I hung up feeling...vexed. Then I did some reading. After that it was on to round II, bigger, longer and uncut!
2 hours later on I called back and got a woman whose name I unfortunately didn't catch, said she was an executive manager for SBC/AT&T. Sadly, this was mostly a monologue on my part.
turbonium: Yes, hello, my name is XXXX XXXX; I'm a customer of yours, I called earlier. I'm looking for information concerning the NSA datamining I read about yesterday, which has me very disturbed and upset. I had a very unsatisfactory conversation with a Mr. Markey there. He said this NSA/SBC stuff has all 'been in the news for 5 months'--his implication being, I guess, that it's 'old news' by now and I should just chill out about it. I don't find that very persuasive. Then, he said I should go read the newspaper to find out why my phone company is violating its own contract as well as my privacy rights.
I have to say, ma'am, that seems like an oddly indirect, even craven way to respond to your customers' concerns. But hey, what do I know? Maybe it's some new wave-of-the-future customer service paradigm that I'm just not hip to.
AT&T Flack: [suppressed snort] Sir, AT&T values and respects its customers; it also respects national security and follows the law.
turbonium: So people keep telling me. What I want to know is what's any of it got to do with me? What law am /I/ suspected of breaking? How am I a threat to national security? I'm just an ordinary American making phone calls!
AT&T Flack: We have addressed this in our statements--AT&T simply will not comment on specific national security compliance issues.
turbonium: I'm sorry, but I don't find that statement at all satisfactory or encouraging.
AT&T Flack: Well, sir, I just don't see that I would have anything to add to Mr. Marquis' explanation...
turbonium: You guys are really straining the definition of the word explain, then, because you haven't clarified anything at all. What I want is concrete answers on what's been done with my private information, and what authority you claim for doing it. I'm not sure what's so tough about that when it's right there in the contract, and the law. Why can't you point to it?
I have several specific questions, so let's start with scope of the surveillance. Mr. Marquis asked me to read the newspapers, and sure enough, there's a ton of stuff out there on this. There's a vital distinction between call data records, or CDRs, and the actual content of calls and traffic. President Bush claims he isn't "trolling though our personal data", but much of what I've read on the size of the databases involved and the computing power used--that would be, supercomputers designed for ultra-high-bandwidth 'semantic analysis'--suggests that the nuts and bolts of this is far in excess of what you need to cover CDRs alone.
So my concern is that content of my phone calls and internet use is being monitored as well, despite all the government's claims to the contrary. Can you give me any assurances that you aren't in fact sharing actual call content in my case; that you are limiting disclosures to CDRs only?
AT&T Flack: No, I wouldn't have any comment on that.
turbonium: Well, why not? I'm your customer, and we have a contract that explicitly says you won't do this kind of thing without specific authority.
AT&T Flack: Because AT&T has already expressed its views.
turbonium: Well, I'd have to say those views are non-responsive and pathetic. But let's move on to grounds. I've been trying in vain to find out what statutory authority you claim for this program. Mr. Marquis told me to read the papers--and by the way, if holding up newspapers as some ultimate authority means you're steering by public opinion, you might want to read them yourself, because there's a lot of strong opinions out there on this.
Anyway, there's an article by David Lazarus in today's SF Chronicle that says AT&T is clearly violating its own privacy policy. Some pretty qualified folks think you and BellSouth and the rest are all on the hook for billions in damages. Lawyers from Fenwick and West, privacy law experts like Daniel Solove and Orin Kerr from GWU, the EFF, the ACLU--they all seem pretty certain you're violating Federal law as well as your contract--
AT&T Flack: Well I wouldn't be able to comment on any litigation--
turbonium: ...in fact, it seems like quite a number of senators and congressmen in both parties are alarmed and outraged at this disclosure as well. That strikes me as odd, because they're the ones who passed this very same Patriot Act that Mr. Marquis told me about. I mean, did they forget what they put in it, or what? For lawmakers who supposedly gave you a free pass, they seem awfully shocked at what you're doing, to the point of wanting to drag your CEO in front of a Senate committee to explain himself. Something there doesn't add up.
You know, I went and looked up the Patriot Act myself just now. After my earlier conversation with Mr. Marquis, I was frankly expecting to read something like "Whereas 9-11 changed everything, the NSA and AT&T are hereby empowered to do whatever the hell they want with customer data and records, without being answerable to anybody."
AT&T Flack: [dead silence]
turbonium: So, you can imagine my surprise when I found a tangle of ordinary clauses and subparagraphs about what is and isn't allowed. I'm not a lawyer, but most of it seemed pretty clear to me. For example, 18 USC Sec 2703(c) of the Stored Communications Act, as modified by the recent Patriot legislation, says that in order to be forced to disclose customer data you must have received a duly issued warrant based on a specific offense, a court order (again based on specific grounds), the consent of the customer, or as part of a telemarketing investigation. If it's not one of those 4, then you can share limited call records in response to an "administrative subpoena"--
AT&T Flack: OK, sir, but I don't really see what all this--
turbonium: Well, sorry if I'm being longwinded, but I am trying to make a point here, and it seems pretty simple: This isn't a telemarketing case, and you most definitely do not have my consent. FBI, NSA don't have administrative subpoena powers, at least not until recently; that was a recent major debate in the Senate last year, and this NSA thing's been going since 2001. So I'm asking you: Do you have a warrant, or a court order? A subpoena? What exactly is your legal basis for doing any of this? I'm not very impressed with your Mr. Marquis just repeating the phrase "Patriot Act" like it's some sort of carte blanche. It isn't.
AT&T Flack: AT&T works within the law; we just can't make any further comment on national...
turbonium: OK well, can you at least tell me this, then: Is your compliance voluntary, or compelled?
AT&T Flack: Well, sir, as I've said we do work within the law at all times--
turbonium: OK, but there's a big distinction to be made even there. I mean, were you legally compelled--forced--to hand over this information to NSA? Because subpoenas and even "national security letters" are simply requests, and can be challenged.
So, assuming you did not have a warrant, and were instead asked by NSA for the data, did AT&T fight the NSA's request in court? Did it ask for an advisory legal opinion from the Dept. of Justice or the FISA court with jurisdiction over these things before surrendering private records? Does it concern you that NSA refused to provide any legal basis to Qwest when asked explicitly to do so? That in fact, NSA even admitted they were consciously avoiding judicial review because they weren't sure the FISA court would approve? That strategy doesn't exactly exude confidence.
Was AT&T concerned about the legality at all, or did you just roll over when the government asked you to? I mean, I've read in some reports how you're even selling the call logs. Your own privacy policy says "We will not sell CPNI [Ed: Consumer Private Network Infomation--e.g., phone numbers] in any form, including billing records, calling habits or type of service - to unaffiliated third parties." That's pretty damn unambiguous. How does AT&T justify profiting from violation of its contractual obligations and its customers' constitutional rights?
AT&T Flack: I-I'm sorry, but I just can't comment on any of the issues you're discussing.
turbonium: Well, I'm disappointed. You know, when the phone system was privatized and corporations took over, I hoped they would extend their allergy to regulation to the extent that they would put their customers first. So I don't understand why calling your office today about this important issue feels like talking to Scott McClellan or some White House functionary.
This NSA thing isn't some kind of slam dunk here. Qwest told them to take a hike; in fact they were convinced it was flat-out illegal without a warrant. Working Assets joined forces with the ACLU in seeking to resist this kind of government intrusion. Why isn't AT&T looking out for my rights as a consumer like these other companies are?
AT&T Flack: [silence]
turbonium: Don't you have anything to say to your customers about that???
AT&T Flack: No, no comment.
turbonium: Well, I think that's very unsatisfactory. I don't appreciate your stonewalling. If you're so certain that what you're doing is legal, then you should comment, and clear the air. You should respect your customers and let them know what you are doing, and honor your contracts.
If you won't comment, then I guess I need to fall back on other recourses, like class-action lawsuits and Congressional hearings. I'm going to write about this experience, and I'm going to tell everyone I can that they should stop using AT&T and look for a company who stands up for their rights as Americans, and doesn't just roll over on command for the Bush Administration.
AT&T Flack: Well that's certainly within your rights. I appreciate you sharing your views.
turbonium: Yeah, I'm sure you do. >click<
