|
AT&T on the NSA wiretapping program
|
View this Thread in Original format
| josh4 |
| quote: |
Specter: Does AT&T provide customer information to any law enforcement agency?
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: That is not an answer Mr. Whitacre, you know that.
Whitacre: That's all I'm gonnna say, is we follow the law. It is an answer. I'm telling you we don't violate the law, we follow the law.
Specter: Now, that's a legal conclusion, Mr. Whitacre. You may be right or you may be wrong, but I'm asking you for a factual matter — does your company provide information to the federal government or any law enforcement agency, information about customers?
Whitacre: If it's legal and we're requested to do so, of course we do.
Specter: Have you?
Whitacre: All I'm going to say is we follow the law.
Specter: That's not an answer, it's not an answer, it's an evasion.
Whitacre: It's an answer.
Specter: If you're under instructions by the federal government…
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: You've said that. I don't care to hear it again.
Whitacre: I don't care to repeat it again but we do.
Specter: Well then, don't. If you're under instructions by the federal government as a matter of state secrecy not to talk, say so.
Whitacre: Senator, we follow the law.
Specter: Well, I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee.
Whitacre eventually told Specter he could not answer the question because it asked for "classified information."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2108595&page=1 |
So totally ridiculous. Its actually possible no one is going to be held accountable for this program. Efforts should be stepped up against companies like AT&T so they actually think twice before coroperating with the government. Though unless someone has a silver bullet against state secrets privilege such efforts seem few and far between. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
So totally ridiculous. Its actually possible no one is going to be held accountable for this program. Efforts should be stepped up against companies like AT&T so they actually think twice before coroperating with the government. Though unless someone has a silver bullet against state secrets privilege such efforts seem few and far between. |
Considering how Specter keeps giving headfakes like he actually gives a on the matter, then turns around and gets bitchslapped by Cheney and then does absolutely nothing about it (and in fact, agrees to a bill that gives amnesty to this Administration and anyone else who might be prosecuted for illegal eavesdropping. Here's the bill:
http://texas.hippie.googlepages.com...tute5-11-06.pdf
Section 801 of Specter's bill entitled "Executive Authority" amends the criminal punishment provision of FISA Section 109(a), (50 U.S.C. 1809(a). His amended version states:
| quote: | (1) General . . .
(B) FISA. -- Section 109(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1809(a)) is amended --
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting "or under the constitutional authority of the executive" after "authorized by statute"; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting "or executed under the constitutional authority of the executive" after "authorized by statute."
(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. |
Section 109(a) of FISA states that "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally - (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute . . . ."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...ction_1809.html
Meaning it's a felony to eavesdrop without a FISA warrant. Well if you include the phrase "or under the constitutional authority of the executive" after "authorized by statute," well now you have the best of both worlds. You can now eavesdrop with a FISA warrant, but can also eavesdrop under "constitutional authority" under Bush EVEN if that eavesdropping without a warrant is prohibited by FISA.
And the last part of Specter's version states "retroactive effect", meaning that any actions that took place dating back to the 1978 FISA law enactment would now be deemed legal.
IOW, anyone (Bush) who acted illegally prior to Specter's amended version would be off the hook thanks to the retroactive addition to the bill.
Neat, huh?
And, of course, that would include companies like AT&T. So I guess I'm not all that hyped up on Specter actually doing jack about anything here. He's doing quite well playing both sides, and of course the dip media lapdogs are eating it up as if he's standing up to the President, but in the end he eventually sits down and enjoys that old hairy dick Mr. Cheney unzips for him.
Oh, speaking of AT&T, this is an interesting story:
| quote: | Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers' phone calls, and shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against the company.
Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF's lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.
On Wednesday, the EFF asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting AT&T from continuing the alleged wiretapping, and filed a number of documents under seal, including three AT&T documents that purportedly explain how the wiretapping system works.
According to a statement released by Klein's attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.
"I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room," Klein wrote. "The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room."
Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.
"While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet (AT&T's internet service) circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal," Klein wrote.
The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers, according to Klein's statement.
The secret room also included data-mining equipment called a Narus STA 6400, "known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets," according to Klein's statement.
Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.
Klein said he came forward because he does not believe that the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its extrajudicial monitoring of Americans' communications.
"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."
After asking for a preview copy of the documents last week, the government did not object to the EFF filing the paper under seal, although the EFF asked the court Wednesday to make the documents public.
One of the documents is titled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco," and is dated 2002. The others are allegedly a design document instructing technicians how to wire up the taps, and a document that describes the equipment installed in the secret room.
In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "could be used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."
According to court rules, AT&T has until Thursday to file a motion to keep the documents sealed. The government could also step in to the case and request that the documents not be made public, or even that the entire lawsuit be barred under the seldom-used State Secrets Privilege.
AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp declined to comment on the allegations, citing a company policy of not commenting on litigation or matters of national security, but did say that "AT&T follows all laws following requests for assistance from government authorities."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html |
And AT&T's new policy statement that must be signed by new customers is, shall we say, a bit revealing:
http://computerworld.com/blogs/node/2828
(Disclaimer- much of the info. here shamelessly lifted from Glen Greenwald's blog) |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
So totally ridiculous. Its actually possible no one is going to be held accountable for this program. Efforts should be stepped up against companies like AT&T so they actually think twice before coroperating with the government. Though unless someone has a silver bullet against state secrets privilege such efforts seem few and far between. |
Why didn't you post the other pages of the story?
| quote: | WASHINGTON, June 22, 2006 — Six weeks after press reports revealed that the National Security Agency maintains an enormous database of calls made within the United States, the CEO of AT&T refused to outline his company's involvement in the program, saying the information is "classified."
In a heated exchange Thursday with Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, AT&T's Edward Whitacre repeatedly declined to say whether his company provides information to the NSA.
Specter drilled Whitacre several times with increasing frustration until he finally asked, "Mr. Whitacre, are you declining to answer?"
"We follow the law," was Whitacre's repeated comeback.
The exchange between Specter and Whitacre was, to say the least, circuitous.
Specter: Does AT&T provide customer information to any law enforcement agency?
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: That is not an answer Mr. Whitacre, you know that.
Whitacre: That's all I'm gonnna say, is we follow the law. It is an answer. I'm telling you we don't violate the law, we follow the law.
Specter: Now, that's a legal conclusion, Mr. Whitacre. You may be right or you may be wrong, but I'm asking you for a factual matter — does your company provide information to the federal government or any law enforcement agency, information about customers?
Whitacre: If it's legal and we're requested to do so, of course we do.
Specter: Have you?
Whitacre: All I'm going to say is we follow the law.
Specter: That's not an answer, it's not an answer, it's an evasion.
Whitacre: It's an answer.
Specter: If you're under instructions by the federal government…
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: You've said that. I don't care to hear it again.
Whitacre: I don't care to repeat it again but we do.
Specter: Well then, don't. If you're under instructions by the federal government as a matter of state secrecy not to talk, say so.
Whitacre: Senator, we follow the law.
Specter: Well, I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee.
Whitacre eventually told Specter he could not answer the question because it asked for "classified information."
BellSouth CEO Duane Ackerman was also at the hearing, but had an easier time than Whitacre. He told Specter he didn't think BellSouth had given information to the NSA.
"NSA did not ask BellSouth for information. We provided none," Ackerman said. "We've been unable to determine that we have provided any information to NSA."
After Specter was done, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont — the ranking Democrat on the committee — also questioned Whitacre and Ackerman about the NSA program. His chief concern was with a legal argument by AT&T in a California lawsuit. The company asserts that if you enter into a contract with them, they own your information as it pertains to the contract. Whitacre, however, said AT&T does not share the information with third parties.
Today's subcommittee hearing on the proposed merger between BellSouth and AT&T was not the expected forum for the exchange between Specter and Whitacre.
Until earlier this month, Specter had promised a hearing of the full Judiciary Committee to question the CEOs of all American telephone companies. But then, a frustrated Specter announced on June 6 that the hearing would not take place. He said he'd been told by the White House the CEOs wouldn't tell the committee anything about the program either in an open forum or in private session.
Democrats keen to question the CEOs cried foul and questioned how phone company CEOs could legitimately argue that they held state secrets.
The reported massive database of phone calls does not identify which person called who or where, but identifies phone numbers anonymously (assuming the phone number itself is not an identifier).
In addition to the call log, the NSA and the White House have come under fire for their domestic wiretapping program — enacted shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — in which the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was ignored so that the government could listen to foreign calls made to the U.S. without a warrant.
Specter and Leahy have been critical of the secrecy surrounding both programs. Specter has authored legislation that would send the domestic surveillance program before a secret court to determine its legality. |
|
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Why didn't you post the other pages of the story? |
TA's light green on green color scheme s with my eyes. I always prefer to click the link |
|
|
|
|
