Government Secretly Obtained AP's Phone Records

[Anonymous]

More here: http://mediamattersaction.org/mobile/message/onepagers/201305140001

[Anonymous]

Forgive my ignorance. If they notified the AP after the fact, when and how did they actually get these records? Would this not become known openly to the providers as they comply and maybe notify their customers?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Forgive my ignorance. If they notified the AP after the fact, when and how did they actually get these records? Would this not become known openly to the providers as they comply and maybe notify their customers?

The Administration subpoenas the phone companies. They aren't allowed to tell their customers. The government and telcos have been in bed together since the Bush administration when they got immunity in order to cooperate with warrantless wiretaps.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive my ignorance. If they notified the AP after the fact, when and how did they actually get these records? Would this not become known openly to the providers as they comply and maybe notify their customers?

The Administration subpoenas the phone companies. They aren't allowed to tell their customers. The government and telcos have been in bed together since the Bush administration when they got immunity in order to cooperate with warrantless wiretaps.

True. And Joe Nacchio claims he went to prison because he was the only telecom CEO to refuse to honor warrantless wiretaps. Don't know if it's true, but if it was a Dem President the Internet would be going apeshit about that. There would be inquiries forever, he'd be called a capitalist hero.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-question-whether-ap-leak-on-al-qaeda-plot-put-us-at-risk/2013/05/15/47003ed4-bd77-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_print.html

If this is true, it makes the whole story even more puzzling and disturbing.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-questi...2-89c9-3be8095fe767_print.html

If this is true, it makes the whole story even more puzzling and disturbing.

Sounds like a republican operator has fed a reporter some more bullshit right from the GOP. As we all know, if you are not naming your source on a hit piece, its a fake story. Keep the high standards Washington Post.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a republican operator has fed a reporter some more bullshit right from the GOP. As we all know, if you are not naming your source on a hit piece, its a fake story. Keep the high standards Washington Post.

You must be too young to remember "Deep Throat"!

[Anonymous]

Scooter remember him?

[Anonymous]

Isn't an "unnamed source" the reason for this thread?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive my ignorance. If they notified the AP after the fact, when and how did they actually get these records? Would this not become known openly to the providers as they comply and maybe notify their customers?

The Administration subpoenas the phone companies. They aren't allowed to tell their customers. The government and telcos have been in bed together since the Bush administration when they got immunity in order to cooperate with warrantless wiretaps.

-and was this simply "phone records" - or was it the CONTENT of their conversations? Well, I will just leave this here for you to ponder:

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

Hmm - every word you say on any phone is recorded, it seems. It is all just sitting out there waiting to be heard by a government we can (hopefully) trust to obey our Constitution. The game certainly seems to have changed (and not in favor of our privacy or civil liberties).

[Anonymous]

It was just the call data not the conversations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was just the call data not the conversations.

-did you read the link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was just the call data not the conversations.

-did you read the link?

Yes, but (1) the article oversells the surveillance capability. The government could track calls coming and going from the US. It could listen to domestic calls in real time and flag calls for recording and review based on content. But they do not have a recording of some call you made to your friend in February sitting on a server. (2) the warrant did not cover the conversations themselves. (3) If they did in fact obtain the actual conversations, they would have no reason to get a subpoena, just for the records, that would subsequently have to be publicly revealed. What would be the point of spying on someone and then getting a subpoena for lesser information?

[Anonymous]

Well, this case has reached its conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/fbi-ex-agent-pleads-guilty-in-leak-to-ap.html?hp&_r=0

The man was an FBI bomb technician, and he pleaded guilty. Oddly, he has also pleaded guilty to distribution of child porn. Doesn't seem relevant, but hard not to mention.