Telco's Non-Denial Denials Of Sharing Call Records

from the fudging-it dept

Wed, May 17th 2006 2:52pm — Carlo Longino

The fallout from last week's allegations that several major telephone carriers turned over customer calling records to the National Security Agency continues, with all three companies -- AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon -- denying any wrongdoing. The three carriers have been on the end of a lot of criticism, perhaps looking at all the credit Qwest is getting for not playing ball with the NSA with a bit of envy, and it looks like all they're trying to do is save some face. They've issued vague denials that, for the most part, dance around the heart of the matter. They deny very specific allegations that are tangential to the underlying point, or say they won't comment on "national security matters". They also talk about only acting with "legal authorization", giving no indication of exactly where that authorization came from, like, say a judge, or just from one of the company's lawyers. AT&T also got dealt a setback in the whistleblower case alleging it gave the NSA illegal access to its users' internet traffic when a judge ruled against the company's motion to suppress some evidence, though the case must still survive a government motion to dismiss it for security reasons. What's really happened in both of these cases isn't clear, and it doesn't look like the truth is anywhere close to emerging. But, for the companies involved, the real damage may not come in the form of privacy lawsuits, but in damage to how consumers perceive them -- and some half-baked denials several days late probably won't do much to help.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Other Brian, 17 May 2006 @ 3:40pm

Damn...
Brings a whole new meaning to 'Damn the Man.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STJ, 17 May 2006 @ 3:45pm

Where do I sign up for the lawsuit against Quest. Um, they've hurt my love of big companies...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stu, 17 May 2006 @ 3:49pm

Telco's Non-Denial Denials - etc
If you want to know where we are going, here's an important and interesting article that will tell you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-robinson/theres-a-drug-smuggler-i_b_21155.html

If you think that one is not important, check this one out. It's not new info but it's true. I bet most people don't know about it.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Emanuel Goldstein, 17 May 2006 @ 4:04pm

What's privacy?
This all goes back, in-my-opinion, to the argument that occurred during G.W.'s first term about a citizens right to privacy. Cookies, massive (and marketable) mailing lists, credit reporting agencies, drug tests for jobs that retarded people can do, and even criminal checks for non-felonius offenses are all heinous invasions of privacy, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we have no right to privacy unless we are a corporation (trade secrets) or some U.S. intelligence agency (national security). It just seems rediculous that our government is myopic enough to see the value of privacy for these entities, but not see the value of an individual's privacy. or it could just be that they are a bunch of distopian hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon, 17 May 2006 @ 4:20pm

It could be our measly government contributions (taxes) are not enough to fund their extra-curicular activities. It would be nice for once to not have to buy justice from our own government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crystalattice (profile), 17 May 2006 @ 4:21pm

All in the name of
It's amazing what corp and govt can get away with when they say it's for the safety of the nation. Having worked in a military intel center, there's actually very little that needs to be classified.

I think a better way of doing this would be to follow the best leadership example: tell the people why you're doing something and most of the time they won't have a problem. It's only when you say, "Just because", that people start giving you a hard time.

So, all the Administration needs to do is say, "This is considered a National Security matter because of these reasons...". Of course, most of the reasons will be BS but at least they aren't using a "no comment" style of dodging questions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan, 17 May 2006 @ 4:35pm

Let's all hope this makes people and Congresscritters look a little closer at the 'credibility' of the arguments the telecos spout about why Net Neutrality is bad...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pauly, 18 May 2006 @ 11:07pm

Re: What's privacy?
Amen brother. It always strikes me as telling where the rights and freedoms are retained and where they are eroded. It's as if wealth and power automatically confers virtue and authority. Let's call it neo-calvinism...

Deregulation and privacy for the powerful, the opposite for those who can't demonstrate with a very simple metric (or is it all about the relationships) that they deserve it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]