Verizon to feds: no warrant, no problem

October 16, 2007

Last week, three Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee contacted telecommunications companies, inquiring about their participation in government surveillance programs. Apparently, Verizon participated quite a bit, even when the administration didn’t get any of those pesky warrants.

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. […]

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.

That’s not particularly persuasive. The telecoms have very able legal counsel, who no doubt understand legal limits, privacy rights, and how best to cooperate with government inquiries. It seems Verizon’s standard seemed to be, “If the Bush administration wants caller records, it probably has a good reason.” No questions, no warrant, no problem.

The WaPo report noted that Verizon complied with subpoenas and court orders 94,000 times over the last three years, but given the company’s laissez faire attitude, it’s not clear why federal officials even bothered to get legal permission in the first place. After all, it’s not Verizon’s job to “second-guess” Bush administration requests; it’s Verizon’s job to hand over customer records, and then just hope the Bush gang acts responsibly.

Just as interesting, however, was the information the administration requested but couldn’t have.

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.

It does, indeed. Bush has repeatedly emphasized the “limited” nature of the surveillance efforts, but in this case, the FBI asked Verizon for the records on one suspect, then everyone the suspect called, and then everyone those people called.

And the only reason Verizon declined the request is because the company didn’t have the information. In other words, the safeguard for privacy rights sometimes rests on incomplete corporate files.

For that matter, this is just Verizon. AT&T and Qwest told the committee members it would not provide the requested information at all, leaving one to wonder just how many records they’ve turned over without warrants.

It’s a good week to be discussing telecom immunity, isn’t it?

Verizon customers:
Starve the beast.

http://www.cavtel.com

No problems for my DSL / phone and not a dime to the enablers.

  • From January 2005 to September 2007, Verizon provided data to federal authorities on an emergency basis 720 times

    That’s roughly twice every business day.

  • What’s so interesting to me is that they responded to court orders 94000 (!) times in 3 years. That’s 85 times a day. HUH?!
    And that’s just Verizon…
    But, then, they responded to 720 emergency orders in the same period (about 1 every other day).
    What gives? Do we really have that many intelligence/judicial resources that we can churn out THAT many court orders? Every other day, Verizon (and this is ONLY Verizon) gets an EMERGENCY order?!?! “Okay. Boy, you guys have a lot of emergencies…” Does Verizon even have the manpower to keep up with all these requests?

  • Get used to it. This is what to expect when you vote for candidates who voted in favor of the “Patriot” Act.

  • Bush has repeatedly emphasized the “limited” nature of the surveillance efforts, but in this case, the FBI asked Verizon for the records on one suspect, then everyone the suspect called, and then everyone those people called.

    Mathematicians should be able to easily calculate how many suspects you need before you have probably asked for the records of every single U.S. citizen. I suspect it will be a shockingly small number.

  • This behavior is perhaps destructive and unconstitutional, but it’s not Verizon’s fault. In a “corporate person” style capitalism it doesn’t make sense for us to expect a corporation to stonewall government requests in the interests of personal freedom. That’s the government’s job, on behalf of the people.

    In fact, punishing Verizon would be counter-productive, since it was the only corporation that actually complied with congressional Democrats’ requests. As reported in the same article: “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.”

    The only “shocking” part of this debacle is that we now have one corporation standing up and saying “we have evidence that the President violated the Constitution,” and the response is to boycott that same corporation. How about an impeachment inquiry? I’d rather throw a president out for abusing the Constitution by conducting illegal searches than for being evasive in a civil sexual harassment lawsuit. Luckily, we can do both.

    Here’s a pesky question: what other requests were considered “classified,” and are therefore as-yet unreported? Are congressional Dems going to use their powers to review those requests as well, or roll over like lap-dogs after barking a couple times?

  • “Get used to it. This is what to expect when you vote for candidates who voted in favor of the “Patriot” Act.” — JKap @6

    Yes, but I’ll go further than that. This is what happens when fear trumps all else. In a position of responsibility, our representatives are erring on the side of caution; no one wants to be held responsible for another attack, whether from a personal or political standpoint. The public faces no such dilemma. We’ll blame our representatives if there is an attack, and we’ll blame them if we sacrifice rights and there isn’t an attack. I’m not making excuses, just pointing out that there’s a real dilemma here.

    Now, one might imagine a courageous leader coming forth and saying, ‘We’re not going to sacrifice our democratic ideals to prevent another attack. We’re going to do everything we can to prevent another attack but we’re going to work within the law. And if another attack comes, we’ll pick up the pieces and move on.’

    Personally, I’d go along, but a sizable portion of America would completely freak out — particularly those who can imagine a mushroom cloud over an American city. One can only imagine public reaction if such a cloud did actually appear.

    We’re in a strange gut-check moment, and thus far fear is winning the day.

  • I’m one of those weird people who reads all the paperwork with pretty much everything. And since I had no other choice for high-speed Internet than AT&T, I sucked it up and got it.

    In their Terms of Service, AT&T just comes out and says your info can be shared with the government at any time, for any reason, without your consent, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it because you waive your right to sue the second you hit the “I Agree” button.

    And almost every single service provider — Internet, phone or otherwise — has the same clause.

    Now, in the past I’d be okay with that because: a.) I have nothing to hide; b.) the government has to get a warrant anyway, so there’d have to be probable cause.

    Well, now “b” is completely irrelevant with the Bush gang because of their incompetence in fighting terroristic tactics the correct way. Add in the fact that these requests were also being made BEFORE 9/11, and my blood starts to boil.

    Yes, wingnuts, “a” still applies, but that’s not the point — the point is that if one American citizen has his or her rights trampled upon, what’s to stop them from trampling on everyone else’s rights? And are you comfortable with a Democrat — say, Hillary — having this kind of power? My guess is that you’d be losing your ever-loving minds if a Democrat was doing this type of stuff.

    In the end, consumers signed their rights away to sue for it, there’s a good chance the Democrat may do the same thing, and those companies who want to get nice, fat government contracts will continue helping out with few questions asked.

    **shakes head**

  • The solution to this problem rests on Americans actually getting a clue about terrorism and telecommunications.

    IOW, we’re freaking hosed.

    On the other hand, ask any wingnut if president Clinton should be required to get a warrant before she rummages through their phone calls, emails, etc. Maybe the fear of that will save us, but I seriously doubt that our Democratic “leadership” will have the guts to honor their oaths to defend the Constitution. They’re like scared kids, handing over whatever the authoritarians want so that they won’t be called names by the people who attack 12 yr old children.

  • So much for the limited investigations. Several prior reports from the Administration would have you believe that the number was only a few hundred. Verizon alone is 94,000 plus.

    I suspect terrorism is not the only target, but political adversaries too.

  • Pingback: Verizon And AT&T Reveal They Are Part Of Corporatist “Big Brother” Police State

  • I had a Pakistani polisci professor in college years ago, who I’m sure calls relatives and friends in the home country at least occasionally. I haven’t talked with him in probably a decade, but it’s nice to know if I did call him up to see how he is doing my government would want not only my phone records but also the records of every single person I talk with.

  • Has no one asked why AT&T and Qwest were allowed not to divulge the requested information the the legislative branch? Can they get away with saying no? My God, what next?

  • I disagree with this damned if you do damned if you don’t attitude of blaming government reps if there is an attack and we didn’t give up freedoms that might have prevented it or there isn’t an attack and we gave up freedoms and they were abused. I blame them when they are incompetent and they lie to gain more power. I wouldn’t give up any freedom to a dictator no matter how innocently he claims he would use the new power. It’s not damned if you do or damned if you don’t, it’s you should have known better than to put a scorpion on your back to give him a lift. Right now the best defense against a terrorist attack on our country is to change our behavior, to change our foreign policy, to stop creating terrorists by our misguided behavior.
    Only a fool would give blanket immunity to corporations before even learning what they have been doing…because it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with patriotism…but more to do with the threat from the Bush regime. The proof is just look at what they did to the DoJ or any of our other federal agencies. They are not to be trusted nor are the companies that helped them break the law. There is not any reason for debate on this issue except they want to cover and save their corrupt asses.

  • In fact, punishing Verizon would be counter-productive, since it was the only corporation that actually complied with congressional Democrats’ requests.

    So if Bush were to say he was really sorry and admit to everything he did, should he be left off the hook? Let our long national nightmare be over?

    This behavior is perhaps destructive and unconstitutional, but it’s not Verizon’s fault. In a “corporate person” style capitalism it doesn’t make sense for us to expect a corporation to stonewall government requests in the interests of personal freedom.

    It makes sense if they know it will hurt them. And, if it is not Verizon’s fault, why not? Why do we accept a system that lets a company break the law because it is not in its nature not to break the law?

  • Sure, Verizon should answer to the customer. But I think the root cause has been years of foreign policy decisions. How do you establish accountability? Don’t know.

  • 94,000 court orders from every level of law enforcement. Those at the legal requests – suspects, victims, plaintiffs, defendants, criminal, civil, etc.

    It’s the 720 requests that weren’t accompanied by a court order you should worry about…

    …But what it makes me wonder, is: Who wrote down that there was no court order if they “weren’t in the business of confirming the legitimacy of the request?”

  • So like in those Verizon commercials, where the customer has the entire network following him around everywhere he goes, they really are following him around everywhere he goes, watching everything he does.

  • Big Brother is Watching You. You are one click away from jail.

    Verizon turning over telephone records without cause is similar to a story currently happening in New Jersey. The current Attorney General had CableVision tag a video file that was label by NJ statute as child pornography. CableVision then tracked who downloaded the file and turned it over to the Attorney General. The Attorney General mobilized the NJ State Troopers, the FBI, and County Sheriffs, ICE and other authorities to arrest a sample of the group and breaking down the front doors of their homes.

    In 2003, the downloading of a file containing sex with a person under 15 became a fourth degree felony for endangering the welfare of a child. It does not matter if you opened it and trashed it. You can download murders, beatings, executions, and torture. The forwarding of the file is a federal crime, possession and distribution, with a possible ten-year sentence.

    CableVision tagged the file and then provided these records. What is wrong with this picture? All you have to do is click to be a criminal? Hey, how many times have you opened a file and you didn’t know what was in it! Next time you might be in jail and on the front page of the newspaper for Child Porn.

    Our government is not after terrorist. We are criminalizing our own citizens. In the wake of 911, we accidentally funded a police state.

  • Verizon is not to be trusted under any circumstances. They will screw their employees, customers, and anyone else who gets in the way of this korporate behemoth. Verizon’s Chief General Counsel is Bill Barr, a former attorney general.

    Verizon’s motto must be “Trust us, we have your best interests in mind” I think we all know that is complete B.S.

    Power to the corporations and rich people! No warrants, no problem. Go Verizon! You krokked, korporate krooks from Amerika!

  • Sarabeth;
    I believe the second number is 1/2 of the population of the USA. The first number, the original suspects would be about 6 or so.
    My reasoning is loosley based on the 29th day and some test letters that were given to a number of subjects on the East coast who were then asked to get them to a complete stranger on the West coast without using the mails or somebody who knew the unknown person. “Just give them to somebody who knows somebody west of you”. I believe it took an average of something like 6 or 7 transactions. It was called something like, ‘degrees of relatedness’. The experimenters were startled at how few transactions it took.
    DC

    • Comments are closed.