Let's not forget the IRS having authority to pull all electronic communications from an entity without any kind of oversight at all (because they are a "special" agency) and now word that some of the documents they've been pulling, perhaps against policy, were leaked to the press.

I tried to post an analysis of why the IRS story was important to hackers everywhere earlier. It was killed. Beats me why. Some wag said it was just more political bullshit.

I quite understand people who want to hear exclusively about Erlang innards and point out there are plenty of other places for articles that involve any politics at all. But this is the world we live in, and the technologies we are developing are being used for this stuff.

One day some guy writes code to exploit MITM attacks for web devices, and one day very soon afterwards some despotic government uses it to target and kill people. You can't continue to hide your head in the sand and pretend that somehow some really cool tech will come along and save the day, so back to the Apple and SV gossip tripe. That's simply not realistic. We don't write pure technology. We create powerful tools that impact the lives of people everywhere. It is not rational to pretend that impact does not exist. I guarantee you that some hacker in the audience probably played a role in the software used for the AP intercept.

ADD: And the joke I've been thinking about all day which must come out: they don't make a Hallmark card for this.

As far as I can tell, there was no real "intercept" in this case other than the government asking for records of calls. So the software involved was probably just a SQL query.

That said, I do agree with the point you're making that there can be a larger context to our work. Indeed, it can give meaning to our work.

I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys writing iPhone apps; but the prevalence of things like Stuxnet, and Chinese cyber spying, and Bitcoin (in particular the political philosophy behind its origin), and Facebook (and its implications for privacy), and now the AP subpoena, is increasingly telling me that there's a huge opportunity to use tech skills to make a difference in the world. And the people most suited to do it are people who understand both politics and technology.

More to the point, we're involved in this whether we want to be or not

Just an SQL query? Maybe they should be charged for hacking under CFAA, then.

This- to put it mildly- is Not Good. I'll quote David Carr's tweet[1],which best sums up my feelings on the matter:

Lemme see, IRS going after political opponents plus DOJ tapping AP reporters. Nixonian optics on "the most transparent admin in history."

I do wonder what kind of a legacy the Obama administration will leave to history when these kinds of events are stacked up.

[1] https://twitter.com/carr2n/status/334055243379785728

If you're making a list of the most tyrannical Presidents ever, you'd have to put FDR near the top of that. And his reputation has survived.

Obama is a progressive. So are history professors. His legacy will be fine.

I'm not so sure. I think he's done some good work. But he's also on the precipice of having a whole generation of young idealists getting the shaft when it comes to the price of healthcare next year - if a new congressional report is to be believed.

Disclosure: this is my submission from earlier today on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5702248

> Obama is a progressive

Not so sure that will be part of his legacy. He generally concedes to corporate will and is so accommodating to Republicans he plans to cut social security, which they're now criticizing him for. Let's not forget that Republicans (McCain) supported national healthcare to some extent. If anything, Obama will be appreciated by progressives for his liberal Supreme Court appointments, but whether he's ever remembered as a progressive remains to be seen. Though, it's definitely what Fox News would have you think.

Nah, it's just that Hoover did such a good job it makes FDR look bad by comparison.

Maybe my memory's failing me, but I can't think of a similarly-sized press surveillance operation by the Bush Administration.

Keep in mind that under Obama, more alleged government leakers have been prosecuted than all of his predecessors combined:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/obama-pursuing-leak...

This includes administrations that oversaw such problematic eras as the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the McCarthy Era, and of course, the War on Terrorism.

This was an interesting argument, so I did some quick research. Apparently, six (6) Espionage Act cases have been filed under Obama. I found and read the indictments for each (they're easy to find, since FAS tracks them). They were:

* Thomas Drake, an NSA employee who favored "ThinThread" instead of the later-adopted "Trailblazer" internet surveillance scheme, who then created a Hushmail account and fed classified documents to a reporter from it.

* Shamai Leibowitz, an FBI contractor/interpreter, who fed the contents of an cable intercepted from the Israeli embassy to a blogger because he felt it implicated Israel in an attack on Iran.

* Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a career civil servant at State who worked on counterproliferation and North Korea and fed classified documents about North Korea to Fox News, and then lied to the FBI about having any contact with journalists.

* Bradley Manning

* Jeffrey Sterling, who was fired from the CIA, lodged a series of employment law disputes with the CIA, attempted to write a memoir about his time at CIA, and then fed classified details about Iranian counterproliferation to a reporter which put a human intelligence resource at risk.

* John Kiriakou, a CIA counterterrorism official who worked in Pakistan, who outed two covert operatives to a reporter (they had allegedly been involved in the Bush-era interrogation program).

Of this list, Kiriakou and Drake are sympathetic to me, but every single case here seems like a valid prosecution; when you take a role that requires you to handle the most sensitive data the government handles, you cannot share it with the press expecting not to end up arguing your side of the story in a court of law. You certainly can't out covert operatives, or feed foreign intercepts you translate to bloggers!

How do you feel about general whistleblowers like Peter Van Buren[1] and Gregory Hicks[2]? Neither have been prosecuted, but it's hard to deny they have been persecuted for their positions.

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/obama-whistleblo...

[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-kn...

I'm not clear on how Hicks claims to have been persecuted. Van Buren was fired after writing a tell-all book (which got him demoted to a work-from-home position) and maintaining a blog that linked to Wikileaks documents. I'm ambivalent about the prospect of being fired from a job for detracting from your government employer. On the one hand, you'd lose that same job at any private company where you did the same; on the other hand, in the public sector, detracting from your employer can be a public service. I guess I'd have to think about it on a case-by-case basis.

...But not Karl Rove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Karl_Rove

Karl Rove was not a federal government employee when Obama assumed office.

Don't you mean Richard Armitage? Read your link.

We have a problem here and it is not any particular politician or political party but the assumption of almost unlimited power by our entire political leadership. They appear to believe they can do whatever they can get away with - just do it in secret or buried in an incomprehensible law or regulation. And in the rare instance our nepotistic press tries to hold them to account they simply deny and delay and deny and delay until it goes away.

Is there anything that can reign them in? Or should I say convince them to reign themselves in. I don't think so.

Sorry for the rant.

Advice for press: Get trained in spycraft (throw away cell phones, false names, strong file and email encryption, Tor...). but most of all don't become too cozy with our leadership.

"but most of all don't become too cozy with our leadership."

News has become a celebrity sport, and it's too late for "too cozy".

https://www.google.com/search?q=washington+correspondents+di...

Speaking of cozy, a lot of right-wing websites are noticing that the President of CBS news is brother to one of the Obama administration's national security advisors: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/11/top-obama-officials-brothe...

Didn't know that but last year one of the morning NPR hosts had to take a vacation for the duration of the election because her husband was running a big part of one of the campaigns. It's like a king's court - everyone fawning over the power.

Have you ever thought of the fact that perhaps people behaved themselves because they were more afraid of Bush than Obama? It's easy to say, under "Obama's Administration" as if they called Obama for permission and he stamped approved on it. That's akin to blaming the President of a company for something an intern did. Sure, in the overall picture, the President is responsible for everything that happens underneath him, but without the detail of who did what, why, who gave who permission, etc, let's not rush to judgement.

No, I don't think this has anything to do with that kind of rationale. But to be fair, some of these leak prosecutions started with investigations that began under the Bush administration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/politics/accidental-pat...

But to your point: it doesn't matter if Obama personally investigated the cases himself or if a witchhunt is led by a middle manager. He is the top executive, what he says or implies trickles down the chain of command. If he passed along the word that these prosecutions weren't worth the time and effort, then the immense work that goes behind building these cases would, quite likely, dissipate.

"Maybe my memory's failing me, but I can't think of a similarly-sized press surveillance operation by the Bush Administration."

Read up on Mark Klein's whistleblower case. It wasn't just press surveillance - it was the origin of surveillance of everybody.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

Maybe Alberto Gonzalez never bothered to send the letter. The scary thing is, how would we ever know that the government is respecting the security of our privacy, if they have to power to ignore it?

They told me if I voted for McCain that we'd end up living in a police state after 8 years...and they were right!

Credit to Instapundit if you care to see more from the most transparent administration ever http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=%22They+told+me+if+I+voted...

Pretty much both sides of the spectrum look pretty grim.

I used to be a hard-ass liberal, but now I've changed my outlook, matured a bit, and become a libertarian.

Their philosophy makes the most sense, but no one seems to listen.

Demosthenes and Locke are the only voices allowed... and you must rabidly adhere to one or the other. Ah, Ender, didn't you know?

If you are a former liberal turned libertarian I highly recommend http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/. They're liberals but use a libertarian ethic framework, sort of.

This is the May 2012 story the AP claims to have set off the investigation, the writers of which were allegedly the targets (linked from Business Insider): http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05...

Ironically, that story reads like yet another NYTimes "well informed insider" report:

U.S. officials, who were briefed on the operation, insisted on anonymity to discuss the case, which the U.S. has never officially acknowledged.

What's really crazy is that this was a big success and was probably leaked by someone proud of the achievement. Meanwhile someone else had decided to pursue these drastic measures to find the leaker. They may even work together.

In any event the operation was going to be announced a week later. Perhaps the real offense was spoiling a triumphant press conference.

The CEO of AP, Gary Pruitt, responds to Holder (DOJ) regarding the record seizure- http://www.ap.org/Images/Letter-to-Eric-Holder_tcm28-12896.p...

Have you come across any DoJ justification? As Pruitt notes, "[t]hese records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities." That's a pretty good way to inhibit future "newsgathering operations," turning potential future sources into fearful non-sources.

Actually we need more of that! Whatever it takes to help media wake up and become more critical of government intrusion tactics.

No we don't. Most of this is already reported, if you want to look for it. If you're worried that citizens of your country aren't interested in those stories, you should get out and make more people aware.

This is about agenda setting. Media coverage determines what gets covered and what not.

Scandals like these make government's ongoing privacy intrusion a real, tangible issue. If I go around spreading the gospel, I am just an internet tinfoil head. If it is the headline on a national newspaper, it is a real issue that needs discussion.

You seem to be assuming the direction of causation there. Not that you're wrong, necessarily, but you never can be sure.

Well, it is certainly bi-directional. Probably we can settle for the good old echo-chamber description. :)

Is anyone even surprised by the actions of the U.S. Government anymore?

Are there currently any VOIP+Tor type technologies that could reasonably replace existing telephone services and prevent this sort of thing in the future?

Adding to your question, it seems there are two things that are needed: Reducing reliance on a third-party service (phone company, Skype, etc.) that may keep call records which can be subpoenaed; and encrypting the conversation itself so it can't be monitored.

It seeems there are "crypto phones", but do these still rely on a third-party service to initiate and transmit the call? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_phone

From what I can gather, those crypto phones will encrypt the communication but the identity of the two parties and the duration of the calls would still be known.

SIP and Jingle calls can be afaik encrypted. Can those replace POTS? I don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZRTP

VOIP is just as easily snooped as regular lines. It's not as easy, but you can do it with the right tools.

> VOIP is just as easily snooped as regular lines. It's not as easy, but you can do it with the right tools.

Wait, is it just as easy or not as easy?

The point is that there's no difference when the resources of the government are put to the task.

Which is the "+Tor" part, which both encrypts the data and obscures the sending and receiving parties.

How does the government "secretly" obtain information? Did they hack the AP? Was it an inside job? Better yet, if it was so secret, how did the AP even find out that the DoJ obtained their records? Something doesn't add up...

The AP was with "notified" in a letter...

From the article, "News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules..."

and then,

"It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas."

I guess the point is that it's not really a "secret" (which implies that a cover-up has been blown). Rather it's post-facto notification.

Phone records may be subpoenaed from the phone service providers. As the article notes, part of that process is to later notify affected service users of the subpoena, which they did on Friday by way of a letter to the AP.

I would think they could have easily contacted the carriers of the phone numbers, which would quickly hand over whatever data they were requesting.

I posted this on my FB wall, pretty outraged, and a friend of mine who is a former federal prosecutor had this to say in response:

Let me provide some context: this was certainly not unchecked or without oversight. In fact, any time phone records are requested by federal subpoena as part of a criminal investigation (which is what happened here), the subpoenas are checked by a federal grand jury and -- later in the process -- open for judicial and public review. During the investigative phase, subpoenas are kept sealed in court records to protect the privacy rights of innocent people and to maintain investigative integrity. This is a normal part of our legal process, and consistent with best international practices. Also, because of obvious free press concerns, there are special checks in place whenever you want to subpoena records of press officials. You have to prove that it's necessary for the criminal investigation and that there is no other way to get the info. It's actually such a pain in the ass (lots of paperwork and waiting for a long line of signatures) that no one would want to go through it unless it was absolutely necessary. Here, they're investigating criminal leakage of classified information about a CIA's disruption of a terrorist plot to blow up an airliner on the anniversary of bin Laden's death. Whoever leaked the information committed a serious crime and likely put lives in danger. (Confidential sources are important to reporters, but they are perhaps even more important and certainly harder to come by for intelligence officers. CIA may have worked for years to acquire the source that allowed them to foil the terrorist plot, and that source may now be dead as a result of the leak of classified information.) The article has fairly limited information but says that there were 20 phone lines for which records were subpoenaed. This number would be consistent with investigation of a leak to one of a small handful of people, and although we won't know until court records are ultimately unsealed, I suspect the records requested for the office lines were probably tailored in scope to match that set of people. Like I said, the approval process is onerous, and you have a much better chance of getting things signed if you really narrow the scope of your request (e.g., "We know the data was leaked in this 3 day period, and we suspect the info was received by this person, who worked in the office from 4-8pm those days, so we'll request those times.") The records you get back from the phone company include phone numbers called and duration of calls, and then you can subpoena other records if you see any numbers that match up with the person suspected of leaking the classified info. I think it's important to keep in mind that our intelligence operations play a critical role in keeping us safe. If we're unwilling to accept law enforcement's role in protecting our intelligence services, then we should expect more attacks like the one that happened in Boston.

I am a fiscal conservative and a constitutionalist (don't confuse me with a Republican). No fan of president Obama. Here is my viewpoint.

Someone in the Obama Administration wanted to brag a bit and leaked confidential information to the AP.

They blew a British agent's cover and he had to pull out of Yemen.

His Yemeni associates may now be subject to torture/imprisonment/death.

That's illegal and irresponsible. The people responsible should be tracked down and punished.

The Justice department got a warrant and obtained relevant information from the AP. Just because they are US media doesn't give them the right to publish state secrets.

I think the US government is acting properly here.

Shouldn't this posting be from a neutral source, say Reuters, or some distinguished blog rather than the AP themselves?

Otherwise, I'd recommend putting the quotes around the accusagion (ie, AP claims Govt has obtained their phone records, etc).

Perhaps the government here is actually in the correct?

Well, since the AP is breaking the story, do you suggest we hang out until Reuters covers it?

I don't think there's really much of a question of the basic facts, unless you think the AP has forged the letter from the Justice Department that was received Friday?