Verizon: We Protect Our Customers' Data... Until The Government Asks For It
from the um,-that's-not-protecting dept
So, Verizon has finally come out with a statement about the fact that they're handing over all data on every call anyone on its network makes to the government. And the response is just as ridiculous as you'd expect:You may have seen stories in the news about a top secret order Verizon allegedly received to produce certain calling information to the U.S. government.Let's parse that a bit. First, to "not comment" on it is ridiculous. This is the same issue I had with the government pretending that leaked Wikileaks documents had never leaked. It's not reality-based. In the business world, if you sign a non-disclosure agreement, it only applies to information that remains private. If the same information becomes public through other means, it's recognized that the non-disclosure agreement no longer applies. Because that's living in reality. Pretending you can't comment on the document is not reality-based.
We have no comment on the accuracy of The Guardian newspaper story or the documents reference, but a few items in these stores are important. The alleged court order that The Guardian published on its website contains language that:Verizon continually takes steps to safeguard its customers' privacy. Nevertheless, the law authorizes the federal courts to order a company to provide information in certain circumstances, and if Verizon were to receive such an order, we would be required to comply.
- compels Verizon to respond;
- forbids Verizon from revealing the order's existence; and
- excludes from production the "content of any communication . . . or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."
Second, the claim that "Verizon continually takes steps to safeguard its customers' privacy" is completely meaningless when they're handing every bit of that data over to the government. Third, the idea that this order "excludes" information like someone's name is pretty silly. Don't you think that the federal government might have a giant database, in the form of a basic phone book that lets them look up the name associated with each number?
But, most importantly, this whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly and ignores some of the history. When the government asks you to break the law, you have the right to say no. And here's the big thing: even if this is legal today, that only came about because various telcos worked with the government on broad lawbreaking in the past, only to have the government paper that over with new laws that made such things "legal" and included retroactive immunity. And, really, that's all that Verizon really cares about (and you'll note they don't mention it): that they have no liability for coughing up everyone's information.
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
Filed Under: data, government, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Verizon rep, drink in hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon rep, drink in hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who'e the bad guy?
"We are not the bad guys, we are protecting you." - Obama
"We are not the bad guys, maybe we did or didn't know about this. We can't remember." - Politicians
"We are not the bad guys, we aren't collecting any information." - NSA
I guess the bad guys are the citizens using their phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who'e the bad guy?
Verizon, Google, Facebook, Apple etc have their hands tied by the Patriot Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who'e the bad guy? @ "ZakidaPaul":
So the excusing begins.
BUT YOUR EXCUSING IT IS ANSWERED RIGHTLY BY MIKE HISSELF:
"But, most importantly, this whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly and ignores some of the history. When the government asks you to break the law, you have the right to say no. And here's the big thing: even if this is legal today, that only came about because various telcos worked with the government on broad lawbreaking in the past, only to have the government paper that over with new laws that made such things "legal" and included retroactive immunity. And, really, that's all that Verizon really cares about (and you'll note they don't mention it): that they have no liability for coughing up everyone's information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who'e the bad guy? @ "ZakidaPaul":
The PATRIOT act is not excuse.
If you know in your mind that what the government is asking you to do is illegal it is your duty to say "Hell no! Go fuck yourself! I'm getting a lawyer!".
Doing otherwise is spitting in the graves of the founding fathers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who'e the bad guy?
No way in hell would the government have been willing to risk airing its dirty laundry enough to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who'e the bad guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who'e the bad guy?
Oddly enough, Qwest Communications did exactly what they were supposed to do. The CEO said NO, come back with a court order, not a letter from the President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
I'd cautiously hope that Mike has got a clue to the surveillance state, especially as regards Google, but he's just bogged down discussing what NSA has been doing (it's news only to Mike), when the real urgency is to get ahead and find out what this rather large "leak" is covering NOW and for future.
One item it's covering is the Bilderberg conference. You should all read this speculation -- not least because Alex Jones has vastly larger readership than soft, sane, Google-puppie Mike who's a behind at best:
Google-Berg: Global Elite Transforms Itself For Technocratic Revolution
http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revo lution/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
When that is invoked, no one has a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
Patriot Act, dumbass.
When that is invoked, no one has a choice.
As I just pointed out to your prior, this is refuted ABOVE by Mike hisself. It's quite odd that Mike and I agree entirely on his last paragraph, and YOU are making excuses for corporations. A paradigm has apparently shifted.
A corporation has resources to resist the gov't. Google in particular has trumpeted how they're oh-so-careful with user data, and resisting the gov't, requiring court orders and so on. All of that is now shown to be LYING.
But the Nuremberg defense "I was only following orders" isn't valid nor lawful. When someone tells you to break the law, you are on the spot to push back and REFUSE to do it. That's the moral course, cost you what it may. People went to jail rather than be drafted and kill others for the gov't in Vietnam. Others "fragged", killed their officers rather than go murder innocent civilians. That still applies in the military (it's why they fake up "just cause" to make the troops believe they're the good guys), so definitely applies to the corporate world.
"Freedom is the right to say no." Frederick Brown, in The Great Explosion
And if a rather small number of people JUST SAY NO I'M NOT GOING ALONG, I'M NOT COMMITTING THAT CRIME, the tyranny collapses.
But YOU, "ZakidaPaul", are a SERF and have the mind of a serf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
Maybe paradigm have indeed shifted. Or maybe it's just that anybody can find something to agree on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
Hmmm.... I saw ootb—my eyes immediately glazed over, and I skimmed straight to end. Saw only the "SERF" bit, 'cause it was shouting.
Thought about clicking "report". Decided too much trouble—I normally surf with javascript off. And I usually won't turn it on to report anything except out-and-out commercial spam. So didn't bother reporting, figured let it slide (again). But did think everyone else would "report" soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
Anyway, I'm curious: why is it ok for Verizon to have all of your call data but not the US government?
And why is it ok that Google shares and sells every single thing you do online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
Umm, maybe because that call data is necessarily generated by and used to provide the service you are paying them to provide? This data is between you and Verizon. It's none of the government's business.
It's not OK with me, which is why I don't use Google's services. But there's the key difference: I have the choice to avoid Google's spying. I don't have the choice to avoid the government's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha oh wow
Damnit blue reading the comments makes you look like a damn genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
When their Paranoid Schizophrenic powers combine, they summon Captain Crazy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "whole claim that Verizon is compelled to obey is silly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can
Yes, we can hear everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government has info on terrorist!
Boss: *Great! Just pull up the record and we'll go pick him up.
*No problem! (Starts Search)
Computer: (Time remaining: 1 year, 3 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes and 49 seconds)
:O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the reality is that they are not permitted, by law, to comment. That's the reality, Mikey.
LOL! You think they had the right to ignore the court order? God, you're an insufferable idiot. And coward. Bawk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...I can actually see average_joe making this claim in court. It's pretty terrifying when someone is so sad to the point of impressively sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is
This can not stand the way it is, the people have to make the stand to have this changed. Many people think "well I'm not doing anything wrong so it doesn't affect me" but it's not just about people doing something wrong, it's also about people who get on the wrong side of the government "LEGALLY" that they will use these resources against you.
Try to organize a protest?
Try to organize changing a law?
or to defend some one accused?
try to say "hey, I think Private M******* doesn't deserve what he's getting"
Try to electronically support a cause that the government doesn't like!
You do not have to be a criminal for the government to not like you.....you don't even have to have the government not like you, just one person in the government. Do we really trust ALL the millions of people working in the government?? I don't and neither should anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm so happy I use a BlackBerry device!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm so happy I use a BlackBerry device!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm so happy I use a BlackBerry device!
Yeah. We already know that RIM is letting the Indian government snoop. It's not any stretch to believe they have let the US snoop as well.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/04004219923/desperate-rim-gives-lets-indian-govt- spy-blackberry-communications.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money...
If the government is reimbursing the companies for cooperating, perhaps that would explain why they are so willing to roll over against their customers.
These large communications corporations certainly have enough money and lawyers to appeal an order like this.
Since none of them are stating they tried this tactic it makes me think they sought no legal recourse against the order for securing citizen information.
Perhaps money eased their collective consciences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to the Privacy Act of 1974?
5 U.S.C. § 552a (e)(7): "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity."
So, either the entire American population is made up of criminals (thereby requiring some sort of blanket law enforcement), or we have all authorized this access, and just don't know it.
Either way, it might be a good idea for us to take a look at § 552a (g)(1) which deals with civil remedies, including suits that can be brought against government agencies that fail to comply with this Act ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever happened to the Privacy Act of 1974?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever happened to the Privacy Act of 1974?
Unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]