...." - Nancy Pelosi, March 9th, 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

National security (1)

amightywind (691887) | about a year ago | (#43715523)

Eric Holder justifies the spying for national security reasons. The question for this muslim lover is what nation's security?

trying ot see how they cuaght the tax evaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715529)

they want to protect there buds....ya knwo the rich people
that stole 500 bucks form every man women and child on earth

If it weren't for bad news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715557)

Benghazi scandal. Leaked by Biden camp to tar Hillary so she won't run in 2016.
IRS scandal. Intentionally leaked to distract from Benghazi.
AP scandal. Intentionally leaked to distract from IRS scandal.

What's next?

'Welcome to the Second Term, Mr. President'
- Tom Brokaw

But aren't these just "business records"? (4, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | about a year ago | (#43715779)

Awww, the press is upset that someone checked over their phone records. At least they obtained a warrant. The FBI appears to think that no such thing is needed when it's a common citizen that they want records for. How come the press is upset when it happens to them but seems to ignore the FBI doing it to others?

Welcome my son, to the machine ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43715869)

Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.

I remember watergate (2)

p51d007 (656414) | about a year ago | (#43715899)

I remember watergate very well...was 14 years old. That summer, you couldn't flip a channel (we only had four tv channels then) without wall to wall 24/7 coverage of the watergate hearings. NOTHING was on but that it seemed. The newspapers, tv, radio stations were all slamming the cover ups, lies, burglary of the watergate issue. Not one person died as a result. Juxtapose that with today, Benghazi, 4 people died, there are lies & cover ups all over the place, the IRS was being used as a 600 pound gorilla to intimidate people, and the press has been focused on the stupid lady that stabbed her boyfriend/husband 27 times, and those 3 missing women who were held for 10 years. Where's the 24/7 wall to wall coverage? Where are the calls for resigning over lies? Whispers of impeachment? Well, has something to do with the majority of the media being a bunch of in the tank liberals who will throw anyone under the bus to protect the "image" of the hope & change guy. They will call this a political witch hunt, GOP grandstanding etc. The press still doesn't get it. If the politicians in DC, both GOP & DEM get their way, the first amendment will go by the way side & will end up with the media, who are almost doing it anyway, being nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government.

I for one (2)

Matt.Battey (1741550) | about a year ago | (#43716109)

Look forward to big brother telling me when I can piss and shit.

Chicago (4, Insightful)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43716149)

What did people expect when Obama took Mayor Daley's goon and thug squad to DC?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...