Telcos Refused To Sign On To 'Let Us Be Transparent About Surveillance' Letter

from the well-look-at-that dept

Fri, Jul 19th 2013 9:43am — Mike Masnick

We've discussed before that, while the major tech companies have been pretty vocal about the NSA surveillance situation, the major telcos have been almost universally silent. In fact, it has since come out that AT&T and Verizon were more or less shoving each other aside to "volunteer" to hand your info over to the government. The further revelations (including some past leaks) about how AT&T and Verizon have more or less given the NSA on-premise access to all data going through their pipes suggest a level of cooperation with government that is stunning and dangerous -- especially given the market dominance held by the telcos at the internet backbone level.

We were just talking about how various tech companies have strongly asked the government for permission to be a lot more transparent, but it seems equally notable that, according to a report in the NY Times, the telcos were approached about joining on the letter and declined to participate:

While prominent Internet companies are pushing for fuller disclosure, some of the nation's largest telecommunications firms were not willing to sign on, according to several people involved in the coalition.

Gee, I wonder why? In fact, the only company on the list whose main business is internet access is the small ISP Sonic.net, who has built up its (wonderful) reputation as one of the only ISPs out there that really tries to align its business with its customers' best interests.

Meanwhile, if you're wondering what the big telcos are doing instead of pushing for this kind of necessary transparency? Apparently it's hiring incredibly powerful lobbyists, including the recently-departed FTC chairperson (and former MPAA lobbyist) Jon Leibowitz, along with former Congressional Rep. (another Hollywood favorite) Mary Bono Mack, to "lobby Congress on digital privacy policies." You think they'll be advocating for better privacy protections? Or... better protection for themselves against the privacy concerns of the public. The group isn't saying, but it's not hard to take a guess.

Tim Karr, a policy analyst at the communications watchdog group Free Press, tweeted after the coalition went public that AT&T launching a privacy coalition is like "Ted Nugent" launching "wildlife coalition."

The level of transparency demanded by the tech firms could (and should) go much further than what they're currently asking. But at least they're asking for transparency, and there's at least some evidence that some of the companies -- mainly Twitter, Yahoo! and Google -- have fought back against Government requests. When it comes to the telcos, not only is there little evidence of them pushing back against government overreach, it appears that the telcos actively volunteered to make such overreaches easier. That might explain why they're not so keen on "transparency." Having to reveal numbers like "number of users impacted: all of them" probably won't go over well. Somehow, I doubt their massive new "digital privacy" lobbying effort will seek to improve this situation.

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: nsa surveillance, privacy, surveillance, telcos, transparency

23 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 9:38am

Government grants you a monopoly (concession), subsides and further legislative protection. It's only obvious you are going to work for it (the Govt), no? If it was a free market maybe it would work the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Thacker, 19 Jul 2013 @ 12:54pm
  
  Re:
  Telcos are highly regulated, and indeed become nearly indistinguishable from government.
  
  Note that recent article mentioned that the NSA gets companies to agree to tapping of backbones thanks to the FCC power to regulate undersea cable installations.
  
  Anyone think that giving the FCC powers over net neutrality and how Internet companies use it wouldn't result in the FCC saying that "being open to lawful intercept and tapping" was a part of "net neutrality?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 1:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    result in the FCC saying that "being open to lawful intercept and tapping" was a part of "net neutrality?"
    
    Perhaps, but that doesn't change things much. Other government agencies can (and do) already effectively do this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2013 @ 2:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps the Telcos are where the taps happen. It would be mightily embarrassing for them to be transparent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 9:49am

Yay Sonic.net!
Proud (and happy) sonic.net customer here just to say: they're awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: Yay Sonic.net!
  never heard of 'em.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 19 Jul 2013 @ 10:03am

Will any "level of transparency" reduce the amount of surveillance?
NO, so why do you run these pieces? Mere hair-splitting when up against criminals who don't care about the law.

Your shifting of focus from the basic criminality of unlimited surveillance to more "transparency" that won't lessen the criminality is exactly in accord with the goals of a limited hangout: helping them get the populace used to the current level of surveillance, and ready for the next stage.

Plus, by playing up these, you again further the totally artificial notion of certain corporations being good and acting in public interest, trying to stop the NSA, when in fact, NONE are. We're in full-blown corporatism where is no separation between corporations and gov't: all pursue the same goal of full-time tracking of everyone in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 10:13am
  
  Re: Will any "level of transparency" reduce the amount of surveillance?
  Thanks to articles like these, when AT&T came knocking on my door trying to sell me there services a couple weeks back I told them to "Fuck Off".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Brand, 19 Jul 2013 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re: Will any "level of transparency" reduce the amount of surveillance?
    I hope you also told them WHY you said that. These things do eventually trickle up to the people at the top...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Will any "level of transparency" reduce the amount of surveillance?
      Of course. Ironically, the next day a different girl came to the door for the same reason.
      
      I said, "There was just a girl here yesterday for this, where is she"?
      
      I was told she quit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gorehound (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: Will any "level of transparency" reduce the amount of surveillance?
    I dropped them at least 10 Years ago.I so hate these Telcos.I am on a Non-Contract Verizon Phone.......only a fliptop with no Internet ever thru it nor do I do Text.All I do is to use it as a phone.
    Nothing important is ever discussed or ever will be LIVE on a phone.
    All other stuff I do is thru a Desktop,properly VPN'd , Firewalled, ETC.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 10:30am

seems to me that the main Telcos are trying to align their businesses with their customers wallets! usual US situation, if there is a way to fleece customers, whether it's by charging extortionate prices because of the monopoly stupid, back hand receiving politicians give or because of favours being requested in return for giving away customers data and a access to that data to the government, the business concerned will do it! no business cares less for customers than in the USA and i doubt if any government expects to get more from businesses and citizens, knowingly or not, again, than in the USA. the reputation used to be worth having and one to be proud of. oh, how things have changed!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Dow (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 12:04pm

Doesn't answer the question "Why?"
The article doesn't explain why the telcos are silent. Based on other news stories on the subject, e.g. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Telcos-Vastly-Overcharge-Government-for-Snooping-124937, which in part says "AT&T, for example, imposes a $325 "activation fee" for each wiretap and $10 a day to maintain it. Smaller carriers Cricket and U.S. Cellular charge only about $250 per wiretap. But snoop on a Verizon customer? That costs the government $775 for the first month and $500 each month after that, according to industry disclosures made last year to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass." it seems fairly obvious why they aren't saying anything. And for this article to say the telcos have "given" the NSA access isn't exactly what's going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 12:38pm

Plus...
since they've already been granted immunity, why should they care? They took care of business. Too bad for all you sap Internet companies that don't know that

Cover Thy Ass Shall Be The First Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 1:02pm

Here's a thought: They disagree with Techdirtbag Nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 1:54pm

Nobody should be surprised.

These fuckers are not only some of the worst, thieving cunts in business in this country but they've been steeling our privacy right along with our money.

Telco is a very, very large part of what has gone very, very wrong.

Immunity for breaking the tenets of the country. What's next? Medals of Honor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aztecian (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 1:55pm

Do we need more proof?
Telcos are pure evil. The only time they appear slightly less than pure evil is when they are compared with each other... then the little ones trying to get bigger sometimes do things that aren't as evil as the others...but those things are always temporary.

Let's keep this part simple: Telcos = Evil. All.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2013 @ 2:12pm

The telcos make money on those things, that is why they volunteered everything.

The US is probably fucked, but other countries can go VoIP, which although not impossible to tap is a lot harder if certain precautions are taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jul 2013 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  Why can't the US go VoIP?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graham J (profile), 20 Jul 2013 @ 8:24am

Capitalism
Ain't capitalism grand? Money is more important than people in your country.

Mike, you forgot to mention Apple in your short list of companies who fought against joining your fine country's spying scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2013 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: Capitalism
  He didn't forget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- American, 21 Jul 2013 @ 10:52am
  
  Re: Capitalism
  That's not capitalism, that's equal parts hyper paranoia and ultra liberal politics. The Soviets did the same things in the USSR, wire tapping large portions of the general public and targeting people that didn't go along with their political agenda. Corporations were owned and run by government. They were, by definition as communists, anti capitalist. They're doing this just as much to target political adversaries to be classified as "domestic terrorists" as they are to identify actual terrorists.
  
  While I am not happy about these companies "volunteering" to give up this info, the way I see it, at least they're making it cost something. At some point in the future, there are going to be cuts to the finances(I say "finances" because we still have no national budget plan) available to the NSA and as this program becomes increasingly unpopular and increasingly costly, Senetors and Representatives are going to be pushing harder and harder for it to be removed from the NSA's SOP. Especially when this program doesn't produce any reasonable, actionable data on any real terrorists, but instead is found to be targeting citizens who's activities have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with opposing Obama.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Graham J (profile), 22 Jul 2013 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re: Capitalism
    With communism the government owns the corporations. What you have is a system where the corporations own the government. That's capitalism - everyone hails the almighty dollar. It's also very conservative (as opposed to liberal)
    
    While I agree there's the potential for this spying to be used against political adversaries, I think it's a bit tinfoil hatish to say that's happening already, and given this system was put in place during the Bush administration it clearly wasn't designed to keep Obama in power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]