Law Enforcement Fails To Pay Telco Bills For Coughing Up Your Info
from the cheapskates dept
Senator Ed Markey has been very interested in just how often law enforcement requests information from telcos since back when he was in the other house of Congress, sending letters to the major telcos and releasing the details of their responses. There are good breakdowns of the total number of requests from the various telcos (and, damn, it's a lot) over at Forbes and PrivacySOS.However, I wanted to focus in on just one element of the responses, from wireless carrier Cricket. One of the questions asked was how much money the company received in response to law enforcement requests. There is some reasonable debate over these fees for a variety of reasons. At one end of the spectrum, you can reasonably argue that if the government comes in and demands work from a private company, they ought to compensate them for the time -- and indeed, that's what the law allows (it says that such payments are to cover costs, not profit). On the other side, though, it seems... wrong for the government to pay telcos with taxpayer money to violate our privacy. Also, it raises the specter of companies profiting from coughing up our info to the government, and leads some to argue that the telcos do it willingly to make money. To be honest, it's such a drop in the bucket compared to other revenue streams, I'm not sure it really matters that much.
However, now it turns out that the government is really bad about paying -- at least according to Cricket. In answering the question about the money, Cricket noted that it doesn't make much, but the government often just ignores its invoices:
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2706 Cricket is entitled to reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing information in request to legal process received from law enforcement. For real-time requests for surveillance, Cricket is also entitled to reasonable reimbursement pursuant to 18 U.S.C 2518(4) for "reasonable expenses incurred in providing such facilities or assistance" in implementing Title III orders. Cricket is not entitled to, and does not make any profit on services rendered to law enforcement. Further, Cricket is frequently not paid on the invoices it submits to law enforcement. Cricket's fee schedule has not changed since the last response.This is the first time I've seen that suggested anywhere. As awful as it may sound to see the federal government potentially paying companies to violate our privacy, it somehow seems even worse to promise to pay them, and then stiff them.
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: ed markey, law enforcement, payments, privacy, surveillance
Companies: cricket
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
as it is, i think it is totally wrong for any company in these situations, without specific warrants regarding specific people to be forced to hand over information to the government anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Mike believes everything from a corporation.
And "frequently not paid" does not mean NEVER: they may submit duplicate bills every week and only get paid once a month. This is clearly lawyerly double-talk, not anything to trust.
Anyone with actual experience in business would know that over-charging the gov't is standard, almost entirely safe, especially when a "secret" project, and even if caught, after a few years of arguing only have to pay back a small fraction of what was stolen, making out like bandits just on the accrued interest of having the cash in escrow.
When all you have is an economics degree, everything looks like a corporation.
08:11:55[j-122-1]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think cricket specified the federal government as the one's not paying. They just said law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noisy ads
http://www.drugstore.com/search/search_results.asp?Go.y=-89&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&CS RFToken=YrNELHfuzFimLi9CL3B36DtaGgVHttm3Kp2ioe6qXvc=&Ntk=All&Go.x=-864&N=4294936070& Ntt=airborne&srchtree=1&in_nav=1&aid=333840&aparam=R82NkS7wwXk-CmwOQ7FhGS1vG3Q.5Tlt3 w
and another from here:
http://delsym.com/adult-cough-medicine?utm_source=OLV&utm_medium=OLV_15Preroll&utm_camp aign=Delsym_2013&utm_content=AdultCoughRelief
Both starting between 1 and 2 minutes after the window is opened - INCLUDING THIS ONE!
You really gotta get a handle on your advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Noisy ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Noisy ads
I don't get any of that even on this windows machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Noisy ads
So I settle for Ghostery (set to block "analytics", "beacons" and most "widgets" web-bugs) and also FlashBlock (I'll put up with advertisements, but not distracting, animated, visual noise).
But I won't use AdBlock -- it feels rather like cheating;
and after all, in the end, I *want* my favourite sites to be economically viable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Noisy ads
You've set your limits, do you mind if I set mine or do you do it for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not unexpected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title Change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Title Change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Title Change?
If you pay attention and compare Techdirt article titles with the matching URLs, you can see that this actually seems to happen semi-frequently - I'd ballpark-guesstimate at least once a week on average.
I'll admit this is the first time I've definitely caught it both before and after the change, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lie with dogs....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment!!
http://www.companylitigation.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]