Verizon Admits Turning Over Data Without Court Orders.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution! Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Story on the Washington Post

Verizon Says It Turned Over Data Without Court Orders
Firm's Letter to Lawmakers Details Government Requests

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; Page A01

Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.

In an Oct. 12 letter replying to Democratic lawmakers, Verizon offered a rare glimpse into the way telecommunications companies cooperate with government requests for information on U.S. citizens.

Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas, sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called. Verizon does not keep data on this "two-generation community of interest" for customers, but the request highlights the broad reach of the government's quest for data.

The disclosures, in a letter from Verizon to three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the carriers' participation in government surveillance programs, demonstrated the willingness of telecom companies to comply with government requests for data, even, at times, without traditional legal supporting documents. The committee members also got letters from AT&T and Qwest Communications International, but those letters did not provide details on customer data given to the government. None of the three carriers gave details on any classified government surveillance program.

From January 2005 to September 2007, Verizon provided data to federal authorities on an emergency basis 720 times, it said in the letter. The records included Internet protocol addresses as well as phone data. In that period, Verizon turned over information a total of 94,000 times to federal authorities armed with a subpoena or court order, the letter said. The information was used for a range of criminal investigations, including kidnapping and child-predator cases and counter-terrorism investigations.

Verizon and AT&T said it was not their role to second-guess the legitimacy of emergency government requests.

The letters were released yesterday by the lawmakers as Congress debates whether to grant telecom carriers immunity in cases in which they are sued for disclosing customers' phone records and other data as part of the government's post-September 11 surveillance program, even if they did not have court authorization. House Democrats have said that they cannot contemplate such immunity without first understanding the nature of the carriers' cooperation with the government.

"The responses from these telecommunications companies highlight the need of Congress to continue pressing the Bush administration for answers. The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past time for the administration to come clean," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who launched the investigation with panel Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

Congressional Democrats have been largely stymied in their efforts to have the Bush administration disclose the scope and nature of its surveillance and data-gathering efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Revelations have come through press reports, advocacy groups' Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and Justice Department inspector general reports.

In May 2006, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program lacked legal standing.

Last month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group in San Francisco, obtained records through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing that the FBI sought data from telecom companies about the calling habits of suspects and their associates, the New York Times reported. Neither Qwest nor AT&T answered the lawmakers' question as to whether they had received such requests for information.

Yesterday's 13-page Verizon letter indicated that the requests went further than previously known. Verizon said it had received FBI administrative subpoenas, called national security letters, requesting data that would "identify a calling circle" for subscribers' telephone numbers, including people contacted by the people contacted by the subscriber. Verizon said it does not keep such information.

"The privacy concerns are exponential each generation you go away from the suspect's number," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney with the EFF. "This shows that further investigation by Congress and the inspector general is critical."

Earlier this year, the Justice Department's inspector general found that the FBI may have improperly obtained phone, bank and other records of thousands of people inside the United States since 2003 by using national security letters and exigent letters, or emergency demands for records.

Michael Kortan, an FBI spokesman, said the bureau has suspended use of community-of-interest data "while an appropriate oversight and approval policy" is developed. He added that the inspector general is reviewing the use of those data.

Both Verizon and AT&T suggested in their letters that they already enjoy legal immunity under existing laws. But AT&T said that when the lawsuits involve allegations of highly classified activity, the company cannot prove its immunity claims.

Carriers are facing a raft of lawsuits from individuals and privacy advocates, such as the EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union, for allegedly violating Americans' privacy by aiding the NSA's warrantless surveillance program.

The federal government has intervened, arguing that to continue the case would divulge "state secrets," jeopardizing national security.

The Senate Intelligence Committee could draft a bill this week that includes relief for the carriers. The administration is seeking blanket immunity, which would extend to anyone sued for assisting the government -- not just telecom carriers -- in its post-Sept. 11 surveillance programs.

"It's rare in these situations where there's agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants -- that there are plenty of protections for telecommunications providers in the existing laws," said the EFF's Opsahl, adding that no new immunity is necessary. "It appears that we both agree that the court should be able to look at the full situation, despite the state-secrets privilege."

In its letter, Verizon said that on occasion, it receives requests without correct authorizations. For instance, it said, it once received a request for stored voice mail without a warrant. The company does not respond until proper authorization is received, it said.

AT&T and Verizon both argued that the onus should not be on the companies to determine whether the government has lawfully requested customer records. To do so in emergency cases would "slow lawful efforts to protect the public," wrote Randal S. Milch, senior vice president of legal and external affairs for Verizon Business, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

"Public officials, not private businessmen, must ultimately be responsible for whether the legal judgments underlying authorized surveillance activities turn out to be right or wrong -- legally or politically," wrote Wayne Watts, AT&T's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "Telecommunications carriers have a part to play in guarding against official abuses, but it is necessarily a modest one."

George W. Bush and his criminal cabal are a greater threat to the United States if America and our Constitution than Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and all the Al Qaeda wannbes in the world. At least, they admit they're out to destroy us while the Bushwhacko TRAITORS are actually doing it on a daily basis and lying about it.

At least, you don't have to worry about any vague meanings to my lyrics. :(

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

It's not just Verizon.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

It's not just Verizon.

Nope. It's AT&T and more. This is just another example coming to light of a major telcom company selling us out to the Bushwhacko nazis.

And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior. :(
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
This stinks of how the German corporations sucked up to the Nazis.


I couldn't have said it better.

And the administration wants to grant immunity to these b@stards.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,832
10,130
136
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

The problem isn't the system, the problem is the complete lack of balls in the courts...and congress...and the utter lack of any kind of spine among the voters. There is no system of government, no political ideology, that can work when people are so terrified and so gutless that they are willing to hand over anything in the name of safety. Had our system been populated with real Americans after 9/11, it would have worked just fine.

People love to rail at the abstract edifice of the government like it has a mind of its own, but the real problem is the same as it is in every country and every system...the people are utter shit. Which might explain why your opinion is so popular, it saves people from having to actually place the blame where it belongs...on themselves.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate.

No, I didn't build them any thrones, and I wasn't stupid enough to vote for them.

Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

No, more like BOO, TREASON for shredding the Constitution and BOO, MURDER for the death of every American killed in their war of LIES.

If you support what they've done to our Constitutional rights, you don't have a clue about the rights and freedoms guaranteed to every American citizen or worse, how much of those Constitutional rights they've already stolen. :(
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The question is: are there any phone companies left who DIDN'T give them these records? My contract with AT&T is up and I think I'm about done with them after this.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The question is: are there any phone companies left who DIDN'T give them these records? My contract with AT&T is up and I think I'm about done with them after this.
Qwest perhaps?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The question is: are there any phone companies left who DIDN'T give them these records? My contract with AT&T is up and I think I'm about done with them after this.

Qwest perhaps?

Yes and they got punished and still getting punished for not "cooperating" as the Feds put it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.

AT&T and Verizon both argued that the onus should not be on the companies to determine whether the government has lawfully requested customer records. To do so in emergency cases would "slow lawful efforts to protect the public," wrote Randal S. Milch, senior vice president of legal and external affairs for Verizon Business, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

"Public officials, not private businessmen, must ultimately be responsible for whether the legal judgments underlying authorized surveillance activities turn out to be right or wrong -- legally or politically," wrote Wayne Watts, AT&T's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "Telecommunications carriers have a part to play in guarding against official abuses, but it is necessarily a modest one."
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
First, there is no way we should grant retroactive immunity for breaking the law. Now find out the set of respective idiots in Verizon who made the decision and jail the bastards. And fine them every dime the law allows.

These are the people who said yes when the law said no. They made the decision to break the law and they should pay the price for it. Accountability is the way to send the proper message to our white collar criminal class. This should not be corporate accountability, it should be personal responsibility. Jail is personally understandable.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
If you support what they've done to our Constitutional rights, you don't have a clue about the rights and freedoms guaranteed to every American citizen or worse, how much of those Constitutional rights they've already stolen.

But, but, but, if you weren't doing anything wrong, then this didn't affect you.

Hey, if it keeps "the terrorists" from coming to get me, then it's OK.

These companies were acting how they saw fit and it is their company after all. Don't they have the right to do whatever they want with their company?

The Constitution wasn't meant to protect people who might be breaking the law.

The Patriot Act is for our protection.

Habeus Corpus shouldn't apply to "enemy combatants." Their foreigners anyway, right?

Did I miss any of the other drivel that supports the fascist takeover of America?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Just got back from yahoo news, a new surveillance bill is working its way through the house
and it will not contain any retroactive immunity. GWB warns the various outstanding lawsuits could bankrupt the telco companies.

I think GWB forgot to ask the American people if we give a damn if they do go bankrupt. Some other telco will buy up the pieces and will make damn sure not to violate laws like this again.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
The hate against the telcos is kind of red herring, don't you think? Seems to me that they're between a rock and a hard place. And where is Congress to take the Bush Admin to task for this? Is it is somehow easier for them to go after they telcos than the administration? Or merely more profitable for some?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
The hate against the telcos is kind of red herring, don't you think? Seems to me that they're between a rock and a hard place. And where is Congress to take the Bush Admin to task for this? Is it is somehow easier for them to go after they telcos than the administration? Or merely more profitable for some?


What happens is that a series of word-parsing legal loops are established and everyone claims to be outside the loops.

* The gov't establishes a number of wiretapping programs.

* Under Program A the telcos say the gov't asked them to do it (though it is my understanding that National Security Letters expanded under the Patriot Act specificly allow TelCos to lie about it in the first place).

* Under Program B the telcos conduct expanded wiretapping

*The gov't says it's a matter of national security - can't talk about it because we are at war.

* The Telcos split total phone and data streams at major hubs - entire streams are data-mined.

* The gov't claims it is not data-mining (or ""driftnetting"") domesticly.

* Testimony is given under oath regarding wiretapping.


When any discrepency arises a persons can claim "I was refering to Program A and you are talking about Program B" or "A T & T was doing the driftnetting it was not the NSA"

and finally (kinda where we stand now...)

* Telcos are granted retroactive immunity for data-mining.

Which makes everything neat and tidy. . . .
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.

AT&T and Verizon both argued that the onus should not be on the companies to determine whether the government has lawfully requested customer records. To do so in emergency cases would "slow lawful efforts to protect the public," wrote Randal S. Milch, senior vice president of legal and external affairs for Verizon Business, a subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

"Public officials, not private businessmen, must ultimately be responsible for whether the legal judgments underlying authorized surveillance activities turn out to be right or wrong -- legally or politically," wrote Wayne Watts, AT&T's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "Telecommunications carriers have a part to play in guarding against official abuses, but it is necessarily a modest one."

The "I didn't know what they were doing" defense is what almost always leads to abuse of power. It's true, trying to verify the government's authority could delay a response, and in a perfect world it wouldn't be needed. But the fact that some folks in the government refuse to follow the laws doesn't mean private citizens should be bound to follow them. If the government won't stand up for our rights, I think it's morally required that someone does.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Wow. This dovetails nicely with my thread on Cheney Laws.
Under Dicks Unitary President it would be legal for the President to just go in and seize the records on his own. Also, he could just jail any telco officer that didn't do what he said. And the President could, according to Cheney, jail the telco officer if he told anyone about the request. And of course, the President wouldn't have to tell anyone he had jailed the telco officer, not Congress, not the Supreme Court....
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

Your right its our fault.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Vic
The hate against the telcos is kind of red herring, don't you think? Seems to me that they're between a rock and a hard place. And where is Congress to take the Bush Admin to task for this? Is it is somehow easier for them to go after they telcos than the administration? Or merely more profitable for some?


What happens is that a series of word-parsing legal loops are established and everyone claims to be outside the loops.

* The gov't establishes a number of wiretapping programs.

* Under Program A the telcos say the gov't asked them to do it (though it is my understanding that National Security Letters expanded under the Patriot Act specificly allow TelCos to lie about it in the first place).

* Under Program B the telcos conduct expanded wiretapping

*The gov't says it's a matter of national security - can't talk about it because we are at war.

* The Telcos split total phone and data streams at major hubs - entire streams are data-mined.

* The gov't claims it is not data-mining (or ""driftnetting"") domesticly.

* Testimony is given under oath regarding wiretapping.


When any discrepency arises a persons can claim "I was refering to Program A and you are talking about Program B" or "A T & T was doing the driftnetting it was not the NSA"

and finally (kinda where we stand now...)

* Telcos are granted retroactive immunity for data-mining.

Which makes everything neat and tidy. . . .

Neat and tidy for the administration. Ask yourself, what profit motive could the telcos possible have in data-mining for the government? And where is Congress, except reauthorizing Patriot when it should have sunseted?
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain, eh?