

NSA surveillance retrospective: AT&T, Verizon never denied it - declan
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/

======
anologwintermut
AT&T and Verizon didn't have to deny it: what were their users going to do,
switch to Quest?

Facebook, Google, etc stand to loose a lot if the allegations are true or are
believed to be. If what is alleged is true, they have a massive financial
motivation to lie and lie blatantly.

That doesn't mean they are lying, but the fact that AT&T and Verizon didn't
lie doesn't tell us one way or the other.

~~~
declan
One thing I've seen on HN and elsewhere is the accusation, and I'm not saying
you said this, that goes something like this: "Of course Larry and Mark are
lying! They'd be required to lie because of <handwave> government
secretsauce."

This naturally extremely well-written article demonstrates that AT&T and
Verizon never actually lied. And that AT&T and Verizon acted in basically the
opposite way that the Internet companies are today. So it casts doubt on the
<handwave> forced-to-lie-secretsauce allegations.

An update to the story includes some more detail on AT&T's participation.

~~~
nostromo
That <handwave government secretsauce> actually exists. National Security
Letters come with a gag order. You are told not to tell anyone, not your
spouse, not your lawyer, not anyone, and they last forever. Presumably, if
someone asks if you've ever been served a NSL, you're supposed to lie and say
"no."

One of the few that we know about is describe here, where a ISP provider broke
the gag order to speak with his attorney, and the ACLU, and eventually the
order was lifted.

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-
lifte...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted)

There have been hundreds of thousands of NSLs issued since they were created.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter)

~~~
DannyBee
1\. "Presumably, if someone asks if you've ever been served a NSL, you're
supposed to lie and say "no.""

This is an awful large presumption. You could simply say nothing, and not
answer.

2\. the only courts to ever confront the NSL's compelled silence have ruled it
unconstitutional.

There are zero courts that have ever okay'd this.

3\. The "not your lawyer" part is now explicitly wrong, as the law now states
(and has since 2006), "shall disclose to any person (other than those to whom
such disclosure is necessary to comply with the request or an attorney to
obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the request)".

4\. Judicial review of any NSL may now be had (again, since Mar 9, 2006), in a
normal district court. See "18 USC § 3511 - Judicial review of requests for
information"

There are plenty of reasons to generate large amounts of righteous indignation
about NSL's, but it would be nice if you actually got the law right in the
hyperbole.

~~~
nostromo
Thanks for the correction, I'm glad to hear the law was modified. I went back
to the story in Wired and I see they did make note of the change to the law.

------
callahad
Verizon's official response [0] effectively confirmed the allegations. I'm not
sure why Verizon "never denying" it is noteworthy in light of their tacit
admission:

 _You may have seen stories in the news about a top secret order Verizon
allegedly received to produce certain calling information to the U.S.
government._

 _We have no comment on the accuracy of The Guardian newspaper story or the
documents referenced, but a few items in these stories are important. The
alleged court order that The Guardian published on its website contains
languages that:_

 _\- compels Verizon to respond;_

 _\- forbids Verizon from revealing the order 's existence; and_

 _\- excludes from production the "content of any communication . . . or the
name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer."_

 _Verizon continually takes steps to safeguard its customers ' privacy.
Nevertheless, the law authorizes the federal courts to order a company to
provide information in certain circumstances, and if Verizon were to receive
such an order, we would be required to comply._

[0]: [http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/from-the-desk-
of-...](http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/from-the-desk-of-randy-
milch)

~~~
declan
You're confusing Verizon's response in the last week with Verizon's response
in 2006.

The article talks about the 2006-era responses from AT&T and Verizon. The one
in the last week isn't especially interesting when you have the NSA director
and multiple senators confirming the phone log collection exists.

~~~
callahad
Ah! So I am! Re-reading the article in that light makes much more sense.

------
andrewcooke
isn't this consistent with the conclusion that they're using "metadata" from
ISPs to do network analysis and then, from the results of that, requesting
targeted information from web companies? i thought that was the consensus take
on all this? or am i just imagining a consensus? if so, is the above likely
wrong?

[we know telecom companies cooperate (at&t, what happens to qwest when you
don't). we know that the nsa is collecting metdata on everyone because they've
had to redefine "collecting"[1]. we also know prism isn't rocket science
because it's only $20m. and we know there's no "direct access" to servers
because that was so carefully scripted in all the denials. hence network
analysis of (all) calls, then targeted "legal" requests.

[1]
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130606/22435723348/nsas-f...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130606/22435723348/nsas-
favorite-weasel-word-to-pretend-its-claiming-it-doesnt-spy-americans.shtml)]

~~~
tptacek
Every ISP in the world already has an infrastructure for collecting this kind
of metadata (albeit using some degree of sampling); some ISPs even have
provisions for sharing signatures generated from that metadata. So yeah, this
sounds credible.

------
tankbot
Watching old people stumble over so much jargon is rough. Not because it makes
them sound ignorant, but because I know that it muddles the message for people
who need to get it.

------
Pherdnut
I never denied pissing in CNET's coffee either.

~~~
declan
I thought it tasted funny.

