« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Just in time for this week's Senate intelligence committee's fight over telecom immunity: Verizon disclosed to three Democratic lawmakers that it turned over subscriber information, such as IP addresses or phone records, to the FBI in emergency situations more than 720 times. In making such warrant-free demands of Verizon -- and surely other telecommunications companies -- the FBI wanted not just information on whom the target of its investigation contacted, but also the people whom the contacts contacted.
That's called "community of interest" information. Last month, The New York Times reported that the FBI has suspended seeking such data pending an inspector general's investigation into the use of national security letters. Verizon did not comply with the community-of-interest request, but only because it doesn't store such information. Presumably other telecom providers -- who did not respond to Congressional requests for details about their compliance with the FBI -- do. (Verizon would only discuss what it disclosed to the FBI, not anything having to do with warrantless NSA surveillance. And the relationship between those agencies' surveillance programs is still a big unknown.) Quick, has anyone you know emailed anyone who's called Pakistan lately?
These warrant-free disclosures concerned not just potential terrorism, but also child-predator and kidnapping cases -- what The Washington Post calls "a range of investigations." Lawyers for AT&T and Verizon told House Democrats John Dingell (D-MI), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) that they typically comply with the emergency requests expeditiously, trusting that the FBI is acting legally:
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."
You can read Verizon's letter to the three Democrats here (pdf). AT&T's is here (pdf), and a third, from Qwest, is here (pdf).
Expect oversight of FBI national security letter and exigent letter requests to play a large role in tomorrow's confirmation hearing for Attorney General-designee Michael Mukasey. And that's not all: on Thursday the Senate intelligence committee will mark up -- in secret, says the ACLU -- its version of FISA reform. Civil liberties groups already fear that the Senate bill contains retroactive telecom immunity. We'll soon see whether Verizon's disclosures give senators pause.
Comments (33)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 16, 2007 9:39 AM:No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity! No retroactive telecom immunity!
Impeach now!
Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 16, 2007 9:47 AM:For what it's worth, there's still this in the books, if anyone in Congress cares.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wretched Refuse wrote on October 16, 2007 9:49 AM:Corporate Responsibily?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Never had it, never will. Corporations are worried about one thing. If there is a governmental regulation in between it and its percieved money/market, the regulation MUST be squashed at all expense, unless of course, it can be hidden behind in a shield to loosing money/market.
OH PULEEZE! Corporations are just that coporeal entities that SHOULD have a lifespan and acountability. Yes accountability. If they have violated a law, the corporation should suffer the burden, and be imprisoned, not allowed to conduct business, or even put to death.
Ferruge wrote on October 16, 2007 10:14 AM:This sure lends a whole new meaning to "Can you hear me now?"
lucy wrote on October 16, 2007 10:18 AM:what about all those calling circles? Was that for the government too?
davcbr wrote on October 16, 2007 10:30 AM:Remember, Darth Vader and Dick Cheney go way back.
sparky wrote on October 16, 2007 10:31 AM:Billy P:
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 10:42 AM:Didn't you hear? That's just a piece of paper. And besides, ISLAMOFASCISTS ARE COMING!!!!!!!
"Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 16, 2007 9:47 AM:
For what it's worth, there's still this in the books, if anyone in Congress cares.
Amendment IV"
Dan wrote on October 16, 2007 11:03 AM:Yes!!! How is it that we are even TALKING about laws that will have the affect of supercedinging or bypassing a Constitutional Amendmendment? It doesn't work that way. You want to search without warrants? AMEND THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Let's not forget the way this government sees and treats animal rights advocates. The most compassionate among us are often the most feared.
AngryAmerican wrote on October 16, 2007 11:06 AM:Billy P and eric,
Under ordinary circumstances you would be correct, however the removal of habeas corpus via the Military Commisions Act has now trumped any of the ammendments, except perhaps the 3rd. We live in an undeclared dictatorship, and don't think for a second that you have any rights. Not only do you not have the protection of the 4th amendment, but you could be pulled off the street today, held indefinitely, without anyone knowing where you are, and granted a trial at the sole descression of bush, who, even if you got your trial and were set free, could overturn the ruling and let you rot. Comforting isn't it?
Dan wrote on October 16, 2007 11:08 AM:...And the most likely to be wiretapped. (Meant to say that before.)
Alex wrote on October 16, 2007 11:09 AM:Eric and Billy Pilgrim: obviously, we're supposed to believe that the permenant emergency since 9/11 means the constitution is suspended. Never mind the fact (elswere in today's TPM) that only 4 real terror cases have been prosecuted since 9/11, and these were either people caught by accident and luck (like Richard Ried) or losers who posed no real threat (like Jose Padilla).
Yet - it's hard to imagine that we won't suffer a major terror strike again (especially if we start bombing Iran and continue our failed policy elsewhere).
It seems to me that our politicians of both parties are mindful of the accusations that will fly after the fact. A major terror strike is one of the few things that can save the Repubs in 2008.
Remember that Vladimir Putin seized power after a never-explained bombing of an entire apartment bombing in Moscow. How long till something like that happens here?
Maybe Cheney isn't ruthless enough. How long till someone who is comes along? Or maybe the rightists will get lucky, and some genuine moron will do something big first.
jedermann wrote on October 16, 2007 11:25 AM:I believe that Verizon is correct in claiming that private businesses should not have the responsibility of determining if a government request is legal or not. That is one of the purposes of a warrant. It "warrants" that the executive request to step over a Constitutional line has passed judicial review and has been found to be a legal exception. It may subsequently be challenged by a party with standing and found to be illegal, but the accountability would be placed where it belongs, on the executive agency making the request. This is why warrantless electronic surveillance is such a pernicious practice and the slipperiest of slopes. Now, here we are, focusing on one of the many tools by which an out-of-control executive administration is stealing our civil liberties. We cannot make the tools responsible for determining the legality of actions that even Congress is struggling to review and constrain. The executive is ruling by fiat and co-opting American corporations in a way that looks very much like Fascism.
JDub wrote on October 16, 2007 11:31 AM:why would anyone still be their customer?
or any of the other scumbag antiAmerican telcom traitors?
Time for some lawsuits.
I like the idea of forcing a constitutional amendment too.
SLOUCH wrote on October 16, 2007 11:40 AM:Make no mistake, I think that this situation is horrifying and I don't condone what the Telecoms did in any way, but I think the CEOs have a point in their letters: The burden of accountability SHOULD fall on the FBI and the NSA.
It should NOT be up to the pary that the agencies are leaning on to determine whether the request is legal. What if you're a small business with limited access to legal representation? If the legal accountability rests in your lap, your screwed. If you turn down the FBI, your blacklisted and investigated. IF you turn over your records, your customers will sue you out of business.
The complicity of these corporations, while troubling and important, is still a bit of a Red Herring. The MAJOR issue is the ROTTEN, RECKLESS, and DERANGED Intelligence community and "Justice" department, and the 110th's rush to give THEM retroactive immunity, which is what's really happening right now.
I say GIVE the Telecoms retroactive immunity ONLY IF THEY DIVULGE EVERYTHING. If we hear more bone chilling stories about the astounding depth of the governments trashing of our rights (and someone's willing to shout about it to the public) we may be able to avoiding giving retroactive immunity to Bush, Cheney, and Gonzo for gutting the bill of rights.
Dennis wrote on October 16, 2007 11:46 AM:I'm with Angry American @11:06.
I emailed the democrats (http://www.democrats.org/page/st/contactissues) four days ago and told them what a lousey job they are doing.
I got a "thank you" for that. I've mailed them (and plan to keep doing so) every day since then telling them (politely)to get off their asses, stand up and be counted.
Sen. Nancy Pelosi will not even acknowledge concerns for anyone who does not live in her district. In fact, she has become a joke as a leader.
Needless to say, I've received no further "thank you(s) from the democrats.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Joe Monster wrote on October 16, 2007 11:52 AM:Relax everybody, they're just doing market research. It makes it easier to find subunits in a population to help target your message. I'm sure this subunit collection is meant to include mostly the people (and kind of people) likely to 'not get' what the government's political and social goals are.
Or to simply improve the screening process when hiring, excluding zip codes from voter registration rolls, etc.
If the Man asks, then Big Telecom, being the Man (you saw the tv commercials, right?), says yes. It is a valid argument that the use of the Administration's domestic army (FBI) should be assumed to be legitimate, but not in America, and certainly not when the Federalist Society and Small-Government Man is doing such wholesale snooping in previously private lives.
Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 11:53 AM:"I say GIVE the Telecoms retroactive immunity ONLY IF THEY DIVULGE EVERYTHING."
NO, NO, NO! It's the corporations that enable these fascists! The "unitary executive" is the military industrial complex, headed by these thugs in the administration. Everyone needs to be called to account, because you can bet that many will not account.
JimBob wrote on October 16, 2007 11:59 AM:The telecom claim "It's not our job to determine whether these searches are legal" seems disingenuous, but at the same time there is a smidgeon of truth to it, is there not? That's what the trial should be about; retroactive immunity will prevent the courts from ruling and setting important precedent on the matter. Not good.
centerfielder wrote on October 16, 2007 12:23 PM:jedermann is correct.
Everyone needs to keep their eye on the ball and in this case the devil is an administration that extorted cooperation out of the telecoms through a blatant abuse of power and repudiation of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a GOP-led Congress that abdicated its reponsibility to act as a check on executive power and uphold our constitutional protection.
The state secrets argument is being misused to protect a criminal enterprise otherwise known as the Bush administration and Democrats should start hauling in administration officials and impeach them if they refuse to provide testimony on these activities, whether in open or closed session.
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 12:47 PM:"I like the idea of forcing a constitutional amendment too."
If I were in Congress, this is exactly how I would handle it. You want to do warrantless searching? Well gee, I would love to help you fight terrorism but there is the problem of the Fourth Amendment. If you want to propose a formal amendment to the Constitution, then GO AHEAD.
Let's see what 3/4th of the States have to say.
Leta wrote on October 16, 2007 1:17 PM:Listen - if any Democratic activist or Democratic candidate that might even have a wiff of trouble for the GOP - their's, their families. their friends, and their campaign workers - every contact has been watched, recorded and cataloged.
And if they didn't find the dirt - they've got the info and technologies to manufacture it. All thanks to the D cowards in Congress, who calculated that their jobs are more important than our freedoms. This is going to bite them in ass - the R blogs will be afire with "unsourced" rumors, lies, half-truths and inuendos.
We've seen nothing like what's going to happen in '08 - any fool who thinks that after 20 years of consolidating power, stripping constitutional rights and turning this country into a industrial war complex for proft - that the R's are going fairly and quietly into the night - needs their heads examined.
Our pathetic and cowardly D leadership will bear responsiblity for what's going to happen to them and "we" do too...we shoulda been out in the streets years ago.
Don wrote on October 16, 2007 1:45 PM:It's important to remember when these companies play the victim that the "onus" had NEVER been on the companies to determine the legality of Gov't action. That job rests with the courts. The company simply needs to ask for the warrant and comply with the express terms therein.
It's a simply rule as old as our Nation.
Oh, and of course, no warrant, no records.
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 2:46 PM:"Oh, and of course, no warrant, no records."
Exactly. These companies get requests all the time. Sometimes it is probably for little stuff like a local police department investigating harrassing phone calls. If a request comes in, it goes up to legal, who makes sure the requests are in order - subpoenas, warrants, whatever - so that the company is protected and is doing the right thing.
Why they don't follow this policy when it's the FBI or the NSA must have something to do with fear, cohersion, or the fact that telecoms are run by a bunch of loyal republicans.
Nicho wrote on October 16, 2007 3:16 PM:Where does it say in the documentation that you get investigated if you call Pakistan. I have a reason for asking, as hundreds of hours of calls to Pakistan were billed to a number that AT&T claimed was listed to me -- even though it wasn't. So, as you can guess, I'm worried.
Is that really the case -- or was that just a toss-off line about Pakistan?
Maybe it's in one of the documents and I'm just missing it.
eric wrote on October 16, 2007 4:25 PM:"hundreds of hours of calls to Pakistan were billed to a number that AT&T claimed was listed to me"
Ouch.
rt wrote on October 16, 2007 6:11 PM:I think that it would be safe to assume that you are on THE LIST.
No retroactive telecom immunity!
No retroactive telecom immunity!
Awww... how cute, look at that little liberal trying his hand at a slogan. Just look at him trying to fit the word "retroactive" in there. Boy wouldn`t that make a pretty banner? Its precisely the kind of banner that liberals get mocked over.
Of course the real sloganeers know this game:
Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 10:01 PM:No telco amnesty!!!
No telco amnesty!!!
No telco amnesty!!!
No telco amnesty!!!
Did you check the Verizon internal e-mails dating pre-2004? State AG's were given some copies. Verizon e-mails from this period, linking to NSA contractors, are available on the web.
Sample Verizon E-mail wrote on October 16, 2007 10:20 PM:The link will remind you of where to find additional information -- already disclosed -- related to the Verizon internal e-mails, the codes to find them, and other locations where the information is located. Focus on pre-2004 e-mails, showing coordination outside what Verizon is now admitting. They haven't told you the whole story.
parrot wrote on October 16, 2007 10:56 PM:What is also missing from this is the fact that there were at least two companies selling private information regarding folks telephone records. For some reason, everyone seems to have "forgotten" about that. However, I'm guessing that if we look at the folks that were scamming the phone companies' customers that we'll find that there were connections with various dirty tricks operations of the GOP.
Ray wrote on October 17, 2007 3:22 AM:Just read that Comcast is getting $1000 for the setup of a surveillance and another $750 per month for as long as it goes on.
Reminds me of what Butch Cassidy said to Sundance as they were looking at the posse sent by E.H.Harriman to kill or capture them for robbing the Southern Pacific trains.
He said: "Jeez, if they'd just pay me what they're spending to catch me...I'd stop robbing them!"
But then, those were very romantic times.
Objessecefe wrote on October 17, 2007 3:26 AM:Hello.
EMPY wrote on October 17, 2007 7:44 AM:I look site abouttoyota cars
I would give the TELCO's immunity from the White House only. Go ahead and make it retroactive. Throw the White House claim of executive priv for a telecommunications company out of court and prevent any further nonsense like this. No more AT&T saying we can't tell congress anything because the White House says we can't.