
U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records - daegloe
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/05/13/us/politics/ap-us-ap-phone-records-subpoena.html?pagewanted=all
======
speeder
I am from Brazil, and I must ask:

Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about
freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes away freedom from its
citizens, and most important to me, takes away freedom from citizens of other
countries while claiming to do the exact opposite?

I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced
sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war.

Many people remember their loved ones that will never come back from our
prisons, or from CIA hands.

Many people in many countries, why the US come to "save" them, and instead put
in power people like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Castelo Branco, Augusto
Pinochet, Mohammad Pahlavi, and many, many, many others.

US only care about its corporations, it only fights to defend its profits, it
is clear when it kicked João Goulart out of Brazil for supporting agrarian
reform and other left-leaning policies, when it helped rebels kill both Lybia
and Iraq leaders after they stopped selling oil for USD, when it "saved"
Afghanistan from URSS by training Osama Bin Laden...

I think it is a outrage that people around the world only started to remember
11 of september after the Trade Center was attacked, not after US bombed Chile
(9/11/1973) and forcefully kicked out a elected president to "save" chileans
and give them "democracy" in the form of a oppressive dictator friendly to US
business.

~~~
rayiner
Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S.
does internally. As flawed as the U.S. government is, it's still better than
almost any government outside Western Europe, and is in some ways better than
governments in Western Europe (e.g. with regard to free speech), though worse
in others.

The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution, although many things
it does are greeted with cries of ignoring the Constitution. It goes to great
lengths to lawyer it's way around the Constitution, no doubt, but most
countries don't even bother.

As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American
government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would
agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other
than what advances its own interests. No other country in the world would do
any differently if they were in the U.S.'s position. Remember, as far as
global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history
of the world.

~~~
oinksoft

      as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most
      benevolent such entity in the history of the world.
    

Well, that's some real comfort. You heard it here, better than the Roman _and_
British empires!

The reference point should be absolute moral good, not third-world
dictatorships. The whole "city on a hill" idea and what have you. That is what
the top-level comment is getting at: Blatant hypocrisy from a state whose
denizens have proudly proclaimed it to be "the greatest country on Earth" or
"the greatest nation in history", some beacon of freedom and humanism,
throughout its existence: The farce that is American Exceptionalism.

~~~
encoderer
It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of
liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to end
or augment monarchial rule.

The world in the 18th century was not -- and today still is not -- able to
grow and nurture a powerful country towards "absolute moral good." The world
is still a primitive and dangerous place full of despots at worst in
inequality at best.

It's good to hold the US to a higher standard, but unfair IMO to critique with
such loathing the way the OP did.

Finally: It's certainly true that many of the ideals of the American
Revolution were inspired by European writing on the subject. Not surprising
considering most colonists in North America then were Europeans themselves. We
can never know exactly how the 19th century would've unfolded had the British
Empire not been so immature and insecure with themselves. They were a
relatively young world power and they seem to have believed in the same age
old "Domino Theory" that still trips up the US today. Had they been more wise
in their choices, they would've granted the colonies freedom from Parliament's
authority in exchange for full economic participation in the empire. Most
likely you would've seen this unfold over the 19th century and quite possibly
maintain itself to this day. Had America been a Sterling country, the British
economic situation during WWI & WWII would be so vastly different that it's
hard to even speculate. And if that were the case, how would that have changed
the pace at which democracy unfolds across the European continent and around
the world?

I think it's easy and fair and accurate to argue that the spread of democratic
and republican ideals was influenced and catalyzed by the 8 years of hot
conflict during the American Revolution. I don't think you can over-state how
inspiring a Saratoga or a Yorktown was.

~~~
smutticus
> It's easy to forget that the American Revolution is what ignited the fire of
> liberty and republican ethos, and catalyzed all of today's democracies to
> end or augment monarchial rule.

Chill with the historical revisionism. The American revolution was a very
important historical event. But it was NOT the first example of a western
Republican government. Both The Netherlands and Switzerland preceded it. The
process of moving the west away from monarchic rule was a long one with many
important steps along the way. One of these was the American revolution. Which
IMO was less influential than the French revolution in ending monarchy.

~~~
nkassis
I was under the impression and correct me if I'm wrong that the French
revolution was much inspired by the American revolution.

~~~
astine
You are not wrong. The French revolutionaries did take inspiration (and
occasionally direct support) from the American revolution. So did the Italian
unification which named streets in Rome for George Washington. Even in England
the revolution saw the first election of a Liberal government.

------
DanielBMarkham
So inside of just a few days, we have political opposition groups targeted for
audits -- including questions about donors and volunteers -- and surveillance
of the press.

The easier we make it for some analyst in FBI headquarters to determine
everywhere a potential terrorist cell has been, the easier we make it for some
other analyst to conduct political spying and harassment like the world has
never seen before. You can't pick one and not get the other.

In many, many ways, the political side of this is the worst part. This has
nothing to do with parties or politics. It's the normal and automatic result
of the creation of systems without appropriate checks and balances.

~~~
jellicle
> we have political opposition groups targeted for audits

What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting
to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities.
If, as you say, they were "political opposition groups" then the IRS was
completely correct in reviewing their applications; they didn't qualify to be
charities.

Why do "political opposition groups" deserve special tax status? Why shouldn't
the IRS enforce the law?

~~~
hga
Non-profits, not charities; many of the 27 types of 501(c) organizations are
not charities. Here we're talking about 501(c)(4) groups, which are explicitly
allowed to engage in politics, with limits. See this for more:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5698931>

~~~
jellicle
They're social welfare groups, by law. And the intent of the registering
persons is not to create a social welfare group, but to hide the identity of
political donors.

The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to
use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate
them.

~~~
hga
Now wait a second: in the message I'm replying to, you said they were "
_charities ... suspected to be engaged in political activities_ ". Now they're
social welfare groups ... but how is hiding the identity of "political donors"
a problem? They're allowed to do that!

And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social
welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim
they're doing that's a fraud.

~~~
jellicle
Engaging in political activities as 100% of their operation. For instance,
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS entity. If you can point to any social welfare
activity Mr. Rove is engaged in, I'd love to see it. But his group's primary
purpose is required to be social welfare.

Rove's group pays no taxes because it is supposedly a social welfare group,
but it's actually a political slush fund. And the Republicans, having broken
the law flagrantly, are now attempting to prevent the IRS from taking any
action to end their abuse of the tax-exempt nonprofit status. That's the
scandal.

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-
sc...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-scandal-tea-
party-oversight.html)

~~~
hga
Crossroads GPS claims public policy advocacy, which is certainly allowed under
501(c)(4) (compare to the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative
action, also a 501(c)(4), albeit not partisan, see again Republican ex-Senator
Lugar spending more time with his family), and fits into the broad category of
"social welfare".

"Rove's group pays no taxes..." _because it is a non-profit_. Contributions
for political activity are taxed. And claims that it's a "slush fund", with
all the connotations that implies, need more than just a bald accusation.

Look, this corruption of the political process is worse than Watergate,
because it was successful in suppressing a lot of election year political
activity, compared to the latter getting caught early and therefore not going
very far. It calls into question the very legitimacy of Obama's reelection, as
pointed out by e.g. James Tatarnto:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732371630457848...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578481112854394652.html)
A lot of people including myself were wondering where the "Tea Party" was in
the 2012 election ... well, now we _know_ part of the answer: getting stomped
upon by the IRS, or avoiding that and staying too small to matter.

You can stop your ears up and say "La, la, la" all you want, but we on the
other side are not buying it. And your side should think really hard about the
ultimate long term consequences of illegally suppressing the loyal opposition,
if we're pushed out of the political process, that doesn't leave us with any
palatable options.

------
sneak
Second amendment's been gone for a while.

Fifth and fourteenth haven't been seen in a minute, either.

Peaceable assembly's overrated anyway. (RNC '04)

How much of the first needs to be gone until it's enough to recognize that the
USA is no longer a free society?

How many whistleblowers, security researchers, and cryptographers need to be
thrown in prison on bullshit trumped-up charges? How many hunger-striking
political prisoners need to be held in secret prisons indefinitely without
trial?

How many decades of PATRIOT Act abuses of individual privacy will be enough?

It's time to emigrate. Vote with your tax dollars.

~~~
hga
" _Second amendment's been gone for a while._ "

Not even close. True if you live in one of 10 very bad states, two of which
oddly are shall issue concealed carry ones that just went very bad
(Connecticut and Colorado), but continuing that concealed carry theme, i.e.
the "bear" in "the right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA), there's been a
nationwide sweep of shall issue, starting in Florida in 1987 and ending with
Iowa and Wisconsin in 2011. And Illinois has a Federal court deadline to go
shall issue by June 9th. So that's ~42 states and ~2/3rds of the population.

And other good things have happened, and in general the political RKBA
_Zeitgeist_ has drastically changed. So there's hope here ... which is
important, since it's the ultimate check on an out of control government.

~~~
beedogs
> since it's the ultimate check on an out of control government.

Realistically, a bunch of pea-shooters stand no chance against the US
military. This holds true whether it's Americans or hired sub-Saharan
mercenaries driving the tanks.

~~~
sneak
> Realistically, a bunch of pea-shooters stand no chance against the US
> military. This holds true whether it's Americans or hired sub-Saharan
> mercenaries driving the tanks.

The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common
misconception.

It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government
means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation
wherein everyone loses.

It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction.

Eric Blair once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class
flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see
that it stays there."

"Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the
mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.

------
salimmadjd
This is so strange! When was a last time AP released anything that wasn't more
than government PR. On many important issues like lead up to Iraq war and now
to a potential Iran war, AP has just reported what's been expected of them. My
thought is the wiretap was set to catch potential whistleblowers than to do
anything with reporters or AP itself.

~~~
johnvschmitt
Correct. The government probably figured, they don't need a subpoena, because
they already manage the AP so closely.

You aren't hearing any serious dissent from the AP.

That said, we have to be vigilant about any overreach, as civil rights are too
hard to get back once you give them up.

~~~
mpyne
As far as I can tell this was done via subpoena (but it's uncertain under
whose authority the subpoena was issued, it may not have been a judge or grand
jury).

Had there not been a subpoena the U.S. would likely not have informed the AP
of the search at all.

------
AJ007
Its sad that high profile news organizations in the United States now need to
use secure communication channels out of fear of being harassed by their own
government.

~~~
guelo
As far as we know the government only obtained records of the timestamps and
endpoints of the communication, not the content. Encryption wouldn't help
there, you need something like Tor. But the problem is that in order to setup
a comm channel over Tor you would have to communicate over an insecure channel
to set it up. Any idea of what could be the solution for a news org?

~~~
AJ007
I said secure, not encrypted, for that reason.

This isn't a problem that needs one solution, but multiple, layered ones.
Communication should be disposable and deniable.

------
brown9-2
Most of the comments here are decrying the death of freedom, but isn't a
subpoena the lawful and ideal way for the government to go about this sort of
thing?

Is a leak of classified information not supposed to be investigated?

~~~
belorn
The leak of classified information should be investigated in proportion to the
damage that said leak _caused_. Otherwise its not an ideal way, and even
questionable if its lawful.

If the government has clear and verifiable evidence of damage that has happen
as a result of said leak, then there should be documents to show it. Where are
the dead bodies or the loss of material goods?

------
Flemlord
Stellar. Maybe we'll finally see some real outrage in the media about the
erosion of civil liberties in the US.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I sincerely hope we do, yet I fear we won't as the media is basically a bunch
of whimpering liberals with no desire to ask the hard questions.

------
mikecane
>>>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.

News organizations that have consistently rolled over and let the government
have its way with secret this and secret that -- and they're shocked! shocked!
that _they_ are subjected to secret ops too? Wake the eff up, special
snowflakes.

------
lettergram
This post and (more predominantly) some of the comments seem to be swaying
dangerously close to breaking the guidelines of the site...

Instead of arguing politics (ie the moral argument) it would be more
interesting to discuss the reasoning behind the wire taps or the implications
of such a wire tap.

------
grandalf
There is not any kind of recourse that would result in consequences for the
government officials who committed this crime.

If the public cared, this kind of thing could potentially result in Obama's
impeachment. Since the public doesn't care, it's a tempest in a teapot.

The nice thing for the officials is that while this kind of story riles some
people up a bit, it quite effectively sends a chilling message at journalists
and would-be informants. Surely a cost-benefit analysis was conducted and
ironically the NY Times coverage is part of the desired outcome.

Consider for a moment what the coverage would be like if there were truly a
hostile/adversarial relationship between the press and the government.

The public does not care about the rule of law, so we don't have it. There is
no better way to join the establishment than to become a reporter.

------
codex
The U.S. did not secretly obtain these records. It notified the AP that these
records were obtained using a valid subpoena, which by law needs to be
approved by the attorney general. Subpoenas of phone records happens all the
time in both criminal investigations and civil cases.

This is just the AP using the propaganda power of its infinite supply of ink
to attempt to protect itself from criminal investigations. Congratulations, HN
--you fell for it. The amount of critical thinking on this site has dropped to
unmeasurable levels.

~~~
obstacle1
It isn't as cut-and-dry as you're pretending. The AP's complaint is that the
records obtained were unreasonably broad in scope, which goes against the
DoJ's guidelines w/r/t news subpoenas.

>Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records
of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but
it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that
its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by
Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

>A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should
be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and
should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

>The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions
that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government
recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of
reporters to investigate and report the news."

Regarding the attorney general approving subpoenas,

>Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records
of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but
it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that
its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by
Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

In general it is really shady that so many things are 'unknown' about this.
Presumably the reporters who wrote this article should have been able to
gather this information (since the article is itself written by the AP). That
they didn't implies either a) that the journalists are supremely incompetent,
or b) that the DoJ is intentionally withholding information it normally has to
hand over by law or regulation. That may be why the journos are calling this
"secret" information gathering.

~~~
codex
"Presumably the reporters who wrote this article should have been able to
gather this information (since the article is itself written by the AP)."

This sums it up--the reporters who wrote this article are the ones whose
records were subpoenaed. Classic conflict of interest, but the AP does not
recuse themselves from writing this story. Thus, I cannot trust anything that
they say. Facts are "unknown"? They will be if it helps the AP spread FUD.
Subpoena is too broad? Says who--why, the AP, of course.

From what I can tell, the subpoena covers the five reporters involved in the
article under investigation, plus all the communal phone lines used by all
reporters in the office, lest reporters try to cover their tracks by using a
phone that's not on their desk. That doesn't sound unusually broad to me.

------
advisedwang
I hope everyone noticed this is an AP-written article so might not totally
impartial here.

------
electic
I want to vomit. I feel very sick just reading this.

------
tantalor
See also, "Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-
hackers...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-
infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?pagewanted=all)

In each case, a government accessed a newspaper's network without
authorization to determine the source of a leak.

------
vaadu
This is not the US. This is the DOJ, which is not the same thing.

This is only going to make the hole deeper for Obama with the Benghazi and IRS
scandals already aboil.

------
drill_sarge
everyone should watch this from 29c3

Not my department [29c3] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mnuofn_DXw>

Enemies of the State [29C3] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs>

after this nothing of what happened here should surprise you

------
Fuxy
And this is why privacy is important. I think we should give the people from
the AP a little basic surveillance avoidance tips. Like say... don't use your
office, personal or work phones for confidential informants. Use a prepaid
card from a location you wouldn't normally go to and trow it away. (single
use)

------
Alex3917
This is funny. First the NY Times purposely buries its own story about the
warrantless wiretapping in order to get Bush reelected. Then they complain
when it starts to look like they could be the ones getting wiretapped. What a
bunch of morons.

------
TWAndrews
I expect that will change the tone of coverage of news stories on surveillance
issues.

------
raylu
Since when was it OK to even subpoena reporters?

~~~
tptacek
It has _always_ been OK to subpoena reporters. Reporters enjoy no special
protections in federal law.

~~~
raylu
But for their sources? Am I missing something or is that obviously not OK?

~~~
mpyne
It's allowable. In fact I thought last decade some reporter went to prison for
years for "contempt of court" for refusing to comply with a valid subpoena
(but I forget the name).

~~~
tptacek
Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to out Bush administration sources who
outed Valerie Plame's status as a covert operative as political retribution.

~~~
theflyingkiwi42
Lewis Libby did not out Valerie Plame's status. It was reporter Robert Novak
who did. It was also never 'leaked' as political retribution.

"In late August 2006, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage
revealed publicly that Novak had based his disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's CIA
identity on then still-classified information that Armitage initially gave him
while Armitage was still serving in the State Department."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline>

~~~
tptacek
That is an interesting new definition of "out", where _telling a reporter_
doesn't count, but the reporter's story does.

------
Zenst
Well, for all those people who thought they had access to this information on-
tap. Clearly that is not the case.

------
beedogs
USA is becoming Germany circa 1934.

~~~
twoodfin
hn is becoming reddit circa 2007.

------
rjohnk
Can't we all just get along?

------
OGinparadise
Wow! Besides the new level of audacity, whatever happened to "Never picking a
fight with people who buy ink by the barrel" ?

------
rorrr2
I hope AP switches to encrypted VOIP after this. Along with everyone else.

