NationStates Jolt Archive

In the past few days, AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon have all issued statements contradicting the recent USA Today story saying that they gave unauthorized information to the NSA. So did USA Today get it horribly wrong? Or are the telcos lying?

There may be no way to find out. (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/new-executive-order/)

In recent days, AT&T, Bell South and Verizon have all issued statements denying that they’ve handed over phone records to the NSA, as reported by USA today.

There are three possibilities:

1) The USA Today story is inaccurate;

2) The telcos left enough wiggle room in the statements that both the USA Today story and their statements are accurate; or

3) The statements from the telcos are inaccurate.

Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm) allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000078---m000-.html)

There is no evidence that this executive order has been used by John Negroponte with respect to the telcos. Of course, if it was used, we wouldn’t know about it.
So the president signed a memorandum that allows companies to lie if the DNI says it's related to National Security. Someone want to tell me why we should believe a goddamn thing that comes out of the White House or any company that has government contracts anymore?

This is my one-time bump.

You shouldn't believe a goddamn thing. It's that simple.

Only way it would be acceptable is if they managed to round up the illegals or nab a bunch of hadjis within our own borders.

...So much for "small-government"...

It seems like it will only get worse.

Only way it would be acceptable is if they managed to round up the illegals or nab a bunch of hadjis within our own borders.
The fact that no successes are reported would seem to indicate there have been none.

That Presidential Order was rather handy, wasn't it? Signed but a few days before it all happened and it just happens to specifically cover the activites accused of occuring.

What a coincidence! Bush must by psychic...

Hey lets just sign laws that crush every single right and freedom that the citizens have until we are in complete control.

Hey lets just sign laws that crush every single right and freedom that the citizens have until we are in complete control.
But.. but... TERRORISM!.

But.. but... TERRORISM!.

And those darn Mexicans. And gays. And those Mexican Gays. Oh and the manbearpig as well as other chimeras.

And those darn Mexicans.

And the Communists, let's not forget them, they're still around.

The fact that no successes are reported would seem to indicate there have been none.
the fact that successes are rarely reported because it tells the others to change tactics. Putting Law Enforcement agencies back to square one.

The fact that no successes are reported would seem to indicate there have been none.

Then heads need to roll.

And the Communists, let's not forget them, they're still around.
Not to mention drugs that aren't manufactured by Republican donors, I mean, Big Pharma. Those are dangerous. Even the Canadian ones. Maybe even especially the Canadian ones.

the fact that successes are rarely reported because it tells the others to change tactics. Putting Law Enforcement agencies back to square one.
Think about it logically.

Al-Qaeda plans a terrorist attack. The date approaches. Silence.

There's all the feedback they need. They know at what point the project was terminated, and thus know what the authorities now know.

So they will try something else, approaching it differently.

There's your adaptation right there. The very act of stopping a terrorist attack reveals your hand to the organisation which planned it.

So I figure we may as well be told. God knows our governments are desperate for something to boast about.

My god! Nixon was subtler than this! :eek:

Bbbbb...but Clinton!

(thought I'd do it before a Bushista did.)

Think about it logically.

when has that ever worked?

when has that ever worked?
Good point. We need to think outside the box. We need to nuke the box. :mp5:

the fact that successes are rarely reported because it tells the others to change tactics. Putting Law Enforcement agencies back to square one.

If our tactics will only work when we're fighting the Absent-Minded Terrorist, we might want to rethink our tactics.

"Shh! Be vewy quiet! We'we hunting tewwowists!"

Good point. We need to think outside the box. We need to nuke the box. :mp5:

indeed


back to what you were saying before, i find it weird that there actually are people who can't put it together enough to see how idiotic is the idea that we are stopping all of the planned attacks and the baddies can't figure out that we have done so unless somebody tells them.

if we really had figured out their system and they really were a significant threat, then the government would have to let them get away with lots of attacks while waiting to show our hand by stopping 'the big one'. tis how the game works.

the fact that successes are rarely reported because it tells the others to change tactics. Putting Law Enforcement agencies back to square one.

So, you don't think the fact that their fellow conspirator goes missing will tell the "bad guys" that he got nabbed and that they therefore should change tactics?

Come on Junii, it's not like they hid the fact that we caught Saddam so that they wouldn't discourage people from hiding in spider holes.

Just showing that we got someone doesn't reveal a thing about HOW we got someone.

It's almost like you WANT the wool pulled over your eyes!

"I don't want to know! My knowing might hurt someone."

hunting for that which is hidden takes time and energy. sure we found Saddam and announced it. but did we say "we are now searching this area and can honestly say he is not here" while we were actively searching for him?

Do you think police publisize sting operations while they are going on?

Do you think those who cyber hunt child preditors want eveyone to know how they are doing it?

showing off methods and equptment being used for the hunt aids the hunted.

if you find one terrorist cell that does not mean you find them all. sometimes the same trick works multiple times thus you don't want to give away methods until you are sure they are not working.

Lack of reported sucesses does not mean that there were no successes. just like a lack of reported failures does not mean there were no failures.

hunting for that which is hidden takes time and energy. sure we found Saddam and announced it. but did we say "we are now searching this area and can honestly say he is not here" while we were actively searching for him?

Do you think police publisize sting operations while they are going on?

No, but they almost always publicise it when they get their man.

Do you think those who cyber hunt child preditors want eveyone to know how they are doing it?

Yup, they show it on MSNBC all the time, actually. "Perverted Justice" is the name of the program. You know what? Knowing people are looking for them doesn't stop people from trying.

showing off methods and equptment being used for the hunt aids the hunted.

Who said anything about showing off methods and equipment?

if you find one terrorist cell that does not mean you find them all. sometimes the same trick works multiple times thus you don't want to give away methods until you are sure they are not working.

Again, saying "we got so-and-so," in no way reveals the methodology.

Lack of reported sucesses does not mean that there were no successes. just like a lack of reported failures does not mean there were no failures.

But lack of reported successes is awfully suspicious in an administration that goes out of it's way to bring attention to the few things that are going well for them.

This is such bullshit. Every time Bush and his cronies get in hot water because of their illegal activites, they just classify everything. How can there be justice if that's allowed? It would be like Bush murdering a guy, and he's caught on camera doing it... but then he classifies the video tapes, the physical evidence, and the body, making it impossible to convict him. And then he justifies it by saying that the victim was a terrorist.

All in the name of freedom...

No, but they almost always publicise it when they get their man.almost always... or to be safe, most of the time. but usually, for hunting groups of people, it's always after those groups has been caught that the hows and whys are reveiled, and not just one or two members.

But lack of reported successes is awfully suspicious in an administration that goes out of it's way to bring attention to the few things that are going well for them.what did they go out of their way to bring to attention?

I hear more about people in posistions of trust and power going out of their way to leak anything damning... even if the facts are not true.

I can tell you right now, the NSA has much more important things to do then sift through all those phone companies records looking for the small population of terrorists within our country. It's just not efficient. I could say a lot more, but Im not going to get myself in trouble. I can tell you right now, none of this is true. Cant wait til this whole thing just dies down and we can go on with our lives. Its complete BS and lets just say, I would know. Trust me on that one.:headbang:

almost always... or to be safe, most of the time. but usually, for hunting groups of people, it's always after those groups has been caught that the hows and whys are reveiled, and not just one or two members.

what did they go out of their way to bring to attention?

I hear more about people in posistions of trust and power going out of their way to leak anything damning... even if the facts are not true.
Just so I can get this straight, you're actually going with the "They have a secret plan to win the war" thing? After all that's happened, everything that's come out-you still trust them enough to say, "It's alright that I don't know, they'll do whats best."

I'm just saying, you know...considering how that exact same trust worked out with Nixon...

I can tell you right now, the NSA has much more important things to do then sift through all those phone companies records looking for the small population of terrorists within our country. It's just not efficient. I could say a lot more, but Im not going to get myself in trouble. I can tell you right now, none of this is true. Cant wait til this whole thing just dies down and we can go on with our lives. Its complete BS and lets just say, I would know. Trust me on that one.:headbang:
Dude, this is the internet-it's hard to trust whether you're a dude or a chick...

Just so I can get this straight, you're actually going with the "They have a secret plan to win the war" thing? After all that's happened, everything that's come out-you still trust them enough to say, "It's alright that I don't know, they'll do whats best."

I'm just saying, you know...considering how that exact same trust worked out with Nixon...
nope, I'm saying to take anything the media and the government says with a grain of salt.

one is bound by secrets, the other blinded by the convience of 'confidential sources'

so take this update. on one hand you can question if ATnT and friends did turn over those records while QWEST didn't...

or now, is ATnT and friends being honest about their involvement while QWEST.. wasn't.

Dude, this is the internet-it's hard to trust whether you're a dude or a chick...


I prefer the term dudette. But thats just me.

nope, I'm saying to take anything the media and the government says with a grain of salt.

one is bound by secrets, the other blinded by the convience of 'confidential sources'

so take this update. on one hand you can question if ATnT and friends did turn over those records while QWEST didn't...

or now, is ATnT and friends being honest about their involvement while QWEST.. wasn't.
Well, lets take what we know:

The NSA is in fact wiretaping, and they are not going to release the details of what it is they're doing.

When this did come out AT&T and other phone companies where threatened with liability concerning their complacency.

More news comes out, this time where they actually give out a huge database of consumers information-where they would be even more liable than before.

Conviniently enough, right as this all happens there is a memorandum that allows AT&T et al to lie 'if it's in the interest of national security.'

After that, AT&T-who could very well be on the hook for giving out costumer info-says that it never did that.

I'm gonna need a shaker full of salt to swallow the 'nothing's happening' side of this story.

Well, lets take what we know:

The NSA is in fact wiretaping, and they are not going to release the details of what it is they're doing.

When this did come out AT&T and other phone companies where threatened with liability concerning their complacency.

More news comes out, this time where they actually give out a huge database of consumers information-where they would be even more liable than before.

Conviniently enough, right as this all happens there is a memorandum that allows AT&T et al to lie 'if it's in the interest of national security.'

After that, AT&T-who could very well be on the hook for giving out costumer info-says that it never did that.

I'm gonna need a shaker full of salt to swallow the 'nothing's happening' side of this story.
ok, now think about this. this new law classification can also be to protect QWEST. another company who in turn did turn over records but actually lied to the press as well as their customers about it.

so while ATnT and others are facing lawsuits, QWEST a company that now has a reputation for honesty is now protected by lying to the press.

not a conspiracy to protect QWEST, but it can also be seen as damage control. or maybe not.

ok, now think about this. this new law classification can also be to protect QWEST. another company who in turn did turn over records but actually lied to the press as well as their customers about it.

so while ATnT and others are facing lawsuits, QWEST a company that now has a reputation for honesty is now protected by lying to the press.

not a conspiracy to protect QWEST, but it can also be seen as damage control. or maybe not.
I'm not finding anything about Qwest having given over information and then lying about it-I found one article about the CEO having seperate legal issues that happened after he refused to give over records because he was concerned about his company's liability. You'll have to introduce what you're talking about. If you're saying what it looks like your saying it's a mighty stretch.

I'm not finding anything about Qwest having given over information and then lying about it-I found one article about the CEO having seperate legal issues that happened after he refused to give over records because he was concerned about his company's liability. You'll have to introduce what you're talking about. If you're saying what it looks like your saying it's a mighty stretch.
why such a move to get such an act like this passed way after the fact?
it's been what. 4+ years after the incident... has there been any action against QWEST, the one company to say no?
then suddenly another move by the government. the idea to regulate the internet. who's does it say is going to get the contracts? I believe ATnT, Sprint, and other providers are being looked at. doesn't this smack as payback for favors done?

so what happens... people will sue and abandon those services and go flocking to the company that has proven to be a staunch defender of customer rights. QWEST.

then again it is a stretch...

in fact, it could be that the bill was put in place so that QWEST, who in actuality did lie about those records not being sent to the Government, would be protected should it be "Leaked" that QWEST did infact also turn over those records.

or to make it seem that they did...

man my muscles feel good after that stretch. :D

after all, everything put on the Net or published is true. and if it's not printed somewhere, then it never exsisted or a lie. right?

why such a move to get such an act like this passed way after the fact?
it's been what. 4+ years after the incident... has there been any action against QWEST, the one company to say no?
then suddenly another move by the government. the idea to regulate the internet. who's does it say is going to get the contracts? I believe ATnT, Sprint, and other providers are being looked at. doesn't this smack as payback for favors done?

so what happens... people will sue and abandon those services and go flocking to the company that has proven to be a staunch defender of customer rights. QWEST.

then again it is a stretch...

in fact, it could be that the bill was put in place so that QWEST, who in actuality did lie about those records not being sent to the Government, would be protected should it be "Leaked" that QWEST did infact also turn over those records.

or to make it seem that they did...

man my muscles feel good after that stretch. :D

after all, everything put on the Net or published is true. and if it's not printed somewhere, then it never exsisted or a lie. right?
It happens right as the new allegations come out and not too long after AT&T et al where almost put on the hook for thier cooperation. I don't see anything about this memirandum being retroactive, protecting a company from liabilty for having lied in the past. You really are going for a Stretchy. There isn't enough salt in the ocean to buy this scenario.

Lack of reported sucesses does not mean that there were no successes. just like a lack of reported failures does not mean there were no failures.
"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." -on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

+

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i’m not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.


+
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Hmmm.