Hold The Phone - Boycott AT&T, Verizon, Bell South

Senate Judiciary Committee passes Specter/Cheney Spy Bill

2006-09-16T10:02:00.000-07:00

I guess I spoke too soon in my last post, because now bill S.2453, the bill that would make Bush's warrantless wiretapping program legal,has been passed by the Judiciary Committee.

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search the houses of U.S. citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday, and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (.pdf), which was co-written by committee's chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in concert with the White House.

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the few senators to be briefed on the National Security Agency program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

Some things that Specter said:

Specter, who called NSA's warrantless surveillance a "festering sore on our body politic," champions his bill, since it allows, but does nor require, the administration to submit the whole surveillance program to review by a secretive court. Specter says President Bush promised to submit the NSA program to the court, if the bill passes.

The bill also strikes from U.S. law a requirement that all surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists be done in accordance with FISA. But an aide for Specter disputes that this radically changes FISA or the balance of powers: Specter considers this to be an update to FISA that moves the law toward where technology is now, according to the aide, who spoke on background.

It scares me how naive this Arlen Specter character is.

It scares me that this bill actually made it this far.

But here's the real scary part. These are some tidbits about what the bill actually does:

Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
Expands the section of law that allows the attorney general to authorize spying on foreign embassies, so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.
Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war. The lack of any congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the president at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.
Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.
Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans. Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.
Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington, D.C., comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

I would write more detailed comments about this, but I just wanted to share one thing with you guys:

I sent emails to my senators about this bill a month ago - if I remember correctly, I sent them through the ACLU. Anyway, I got a response a couple of days ago, and I thought I'd share it with you guys.

Here's the response:

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me about the electronic surveillance of people in the United States by the National Security Agency (NSA). I share your serious concerns about this program.

In December, President Bush acknowledged that he had authorized the NSA to monitor communications, including phone calls and emails, involving American citizens living in the United States. These intercepts were conducted without a court-issued warrant or judicial oversight. The Administration has not disclosed how many Americans were targeted, but newspapers have reported numbers in the thousands.

It is critical that we relentlessly pursue terrorists that seek to do us harm. However, we must make sure that we do not undermine the very rights and way of life that we are seeking to protect. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act clearly states that the Administration must obtain a warrant before electronic surveillance is conducted on US citizens. The NSA program seems to directly violate this law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon begin a bipartisan investigation of this matter. In addition, the NSA's Inspector General is investigating the legality of this program. Please be assured that I will support strong congressional oversight and closely monitor any new developments on this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

So, as you can see, writing to my senators has gotten some results. Therefore, I encourage everybody out there reading this to get your congressperson's email address or regular address and write to them about the Specter/Cheney spy bill, immediately. It does work.

Specter/Cheney Spy Bill Stalls in Committee

2006-09-08T09:49:00.000-07:00

Another quick post today, this time with more good news.

Bill S. 2453, the bill that Arlen Specter and Dick Cheney wrote that would've made Bush's spying program legal, just keeled over in committee yesterday evening, more or less.

WASHINGTON - President Bush's support proved insufficient to push a bill authorizing his warrantless wiretapping program through the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), the committee's chairman, said the bill stalled because of election-year obstructionism.

"We have seen the incipient stage of filibuster by amendment," the Pennsylvania Republican testily declared as he called off a vote to move his bill to the Senate floor. "Filibuster by speech, filibuster by amendment. Obstructionism."

Hopefully, it'll stay that way.

Here's what Russ Feingold had to say about it:

"The president has basically said: I'll agree to let a court decide if I'm breaking the law if you pass a law first that says I'm not breaking the law," Feingold said. "That won't help re-establish a healthy respect for separation of powers. It will only make matters worse."

And that's about it for today. I'll bring more updates as more news unfolds.

Lawyers Subpoena White House in Wiretap Case

2006-08-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

You're not gonna believe this, dear readers.

The lawyers who are working in the lawsuits against AT&T, Verizon and the government are issuing subpoenas against the Bush administration.

Never thought it would happen? Neither did I. It's a sign that people are finally waking up about this, though.

The announcement is due to arrive at 4:30 PM, outside of Verizon headquarters in New York, RAW STORY has confirmed.

Mayer tells RAW STORY that the subpoenaes, directed to President George Bush, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, and the Chief Legal Counsel for Verizon, have already been sent, and should reach their targets tomorrow.

So obviously, there are more updates about this new development to come. Let's hope they're good ones.

And to finish this off...

Afran, a Green Party candidate for New Jersey Senate, told RAW STORY he expected the White House to again claim that the state secrets doctrine forbade it from answering the subpoena, but called the claim "absolute nonsense."

"That's an invitation for presidents to write their own rules and we've had judges multiple times say that state secrets is not a defense," he explained, adding, "We hope the White House will realize the need to cooperate."

This brings to mind an important question.

What would happen if the subpoenas are allowed to go through and the White House refuses to follow them anyway? If that happened, what recourse would we as the people have? Personally, I would guess that impeachment might be the only thing left that would work, but who would know even about that?

But we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.

Judge Rules Warrantless Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional

2006-08-17T13:47:00.000-07:00

Break out the wine, ladies and gentlemen, because I have some wonderful news for you.

Judge Orders Halt to Warrantless Surveillance

DETROIT (Aug. 17) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

This is the point where we at Hold The Phone shall start playing the victory music.

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

I guess that makes this a hollow victory, but one to be joyous for nonetheless.

We'll just have to wait and find out more about this. I'll update when I can.

New York Times Held Wiretapping Story Before 2004 Election

2006-08-15T04:05:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to give a lengthy entry, so here is a news article of interest.

It rather disturbs me.

Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing

The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?

In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

This, of course, begs the question: why? Why did the New York Times hold the story like that? Why? What good would it have done them to do so?

I guess one could say that they didn't want to bring any bias into the election, but given how important it is to know about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, that seems a bit... silly.

So I'll just wrap up my commentary on this article with this:

Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight.

Bush's Part In All Of This

2006-08-08T15:08:00.000-07:00

So, you may have noticed the "Impeach Bush" corner banner put up here.

Why did I put it up?

It's simple, really. When I remodeled the main Hold The Phone site, I had to look through all of the news articles I had all over again to update the information there. And when I did, facts about George W. Bush's involvment came up over and over again, and nagging questions grew in my head that just will not go away.

For example, you all probably know that President Bush was the one who secretly authorized the NSA to start the warrantless wiretapping program. He even OK'd the program over 30 times, and says that he will continue to do so.

It was also recently revealed that George W. Bush was the one that stopped the Department of Justice's investigation into the program, not the NSA.

And this made me wonder, why? Why does the President want this program so badly?

It couldn't be to find terrorists - For that end, the program wasn't working at all.

So what is the real reason?

You guys know that I want to keep this movement I've got going on here nonpartisan. I don't want to shut anybody out of it, liberal or conservative. So, please know that I'm not taking part in the Impeach Bush Coalition out of hatred or malice for the President, or anyone, really. It's just that from what I understand, there's more to the story here than what we currently know, and impeachment might be one of the few ways to find the truth and stop the program.

I don't have much choice, really.

NSA running out of electricity

2006-08-07T16:12:00.000-07:00

Now, there are people out there who believe that all of the scandals and atrocities happening throughout the world are actually a sign of the End Times, and that the only way things will ever get better is if an outside force, like God, intervenes on our behalf.

According to the Baltimore Sun, it would appear that nature has stepped up to the plate.

NSA risking electrical overload

The demand for electricity to operate its expanding intelligence systems has left the high-tech eavesdropping agency on the verge of exceeding its power supply, the lifeblood of its sprawling 350-acre Fort Meade headquarters, according to current and former intelligence officials.

Agency officials anticipated the problem nearly a decade ago as they looked ahead at the technology needs of the agency, sources said, but it was never made a priority, and now the agency's ability to keep its operations going is threatened. The NSA is already unable to install some costly and sophisticated new equipment, including two new supercomputers, for fear of blowing out the electrical infrastructure, they said.

At minimum, the problem could produce disruptions leading to outages and power surges at the Fort Meade headquarters, hampering the work of intelligence analysts and damaging equipment, they said. At worst, it could force a virtual shutdown of the agency, paralyzing the intelligence operation, erasing crucial intelligence data and causing irreparable damage to computer systems -- all detrimental to the fight against terrorism.

Privacy: 1
Government corruption: 0

I hope that made your day. It certainly made mine.

(Also, I would like to apologize for not keeping up with this blog for the past couple of weeks -- real life caught up to me. To make up for it, I actually remodeled the whole Hold The Phone site and updated the information on it to reflect more current information, like the "Lawmakers Say NSA Database Incomplete" article. It was something I've been meaning to do for a while, actually. You can see it here, or click the banner on the menu to the right. I still have more updating to do there, but it's good enough for now.)

Bell South shareholders vote to merge with AT&T

2006-07-21T22:43:00.000-07:00

...And just when we get some good news here, along comes something to crush the cheerful mood.

I mentioned in a previous post that Bell South's denial of their participation in the
NSA program meant nothing because they were trying to merge with AT&T. Well, Bell South shareholders just approved selling out to AT&T.

ATLANTA (AP) — BellSouth (BLS) shareholders approved the proposed sale of their company to AT&T (T) for $67 billion in stock in a deal that would expand the reach of the nation's largest telecommunications provider and put the two companies' wireless joint venture under one roof.

The vote during a special meeting in Atlanta was 97% in favor of the deal, which was announced March 5 and is expected to close by the end of the year.

AT&T shareholders were scheduled to vote later Friday in San Antonio on whether to issue new stock in the combined company.

Federal and state regulators also must approve the deal. Once the deal is completed, the BellSouth and Cingular names will be phased out.

To those of you who use Bell South: this is your cue to get away from them like rats
on a sinking ship.

Now, about the government regulators...

Obviously, I really, really hope they don't let this merger go through, not just because of the NSA program AT&T's working in, but because of the whole antitrust-monopoly thing. Now, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty sure that
two of the three biggest phone companies in the country coming together to become
one huge, hulking... thing... would be really bad as far as competition and consumer choice goes.

But that's just me, I guess.

Ackerman was asked by shareholders why the proxy statement on the deal did not mention the potential liability AT&T may face with a pending multibillion dollar lawsuit over allegations some major phone companies gave customer data to the National Security Agency.

Ackerman said it was an issue of timing, and that the information was contained in regulatory filings made by AT&T. He declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing national security concerns.

...They ask about the AT&T/NSA affair, AT&T says nothing, so they go with the merger
anyway?

They don't ask how this would affect Bell South customers' privacy at all?

To wrap this up, I'll just say that Bell South customers have my sympathies.

Judge Doesn't Allow Use of State Secrets Privilege in AT&T Lawsuit

2006-07-21T22:05:00.000-07:00

Remember the lawsuit that the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed against AT&T?

Well, here's some good news: a judge has allowed the lawsuit to go on and won't
allow the government to use the "state secrets" privilege against it.

U.S. Loses Bid to Dismiss AT&T Surveillance Suit

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday allowed a lawsuit over domestic surveillance to proceed despite Bush administration arguments that revealing secrets in the case would open the country to terrorist attack.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a privacy suit against AT&T Inc. involving surveillance by the National Security Agency, rejected the government's motion that the case be dismissed because of its "state secrets" privilege.

"While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it," Walker wrote in his ruling. "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."

I'm putting that in bold because I hope everybody can understand that by now.

Thursday's ruling raises the odds that at least some of the controversial spying programs will have their fates decided in court. It increases the stakes for a Senate bill that would send such legal disputes to a secret foreign surveillance court that historically considers only evidence that federal officials choose to present.

Which means that if Arlen Specter's bill gets passed, we can kiss our hope of stopping the program goodbye.

So, there you have it, readers, a victory for privacy. It brightened up my mood for the evening, at least.

Bush blocked D.O.J. investigation

2006-07-19T10:56:00.000-07:00

All right, let me try posting this again. I accidentally screwed up and published another, unfinished post about this that I made earlier, and hopefully, with this post, I can correct that.

Anyway, here's the news.

Gonzales: Bush blocked eavesdropping probe

Under sharp questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales said that Bush would not grant the access needed to allow the probe to move forward.

"It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" asked Specter, R-Pa.

"The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales told the committee hearing, during which he was strongly criticized on a range of national security issues by Specter and Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the panel's senior Democrat.

This article is about when the Department of Justice tried to investigate the warrantless wiretapping program back in May. What we're seeing now is that it was the President who stopped the investigation, not merely "the government".

I'd say that the President is doing all he can to keep knowledge of the real extent of the program from everybody else, but that would just be stating the obvious.

I suppose it wouldn't be too much to assume, given all we've found out up to this point, that this program is really trying to do something haenous.

More News On The Specter Bill

2006-07-15T19:59:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the belated entry. I have come down with a nasty bug, which kept me from updating here. Because I'm still sick(and because my throat is absolutely killing me and I'm about to drop out of my chair from exhaustion), I'll have to make this entry quick.

At any rate...

Remember back when news came out that Arlen Specter's bill on the NSA program had an amnesty provision in it?

Well, that bill is apparently going through without a hitch.

For the moment, I wish to direct you guys over to Glenn Greenwald's blog and see his take on the recent news about the bill, please go here, here and here.

Hopefully, I'll be feeling better within the next few days, at which point I'll be able to write a more detailed entry about the bill.

I Contacted Verizon about the NSA program...

2006-07-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

Out of some sense of sheer, morbid curiosity, I contacted Verizon about their involvement in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Why, you ask? What good would that do, you may wonder. Well, after thinking about Verizon and Bell South's denial(and the fact that they didn't deny anything for five weeks before USA Today made their report back in May), one question came to mind:

Why didn't Verizon and Bell South deny USA Today's report back when USA Today contacted them about it five weeks before it was published? Wouldn't it have made more sense to deny it then if they weren't involved?

So I asked Verizon that question. Here is their response:

Dear Verizon Customer,

Thank you for contacting the Verizon eCenter. My name is Belinda, and
I will be handling your request today.

This message is in response to your email dated July 7, 2006. You
inquired about the National Security Agency (NSA) news article. I
will be happy to assist you.

I can understand why you are concerned, but on May 16th Verizon
issued a categorical statement that these reports are false. You can
find our press release at:

http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=93450

As explained in that release, neither Verizon's wireline or wireless
companies provided customer phone records or call data from those
records to the NSA. We realize we have duties to our country and to
our customers, and 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. We appreciate the
continuing opportunity to provide you with service.

It has been my goal to resolve your reason for contacting us. I hope
I have succeeded in meeting that goal. If you have additional
questions or if we may be of assistance to you in the future, please
let us know. We look forward to serving you.

Thank you for using Verizon. We appreciate your business.

Sincerely,
Belinda
Verizon eCenter

...Which didn't answer my question at all.

So I emailed them again.

Here's mine:

I received a response from you guys about my question about your role in the NSA program, and I'm not sure if it answered my question...

You guys made the press release denying your involvement in the program on May 16th, after May 11th, the day that USA Today reported it. However, USA Today says that they contacted you guys and Bell South five weeks before May 11th, and that you guys didn't deny your involvement then.

So how come you guys didn't deny your involvement in the program before May 11th, when you had ample time to, but are only doing so now?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just need to know.

And their response?

Dear -NAME OMITTED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS-

Thank you for your email response. I cannot comment any further on
this matter.

Thank you for using Verizon. We appreciate your business.

Sincerely,
Belinda
Verizon eCenter

Not surprising, really. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

Make of this what you will, readers.

Warrantless Wiretapping Program Started Before 9/11

2006-07-03T14:36:00.000-07:00

I don't even know how to begin to respond to this.

As you probably know, 9/11 is one of the things used to justify the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Well now, there's a news report out that says that the NSA contacted AT&T about starting up this program months before 9/11.

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

It's getting rather obvious now that this program is not about preventing another 9/11, or stopping terrorists, or finding Bin Laden, or anything of the sort. I'm not inclined to buy into any of those excuses at all anymore.

This, of course, begs the question: if this isn't being done to stop terrorists, or in reaction to 9/11, then why was this program started? What is the reason? What is the goal here? What benefit would the people in government get from having all of these call records at their disposal?

Pioneer Groundbreaker

The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.

The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its ``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.

I think the truth about the program is starting to come out now, day by day, and it seems that AT&T is showing itself to be one of, if not the, real villains behind all of this.

Why, oh why did AT&T go along with this? Why did they cooperate in something so heinous, especially before 9/11? Didn't they care about their customers at all?

Forgive me for the melodrama, but this is making me feel sick.

Lawmakers Say NSA Database Incomplete

2006-06-30T15:04:00.000-07:00

So, more information about the NSA database is coming out now, and according to USA Today, the database the NSA created is not complete. The people saying this made some statements that confirmed some stuff and denied other things. From the article:

Five members of the intelligence committees said they were told by senior intelligence officials that AT&T participated in the NSA domestic calls program.

AT&T, asked to comment, issued a written statement Thursday. "The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause 'exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes," it said. "Under these circumstances, AT&T is not able to respond to such allegations."

Yeah, we kind of figured out that much for ourselves, thanks to Mark Klein.

Five members of the intelligence committees said they were told that BellSouth did not turn over domestic call records to the NSA.

Asked about BellSouth's denial, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, "What they said appears to be accurate."

Still, BellSouth customers' call records could end up in the NSA database, he said. "Obviously, a BellSouth customer can contract with AT&T (for long-distance phone service). There is a possibility that numbers are available from other phone companies."

We've been through this before. Back when Bell South denied USA Today's report, USA Today had talked with Bell South about this report five weeks before it was published, and they didn't deny it then. If it was so false, why didn't Bell South say something about it then?

And this whole issue is just assinine because AT&T is trying to merge with Bell South anyway. And since we all know AT&T's role in this program, you can guess what's gonna happen to Bell South's customers if they merge, assuming Bell South didn't participate in the first place.

On that note...

Three lawmakers said that they had been told that Verizon did not turn over call records to the NSA. However, those three and another lawmaker said MCI, the long-distance carrier that Verizon acquired in January, did provide call records to the government.

While Verizon has denied providing call records to the NSA, it has declined to comment on whether MCI participated in the calls database program.

"The President has referred to an NSA program, which he authorized, directed against al-Qaeda," Verizon said in a written statement May 12. "Because that program is highly classified, Verizon cannot comment on that program, nor can we confirm or deny whether we have had any relationship to it." The statement also said the company was now "ensuring that Verizon's policies are implemented at that entity (MCI) and that all its activities fully comply with law."

So Verizon is denying their involvement again, and now people are saying that MCI, which Verizon owns, participated.

Oy vey.

AT&T Claims Immunity In Lawsuit, AT&T CEO Dances Around Questions In Hearing

2006-06-24T18:12:00.000-07:00

Some more news about the lawsuit against AT&T - AT&T is claiming immunity now:

SAN FRANCISCO, June 23 (Reuters) - Privacy rights advocates pressed a U.S. judge on Friday to allow their lawsuit against AT&T to go forward, charging the telecommunications giant is breaking the law by helping a U.S. government eavesdropping program.

Lawyers for AT&T (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which will neither confirm nor deny it is letting the U.S. government monitor its telephone and e-mail traffic as part of a counterterrorism effort, shot back in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that the Electronic Frontier Foundation's charges were based on hearsay and that the group lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.

Because tons of news reports from all of the major U.S. newspapers and statements made by whistleblowers Russell Tice, Mark Klein and other anonymous folk are all just "hearsay". Oh right.

On June 22nd, an AT&T CEO went around and stonewalled senators in a hearing about the NSA program:

Several of the handful of senators who attended the hearing, including Specter and ranking committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont spent much of their time grilling Whitacre about what information, if any, AT&T had turned over to authorities.

"We follow the law, senator," Whitacre responded, repeating the same answer several times.

"That is not an answer, Mr. Whitacre. You know that," Specter said. "That's not an answer. It's an evasion."

At one point, Specter grew so frustrated with Whitacre that he accused the executive of being "contemptuous of this committee."

Not that I really trust Arlen Specter, all things considered, but I honestly wonder how AT&T can just get away with dancing around any questions given to them about this by anyone, especially Congress.

AT&T Allows a Spy Room To Be Built in St. Louis Facility

2006-06-22T10:25:00.000-07:00

Remember when Mark Klein, the AT&T whistleblower, came out and said that AT&T was letting the NSA spy on people's internet activities?

Well, evidently, he was right. More news came out about a spy room over in St. Louis:

In a pivotal network operations center in metropolitan St. Louis, AT&T has maintained a secret, highly secured room since 2002 where government work is being conducted, according to two former AT&T workers once employed at the center.

In interviews with Salon, the former AT&T workers said that only government officials or AT&T employees with top-secret security clearance are admitted to the room, located inside AT&T's facility in Bridgeton. The room's tight security includes a biometric "mantrap" or highly sophisticated double door, secured with retinal and fingerprint scanners. The former workers say company supervisors told them that employees working inside the room were "monitoring network traffic" and that the room was being used by "a government agency."

There you go -- more evidence that AT&T might not be the best choice when it comes to phone service.

On that note, AT&T made a new privacy policy that says that your personal data belongs to AT&T, not you.

AT&T has issued an updated privacy policy that takes effect Friday. The changes are significant because they appear to give the telecom giant more latitude when it comes to sharing customers' personal data with government officials.

The new policy says that AT&T -- not customers -- owns customers' confidential info and can use it "to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

The article also stipulates that AT&T customers will have to agree to this new privacy policy in order to keep getting service. That's not the worst part, though.
This is:

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service -- something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

You read that right. AT&T will now officially monitor where you go and what you do on the web as a matter of course -- well, by themselves now, not just with the NSA.

To those of you who are stuck with AT&T right now and can't switch out: you have my utmost sympathies.

Local Police Bypass Warrants and Subpoenas, Buy Info From Data Brokers Instead

2006-06-20T14:08:00.000-07:00

An argument that is often made to justify the NSA warrantless wiretapping program goes: "Oh, who cares? Companies sell and get your personal information all the time. Your data is a common commodity these days." I would suppose that the logic behind this argument is that, since anybody can get a hold of your personal information, what difference does it really make? Who cares if businesses have data on your private lives?

Well, a Yahoo news report posted today shows us why that is, in fact, a bad thing:

WASHINGTON - Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies have bypassed subpoenas and warrants designed to protect civil liberties and gathered Americans' personal telephone records from private-sector data brokers.

These brokers, many of whom advertise aggressively on the Internet, have gotten into customer accounts online, tricked phone companies into revealing information and even acknowledged that their practices violate laws, according to documents gathered by congressional investigators and provided to The Associated Press.

The law enforcement agencies include offices in the Homeland Security Department and Justice Department — including the FBI and U.S. Marshal's Service — and municipal police departments in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Utah. Experts believe hundreds of other departments frequently use such services.

You read that right.

Some more quotes:

The congressman said laws on the subject are vague: "There's a good chance there are some laws being broken, but it's not really clear precisely which laws."

Heh, really?

James Bearden, a Texas lawyer who represents four such data brokers, compared the companies' activities to the National Security Agency, which reportedly compiles the phone records of ordinary Americans.

"The government is doing exactly what these people are accused of doing," Bearden said. "These people are being demonized. These are people who are partners with law enforcement on a regular basis."

"The NSA is illegally putting together a database of every American's phone calls and data-mining internet traffic in a program that, when revealed, caused a media shitstorm to strike! If they can do it, why can't we?!"

It's amazing how these people think.

The FBI's top lawyers told agents as early as 2001 they can gather private information about Americans from data brokers, even information gleaned from mortgage applications and credit reports, which normally would be off-limits to the government under the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This is absolutely insane. Doesn't privacy or the rule of law matter to anybody anymore?

The more I read about this sort of thing, the more I feel like I'm opening a can of worms that is much bigger than anything I could have imagined...

Government Sues New Jersey Attorney General's Office

2006-06-16T13:04:00.000-07:00

The government is going after the New Jersey Attorney General's office because New Jersey sent subpoenas to phone companies asking them if they gave away customer phone records to the NSA.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. government has sued the New Jersey Attorney General's office on grounds of security concerns to prevent it from asking telephone companies if they gave customer call records to the National Security Agency.

The government wants to stop the disclosure of confidential and sensitive information, according to the lawsuit filed in Trenton, New Jersey on Wednesday, a day before phone companies were due to reply to subpoenas issued by the New Jersey attorney general.

"Compliance with the subpoenas issued by those officers would first place the carriers in a position of having to confirm or deny the existence of information that cannot be confirmed or denied without causing exceptionally grave harm to national security," the lawsuit said.

The government doesn't want anybody investigating this, so it would seem.

Specter's Bill Contains Amnesty Provision

2006-06-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post, evidently, was right. Arlen Specter's new bill does have an amnesty provision in it.

I found out about this over at ChezLark, which had a link to a copy of the new bill from Unclaimed Territory.

Here is the bill. Ohh, you're gonna love this.

On page 26 of the bill, you can find the amnesty provision:

(2) RETROACTIVE EFFECT. - The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall be construed to have the same effective date as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

This means that this covers any wiretapping done since 1978, including the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Which means that if this bill gets passed into law, the government will get away with tracking our phone calls.

The bill also has this little tidbit:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President
to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States."

ChezLark has more details on this, and I encourage you to go there and read about it.

In the meantime, I must ask something of you, dear reader.

Take a few minutes out of your time today, find your senator or representative online and send them an email. Or better yet, go out, get a stamp and some envelopes and some paper, and write them a letter. Tell them about this bill, tell them not to pass it, tell them to stand against it.

No, I'm not simply saying this out of principle, I am serious. If this bill gets passed, there's nothing stopping this administration or any other administration from being able to spy on us to the extent that they have. They'll just get away with the injustices they have done to our privacy, scot-free. After this, who knows what else they could do?

Our congressmen are supposed to serve us, not sit idly by while things like this happen. You, as their constituent, as their potential voter -- you can take a stand, you can tell them your stories, you can say how this affects you, you can still make them stop this.

I beg of you, please try.

Update On Russell Tice, More On Arlen Specter

2006-06-13T20:36:00.000-07:00

Before I give any more news updates, please allow me to address something important.

It seems that Arlen Specter is denying his bill has a blanket amnesty provision. From the article:

Specter denied a report that he was ready to give amnesty to anyone who authorized wiretaps.

"If anybody has violated the law, they'll be held accountable, both as to criminal conduct and as to civil conduct," Specter said. "In no way did I promise amnesty."

Crooks and Liars has a transcript of what Arlen Specter had to say about it:

BLITZER: Are you, as the Washington Post reported, ready to give what they call blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized these wiretaps?

SPECTER: Absolutely not. That was an erroneous report. If anybody has violated the law, they'll be held accountable, both as to criminal conduct and as to civil conduct. And in no way did I promise amnesty or immunity or letting anybody off the hook.

BLITZER: Senator Specter, we only have a few seconds, but when will you hold these hearings?

SPECTER: Well, as soon as I find out whether they are necessary, as soon as we work through the process for now. Listen, Wolf, let's make one thing plain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides the exclusive remedy for domestic wiretapping. There's no doubt that law has been violated. Whether the president has inherent Article Two power, constitutionally, which supersedes or trumps the statute, remains to be seen.

And it was a step forward when the vice president responded, really, within about 14 hours when he got my letter that he made the call. And we're talking. But if the talks aren't productive, I'm prepared to go back to the hearings and I'm prepared to go back to the subpoenas if necessary.

Surprising? Not really. What's surprising is that Arlen Specter's bill, S.2453 AKA the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 doesn't, in fact, have an amnesty provision in it. Because of that, everybody is saying that the Washington Post article was wrong.

However, the version of the bill people are citing to say this was released in, well, March. On March 16th, to be precise. Why would everybody go on and on about Arlen Specter's new bill if they were, in fact, talking about the one he started in March?

Also, I looked up Congress's Daily Digest for June 8th, which is a journal of their congressional records, and found this little tidbit about that bill:

BUSINESS MEETING

Committee on the Judiciary: Committee ordered favorably reported the nominations of Andrew J. Guilford, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, and Charles P. Rosenberg, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Also, Committee began consideration of :

S . 2453 , to establish procedures for the review of electronic surveillance programs, agreeing to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and S. 2468, to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, agreeing to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but did D598not take final action thereon, and recessed subject to call.

(If you want to, you can see the definition for "amendment in the nature of a substitute" here.)

This means on that day, something replaced the bill written in March. Which means that nobody can really judge on what the new version of the bill says until it comes out. The new version may very well have an amnesty provision in it. It might not. Who knows?

I will not pass judgement quite yet, but I kind of wonder whether the Washington Post has more information on this than we know about. I honestly hope that bill doesn't have an amnesty provision in it...

At any rate, I have more news to share.

Yesterday, the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA started:

The government's warrantless domestic spying faced its first courtroom test Monday, with the Bush administration arguing that the program is well within the president's authority but that proving it would require revealing state secrets.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor heard arguments in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency. The ACLU wants the program halted immediately, arguing that it violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The judge gave no indication of when she might rule.

And -- I saved the best bit for last -- Thinkprogress.org has a follow-up about where Russell Tice has been these days.

According to them, it seems Russell Tice testified, like he wanted to, to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Now, the NSA is trying to stop him from testifying to another subcommittee and missed two deadlines to give a legal reason why. The article also says that what Russell Tice had to say was different than the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and the other stuff out in the media about them.

I wonder if we'll ever hear what Tice has to say.

On Arlen Specter

2006-06-09T20:46:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of news about the wiretapping program as of late, and unfortunately, I am only able to write about it now because Blogger was down yesterday. Excuses, excuses, I know.

The news going on these past few days is about a senator named Arlen Specter and how he has backed down on investigating the warrantless wiretapping program. From what I'm reading, it seems Vice President Dick Cheney is playing a big role in trying to thwart the investigations. An article dated for Tuesday says this:

Specter had threatened to subpoena executives of the major phone companies to get them to testify about their cooperation with the NSA. But in an informal conversation, one company lawyer told Specter the executives wouldn't be able to testify about any classified information. Specter said Cheney told the committee the restriction would apply to everyone the senators want to question.

"I cannot make them talk," said Specter, who later acknowledged that the executives have access to more information than senators.

In exchange for deferring action on the phone companies, Specter said Cheney has specifically agreed to work with him on his legislation.

There's more. On June 7th, Specter released this letter that he wrote to Cheney, chastising the Vice President for interfering with his investigation. This part shows how Dick Cheney is trying to influence any investigations going on:

I was advised yesterday that you had called Republican members of the Judiciary Committee lobbying them to oppose any Judiciary Committee hearing, even a closed one, with the telephone companies. I was further advised that you told those Republican members that the telephone companies had been instructed not to provide any information to the Committee as they were prohibited from disclosing classified information.

What's even more disturbing is this part:

I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the Committee without calling me first, or at least calling me at some point. This was especially perplexing since we both attended the Republican Senators caucus lunch yesterday and I walked directly in front of you on at least two occasions enroute from the buffet to my table.

What is this supposed to mean? Would Arlen have been OK with Dick Cheney stopping any kind of meaningful investigation if they had just discussed it over tea and crumpets?

The legislation that Senator Arlen wants to make in exchange for not investigating the NSA program would evidently just let the Bush Administration and the telephone companies get away with participating in the warrantless wiretapping program. From the Washington Post:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislation that would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from a special court for an electronic surveillance program such as the one being conducted by the National Security Agency.

So this law would give the President the "option" of getting a warrant. No. Not good enough.

The new proposal specifies that it cannot "be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States."

Bush has cited his constitutional authority as president as justification for undertaking the warrantless NSA surveillance. The White House and Vice President Cheney have said up to now that no additional legislation is necessary to bring the program within the law.

The legislation says it cannot take away the President's constitutional authority to gather information. The President used that authority to start the NSA program. Is this bill implying that the Bush Administration, or any president in the future for that matter, could just allow domestic spying like this?

Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

This is horrible.

Dick Cheney, by helping Arlen Specter write this bill, is setting things up so that he and everybody else in the Administration will get away with this. I really don't believe that Senator Specter is sincere with his concerns about the NSA program - if he were, why would he allow a bill like this to be written?

If that bill gets passed, they'll have free reign to keep tracking our phone calls, keep monitoring our Internet activities and God/Buddha/etcetera knows what else.

That can't be allowed to happen, it just can't.

Federal Judge Allows ACLU Lawsuit To Go On

2006-06-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

Finally, some good news.

On June 2nd, a federal judge allowed the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA to go on:

The government filed a motion saying that no court can consider the issues because of a privilege against revealing state secrets, if doing so harms national security. The judge said she will hear the government's motion only after proceeding with a June 12 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to summarily declare the spying illegal.

"Although defendants have not responded to said motion they may, if they appear, argue against it," she said.

As bad as things are getting, there is still some hope left, it seems. Time will tell how the ACLU's efforts will play out.

Where Is He?

2006-05-31T15:30:00.000-07:00

Where is he?

A very strange and vague question, one would suppose, and a very odd way to start off a blog entry at that, but it's a good question to ask anyway, especially when it's about Russell Tice.

For those of you not in the know, Russell Tice is one of the whistleblowers who came out about the NSA spying program to the New York Times. On May 12, Russell said that he wanted to testify to Congress and reveal more about the program than what we already know...

The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to hold Hayden's confirmation hearing next week. "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they'll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now."

Finally, someone willing to come out and reveal the truth behind the programs, one would think. It is a great thing that there's at least SOMEONE out there willing to let the people know what's going on. There's just one problem, though. At the beginning of the article, it says this:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens.

The article was dated for May 12. Russell Tice said he wanted to come out and reveal what he knows about this "next week". That would've been on Friday, May 19 at the most.

It's May 31st now. So where is he? Did he get a chance to testify? If so, why haven't we heard anything about his testimony? Why haven't we heard anything more about him at all in recent days, period? Is he well? Could something have happened to him?

If any of you out there have any more information about the whereabouts of Tice, feel free to tell me, because I've looked everywhere and I can't find anything more about this.

I can't possibly be the first one to raise these questions. There has to be something I'm missing here.

Government Asks For Dismissal of Rights Groups' Lawsuits

2006-05-29T17:48:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, it was reported that the government asked for a dismissal of the lawsuits against AT&T put forth by the ACLU, the EFF and other groups. This quote from the article pretty much sums up my feelings about it:

"The Bush administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument," said Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought one of the parallel lawsuits against the NSA program in January.

"I think it's a clear choice: can the president tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the president accountable for breaking the law," he said.

The government is trying to do this by invoking a "state secrets privilege" and they're saying that the case could harm national security. My god -- if they manage to get these cases dropped so easily, how will we ever be able to stop the program? And another quote from the article raises an even important question: how far down does the rabbit hole go?

Both lawsuits also argue the NSA program threatens the ability of defense lawyers in terrorism-related cases to speak freely with their clients, a so-called chilling effect.

"Plaintiffs cannot credibly claim that they face any added marginal chill of surveillance ... when their clients facing terrorism-related investigations or charges may be subject to surveillance pursuant to other means," the government said.

What is this supposed to mean? Are they spying on people in other ways? If so, how? Why?

Forgive me if I sound paranoid, but I believe that if I do, that it's not without merit.

FCC Won't Investigate the NSA Program, More On Saveaccess.org's Protests

2006-05-25T11:51:00.000-07:00

Saveaccess.org's protests took place yesterday, and they made the news. I'm not sure if the protests really did anything to help, though. It just seemed like the telephone companies simply brushed them off. From the Multichannel.com site:

Verizon spokesman John Bonomo countered that proposed national-franchise legislation would protect PEG channels and prevent telephone companies from only offering video service in wealthy neighborhoods.

He called the New York protesters -- which included representatives from the Communications Workers of America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Community Voices Heard -- a “mish mosh” of groups that have gripes with Verizon.

EDIT: I had completely forgotten about one other article that I found. *sigh* Silly me, how could I have possibly forgotten about this... I feel like an idiot now. Perfect...

Anyway:

FCC won't pursue NSA investigation

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will not pursue complaints about a spy agency's access to millions of telephone records because it cannot obtain classified material, the FCC's chairman said in a letter released on Tuesday.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, had asked communications regulators to investigate a newspaper report that AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications and BellSouth Corp. gave access to and turned over call records to help the National Security Agency fight terrorists.

"The classified nature of the NSA's activities makes us unable to investigate the alleged violations," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in the May 22 letter to Markey.

This is disturbing and very sad. Any attempts the rest of the government makes to investigate this is stonewalled by the NSA crying "CLASSIFIED!" First it was the Justice Department, and now the FCC. This isn't right, not right at all. There must be something somebody in government can do about this.