Verizon: NSA Didn't Ask Us for Records

[steven]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Communications Inc. denied Tuesday that it had received a request for customer phone records from the National Security Agency, bringing into question key points of a USA Today story.
"Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records," the New York-based phone company said in an e-mailed statement.

The statement came a day after BellSouth Corp. also said the NSA had never requested customer call data, nor had the company provided any.
A story in USA Today last Thursday said Verizon, AT&T Inc. and BellSouth had complied with an NSA request for tens of millions of customer phone records after the 2001 terror attacks. The report sparked a national debate on federal surveillance tactics.

Verizon also said USA Today erred in not drawing a distinction between long-distance and local telephone calls.

"Phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls," Verizon's statement said.

Three smaller phone companies, with mainly local business, contacted by The Associated Press on Tuesday also denied being approached by the NSA. Representatives at Alltel Corp., Citizens Communications Co. and CenturyTel Inc. all said they had no knowledge of NSA requests to their companies.

Verizon's statement Tuesday apparently did not apply to MCI, which Verizon acquired in January. In an earlier statement, Verizon said it is in the process of ensuring that its policies are put in place in the former MCI business.

The denials by Verizon and BellSouth leaves AT&T as the sole company named in the USA Today article that hasn't denied involvement. On Thursday, San Antonio-based AT&T said it had "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare," but said would only assist as allowed within the law.
AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday the company had no further comment.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...E&SECTION=HOME

[DelawareDistrict]

This whole thing is crazy. If that is true, why didn't the government just outright deny asking for those records? Perhaps the records were obtained by some other method? Either way you look at it, the whole situation stinks and something needs to be done about it.

[crlachepinochet]

I wonder what Qwest has to say. What would it mean if they admitted that they were approached by the gov't? It doesn't make sense that the NSA would just be interested in the 14ish states that Qwest covers.

[colossus27]

I guess the larger question is this- what did the fed gov't give in return to these companies for playing ball?

[Stevenco]

I guess the larger question is this- what did the fed gov't give in return to these companies for playing ball?

Good question. Some companies are even large enough to affect legislation.

[WestSideJohn]

And here's a new twist: did you know that on May 5, George W. Bush signed a Presidential Memorandum allowing John Negroponte to authorize telecoms to conceal activities (also known as lying) related to national security? Now, I'm not saying this is what happened with Verizon's claim that the NSA never asked them for records. But if it did happen, we'd never know, would we?

Check it out: 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)

But hey, what's a bit of privacy as long we keep the gays from getting married, right?

[colossus27]

And here's a new twist: did you know that on May 5, George W. Bush signed a Presidential Memorandum allowing John Negroponte to authorize telecoms to conceal activities (also known as lying) related to national security? Now, I'm not saying this is what happened with Verizon's claim that the NSA never asked them for records. But if it did happen, we'd never know, would we?

Check it out: 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)

But hey, what's a bit of privacy as long we keep the gays from getting married, right?

Incredible...absolutely incredible.

I searched for the text in google exactly the way you posted it...nothing found. Can I trouble you for a link, sir?

[WestSideJohn]

Incredible...absolutely incredible. I searched for the text in google exactly the way you posted it...nothing found. Can I trouble you for a link, sir?

Incredible, eh? Fine. I'll play your little game. Here are some links, sir.

1. the Presidential Memorandum:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...8---m000-.html

2. the paragraph in question:

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

3. A story about the memorandum:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/...ecutive-order/

[DelawareDistrict]

The law is also listed here, in findlaw, with the entire U.S. Code.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...ction_78m.html

[colossus27]

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

Downright frightening...

[Unsnivilized]

3. A story about the memorandum:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/...ecutive-order/

I saw this posted on http://whatreallyhappened.com earlier, I thought he summed up it nicely

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/...ecutive-order/

New Presidential Memorandum Permits Intelligence Director To Authorize Telcos To Lie Without Violating Securities Law

Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))

Posted May 17, 2006 11:44 AM PST
Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS

In other words, they may lie to you with impunity, exactly the same as the mainstream media. http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

A judge actually ruled(in overturning a jury's guilty verdict) that the FCC's News Distortion Policy was not a rule, regulation, or law - basically that they(the MainStream Media) can't be held responsible in any real way for lieing to people, they can say whatever fancies them - with impunity. I'd guess that applies at least in some form to their newspapers as well.

[BorderBob]

Just thought I would "bump" this seven year old thread




b.b.

[4248]

[QUOTE=steven;110698]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Communications Inc. denied Tuesday that it had received a request for customer phone records from the National Security Agency, bringing into question key points of a USA Today story.
"Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records," the New York-based phone company said in an e-mailed statement.

The statement came a day after BellSouth Corp. also said the NSA had never requested customer call data, nor had the company provided any.
A story in USA Today last Thursday said Verizon, AT&T Inc. and BellSouth had complied with an NSA request for tens of millions of customer phone records after the 2001 terror attacks. The report sparked a national debate on federal surveillance tactics.

Verizon also said USA Today erred in not drawing a distinction between long-distance and local telephone calls.

"Phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls," Verizon's statement said.

Three smaller phone companies, with mainly local business, contacted by The Associated Press on Tuesday also denied being approached by the NSA. Representatives at Alltel Corp., Citizens Communications Co. and CenturyTel Inc. all said they had no knowledge of NSA requests to their companies.

Verizon's statement Tuesday apparently did not apply to MCI, which Verizon acquired in January. In an earlier statement, Verizon said it is in the process of ensuring that its policies are put in place in the former MCI business.

The denials by Verizon and BellSouth leaves AT&T as the sole company named in the USA Today article that hasn't denied involvement. On Thursday, San Antonio-based AT&T said it had "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare," but said would only assist as allowed within the law.
AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday the company had no further comment.

Nothing new here - just history repeating itself - and "Party Players" denied it then and will excuse it now.

[steven]

wow I forgot all about this

[nogods]

So seven years ago people were concerned about the privacy of their telephone calls.

Apparently not concerned enough to stop having telephone conversations in every nook and cranny of every public place. Too funny.