Verizon denies data sharing with NSA after hefty lawsuit

While T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless have both stated all along that they aren't supplying phone records to the NSA, it took a $50 billion lawsuit to pull Verizon (the landline provider) out of the woodwork. The suit, which was filed last Friday, is claiming $1000 per customer for turning over phone records, as per the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Its allegations are based on a USA Today story that ran on Thursday and which claimed that BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon had been forking over records of millions of phone calls to the government ever since 9/11. Now Verizon and BellSouth have gone on record to state that they have done no such thing, and that the NSA hasn't even requested such records. This calls into questions the USA Today piece, which cited anonymous sources, and (for now at least) should hopefully help those customers sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the NSA probably doesn't have proof of how infrequently they call their mothers. Or do they?

Read - Verizon hit with $50 billion suit
Read - Verizon denies NSA data sharing

[Michael S @ May 17th 2006 7:28AM]

ALL telephone companies supply US Law Enforcement agencies with records of calls and have had for years, long before 9/11.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in the past that these Third Party records are NOT protected and do not enjoy any privacy. Watch any police drama on television and it is Standard Procedure to retreive telephone logs absent a Warrant.

While the numbers called and received are logged, so the provider can bill for services, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY they can record the substance of the conversations; the band width required would be astronomical.

Knowing who is calling and being called has helped solve many crimes and will continue to do so. If Law Enforcement has a list of suspect numbers that show up in a log I feel they should have access to that information like they have for years.

As to the NSA evesdropping, the truth is that William Jefferson Clinton used Echelon for domestic surveillance during his tenure without any Congressional support nor active terrorist threat, so be careful what stones you throw.

BTW, as a Canadian I haved no poitical bent when it comes to the US.

[Tim @ May 17th 2006 7:41AM]

What Verizon is saying is true. They never ever "technically" hand over documents are anything else. The technology being utilized is sifting data IN REAL TIME. There are no databases. Why does everyone keep on using that word ! All data packets are being intercepted bu NSA and reverse engineered on the NSA side. What the telecoms are being sued for is for having a routing area that pulls the data from the central telecom node back to the NSA.

[theo @ May 17th 2006 7:45AM]

Did it really take the company almost a week to realize that it might be a good idea to deny a false allegation? Seems hard to believe.

Or did it take their their lawyers a week to craft a sentence which is true under some twisted interpretation, and sounds like a denial...but isn't?

Verizon says: "One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls"

What does this sentence even mean? If Verizon was approached before 9/11, it's technically still a falsehood, even if they agreed to provide the NSA with data. etc., etc., ad nauseam with the weasel words.

And Paul, before you write that the USA Today article is in question, you might have noticed the following:

"Tuesday's denial did not apply to MCI, the long-distance carrier Verizon acquired in January."

[Tim @ May 17th 2006 8:00AM]

"there is NO POSSIBLE WAY they can record the substance of the conversations; the band width required would be astronomical. "

I beg to differ. There is no possible way while using our existing technological apparatus...but you don't really think the NSA uses Intel processors and typical fiber for their work now do you ? Get real. This is the same government that had been using stealth technology since the 1960's before anyone even knew what stealth was. Anyhow...I advise everyone to look at this link.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/

[koz @ May 17th 2006 10:32AM]

So if the NSA isn't working with the phone companies, how come the president didn't flat-out deny the story? Instead he just said "Congress knows what they need to know about this."

[A @ May 17th 2006 11:22AM]

"Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an executive order signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))"

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/new-executive-order/

[Sean @ May 17th 2006 11:37AM]

According to this article even the phone companies are required to keep this a secret if a "letter" is given.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/3501_americans_.html

[phreaki @ May 17th 2006 11:42AM]

No matter what, 45-50% of those polled in the United States are not OK with any law enforcement just sifting through records.

As I detailed, in my own blog, why would there be any discovery period in an investigation where records are turned over if the FBI/NSA/FBI already have said records?

Just take the Wilson saga, every phone in and out of the newsrooms is already being looked at, so why did it take jail time for reporters to mention who they talked to? The phone records are already there!

If you don't like it, call your Senator. I for one am, just like I always do.

[Marshall Kirkpatrick @ May 17th 2006 12:04PM]

Very good discussion of this, 20 minutes worth, on May 12th Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20060512

[Sean @ May 17th 2006 12:17PM]

Point is, without any concrete evidence USA Today should be made to reveal their sources or be subject to a suit by those telecom companies for libel and possible harm to their corporate image through loss of customers.

@ Theo (#3) - Have you ever tried to get to the bottom of something this big in a company the size of Bell South or Verizon? It takes time to investigate, and while USA Today had been 'working' on this story for four months they only gave the telecoms one day to respond before they broke it. Sorry, but it appears USA Today is/was using shoddy journalistic ethics in bringing this story to the public.

[koz @ May 17th 2006 2:32PM]

When did we get to this point where we need to publicly name all sources before considering a story worth believing? Or is this how we'll sweep this issue under the rug before the elections?

I for one don't think USA Today had an obligation to allow the phone companies to "respond". What exactly are they going to say on public record? That they broke the Telecom Act of 1996?

You want some evidence, Sean? Start here:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html

Now, in true America 2006 fashion, we can make this issue solely about semantics. See, the phone companies didn't hand anything over to the NSA because the NSA was taking the data for themselves.

[JM @ May 18th 2006 10:08AM]

"As to the NSA evesdropping, the truth is that William Jefferson Clinton used Echelon for domestic surveillance during his tenure without any Congressional support nor active terrorist threat, so be careful what stones you throw."

Nice try, but didn't you know that they have already stopped using this myth as a talking point because the surveillance carried out by the Clinton administration was fully in compliance with the FISA court?


http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120018

[Betsy @ May 19th 2006 7:20AM]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0517-10.htm

This is a more detailed account of how the data is mined in real time. The phone companies aren't "handing over" any records--they don't have to--they allowed the gov't to build secret rooms in their company facilities and split the major communications lines so they can monitor ALL phone and internet communication. This explains how they do it and how pervasive it is.

[Kiba @ Jun 8th 2008 8:43PM]

"This calls into questions the USA Today piece," who proofreads this shit?

[bill @ Jun 9th 2008 10:32PM]

Here's a link if you want to
follow what they're doint
right now.
http://www.nsawatch.org/eaves101.html