• Home
  • Blogs
  • Public Eye
Public Eye
May 15, 2006 2:09 PM

Where I'm Calling From

Posted by Brian Montopoli
(AP / CBS)
Yowza.

That's the reaction I had when I saw Brian Ross and Richard Esposito's report alleging that "the government is tracking the phone numbers [journalists] call in an effort to root out confidential sources."

Something to keep in mind: Since this is an early, incomplete report, it should not be treated as ironclad. It's tied to an anonymous "senior federal law enforcement official." Beyond that single source, it doesn't have much to it one couldn't infer from last week's revelations about NSA call monitoring. And, somewhat oddly, the story was reported on "The Blotter," an ABC News blog. Was that a signal that ABC News didn't think it had enough to put the report in a stand-alone story? This is a big story to treat so off-handedly. What, exactly, is going on here?

Still: Even if this isn't happening yet, the potential is there. The government is tracking the calls of tens of millions of Americans, and if someone wants to go into the database and find out who a reporter has been talking to, wouldn't the information be just a few mouse clicks away? I imagine that at least some reporters will start using disposable cell phones and, in the case of Ross and Esposito, "in person conversations" with sources for fear that the government will otherwise know to whom they have been talking. Is anyone else more than a little troubled that reporters might now have to embrace tactics favored by terrorists in pursuit of a story?
Tags:
journalists ,
calling ,
NSA
Topics:
Media Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From Public Eye

Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by peterbaldwin-2009 May 15, 2006 10:39 PM EDT
Big Brother works both ways. You can pick up a Simple Freedom Kyocera for 50 bucks, activate it wth a bogus name and address, use pre-paid minutes cards instead of online credit card purchases, and no one will know whose phone it is. The 911 tracking function, which is a requirement for all cellphones, might be a problem though, since the government could be secretly using that technology to track callers. As an alternative you can skype computer to computer undetectably or use Yahoo Messenger with a phoney email account. You can buy minutes for skyping to cell phones and landlines with a debit card with a fake name that requires no credit check and use a Paris or London phone number for your computer. If you have a personal enemy you can enter his or her name and address into the Simple Freedom Account over the internet, and then make threatening calls to the White House.
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 May 15, 2006 10:06 PM EDT
oops - correction - "nuts" not crazy!
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 May 15, 2006 10:05 PM EDT
mikezwolf: thank you for the response to my question and the quasi-apology. One's sanity is all relative isn't it, unless you meant "crazy" in some other context? Ha! That aside, I hope that both you and the proprietors of this blog will see that some of the public criticism of the media/journalists is not coming just from "radicals." I can tell you I don't personally hang out with any "radicals" (well, no political radicals). Yet, to a man and woman there is a growing and palpable disdain for the media. How long will the media continue to assign the worsening opinion of them to lefties for Clinton, righties for Bush, rather, than see it may just be the "middies" for the United States of America?
Reply to this comment
by mikezwolf May 15, 2006 9:38 PM EDT
centralcal - sorry for the assumption, there have been a few around lately (btw, I didn't support either Clinton or Bush, so that makes me even more of a contrarian... Either behind of ahead of the times, depending on how you chose to look at it - although Clinton wasn't offensive to me like Bush is, I think you had to be nuts to vote for him the second time, but I digress...) Re. warrants, not sure about how a judge would interpret things re. phone logs, but for tapping I do believe you have to be notified if you were taped, even if the other party to the conversation was the target (although this an area of law I don't really know much about - Glenn Greenwald will likely have more on this over the next couple of days). But it seems very plausible that once they have the full database in a secret program with no supervision whatsoever from either the judicial branch or even from their own Justice Dept. (they denied clearance to their own govt. lawyers!!) the temptation is too much for these people - given what they've already done with selective, misleading intelligence leaks on WMDs and with the punitive leak of a CIA agent's identity, this will seem minor to them. And if you're going to use that data, you're going to go the easy route: it's much easier to go throught the logs of a couple of journalists that you know received the info than through the logs of all possible leakers (could be someone far down in the chain - potentially several thousands of people).
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 May 15, 2006 8:57 PM EDT
Question for mikezwolf regarding this statement: "But there's a time limit for the disclosure of warrants to the target, and by now reporters would likely have been notified if that was the case." What would happen if the leakers were the target and not the reporters? I mean what if the leaker's phone records connected to a reporter? As for Libby, Rove, et al - no indictments for leaking so far, only for perjury. Oh - I voted for Clinton and for Gore and didn't for Kerry - so I may be "hard" headed, but never "hard" left or right.
Reply to this comment
by texican21 May 15, 2006 8:17 PM EDT
It seems to me this whole argument around whether the Executive department has been lawful about it's data mining activities is premature, since no one outside the Executive branch is even privy to what these activities are. The Congressional oversight commitee has repeatedly requested details, so that they might fulfill their obligation, but have been denied this information. The argument here is over the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances in a democracy. I suppose it is the position of the White House, that passage of the Patriot Act allows for this suspension of democratic ideals. I'll leave that for higher minds to determine. I do wonder, how under this iron fisted concept, the treasonous leaking of a covert CIA agent's identity could come from any other source?
Reply to this comment
by mikezwolf May 15, 2006 8:09 PM EDT
Funny, I don't remember seeing the hard-right upset at the regular illegal leaks from the Starr investigation, the selective, misleading, illegal leaks of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the illegal Plame leak for political-payback that seems to have damaged the CIA's Iran counter-proliferation operation, etc., etc. I must assume y'all want Libby, Rove and Cheney in jail, presto? Of course not, but you'll take any chance you get to intimidate even further your already compliant press. Dear journalists -- pay attention, these are the people you've been coddling to over the past 15 years. They don't want you to be 'unbiased', or even more biased towards their point of view than you have already become in response to their harassment over the past 20 years. They just don't want for there to be independent journalism in the country that forces facts and reality to intrude into their political fantasies. If the call logs were obtained with court warrants, that's perfectly legitimate, as long as *all* leaks are investigated in the same manner (and I'm the first to say that source confidentiality shouldn't be used to cover crimes -- and, also, that sources that are found to have lied to journalists should be outed). But there's a time limit for the disclosure of warrants to the target, and by now reporters would likely have been notified if that was the case. Again, go to Digby and read the excerpt from Perlstein's book. Everything old is new again.
Reply to this comment
by centralcal-2009 May 15, 2006 7:37 PM EDT
If reporters are part of a DOJ leak investigation they should certainly assume that phone records would be among the things included in a legal search warrant! Good grief - you don't need NSA for that. If leakers reveal information ILLEGALLY to reporters who rush them into print or on the air, then both should assume that there is the risk of discovery and, one would hope, consequences to be paid. A good portion of some reporter's "domestic spying" hysteria is their own very GUILTY consciences.
Reply to this comment
by mikezwolf May 15, 2006 7:24 PM EDT
Your sentence: "Perhaps some in the media are secretly working for rogue nations or terrorist organizations, and have set out to divulge these secrets through the press in order to do damage to our country." *That* is the definition of a loon, a windbag, and another kind of -bag as well. The McCarthyte scoundrel kind, who put party above country.
Reply to this comment
by one_american May 15, 2006 7:09 PM EDT
mikezwolf- Nice hyperventilation. You sound just like the bunch of loons you call "leaders" in the Democratic Party. Gas on, windbag.
Reply to this comment
by mikezwolf May 15, 2006 6:59 PM EDT
One_American -- If you want to make the obscene and desperate accusation that the press or any fellow American is working for 'rogue nations' or for terrorists, I suggest you focus instead on the Bush Administration. They have done more to help Osama Bin Laden's monstruous agenda than he could have ever dreamed. Divide the country and seriously damage our liberal democratic institutions and constitutional framework? Check. Invade an oil-rich Islamic country, as publicly predicted by Bin Laden? Check. Raise Al Qaeda to the level of military opponents instead of the thugs they are? Check. Create a convenient recruitment and training ground in Iraq where wahabists can use US soldiers for target practice? Check. Shred our moral authority and alienate the unprecedented level of international support that the US had post-September 11? Check. Divert troops to Iraq, even if that meant letting Bin Laden get away in Afghanistan? Check. Not bombing Zarqawi in Kurdistan despite repeated requests from the military because it might interfere with the planning for the invasion of Iraq? Check. Gut the already ailing CIA with political purges to hide their lies on WMDs? Check. If you want to see where this story is going, I suggest you read the excerpt from Perlstein's book posted by Digby: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#11@?*1780097714178 Same as it ever was.
Reply to this comment
by one_american May 15, 2006 6:29 PM EDT
mikezwolf- If reporters are leaking national security information (which they certainly have been) I, for one, don't mind that the government is gathering intelligence on how and by whom this is happening. Perhaps some in the media are secretly working for rogue nations or terrorist organizations, and have set out to divulge these secrets through the press in order to do damage to our country. Don't you think it would be prudent to at least investigate? Why should the media think that it is totally above the law?
Reply to this comment
by mikezwolf May 15, 2006 5:57 PM EDT
simminch -- That's just silly. You're assuming that whistle-blowers exposing people in our government doing illegal things would be so naive as to call from their work phones. Not very likely, given how vindictive and politically motivated the current executive has shown itself to be. They surely call from home or from personal cell phones.
Reply to this comment
by simminch May 15, 2006 5:26 PM EDT
I hate to say it but these guys must have just gotten off the short bus. Most government offices have incoming calls logged by their telephone switch. Many have outgoing ones logged, too. So does, my guess, CBS and ABC among other private companies. Caller ID makes it simple. Where on earth would they have gotten the notion that their phone numbers are not recorded? And, it could be something as simple as what I've done a hundred times. Mystery number on the company phone bill. Pick up the phone and dial it. It's not brain surgery and the NSA is probably not within a hundred miles of this story.
Reply to this comment
See all 14 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye