This week, two lawsuits have been filed in response to the recently publicized National Security Agency program of gathering telephone call information from major phone service providers. Both suits are class action suits targeting Verizon for their role in voluntarily providing information on what numbers hundreds of thousands of customers called since 9/11.
One suit, initiated by Daryl Hines of Beaverton, Oregon, seeks $1000 per customer of Verizon Northwest (about a million people) plus $1 billion in punitive damages. The punitive damage figure is unrealistic because the likelihood of proving actual harm or establishing quantifiable damages in these cases is minimal. Hines' complaint objects to the company's voluntary delivery of call information to the NSA without first advising or obtaining permission from its customers, in violation of Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.
Verizon is one of three companies which cooperated with the NSA in its effort to gather information to track calls from potential terrorists to known terrorists outside of the United States. The other companies involved are Bellsouth and AT&T. Qwest was solicited for the same information and refused to provide it without a warrant.
A second suit was filed this past Friday against Verizon in federal court in New York. It seeks $5 billion in damages as a class action suit and demands that Verizon cease providing customer information to the government.
The compilation and analysis of phone records was begun by the NSA in 1999, initially using publicly available data and then continued on a wider scale with data obtained from phone companies after the attack on the World Trade Center. The focus of this program was on identifying phone numbers linked to frequent calls to suspected terrorists outside of the United States. This program did not involve monitoring, recording, or analyzing the content of the phone calls themselves. However, it may have helped to identify targets for more in-depth telecommunications surveillance, such as the controversial NSA data mining and wiretapping programs carried out without the approval of the FISA court, and the similar program launched during the Clinton Administration known as Project Echelon.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
Speaking of "Deep Pockets" Dave, when did you become sponsored by Vorizen?
2 - Jet in Columbus
Good Tough reporting Dave. Unfortunately the only thing I see coming out of this is a bunch of lawyers getting rich and the customers seeing maybe a one month reduction of their phone bills by maybe $2 a piece.
Solus mei sententia
Jet
3 - Michael J. West
the NSA never disclosed the information or used the data in any way beyond their legitimate, stated intention of identifying likely terrorist associates.
This part, I'm not sure if I believe. The last time we were told the limits of the NSA's telephone-information program, those limits turned out to be false. Knowing this, and knowing that the Justice Department has been stonewalled, I personally don't trust that the NSA didn't use the data beyond their "legitimate, stated intention."
But I speak for myself, like it or not. And, like it or not, you're right; the argument that the customers were harmed probably won't go very far. Despite what I believe, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
4 - Dave Nalle
Michael, given the data we're talking about there's not much else the NSA could do with it but what they've said they did. It's theoretically possible they could use it to round up those doing illegal interstate gambling or to help track down child predators, but that's not something they're at all into, and there's been no roundup of those groups, so I see no reason not to believe them.
Dave
5 - marlowesbeef
Dave I think we need to broaden our "concern" here. I know of a case (personally) only recently where a person working for a Fortune 100 company was "terminated". What was suspicious is that she had a stellar record, was a fast rising star through management. Now she posted on a popular blog site some rants against Corporate America, against the Bush Adm., and specifically Dick Cheney. She was doing this via an abscure handle on this blog site. Her postings were hard hitting and drew a LOT of praise and attention.
Two weeks before she was to go for an interview for another move up the corporate chain she received an odd phone call. It was almost reminiscent of that scene in SEINFELD where Elane is making waves with the AMA and she gets a call in the middle of the night.
What happened was she (my acquaintance) was called by someone in the corporate office in Houston. They simply asked her who her district manager was. She thought this odd but gave this person the name.
The next day, her firewall lit up. When she was investigating it - back-tracing - it turned out it was HALIBURTON in Houston. She called them and they immediately "knew" her geographical and city location. They said it was a "hacker" that was trying to break through and that they were working on it...
For the next two weeks her firewall was hit repeatedly by HALIBURTON. She didn't think much of it.
She went to the interview. It was a panel. She was praised to high heaven. Everyone was told how she single-handedly turned around her small division - something no one had been able to do in the past two years. She was a shoe-in for the promotion. As a matter of fact people were even surprised she had to apply.
She didn't get it.
Everyone, including the district manager was stunned. She was told "corporate" had made the decision.
A month later - about six weeks ago - she had to take a day off for a family emergency. No problem.
Two days later she was fired. The excuse was so lame no one could fathom it. Again, the firing came from corporate.
The moral of the story here is that we are ALL losing, very VERY quickly our privacy. There is a nearly unbreakable bond between Corporate America and the highest echelons...
P.Marlowe
"He was about as hard to see as the Dalai Lama. Guys with a hundred million dollars live a peculiar life, behind a screen of servants, bodyguards, secretaries, lawyers, and tame executives. Presumably they eat, sleep, get their hair cut, and wear clothes. But you never know for sure. Everything you read or hear about them has been processed by a public relations gang of guys who are paid big money to create and maintain a usable personality, something simple and clean and sharp, like a sterilized needle. It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be consistent with the known facts, and the known facts you could count on your fingers.", [Raymond Chandler, Philip Marlowes Guide to Life]
6 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like she was working for a large company that hired KBR to do their internal security and because of her outspoken anti-corporate postings they decided she was a potential security risk. It's not a happy story, but it does make a great deal of sense. The company is just trying to defend itself.
Dave
7 - marlowesbeef
Yah, sure. And if that includes crushing someone's career because you don't like their politics then why not? It's absolutely vital that the CEOs retain their astronomical salaries and bonuses, and if that has to be done at the expense of some little guy's liberty, well, that's the great American Way.
How silly of us to imagine we should have the right to voice our concerns about where the country is going and who's taking us there.
Hell, why stop at ruining her promising career? Why not just take her out and shoot her? What's that you say? They'd be "breaking the law" you say?
Well then... They have all the power (rightly so)and the collective balls of congress in their hands, (rightly so) so why shouldn't Corporate America be allowed to shoot people who worry about corporate greed and such? It's just a matter of passing a silly little law...
Rightly so...
P. Marlowe
"“Well?” she asked me quietly. “How did you get on with Father?”"
"“Fine. He explained civilization to me. I mean how it looks to him. He’s going to let it go on for a little while longer. But it better be careful and not interfere with his private life. If it does, he’s apt to make a phone call to God and cancel the order.”", [Raymond Chandler, Philip Marlowes Guide to Life]
8 - Michael J. West
Michael, given the data we're talking about there's not much else the NSA could do with it but what they've said they did.
Yes. Given the data we're talking about. Provided that that's really ALL the data we're talking about. It sounds paranoid, I admit, but sidestepping warrant issuance is one HELL of a slippery slope, even right now they're doing what they've said they did.
Which is (and correct me if I'm wrong) to look for calling patterns that might include international calls. Which calls, in turn, the NSA might eavesdrop on if the patterns indicate that the calls might be made to terrorist contacts in other countries.
but what's to say that they won't determine patterns that lead them to eavesdrop on domestic calls? And what's to say that such eavesdrops will be legal and have probably cause?
In most cases, a warrant is what's to say that.
9 - Michael J. West
In my first paragraph, that should have been "even IF right now..."
10 - Michael J. West
And "probable cause," not "probably cause."
Ever the perfectionist, I am.
11 - Dave Nalle
Marlowe, it's not clear to me that they 'crushed' this woman's career because they didn't like her politics. It sounds much more likely that they got rid of her because they thought she was irresponsible and a security risk. I'm sure she had no problem getting a new job if she was as good as you suggest.
And Michael, I try to avoid foamy mouthed paranoia. But you're correct that once they process the data it could lead them to discovering all sorts of crimes. One would hope that at that point they'd get a warrant for more in depth surveillance.
As I said on another thread, what the NSA is doing with this data is equivalent to staking out a crack house and seeing who goes in and out and then stopping them with probable cause and searching them. You don't need a warrant to sit in a car on the street outside the crack house, and you don't need a warrant to search the crackhead leaving the house because you then have probable cause to believe he's bought some crack.
Dave
12 - Jet in Columbus
Michael, there's an old saying that goes "Give a mouse a cookie, and he's going to want a glass of milk" The next time they want to wiretap the Russian Embassy, or listen in on all the private phone calls coming out of the United Nations building, they could use this as a precident.
After all if it was legal for them to do that, then why not this. That's not being paranoid, that being realistic.
In recent years Bush has been doing a hell of a lot with his "Mandate from the People" argument after the last election. It's my opinion he's gone power mad. Either that, or Cheney has and is pulling Ws strings.
Solus mei sententia,
Jet
13 - Jet in Columbus
Dave we're not talking here about watching from outside the house, we're talking about entering and hiding inside a closet listening in.
These "Discovered" crimes you're talking about would be thrown out of court and guilty criminals would go free, simply because a warrant was obtained after an illegal search or wiretap was made.
Solus mei sententia,
Jet
14 - Dave Nalle
Dave we're not talking here about watching from outside the house, we're talking about entering and hiding inside a closet listening in.
We absolutely are not. We're discussing the phone number call record data here, not the FISA wiretaps. Just tracking who calls who is NOT the same as listening in on conversations.
These "Discovered" crimes you're talking about would be thrown out of court and guilty criminals would go free, simply because a warrant was obtained after an illegal search or wiretap was made.
Except that again, just keeping track of who calls who is not the same as an illegal search or wiretap.
Dave
15 - Mark Bellinghaus
Thanks Dave for your article! Un-fucking-believable!!!
Well, class action lawsuits are being the latest trend these days--so I am hoping for the $1K check of course--since they must have taped me as well. And that also means that my switch is final! I wanted to do this for the longest time--a year or so, since Catherine Zeta-Jones is begging for it. What's the company's name again?
Oh yeah--T-mobile! A German company on top of that.
Well, first the cars, then the beer, then the phone companies, then me and what is next?
16 - Jet in Columbus
Mark I believe you'll find your check paperclipped to the $100 one from Frist-watch your mail!
17 - Jet in Columbus
Mark #46-Too much triptphan from talking like a turkey. He's not in mine, that door's been open 35 years. Have you checked Bings?
18 - Mark
Verizon. We never stop listening to you.
19 - marlowesbeef
Dave... She never commented on the company she worked for. As a matter of fact she never commented on the industry she worked in. Her rants were toward broad elements like political coruption, the hypocricy of the Bush Adm., etc., as well as Corporate America and its velvet wrecking ball...
But you're right... She probably is a "security risk". In fact everyone who voted against Bush is...
I've heard Guantanamo Bay is lovely this time of year...
P. Marlowe
20 - Dave Nalle
Mark, if it's a class action suit, by the time you get yourcheck it will be $1 rather than $1000, the other $999 having gone to the lawyers.
Marlowe, if the company worked government contracts they sure didn't want her to be identified for working for them if she was mouthing off like that. Some common sense IS a basic job requirement in that sort of business.
Dave
21 - Mark Bellinghaus
somebody in Columbus is obviously smoking some heavy shit!
22 - Jet in Columbus
Dave? I believe I said that very thing in Comment 2-though it does bear repeating.
Mark... Jealous? If I could afford to...
Solus mei sententia
Jet
23 - Poldark Maximus
At the core of the debate will be the issue of data retention policies. Curiously, no one questions why Verizon or any of the Telco's maintained these records in the first place. They may have some data retention policies that were originally structured to conform to their billing cycles and, to protect the consumer, the protest period over customer charges.
The message is that digital data and records no matter the source, if available, will be subpeonable. And subject to scrutiny by myriad agencies going forward. It is, for example, a well know policy of most public libraries to eliminate all recods of who checked out which book the day they return it. It is possible to obtain summary data about how many times the book was checked out, but after it has been returned, no longer by whom. They consciously do this for the reasons discussed here. Do you want to know how many years of credit card charges are available on line? Have we forgotten that the identification of the original 19 9/11 bombers was secured by tracing electronic charges and ATM transactions? What is the retention policy on such data and who determines that policy?
Verizon and AT&T will no doubt be under pressure to retain data (by the government) and from its customers, to delete all data after a certain period. That is the fall out from the current revelations, and sensible policies will be forged to both protect citizens (sic) going forward and enable sensible intelligence gathering going forward. The digital genie is well and truly free of her bottle.
24 - marlowesbeef
The issue ISN'T data retention... The point here is that this is just ANOTHER in a series of attacks on our civil liberties...
And to carry this on further Dave, regarding my friend... Her company has no government contracts that I know of... If they did it would be odd. And again - what the hell? Are you telling me that the ONLY people in America who are truly free to speak their mind are the bums on the street? That the rest of us - slaves as we are to Corporate America are JUST that - SLAVES with no voice?
P. Marlowe
"A club owned the lake and the lake frontage and if they didn’t want you in the club, you didn’t get to play in the water. It was exclusive in the only remaining sense of the word that doesn’t mean merely expensive.", [Raymond Chandler, Philip Marlowes Guide to Life]
25 - Dave Nalle
Poldark is exactly right. From a functional standpoint data retention is key to this issue. Marlowe is like many who are confusing this issue with the warrantless wiretaps which are an entirely separate issue. As Poldark suggests, what we need is to ammend and clarify the telcom law to address this issue asap.
And yes, Marlowe, the reason I can speak my mind freely is that I'm self-employed. Even then I have to some degree to be sensitive to the feelings of my customers who may encounter my political writings.
DAve