"James Fenimore" <perryneheum@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192538597.809461.72240@t8g2000prg.googlegrou ps.com...
> And YOU thought your friendly Verizon telecom company was just your
> harmless phone and broadband provider?
>
> Ha!
>
> Like AT&T and other "American" telecoms, VERIZON has been secretly
> providing records of YOUR very own private phone calls to your White
> House war criminal's FBI, NSA and other agencies in the name of
> "national" or "homeland" security.
>
> Or maybe you don't care?
>
> Maybe you're one of those 100-or-so-million duped and television-
> stupored "citizens" who:
>
> 1) Think anything your "president" does is okay by you.
>
> 2) Don't believe that your Nincompoop-In-Chief and his craven cabal
> would do anything to curtail or diminish your privacy or
> constitutionally-guaranteed "rights."
>
> But what if, say, your federal "government" had a record of that
> clandestine cell-phone-contact you had yesterday afternoon at 3:14
> p.m. with your secret ... "lover"?
>
> Then?
>
> ------------------------
>
> "Verizon Says It Turned Over Data Without Court Orders"
>
> "Firm's Letter to Lawmakers Details Government Requests"
>
> By Ellen Nakashima
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, October 16, 2007; A01
>
> Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company,
> told congressional investigators that it has provided customers'
> telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without
> court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
>
> The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or
> necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in
> criminal investigations.
>
> In an Oct. 12 letter replying to Democratic lawmakers, Verizon offered
> a rare glimpse into the way telecommunications companies cooperate
> with government requests for information on U.S. citizens.
>
> Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas,
> sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but
> all the people that customer called, as well as the people those
> people called. Verizon does not keep data on this "two-generation
> community of interest" for customers, but the request highlights the
> broad reach of the government's quest for data.
>
> The disclosures, in a letter from Verizon to three Democrats on the
> House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the carriers'
> participation in government surveillance programs, demonstrated the
> willingness of telecom companies to comply with government requests
> for data, even, at times, without traditional legal supporting
> documents. The committee members also got letters from AT&T and Qwest
> Communications International, but those letters did not provide
> details on customer data given to the government. None of the three
> carriers gave details on any classified government surveillance
> program.
>
>>From January 2005 to September 2007, Verizon provided data to federal
> authorities on an emergency basis 720 times, it said in the letter.
> The records included Internet protocol addresses as well as phone
> data. In that period, Verizon turned over information a total of
> 94,000 times to federal authorities armed with a subpoena or court
> order, the letter said. The information was used for a range of
> criminal investigations, including kidnapping and child-predator cases
> and counter-terrorism investigations.
>
> Verizon and AT&T said it was not their role to second-guess the
> legitimacy of emergency government requests.
> The letters were released yesterday by the lawmakers as Congress
> debates whether to grant telecom carriers immunity in cases in which
> they are sued for disclosing customers' phone records and other data
> as part of the government's post-September 11 surveillance program,
> even if they did not have court authorization. House Democrats have
> said that they cannot contemplate such immunity without first
> understanding the nature of the carriers' cooperation with the
> government.
>
> "The responses from these telecommunications companies highlight the
> need of Congress to continue pressing the Bush administration for
> answers. The water is as murky as ever on this issue, and it's past
> time for the administration to come clean," said Rep. Edward J. Markey
> (D-Mass.), who launched the investigation with panel Chairman John D.
> Dingell (D-Mich.), and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
>
> Congressional Democrats have been largely stymied in their efforts to
> have the Bush administration disclose the scope and nature of its
> surveillance and data-gathering efforts after the Sept. 11, 2001,
> attacks. Revelations have come through press reports, advocacy groups'
> Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and Justice Department inspector
> general reports.
>
> In May 2006, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had
> been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of
> Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it
> reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program
> lacked legal standing.
>
> Last month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group in San
> Francisco, obtained records through a Freedom of Information Act
> lawsuit showing that the FBI sought data from telecom companies about
> the calling habits of suspects and their associates, the New York
> Times reported. Neither Qwest nor AT&T answered the lawmakers'
> question as to whether they had received such requests for
> information.
>
> Yesterday's 13-page Verizon letter indicated that the requests went
> further than previously known. Verizon said it had received FBI
> administrative subpoenas, called national security letters, requesting
> data that would "identify a calling circle" for subscribers' telephone
> numbers, including people contacted by the people contacted by the
> subscriber. Verizon said it does not keep such information.
>
> "The privacy concerns are exponential each generation you go away from
> the suspect's number," said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney with
> the EFF. "This shows that further investigation by Congress and the
> inspector general is critical."
>
> [read whole story]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101501857.html

Get a life!
>