"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

So did they or didn't they?
Posted by Jill | 6:58 AM
Phone company executives are lining up to insist that they didn't give your phone records to the Bush Administration. On the heels of BellSouth's denials comes a denial from Verizon -- sort of:

As the President has made clear, the NSA program he acknowledged authorizing against al-Qaeda is highly-classified. Verizon cannot and will not comment on the program. Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it.

That said, media reports made claims about Verizon that are simply false.

One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

This is false. From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses. Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple "calls across town" are being "tracked." In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls. In any event, the claim is just wrong. As stated above, Verizon’s wireless and wireline companies did not provide to NSA customer records or call data, local or otherwise.

Again, Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program. Verizon always stands ready, however, to help protect the country from terrorist attack. We owe this duty to our fellow citizens. We also have a duty, that we have always fulfilled, to protect the privacy of our customers. The two are not in conflict. When asked for help, we will always make sure that any assistance is authorized by law and that our customers’ privacy is safeguarded.


This back-and-forth statement leaves open a loophole you could drive a truck through, as Peter Svensson of AP notes:

The denials leave open the possibility that the NSA directed its requests to long-distance companies, which collect billing data on long-distance calls placed by local-service customers of BellSouth and Verizon.


This is starting to sound like either a trial balloon or an out-and-out lie. The Administration is so locked into its delusional bubble that they believe the majority of Americans to still be so traumatized that we'll put up with this.

Meanwhile, John Aravosis, who is far more experienced in parsing legalese than I am, digs into the text of Verizon's denial:

I'll add a few other possibilities:

1. Verizon wasn't approached by NSA. Was it approached by anyone else, inside or outside of the government?

2. Verizon didn't "enter into an arrangement." I don't even know what that means, "an arrangement," so denying it doesn't really help clarify things.

3. Verizon didn't "provide" the NSA with domestic customer data. Verizon could have simply "let" the NSA tap into their phone system, their database, etc. and thus would not have "provided" the NSA with data, they simply would have provided the NSA with access to their database, their phone system etc.

Verizon could have given the NSA long distance and international phone call data.

And finally, Verizon could have provided the FBI or the CIA or the DHS or the DOJ with the data and still they'd be telling the truth that they didn't provide it to the NSA.

4. And finally, and most importantly, Verizon's "denial" is a multi-part sentence so that it's not clear what they're denying in that sentence. Let me explain. Here is Verizon's statement:

"One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls."


Now, it's possible that what Verizon says is "false" is simply the claim that Verizon was approached by the NSA after September 11 - perhaps they were approached BEFORE September 11, but the rest of the allegations are totally true (they entered an arrangement, provided customer data, etc.) That would be consistent with Verizon's statement because it's not clear which part of the statement Verizon is saying is false (it's the same problem you have in reverse when you ask someone three questions in one - they answer "yes" and you don't know which part of the question they're answering yes to).


Given what I know about the Bush Administration, I am NOT reassured by Verizon's denials. Are you?

UPDATE: ThinkProgress reports that according to Presidential Memorandum 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)):

With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance.


What this means is that the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, is authorized to allow companies to conceal activities the Administration claims are related to national security. (Hat tip to Atrios for the update.)
0 comments
Bookmark and Share