Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling

ABC News ^ | May 15 2006 | Brian Ross and Richard Esposito

[jmc1969]

A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

We do not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

[dirtboy]

In the case of phone records

Call up Verizon and ask to data mine their calling records. And then publicly reveal the results. They'll tell you to pi** off.

[dirtboy]

No, and its a heck of alot worse than knowing who you might call, or who called your number, with zero names connected to the phone data.

Different species, same genus. Do you really think the fedgov will only use the phone database only for antiterrorism? Or do you think they'll give the likes of Spitzer access to it someday to see who has been calling out of state cigarette dealers from within NY? Or that the State of New York itself will demand the calling records from Verizon, because, hey, they gave the data to the feds without a fight?

[colorcountry]

I'll bet I could sue for those records and win. I suppose I could get just about any record I wanted from any utility if I have enough time and money.

What about cable TV records, do you think advertisers have access to your records about TV viewing habits. If I was an advertiser do you think I would be able to get those records? I speculate they are freely given, all the time, to just about any potential advertiser.

[Beagle8U]

They don't need it, they get the full records of everyone in the state, including names, address, credit card numbers etc.
Then they can mine that data to pick out who they want to go after.

Its much worse, and from what is said, also legal.

[colorcountry]

So why don't you just address what you disagree with regarding what he has said?

I don't want to address that issue. I'm bringing up an additional issue about disruptors in our midst, and it's nothing out of line of what has been posted in the past on FR........ to use your own words in my defense.

I've seen you around dirtboy, I've disagreed with you on occasion, but if I suspected you were here on FR to disrupt, I'd post about it.

[dirtboy]

Its much worse, and from what is said, also legal.

And I am opposed to that. It's all part of a dying notion that government first has to show specific evidence against a specific person in order to get information such as phone calls or credit card/bank data. Now they can just shotgun the data and mine it for perps.

That is one reason I was opposed to the Bush Admin wanting search data from Google. We need to curtail the government's insatiable demand for this kind of data.

[dirtboy]

I'm bringing up an additional issue about disruptors in our midst

And I'm saying, as long as they are not posting something that is inconsisent with views held on the larger forum, then they should not be harassed.

[Political Junkie Too]

They obviously feel that the safety of their equipment (cell towers, offices, and such) and customers is at risk of another attack and are aiding our government by sending phone call logs to them.

-PJ

[dirtboy]

They obviously feel that the safety of their equipment (cell towers, offices, and such) and customers is at risk of another attack and are aiding our government by sending phone call logs to them.

Sorry, but that is in no manner the intent of that clause. It relates to a specific threat, not a vague general one.

Normally, the government requires a subpeona to get this kind of data. And that should remain the general standard.

[angkor]

That case concerned the constitutionality of pen registers.

No, it concerned the privacy of telephone numbers. Pen registers are merely incidental to that question.

[colorcountry]

I didn't harrass them, didn't tell the mod or anything. I simply pointed out their posting history. You've made it into an issue...I basically said nothing except that their history was interesting.....interesting.

[Beagle8U]

"That is one reason I was opposed to the Bush Admin wanting search data from Google. We need to curtail the government's insatiable demand for this kind of data."

I don't think that blind groups of phone records, with no names attached, is quite the same thing.

I personally am thankful for the Bush administration and have no problem with this NSA phone number program to track terrorists.

[dirtboy]

I don't think that blind groups of phone records, with no names attached, is quite the same thing.

I see it as the same basic concept - the government demanding data it really has no business demanding.

I personally am thankful for the Bush administration and have no problem with this NSA phone number program to track terrorists.

And I'm saying it is part of a larger trend that can lead to the kind of abuses you've seen in NY with the cigarette purchases.

[dirtboy]

I basically said nothing except that their history was interesting.....interesting.

By your own admission you are looking out for disruptors. The guy has said nothing that is disruptive.

[colorcountry]

By your own admission you are looking out for disruptors

I said that just now, to you. Didn't say it earlier on the thread. In fact, it isn't so. I don't go around looking for disruptors....I said something smelled funny so I looked into it...and it still does. Care to address the issue of an FR poster who is silent for a year and a half, then suddenly pops up on two threads about the NSA, being critical of the Administration? Don't you find it interesting? I guess not. That's your prerogative.

[dirtboy]

Care to address the issue of an FR poster who is silent for a year and a half, then suddenly pops up on two threads about the NSA, being critical of the Administration? Don't you find it interesting?

Gawd, if he's gonna get interrogated, I can see why he's hesitant to post.

[Political Junkie Too]

Sure, I know it's a stretch. Everything's a stretch or spin today.

Here is the actual clause:

Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas. Verizon also will share information to protect its rights or property and to protect users of its services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive or unlawful use of services.

Here's my spin: terrorists are "fraudulent" in using cell phones if they base the account on false social security numbers or IDs. They are "abusing" or "unlawfully" using the service if they are planning a terrorist attack with it.

I guess one can argue that if the terrorist is paying their bill on time that they are not unlawfully using the service even if they are using it to plan an unlawful event. I guess one can argue that it is not Verizon's concern if the credentials used to obtain the service account were false as long as the bill gets paid each month.

-PJ

[dirtboy]

Everything's a stretch or spin today.

And that's the other big problem today. If concepts can be stretched to have any meaning, then nothing has meaning.

[Political Junkie Too]

Well, I thought mine was pretty clever. ;-)

-PJ

[colorcountry]

if he's gonna get interrogated, I can see why he's hesitant to post.

I see your point....you and I, nor anyone else, have ever been grilled on FreeRepublic about our posts. Poor guy, I'm glad you're here to defend him. < /sarc>