Verizon: NSA Didn't Ask Us for Records

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_bi_ge/phone_records_privacy;_ylt=AsI.7I43ASTCunXo.enzI.is0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Verizon: NSA Didn't Ask Us for Records

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer 1 minute ago

NEW YORK - Verizon Communications Inc. on Tuesday joined fellow phone company BellSouth Corp. in denying key points of a USA Today story that said the companies had provided records of millions of phone calls to the government.

Verizon has not provided customer call data to the National Security Agency, nor had it been asked to do so, the company said in an e-mailed statement. The statement came a day after BellSouth Corp. made a similar denial.

"One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls," the statement read.

The denials leave open the possibility that the NSA directed its requests to long-distance companies, or that call data was collected by other means. Long-distance calls placed by BellSouth and Verizon subscribers can traverse the networks of other carriers who collect a variety of information for billing purposes.

[rzemanfl]

1. If this was true, why didn't they say so right away? Instead, I got

this response from Verizon:

"We appreciate that the USA Today article and other reports about the possibility that the NSA is able to analyze local call data records is causing concern. Please be assured that Verizon places the highest value on protecting the privacy of our customers.

Anything to do with the NSA is of course highly classified, so we can not comment on whether or not the news article causing concern is even accurate. But we can say that, to the extent that we cooperate with government authorities, we are confident that we are complying with all applicable statutes. We appreciate the continuing opportunity to provide you with service."

How come they can comment now, when they couldn't last Friday?

[rodeodance]

5. the suits happened this weekend.

[Gman]

13. Because they were all caught completely flat-footed

and didn't know how to react to the backlash. After talking with the NSA and federal as well as their own corporate lawyers, they decided to deny it. Has nothing to do with the fact that they did it. They're going to deny it until someone proves it in court. "No less than $1,000" per subscriber line turned over (say maybe 10 million access lines X 1000 = $10,000,000,000 (that's $10 billion) in damages. I think I'd deny it too.

[Rich Hunt]

39. at least they're commenting....

And at least they have the maturity to acknowledge that they have no way of knowing whether news reports are correct.

Look how many services are NOT commenting.

It's not as if they couldn't have been "in the game", the surveillance and betrayal and racketeering game ALL ALONG.

[sofa king]

42. Because they are prevented from admitting it.

See the third paragraph of the article posted by DeepModem Mom:

"The letters require telephone companies to keep secret even the existence of the request for records."

This new response from Verizon seems to be indicative of some sort of damage-control operation being prosecuted by the feds.

While I am normally contemptuous of the mainstream media, particularly the television news organizations, I cannot help but wonder if ABC is handing back a little bit of Leo Strauss' bullshit to the Bush Administration. If you read between the lines of that article and this one, it becomes apparent that the phone corporations are required to neither confirm nor deny that they even participated in the process. Now they seem to have new marching orders.

[rodeodance]

2. more:

.....Verizon's statement suggested that USA Today may have 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 said.

Tuesday's denial did not apply to MCI, the long-distance carrier 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.

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.

[Missy M]

7. I would say they also keep records of local calls even though...

they deny it.

[rzemanfl]

8. Please note that the e-mail to me, posted above specifically

mentions "local calls."

[On the Road]

32. Missy, Local Telcos MAKE Records of Local Calls,

but they discard most of them before they hit the billing system. In the case of measured service, they only keep a peg count of how many local calls were made.

OOH, if the call records are caught early enough in the process, before they hit the Regional AMA system, that local call detail can be kept. Something obviously happened. I'm less sure than I was yesterday exactly what it was.

[ProudDad]

30. This is BULLSHIT

I get the detail every month -- every call I made whether they charged me air-time or not.

This shit doesn't come out of thin air!!!

All of this is in their computers, is saved and SOLD to the NSA.

THEY SOLD MY PRIVATE DATA TO THE NSA!!!!

SOLD, SOLD, SOLD!!!

So they're twice as shitty as they pretend to be!

On edit: And they're lying fucks!

[On the Road]

33. If You're Talking Air Time,

you must be referring to cell phone systems. Yes, they make and keep records of all calls. In fact, cellular networks have pretty much broken down the traditional distinction between local and long-distance distinction.

As I understand it, Verizon Wireless has not been accused of providing call detail -- only the local phone companies (former Bell Atlantic and GTE).

As far as lying goes, I'm less certain now than yesterday. Verizon (my employer for the last 20 years) takes a lot of legal positions I don't agree with, but they're not the habit of issuing baldfaced lies about facts. I'm starting to suspect that customer call data was compromised in a slightly different way from what USA Today reported.

[ProudDad]

37. When if comes to the phony "war on terrorism"

there is no truth.

Verizon seems to be tiptoeing around the truth which is, probably, that they SOLD our call detail records to the NSA for their giant snoop database. (Isn't this pretty close to what Poindexter was fired for suggesting)

This is VERY dangerous to our civil liberties. Since they won't get enough "hits" from the 1st match of phone numbers, what's to keep these "cold warriors" from going to the next link or the next? If a friend of a friend of a friend of yours was contacted by a "terrorist" phone number, what's to keep your ass out of Guantanamo?

----------------------------------------------------------

"An alleged terrorist with ties to al Qaeda is arrested overseas. Any American phone numbers he has on him or stored in his cell phone or laptop are turned over to the NSA. Under wartime powers approved by the president, the NSA immediately begins listening in on any international calls made to or from that number, without going through the standard legal procedure of first obtaining a court order to establish a probable cause that the person using the phone is part of the al Qaeda network, explains CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin.

The NSA also runs that same captured phone number through its database of phone records to determine all the calls made to and from that number inside the United States, again without having to obtain a court order."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/politics/main1613877.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_1613877

More Info: http://www.freepress.net/news/15459

[On the Road]

40. OK, But It's Important to Find Out What Happened

Verizon Wireless has NOT been charged with sharing records with the Feds. (They certainly didn't sell them.)

Verizon local probably did something, but he don't know exactly what it was yet. They couldn't have sold call records if the Feds were receiving local call detail. It would have had to be more intrusive and happen earlier in the process.

Being investigated on two degrees of separation from a suspected terrorist is very troubling, especially when it's done without judicial oversight in an atmosphere of fear and lawlessness.

[ProudDad]

47. Will we?

EVER?

I don't think so in this national security fascist state we exist in.

[On the Road]

55. I Think We'll Have a Much Better Idea Than We Do Now

I'm starting to suspect that the administration used a provision of the law to get direct access to raw call records for legitimate investigations, then abused that access to harvest massive amounts of data. The details may be secret, but the outlines will probably be made public.

[closeupready]

46. Exactly.

I was just going to post something like this.

[Dave Reynolds]

3. It must be true,

they issued a statement saying so.

Okay.

[GainesT1958]

4. Or, it leaves open the possibility that those companies' execs...

Could be lying.

I, for one, wouldn't put it past them!:mad:

B-)

[rodeodance]

6. Verizon stock takes hit on $50 billion lawsuit (posted earlier on DU)

Tue May-16-06 11:49 AM
Original message
Verizon stock takes hit on $50 billion lawsuit

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/...

The suit, filed Friday by two New Jersey lawyers on behalf of all Verizon subscribers, contends the phone records collection - first reported by USA Today on Thursday - violates the Constitutional right to privacy and federal law.

"The Telecommunications Act of 1934 is as clear as clear can be," plaintiff Carl Mayer said. "You can't turn over the records of your customers and if you do so it's $1,000 per violation. The Constitution is very clear. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Fourth Amendment prevents unlawful searches and seizures which we believe this to be."

At $1,000 for each of Verizon's 50 million customers, the company and government could be made to pay $50 billion dollars in a class action suit, Mayer said. Verizon Communications said Friday that it could not confirm or deny whether it has provided phone records to the National Security Agency, but the company insisted it protects customer privacy and would never participate in a government "fishing expedition."

[Lerkfish]

9. parse their statements carefully.

note the bolded portions


One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls

here's how the USA today story could still be accurate:

If this program was in place long before 9/11, or if they were not approached by NSA , but some other agency. OR, if they approached NSA themselves.
OR they didn't enter into an agreement.

[yowzayowzayowza]

10. Indeed.

"We have provided no customer information whatsoever to the NSA," BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher told CNN.

Would access to the raw stream of calls being made (routing information) constitute "customer information"?

[On the Road]

31. The Verizon Statement Reads Like a Nondenial Denial

so I suspect that some version of the events took place. It might have been the FBI under the provision of the Patriot Act that people have been discussing. That would give the information a clear legal basis for complying even if the law might be unconstitutional and allow them to deny the USA Today story.

There are different ways it could have happened. For example, Verizon might have given the Feds the ability to access certain kinds of data with the understanding it would be used under certain legal guidelines. And then, as the administration has done before, ignored the guidelines and accessed any data they wanted.

[KAZ]

11. In light of the prohibitions in the patriot act...

...regarding the public acknowledgment of subpoenas, should one not take these statements with a grain of salt?

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. why would they only ask qwest?

Qwest stated that they were asked by NSA for the records. These denials make no sense.

[peaches2003]

14. Verizon issues statement this afternoon

money.cnn.com/2006/05/16/news/companies/verizon/index.htm?cnn=yes.

[DemoTex]

15. Try this

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/16/news/companies/verizon/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Chimichurri]

16. they come out with a statement TODAY?

They're guilty. If they weren't they'd have issued a public statement immediately.

[eviltwin2525]

17. can you say "hack"?

Somebody is clearly lying. If A) NSA-Bush-Hayden-et-al go out of their way to not deny the USA story and B) telcoms aren't lying that they didn't provide the data (big "if"), the logical conclusion must be that ..... C) NSA stole the records. Wow.

When your enemy is busy shooting his own foot off, don't get in his way.

[SlipperySlope]

18. Probably a meaningless, but factually true, denial.

The denial keeps saying that Verizon did not "provide" phone records. That is probably true.

Instead, they let the NSA come in and install equipment to automatically record the information the NSA wanted. Verizon didn't have to "provide" anything since the NSA was doing all the work.

Oh, and I love their "we can neither confirm nor deny" disclaimer. Compare that with the former Qwest CEO Nacchio who says the NSA asked and he told them no.

Oh, but now Nacchio is facing insider trading charges from the Government. I wonder if they have an axe to grind against him? I wonder if the new CEO has let the NSA install their NARUS 6400 big brother machines?

[high density]

19. I think you're right

"Verizon neither confirmed nor denied whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program." -- ????

The timeline of statements and non-statements here just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Robbien]

21. If Verizon didn't allow access to their records, why is Bush trying

to stop the class action suit against Verizon?

Somehow Verizon records are in NSA hands and BushCo doesn't want any court snooping around the spying business.

[cliss]

20. I issued a statement of my own to Verizon

this afternoon. I called and asked them, "why did you betray me?" "Why did you give my phone records to Bush?"

The lady read a prepared statement by Verizon, basically stated they are fighting against Al Qaida.

I was polite, I let her finish. When she was done, I said, "I'm switching to Q West".

[struggle4progress]

22. Verizon statement on data collection

Published: May 16 2006 22:38 | Last updated: May 16 2006 22:38

As the president has made clear, the NSA programme he acknowledged authorising against al-Qaeda is highly-classified. Verizon cannot and will not comment on the programme. Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it ...

Again, Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA programme ...

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d70c2ce2-e519-11da-80de-0000779e2340.html

[wordpix2]

23. bullsh*t

[struggle4progress]

24. yup

[truthisfreedom]

25. doesn't mean anything. i got a court order expunging an arrest record (it

was an illegal arrest over a crime that was never committed) and it states quite clearly in the judge's own words that i may deny that i was ever arrested in a court of law, under oath.

these people merely have to get a judge to sign a statement that says they can lie to protect national security, and they simply can lie under oath or to anybody anytime.

[MikeStl]

26. Something stinks

I dunno something really stinks about this, Bellsouth, verizon, and now I just heard on the news AT&T says they didn't turn over this info to the NSA. In verizon's statement they say that the would not comment on classified programs. Sounds almost to me like they are saying by the way this whole statement could be lies since it's a classified program. Also Verizon says in most cases calls from one number to another within a city are not logged. I really find that hard to believe. I had always though police could go back with a warrant and look at what calls came to and from a number even local calls. Sounds like they are blowing smoke up everyones ass. An at&t repairman is stopping by to work on a problem with my DSL tomorrow. Maybe I'll ask him if he knows anything about record keeping on local calls.

[KAZ]

27. Contact them. Link

[e-mail]

[andino]

28. The Hell they don't track local calls!!!

<QUOTE>
In fact, 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. In any event, the claim is just wrong.
<QUOTE>

That is just flat out bullshit. I know for a fact that they can. I have seen way too many cases on CourtTV where they produce phone records of local calls as evidence. Hell, a friend of mine in high school got his phone records tossed back at him by the police after he got busted selling pot and that was 10 years ago.

They are blowing smoke up our collective arses if they think we'll believe that!

[On the Road]

35. If the Police Used Records of Local Calls,

they probably had a warrant for a pen register. That's a special way of recording call data that will stand up in court, and is not normal procedure.

Local call records are indeed made by the local switch, but typically erased when the raw call records are processed, before they hit the bill. Depending on how it was done, they could be shared with the Feds, but it would involved going fairly deep into the network to do so.

In fact, if local call data was shared, it makes me question HOW it was done. Something obviously happened, but Verizon is correct in saying that providing traditional customer billing information would rarely involve local calls. So it was not just releasing customer billing information.

[ProudDad]

29. I'm still dumping the fucks!

And they'd better not even try to hit me with the early withdrawal penalty!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Exactly...the NSA just took them.

[Catrina]

36. Maybe they didn't give it to the NSA. They sold it to Choicepoint and

Choicepoint sold it to the NSA. I will call tomorrow and ask them to clarify this statement, because from what I read, the NSA doesn't do the data mining, Choicepoint does it for them. Best to ask them if they sold info to a private company.

[jpak]

44. Yup

That's what I was thinking too.

That said, they still have to ASK permission from each customer to sell their phone records.

They ain't off the hook in my book...

[Catrina]

52. Absolutely, I agree ~ they had NO right to give personal information to

a private business which intended to profit off property that was not theirs. And Choicepoint HAS profited!

In fact, if they gave the info to Choicepoint (unless CP stole it) it is even worse for them, legally, imo.

If they had given it directly to the government in response to a subpoena they could have claimed that they were legally bound to do so. But if it was given to a private company, and we know CP sells this info, along with other companies, they have NO excuse imo.

Any company, like Choicepoint, who was involved in this, should also be sued. And I don't think there's any limit on how much each of us who were robbed by them, can claim, unlike the phone companies. I would love to see these companies totally bankrupted! They are enemies of the people, traitors, violators of the Constitution and with no excuse, such as 'government authority'.

I think we need to start calling Choicepoint and Nexis/Lexis et al and demanding to know if they are in possession of our property and how much profit they have made from the sale of that info.

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. The NSA thing probably didn't happen at all.

The story really got bogged while trying to explain what the NSA was going to do with all that data. It smells of a fabricated bullshit story.

[RCinBrooklyn]

41. Verizon Customers Should Write to Verizon and state...

"I have not consent to your actions. My records are not to be accessed with a warrant."

[JPZenger]

43. NSA Wouldn't Have Gone to Phone Cos if there was another way

If there was another way to collect the data, the NSA would not have travelled around to each phone company to ask for their records. That would have created too much risk of a leak - too many people in too many places would have known about it. The most likely scenario is that they collected the info some other way.

[spuddonna]

45. Got this response from Verizon...

I sent Verizon this (it was a reply to my 1st letter to complain):
" In your previous letter concerning my dismay at the NSA/Verizon database, your representative xxxxx wrote:

"Anything to do with the NSA is of course highly classified, so we can not comment on whether or not the news article causing concern is even accurate. But we can say that, to the extent that we cooperate with government authorities, we are confident that we are complying with all applicable statutes. We appreciate the continuing opportunity to provide you with service."

Could you please cite what statutes cover these unauthorized intrusions to my privacy? My understanding is that "under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered." Unless there is a warrant from a court, I can see no statute that covers this.

Also, you have not addressed my question - what information of mine have you released to the federal government without written or verbal permission from me? I understand that you cannot comment as to what the NSA is doing with this data. But you should be able to address what your company has done with my data."

Got this back:
"Dear xxxxx,

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

Thank you for using Verizon. We appreciate your business.

Sincerely,
xxxxx
Verizon eCenter"

:wtf: But they can go to the media and yell "We're innocent!" What a load of bs...

[ProudDad]

48. They are obviously full of shit

and won't answer ANY more questions now that they're the object of a lawsuit.

I'll just have to join the class, I guess.

[Ragin_mad]

50. Actually, section 222 says nothing like that

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 222 Prev | Next

§ 222. Privacy of customer information


How Current is This?

(a) In general
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(b) Confidentiality of carrier information
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.
(c) Confidentiality of customer proprietary network information
(1) Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.
(2) Disclosure on request by customers
A telecommunications carrier shall disclose customer proprietary network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer.
(3) Aggregate customer information
A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for the purposes described in paragraph (1). A local exchange carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to aggregate customer information other than for purposes described in paragraph (1) only if it provides such aggregate information to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request therefor.
(d) Exceptions
Nothing in this section prohibits a telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer proprietary network information obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents—
(1) to initiate, render, bill, and collect for telecommunications services;
(2) to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;
(3) to provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, or administrative services to the customer for the duration of the call, if such call was initiated by the customer and the customer approves of the use of such information to provide such service; and
(4) to provide call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section 332 (d) of this title)—
(A) to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider or emergency dispatch provider, public safety, fire service, or law enforcement official, or hospital emergency or trauma care facility, in order to respond to the user’s call for emergency services;
(B) to inform the user’s legal guardian or members of the user’s immediate family of the user’s location in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm; or
(C) to providers of information or database management services solely for purposes of assisting in the delivery of emergency services in response to an emergency.
(e) Subscriber list information
Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a telecommunications carrier that provides telephone exchange service shall provide subscriber list information gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request for the purpose of publishing directories in any format.
(f) Authority to use wireless location information
For purposes of subsection (c)(1) of this section, without the express prior authorization of the customer, a customer shall not be considered to have approved the use or disclosure of or access to—
(1) call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section 332 (d) of this title), other than in accordance with subsection (d)(4) of this section; or
(2) automatic crash notification information to any person other than for use in the operation of an automatic crash notification system.
(g) Subscriber listed and unlisted information for emergency services
Notwithstanding subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a telecommunications carrier that provides telephone exchange service shall provide information described in subsection (i)(3)(A) <1> of this section (including information pertaining to subscribers whose information is unlisted or unpublished) that is in its possession or control (including information pertaining to subscribers of other carriers) on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions to providers of emergency services, and providers of emergency support services, solely for purposes of delivering or assisting in the delivery of emergency services.
(h) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Customer proprietary network information
The term “customer proprietary network information” means—
(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and
(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier;
except that such term does not include subscriber list information.
(2) Aggregate information
The term “aggregate customer information” means collective data that relates to a group or category of services or customers, from which individual customer identities and characteristics have been removed.
(3) Subscriber list information
The term “subscriber list information” means any information—
(A) identifying the listed names of subscribers of a carrier and such subscribers’ telephone numbers, addresses, or primary advertising classifications (as such classifications are assigned at the time of the establishment of such service), or any combination of such listed names, numbers, addresses, or classifications; and
(B) that the carrier or an affiliate has published, caused to be published, or accepted for publication in any directory format.
(4) Public safety answering point
The term “public safety answering point” means a facility that has been designated to receive emergency calls and route them to emergency service personnel.
(5) Emergency services
The term “emergency services” means 9–1–1 emergency services and emergency notification services.
(6) Emergency notification services
The term “emergency notification services” means services that notify the public of an emergency.
(7) Emergency support services
The term “emergency support services” means information or data base management services used in support of emergency services.

[spuddonna]

54. The quotation I cited was from the original USAToday...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

I believe upon counting that these are paragraphs 29 and 30...
snip
"The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million."

I apologize for the confusion. This was my second letter to Verizon. In the first, I cited the original USAToday article, and used quotes from the article to try to explain my concerns.

[ProudDad]

49. Ok, let's say they didn't give up our local call detail

Hell, let's say that all they gave up was the long-distance.

THEY STILL BROKE THE LAW.

And even if they didn't, they could and would give us up in a new york minute.

I don't trust this fascist police state!

[antonialee839]

51. Word parsing is all.

[Dr Fate]

53. Suuuure- and Saddam caused 9-11 & has WMDs. n/t

n/t