Should AT&T be held responsible for NSA cooperation?
The Bush administration's remarks about retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies show Washington has become an even more surreal place than usual.
First, President Bush said on Wednesday that federal law "must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."
Then Ken Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, waxed eloquent with a surfeit of "allegedlys":
Here you have allegedly companies that stepped up and answered the government's request to assist the government in efforts to protect against a second wave of attacks after 9/11 and protect against the ongoing terrorist threat... And any such companies who would have undertaken anything like that would have presumably done it for that very purpose. As far as I can see, there's no real, you know, other ulterior motive or economic motive for doing it. And it just seems at sort of a gut level it seems to me to be unfair to now turn around and have them face, you know, not only the costs and difficult consequences of having to defend against litigation, but based on what I read, you know, potentially crushing liability, you know, to the tune of billions of dollars. And so it's sort of a fairness matter. That's where I come out.
I also, as we've mentioned before, this litigation does run the risk of disclosing secret information, very classified, sensitive information. Because as you know, all such operations, any alleged operations like this, would be very sensitive and be the kind of thing our adversaries would want to know about. And whenever you litigate something like this, you run the risk that you're going to disclose this information.
And another thing that also resonates with me is that, you know, any companies that might allegedly have assisted us in the effort against terrorists might well not want it disclosed that, you know, for security reasons, that they did help us out. These would be--any such companies would be companies that would have valid concerns for the safety of their own assets and their own personnel.
Did you catch the last argument? AT&T and the other telecommunications companies that may have opened their networks to the Feds are worried about "the safety of their own assets and their own personnel" if word got out.
This is a fine example of McCullagh's Law in action: Unless you vote my way, Americans will die. (Is the Bush administration really serious about this, by the way? Do they think that gun-toting privacy activists will start kidnapping or shooting AT&T network technicians?)
Anyway, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but it strikes me that if a company violated the law, they should be held accountable. I might feel differently if the law is unjust, but I'm not convinced that's the case here.
18 USC 2511 generally says that anyone who "intercepts" a private electronic communication or "discloses" the results of that interception shall be imprisoned for up to five years. In addition, 50 USC 1810 says that anyone "who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance" of this sort can sue for punitive damages and attorney's fees.
AT&T and any other company that may have cooperated with the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping scheme knew these two laws existed to protect Americans' privacy. Its executives knew that breaking the law carried civil and criminal penalties. If they nevertheless went along with the NSA's secret requests--and violated their own customers' privacy in the process -- why shouldn't their executives and shareholders pay the price?
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Hopefully the court will rule that the law was broken, in spite of Bush admin attempts to use secrecy classifications to avoid such judgements.
The Bush attempt to "retroactively" shield ATT and other carriers from penalty for breaking the law is an affront the our basic rule of law. We should all be outraged, as I am.
How preposterous. the argument seems to be - "Yeah, they broke the law, but we should let them off the hook because by breaking the law they helped my administration". This sounds like something Nixon could have used to "retroactively" shield the Watergate burglars.
That this president has been able to avoid impeachment is an indictment of the current state of the legal system and the supposed system of checks and balances in our government.
Sign me as,
A Disgusted Citizen
...Unlike corporations like Microsoft, who are also terrorizing America, and therefore best buddies with the terrorists.
I also don't think its fair that a company trys to act in a manner consitent with a Goverment request then be held liable for it. I mean put yourself in AT&T place. If they did not do this then everyone would howl at them for not cooperating. Especially if their lack of partipation was somehow connected to another attack.
manner consitent with a Goverment request then be held liable
for it."
The fact that it was a request by the government does not make
it right, or legal. Should lawyers break attorney client privilege if
the government asks them to? No, and any lawyer who does
should be held accountable. Why should it be different because
it's AT&T?
Yes, it will be the customers of AT&T who end up paying. Wait!
You don't have to be an AT&T customer! You don't have to pay!
Whew, that was close. For a second I thought we didn't have a
choice.
The law is and was clear. AT&T knew the law. So did the NSA.
It's getting to the point where laws are passed that nobody
intends to enforce (like immigration), and it sets a precedent so
that now you don't see a problem with breaking the law. If it's a
bad law, change it. Until then, follow it, or pay up when you get
caught. It's the LAW!
On the other hand, there are a few laws that I'd like to consider
optional, since that seems to be what they are these days.
You don't mind, do you? I can't say what laws, because it's a
secret, and it would be bad if anyone knew about it. You'll just
have to trust me. That's OK, isn't it?
Thought so.
Lampie The Clown
of the laws associated with them as well. Assuming that they did
comply with the request, they would have been aware that the
request was not a legal one and that providing access would
have expressly violated federal law.
If they received the request, and they complied, they
intentionally chose to break the law.
The government is composed of people -- people who
sometimes don't obey the law, who do dastardly things, and who
may be corrupt. That's the basis for a system of checks and
balanaces: to police the policy makers, the enforcers, and the
overseers so that none act. While it's nice that people want to
help others, helping them commit crimes is understandably and
logically illegal in it's own right.
AT&T took a risk. They chose to violate the law, to conspire with
a minority faction in the US government to systematically
subvert the US government's system of checks an balances in an
effort to end-run around inconvenient laws put in place to
secure the liberty of individuals against a the perceived threat of
a powerful government slowly developing into a totalitarian
state. The FISA law and the 4th Ammendment were not enacted
without reason. They exist explicitly for prescient fear of the sort
of activity of which AT&T and the NSA are accused.
If AT&T complied with the alleged request, the company should
certainly pay a price for the crime. However, financial damages
should not be the only price. Perhaps someone can suggest a
method to help assure that they keep their nose clean in the
future.
Second, out constitution was carefully crafted to control a power-hungry government. A critical part of that craftsmanship is checks and balances, which are pretty much moot with the current administration's take on NSA surveillance.
Finally, your assertion that everyone would howl if a company didn't cooperate with a government request is already proven fallacious: Qwest Communications refused the same NSA request that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth acceded to. I haven't heard any howling at all, much less from everyone.
Please, learn the facts about this case. I suggest that you start here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
constitutional limits every step of the way, and if AT&T broke the
law to help them, then AT&T must be held accountable.
have to pay it out as punishment for breaking the law. If the
employees and shareholders have to suffer then maybe they should
have elected more responsible board members.
Simple, break the law, get caught, pay the piper
situation: we are relying on the very same entity that solicited
the criminal act (the US federal government) ajudicate its
criminality and associated punishment. The government has
already publicly declared that they support the criminal activity
and desire to not hold the guilty parties accountable (including
the government employees themselves involved). I understand
it's a different branch of government -- but keep in mind the
implication is that the accusation implies that executive branch
has the facility to monitor the communications of all parties
(including judges) involved, and has the power to declare any of
the parties involved (or their friends/family) a threat to national
security and hold them indefinitely without right to trail, lawyer,
or contact with outside parties.
Now, how is that supposed to precipitate a fair resolution of the
complaint?
I'm guessing that the resolution will involve going to trial, a
finding that AT&T should pay damages and those damages
ultimately being reimbursed as part of the defense budget. What
does AT&T care if they are found guilty so long as the tax-payer
ponies up to pay the fine?
But those laws should only apply to the little people, obviously. If you're well-connected or a big business, well, that's another story.
Or government, states and local authorities are doing everything they can to allow ILLEGAL society draining leaches from places like Mexico to not only break our laws by coming here illegally, but to allow cities and such to ignore the law as well. So why should it be any surprise that the powers that be want to provide protection for large campaign supporters that do the Bush administrations bidding and break the law.
I am asshamed of this country and I am sicked by the Bush administration that has taken what was a wonderful country and turned it to Mexico two with the rest of the world wishing we would just shrivel up and die.
Right now and for the foreseeable future this country sucks. Way to go Mr. President.
Robert
1.) According to FBI Agents Wright, Rowley, and Vinson's (spelling) testimony and commentary, as well as that of others, there were many opportunities for the government to have stopped the occurences of 9-11-01 several times over.
2.) A German agent testified under oath that the U.S. gov. was warned about 9/11 before the fact.
3.) Condi Rice was given, and ignored, briefings that disclosed that the specific types of attacks that occured might well occur, and the Shrub cabinet didn't view the reports as important enough to even discuss them in meeting. Condi then testified in numerous settings that "No one cold've anticipated these kinds of attacks." (You mean, except for those holding briefings in their tiny little hands that said that these kinds of attacks were on the agenda...)
4.) GW Bush has REPEATEDLY acted with disregard for the law since taking office, has never apologized (that I'm aware of) for any crimes committed by his adminstration, and has had the audacity to believe that he can change legislation put before him by Congress, merely by adding his delusional 'signing statements'; an assertion found mostly lacking in legal merit by many legal scholars.
5.) Despite Mr. McConnel's assertions to Congress that the recent arrest of terror suspects in Germany was a result of the illegal NSA surveillance programs, (as his way of leveraging a satisfactory-to-GW vote in the electronic spying legislation where the Dems recently tucked tail, sold out the Bill of Rights, and capitulated to George's fascism), later news reports stated that there was no evidence whatsoever that the arrests in Germany were the result of GW's illegal wire-tap programs. On the contrary, they were the result of other intel, and of the German's good, hard work.
6.) AT&T has asserted that their customers have no ownership interests in their company records, implying, if not stating outright, that the records were the sole property of AT&T, and thus indicating what AT&T REALLY thinks of those who've funded the building of their little communications empire through their patronage..
I am a -former- AT&T customer. I had received a copy of an IP address via e-mail, via an article from the blog at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to search for in my expanded headers of my e-mails, to determine whether or not my e-mails (had passed/were passing) through one or more of AT&T's suspect 'splitting and routing' stations, including San Francisco's suspect 'secret room.'
I was, and am, also aware that not being an AT&T customer doesn't protect one's e-mails from passing through that system, but not being their customer DOES mean that one is no longer buying steak and lobster for the unconstitutional sell-outs who run/own the place, for having knowingly violated the Bill of Rights; apparently unnecessarily, and in full knowledge of the wire-tapping laws.
After YEARS of AT&T patronage, my family dropped AT&T's services like a hot rock, and told them exactly why they were being dropped, as did THOUSANDS of others.
Shrub's threats of veto are his manner of extorting compliance from Congress. He's gotten his way with them, just as he did with his parents, growing up a spoiled trust-fund brat in Texas; tantrums and ultimatums.
hold AT&T accountable for their KNOWINGLY violating the laws. And while we're at it, hold Dick Cheney, Shrub, and any others involved, liable as well. And give them all a taste of Leavenworth..... for a while.
Maybe someone should point out Article 1, Section 10 which states
"there shall be no ex post facto law". It's not even an amendment,
it's right there in the beginning, that's how important it was to our
democracy (rest her soul). AT&T should be severely punished for
violating the rights of the people so freely and happily.
For years, they ran rings around the FCC on tariff hearings. But hubris led to the big breakup.
I had nearly ten years' seniority when I chucked it in. AT&T never minded screwing its employes, customers and the government. Why should it be any difference with the new Frankenstein monster.
At the same time, the usual punishment seems to be a big fine. As if they cared. But maybe the powers that be WOULD care if the suitable punishment was jail time. That would be true accountability.
All are equal. Some are more equal than others.
- The way it is
- by towerclimber37 October 12, 2007 9:20 PM PDT
- I've read all the responses to this story. I'm amazed.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Common Sense?
- by zanzzz October 15, 2007 2:57 PM PDT
- Just because the US was attacked by a group of terrorists hardly justifies throwing out the Constitution and federal law in perverse justification of protecting it. That is what you and other shortsighted security mongers are so quick to cheer. This country has faced far greater threats in the past without throwing the baby out with the bath water. What has happened to "the home of the brave"? You berate others to start acting like Americans, why not live up to your own advice?
- Like this
-
(17 Comments)I see people saying that they're ashamed of their country. People who say that AT&T should be punished. People quoting laws and the constitution when they haven't got the common sense to pour pee out of a boot with instructions on the heel, much less look to the common defense of their countrymen.
AT&T co-operated with the NSA because they saw what happened to 3000 of our countrymen when people who don't LIKE Americans decide to act.
(remember, they didn't like us during the CLINTON administration and acted during the Bush administration).
when someone speaks up in defense of their actions (yes, this IS allowed bruce, everyone has the same rights you have) you curse them.
Shame on you AND your parents for teaching you bad manners. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, but remember folks, we're all Americans. How about we start acting like it and look out for our own?
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
- Dwight Eisenhower