I think the phone companies are subcontracted to provide this information to a middleman operation, such as ChoicePoint, who is in turn contracted with the NSA.
Remember, Qwest said they were contacted for the same phone records and refused....
Posted by ann at May 16, 2006 02:51 PMI hope the Dems on Specter's committee will walk out if the telco CEO's are not sworn in.
Remember the oilco CEO's? Fool me once, shame on you...
The phone companies have nothing to lose by lying about the matter. If it is true that they provided the records, they will be sued. A cover up would be supportd by the gov't and would be in the phone company's best interest.
Posted by Cookie Monster at May 16, 2006 02:58 PMBush did not deny it! He just told us that they were not listening to the conversation.
I think all the lawsuit are behind the denial.
According to these denials, no interactions between NSA and the telecoms regarding call records ever occurred.
So why didn't Hayden just deny the whole story?
And why was Hayden talking about personally meeting with all the telecom CEOs? Over what?
And why was Qwest's ex-CEO issuing press releases that he refused to give NSA what they wanted, if Qwest was never approached by NSA at all?
First ask the telecoms if they were ever approached for call records by NSA, regardless of what they ultimately did. And did they ever meet with Hayden? Why?
Perhaps the "sources" have been found and muzzled, thus permitting the Big Lie to be rolled out.
Posted by euzoius at May 16, 2006 03:09 PMI don't understand why Bush and others would go to such lengths to proclaim wiretapping of this sort is legal if it had not already been done regardless of what the phone companies say. The corporations have to provide plausible deniability if only to avoid massive lawsuits. They had better say they did nothing wrong. How could they not?
Posted by gtash at May 16, 2006 03:12 PMTLC itself has a link up to WaPo that Qwest confirmed it had denied the NSA request for the precise records set out in the USAT story, and corroborated the story as to the reasons why it refused!
Posted by euzoius at May 16, 2006 03:18 PMwhat if rather than giving the phone records, they were diverting call data directly to the NSA, or allowing the NSA to do so.
Does that parse with both stories?
it's all CYA from the phone companies--they are trying to avoid civil suits, FCC hearings, etc.
U.S. opens assault on wiretap suit AT&T is accused of aiding surveillance
Posted by DW at May 16, 2006 03:21 PMChanging fucking history right before our eyes is what their all doing!
It won't work, assholes!
listening to PBS right now- AG parsed a direct question with the usual non-denial denial. But then that all might have been just another Lehrer softball question to the powers that be.
Posted by scottfree at May 16, 2006 03:35 PMI think Ann got it right. The telco's gave the data to a contractor, not directly to the NSA.
Posted by Alan at May 16, 2006 03:37 PMSoto:
I would remind you of Dan Rather and the TANG memos
Are you suggesting that Rove created those documents?
Posted by Toby Petzold at May 16, 2006 03:41 PMWere these companies given NSL's? Because if they were, they're not allowed to talk about being interrogated or given a request for evidence about the issue in question -- in this case phone records -- ever again. So, I guess in their lawyers' minds, they HAVE to lie.
Posted by pol at May 16, 2006 03:52 PMstv, wll, lttl Bsh hs hs trtr plcy fr ntnl scrty, rght? Why dsn't h s t gnst hs crp lrds? nd shp ths pnks t Gntnm! Hy, thy cld b cll mts wth thr shml csns. Wht gs rnd cms rnd? yh.
A careful reading of the Eff v. AT&T suit does not refer to records. It alleges that AT&T split off a full copy of the laser light stream from the fiber optic cable switch and directed the stream of information into a NSA room that held a Narus machine. That is not delivery of "phone records" and it may be the truth that "phone records" were not delivered. What was delivered was all of the information in the pipe LIVE and access to the databases.
The suit alleges:
42. On information and belief, AT&T Corp. has provided and continues to provide the
government with direct access to all or a substantial number of the communications transmitted
through its key domestic telecommunications facilities, including direct access to streams of
domestic, international and foreign telephone and Internet communications.
Why not lie? It's not as though they're under oath.
I'll remind you that even that doesn't always encourage good behavior when billions are on the line: remember the Tobacco companies?
Posted by Jonathan at May 16, 2006 04:17 PMSteve,
See Josh Marshall's take on it:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008478.php
He's right on: look at what the Telecoms said. They aren't blanket denials; rather, they're denials of specific details that are more than the USAT story said in the first place.
Who said anything about contracts? Only the telecoms in their denials. Classic sign of obfuscation.
Posted by Jonathan at May 16, 2006 04:30 PMjnthn, wsh y wld cntrbt mr ftn. spps tht f w gt fw 100,000 ppl spkng bt vrs crp strtgs f dcptn, myb vryn wld lrn t dstrst ths Gdlss whrs frst, thn cnsdr hw t cntrl th dmn spwn, nd thr mnns.
[Editor: ignore=off]Jonathan:
The USAT story said the companies were working under "contract" with the NSA. NSADirectDial may be onto the real parsing here.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 16, 2006 04:52 PMI think NSADirectDial is onto the explanation: of course the telcos didn't give the NSA phone records; they gave them real-time phone calls to monitor, with which the NSA would make its own records.
Unless the telcos are denying cooperating—or being asked to cooperate, and refusing—with an NSA data-mine of their customers' calls, today's statements are utterly without significance. The quotes that I've seen deny no such thing(s).
The lesson of the BushCo era: the act of denial is meaningless; pay extremely close attention to what is being denied, or be led far astray.
Posted by dj moonbat at May 16, 2006 05:38 PMBushit and his thugs are concerned about one thing; their own asses. The record shows they will lie about anything. They have no concerns for any American, or anybody else. We can only hope to purge these scum from America however we can do it. We, and the world will never be safe until we do. Don't worry about impeachment; think war crimes and international courts.
Posted by jimbo at May 16, 2006 05:54 PMThe lesson of the BushCo era: the act of denial is meaningless; pay extremely close attention to what is being denied, or be led far astray.
Exactly.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 16, 2006 05:55 PMAre you suggesting that Rove created those documents? ....Tubby just cuz you are the dumbest sonofabitch on the planet doesn't mean you have to act the part....the TANG memos were planted to cover over junior's boozin' and avoidin' of his military service!...cut the medication back...
Posted by Goyo at May 16, 2006 05:55 PMSteve,
Thank you for the correction. However, I still feel that the denials contained a fair amount of parsing and "outs" for the companies.
And even if that's not the case, I wouldn't put it past them to simply lie, considering what's at stake and who's involved.
Posted by Jonathan at May 16, 2006 06:02 PMGood points by most commenters here.
I'm with the parsing language and if not in this day in age, I wouldn't put it past these CEO's to outright lie. I mean perhaps they are extremely confident that nothing will be revealed to the Amurkan public because the whole thing is classified and they won't declassify information that might be contradictory or damning. I mean Bushco just put and end to an investigation by another group into some other spying aspect because the NSA wouldn't give the Justice dept clearance. I'm not a lawyer, but couldn't they do the same sort of thing in this instance and no one would ever discover the truth and if these CEO's were lying? Plus why did it take these companies so many days to finally issue these statements?
Posted by emal at May 16, 2006 06:20 PMUSAT has nailed them dead to rights and they know it. This story broke 5 days ago and they're just getting around to denial?
My wife had it right. She said it took them that long to get their stories straight.
Posted by Daryl at May 16, 2006 06:36 PM"would remind you of Dan Rather and the TANG memos"
"Are you suggesting that Rove created those documents?"
Hey Rip Van Winkle, did you just wake up?
Posted by at May 16, 2006 06:53 PMI think the story is correct, I didn't see anyone in Congress or the WH denying it.
Posted by jerry at May 16, 2006 07:02 PMThe key point here is what the telcos are denying: providing records. If they've already provided the NSA with direct access to customer communications, the NSA can compile its own records. (More...)
Posted by Paul Woodward at May 16, 2006 07:11 PMI emailed Verizon after the story came out and they basically admitted they'd handed over information, on landline customers. Here's one of their messages:
Dear XXXX,
Thank you for contacting Verizon Wireless through our website. I appreciate your interest in obtaining more information on the USA Today article. My name is Toria, and I am happy to assist you today.
I understand your concern regarding your information being provided to the National Security Agency. As we previously stated, we are not involved in providing your information to the National Security Agency. This is affecting Verizon landline customers, not Verizon Wireless customers.
We believe in keeping our customer's personal information private.
Customer information includes phone call records.
We value your business and appreciate the opportunity to continue as your wireless service provider. Thank you for using Verizon Wireless products and services. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please reply to this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Toria
Verizon Wireless
Customer Service
"We never stop working for you!"
"Are you suggesting that Rove created those documents?"
Oh, God, no. I'm sure he had an intern do it for him.
Posted by ann at May 16, 2006 07:14 PMSteve
In addition to those cites above that talk about direct access, Eric Lichtblau and James Risen confirmed back in December this is direct access.
Posted by emptywheel at May 16, 2006 07:54 PMBoth companies gave nondenial denials that they did not work with the government, which leaves open the possibility that the telecoms provided the records to a private company, as noted upthread. Moreover, BellSouth Corp. says a "thorough review'' found "no indication it gave telephone records" to the NSA and confirmed that "no such contract" exists to provide " bulk customer calling records to the NSA." Wouldn't compliance with NSA of such a secret, massive program be something telecom would know even without conducting internal investigation? And, it was suggested today by Nacchio’s lawyer that after Bush’s federal probes forced Nacchio to leave Qwest, the telecom may have then provided records to the NSA or private company.
"A lawyer for Joe Nacchio, Denver-based Qwest's former chief executive, said on May 12 that the company was approached by the NSA in 2001 and while Nacchio was CEO, the company refused to hand over records after concluding that doing so would violate privacy law. Nacchio left the company in June 2002."
So, all those blanket denials of Qwest’s participation reported by the MSM were also not true, and yet the denials were convincing enough for a website to thank Qwest and people decided to sign up for their service.
Posted by Patriot Daily at May 16, 2006 08:22 PMWASHINGTON - President Bush did not confirm or deny a newspaper report Thursday that the National Security Agency was collecting records of tens of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls.
"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."
USA Today, based on anonymous sources it said had DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the arrangement, reported that AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. began turning over records of Americans' phone calls to the NSA shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Bush said any domestic intelligence-gathering measures he's approved are "lawful," and he says "appropriate" members of Congress have been briefed.
The companies said Thursday that they are protecting customers' privacy but have an obligation to assist law enforcement and government agencies in ensuring the nation's security. "We prize the trust our customers place in us. If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions," the company said in a statement, echoed by the others.
Now today, the statement has changed to NSA? What NSA? We don't know anything about some NSA.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630576/posts
clb72, the letter doesn't deny it at all. In fact, it confirms it.
Posted by Judith at May 16, 2006 08:41 PMSeveral people have stated that telcos have nothing to lose by lying, but they did not quite explain why. The NSA will try to claim all sorts of obstacles to prevent prosecution, from national security (and refusal to grant access to classified information) to executive privilege. So all prosecution will eventually fizzle, unless Congress intervenes. And it won't intervene, of which telcos have been assured by now. So even if they lie, there will be no evidence to prove it.
Toby, you miserable slut!
No, Rove did not fabricate the records that Rather used. I believe the common claim is that his people duplicated the records and destroyed the originals (or kept them to blackmail the Bushes--who knows!). This way what is known by others to be a perfectly legitimate document can be demonstrated to be questionable. And questionable is all that is necessary to discredit the source, as NO ONE EVER DEMONSTRATED OR CLAIMED THAT THE RECORDS WERE FABRICATED. The only reason why the story was questioned is because the exact provenance of the documents could not be established, not because they were false or fraudulent.
Buck, Toby knows that. He was just trying to redirect the discussion.
Posted by Judith at May 16, 2006 10:49 PMI don't believe cigarette smoke is harmful to one's health.
No, I don't believe cigarette smoke is harmful to one's health.
I don't believe cigarette smoking is harmful to one's health.
I don't believe cigarette smoke is harmful to one's health.
Posted by yesyesyes at May 17, 2006 12:01 AMJust for completeness - it may be that verizon and Bell South have finally hit upon the magically phrased denial that Bell South used from the outset.
Put another way, maybe Qwest has been as cooperative with the NSA as the other three, but did a better job with a carefully prepared preemptive "denial".
My impression is that the main reason folks believe the Qwest denial is that it came early, but really - anyone at any of the telcos could guess that this story might result in unfavorable publicity and possible legal exposure.
Bonus thought - since there is the threat of lawsuits, for the CEO to lie would create an additional level of exposure, since they would be lying about something clearly material to the shareholders.
Posted by Tom Maguire at May 17, 2006 05:04 AMNSA is getting the entire stream. Confirmation courtesy of Wired.com
Posted by NSADirectDial at May 17, 2006 05:59 AM"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.
Given the predominant legal context in which these allegations become significant, we ought to expect carefully—and I do mean carefully—worded statements regarding such activities. For example:
"Verizon was not asked to provide..."
Could mean:
The same kind if ambiguity may be found in the definition of "customer phone records." We who work in IT are very careful when we define something like what, exactly, constitutes a "customer phone record."
It may be that what Verizon provided was some subset of a customer phone record, in which case customer data was shared with the NSA (which is the essence of the concern that we have); whether those data are, technically speaking, the precise definition of a "customer phone record" is really quite irrelevant, i.e., 'spin.'
You get the point by now. 'Spin' is a given in nearly every publicly-released communication, and 'spin' is accomplished as much by what is said as by what is not said; as much by what is alluded to as by what is not.
Posted by Richard Harlos at May 17, 2006 07:56 AMIsn't it possible that the USA Today story originated as a planted false leak to catch another leaker in the CIA? You know, share some top secret information with a select few that are sworn to secrecy...then wait to see where it shows up.
If you really want to have some fun - share information that your enemies WANT to be true so they can say "I told you so".
Like: Secret prisons in eastern Europe. Or Big Brother is listening to every phone call every made because...just because they can.
Posted by John at May 17, 2006 11:10 AMYeah, John, that's why Qwest confirmed they were asked for the calling data and refused to provide it---oh wait, they're in on the "plant", too!
Right Wing nonsense.
Posted by euzoius at May 17, 2006 11:35 AM