ROLLTIDE
05-15-2006, 05:57 AM
"AT&T, Verizon (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) readily break their own rules"
by David Lazarus (San Francisco Chronicle)
The privacy policies of AT&T and Verizon are very specific about requiring a warrant or subpoena before either company will share customers' data with government officials.
There's no exception for when the government comes calling with nothing more than a vague desire to find terrorists.
AT&T, the company formerly known as SBC, says in its privacy policy that "we must disclose information, when requested, to comply with court orders or subpoenas."
* * *
Vic Schachter, who heads the privacy group at the Silicon Valley law firm Fenwick & West, said that because of the language of privacy policies, the phone (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) companies appear at the very least to have breached their contracts with customers.
"If a jury ever got hold of this case (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#), they would be very skeptical about a company's right to disclose this information," he said.
Both AT&T and Verizon maintain that they've done nothing wrong.
AT&T said in a statement that it has "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare, whether it be an individual or the security (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) interests of the entire nation."
"If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions," it said.
* * *
According to USA Today, only Qwest Communications rejected the NSA's request for access to customer data. The paper cited multiple sources as saying that "Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants."
Representatives of the Denver company didn't return repeated calls for comment.
"Qwest is the only one that did the right thing," said Chris Hoofnagle, who runs the San Francisco office (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) of the Electronic (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) Privacy Information Center. "They told the government that they'd disclose the information only if the government got a court order."
As for why AT&T and Verizon insist that they behaved lawfully, he speculated that this could be because they requested, and received, letters from the attorney general saying the disclosure of customers' data is OK.
"That would give them a lot of cover," Hoofnagle observed. "In that case, the only thing they'd have to deal with is customers."
A lawsuit is already pending, brought by San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation. It charges AT&T with violating both U.S. law and the privacy of its customers.
The lawsuit claims that documents provided by a former AT&T technician show that the NSA's domestic spying program is capable of monitoring all communications traversing the company's network (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#).
"The statutes could not be more clear," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the foundation. "They strictly regulate the phone companies' use of records (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#)."
Daniel Solove, a law professor at George Washington University specializing in privacy issues, said he believes Bush is mistaken in asserting that the government has the right to access people's private data without first obtaining a court order.
"I cannot conceive of a basis in the law for the government to do what it did," he said.
Solove readily acknowledged that it looks like the phone companies have violated the terms of their contracts with customers. But he said it's unclear whether they've also broken the law.
"The question is, what is a company supposed to do when the government makes a demand that violates the rights of its customers?" Solove said.
"The correct thing," he concluded, "is to fight it."
Customers of AT&T and Verizon have every right to wonder why their service provider (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) chose differently.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...BUGICIQA461.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/12/BUGICIQA461.DTL)
by David Lazarus (San Francisco Chronicle)
The privacy policies of AT&T and Verizon are very specific about requiring a warrant or subpoena before either company will share customers' data with government officials.
There's no exception for when the government comes calling with nothing more than a vague desire to find terrorists.
AT&T, the company formerly known as SBC, says in its privacy policy that "we must disclose information, when requested, to comply with court orders or subpoenas."
* * *
Vic Schachter, who heads the privacy group at the Silicon Valley law firm Fenwick & West, said that because of the language of privacy policies, the phone (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) companies appear at the very least to have breached their contracts with customers.
"If a jury ever got hold of this case (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#), they would be very skeptical about a company's right to disclose this information," he said.
Both AT&T and Verizon maintain that they've done nothing wrong.
AT&T said in a statement that it has "an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare, whether it be an individual or the security (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) interests of the entire nation."
"If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions," it said.
* * *
According to USA Today, only Qwest Communications rejected the NSA's request for access to customer data. The paper cited multiple sources as saying that "Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants."
Representatives of the Denver company didn't return repeated calls for comment.
"Qwest is the only one that did the right thing," said Chris Hoofnagle, who runs the San Francisco office (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) of the Electronic (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) Privacy Information Center. "They told the government that they'd disclose the information only if the government got a court order."
As for why AT&T and Verizon insist that they behaved lawfully, he speculated that this could be because they requested, and received, letters from the attorney general saying the disclosure of customers' data is OK.
"That would give them a lot of cover," Hoofnagle observed. "In that case, the only thing they'd have to deal with is customers."
A lawsuit is already pending, brought by San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation. It charges AT&T with violating both U.S. law and the privacy of its customers.
The lawsuit claims that documents provided by a former AT&T technician show that the NSA's domestic spying program is capable of monitoring all communications traversing the company's network (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#).
"The statutes could not be more clear," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the foundation. "They strictly regulate the phone companies' use of records (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#)."
Daniel Solove, a law professor at George Washington University specializing in privacy issues, said he believes Bush is mistaken in asserting that the government has the right to access people's private data without first obtaining a court order.
"I cannot conceive of a basis in the law for the government to do what it did," he said.
Solove readily acknowledged that it looks like the phone companies have violated the terms of their contracts with customers. But he said it's unclear whether they've also broken the law.
"The question is, what is a company supposed to do when the government makes a demand that violates the rights of its customers?" Solove said.
"The correct thing," he concluded, "is to fight it."
Customers of AT&T and Verizon have every right to wonder why their service provider (http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=910734#) chose differently.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...BUGICIQA461.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/12/BUGICIQA461.DTL)