BellSouth put some distance between itself and the NSA scandal earlier evening. From USA Today:
BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn’t contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.
“As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA,” it said Monday, “the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA.”
Last Thursday, USA TODAY reported that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon, people with direct knowledge of the program said. One of the nation’s major telecommunication companies, Qwest, declined to participate, the story said, a fact confirmed Friday by Herbert Stern, the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.
Now I’ll admit to being too cynical for my own good, but the use of the phrase “our review to date,” as well as of the word “contract” makes me just a little suspicious that we’re dealing with a little CYA here. I certainly won’t pretend to have any insight whatsoever into how a massive telecom and the National Security Agency normally conduct classified business with one another, but the lack of a contract strikes me as mostly meaningless. The use of “to date” is a wonderful caveat, however, in that it ensures that future statements and findings don’t prove this one untrue. As my father would say, that and a token gets you to West Philly.
I’ll grant you that ‘to date’ is a good caveat, but I think the possibility that ‘under contract’ is a proviso is overtaken by the less qualified “we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA” in the same sentence. But perhaps ‘bulk’ is a qualifier, too? Oh shit, this is too hard…
Do we assume that BellSouth would not straight out lie?
“Contract” sounds like a qualifier… I mean, would the NSA buy the records or simply request them?
“Bulk” is probably irrelevant here, provided they picked up bulk data from at least one other carrier. Then they ran their data mining software against that data, and then followed up on the Bell South customers (by name, not “bulk”) that they identified as “interesting” in 1st analysis.
I meant to say, “followed up on the Bell South customers who had telephone contact with persons identified as interesting.”
My bad.
BellSouth did not provide information to the NSA. >> Look for news they provided it to a third party such as ChoicePoint, which provided it to the NSA. All a matter of who owns the wires in that locked room in the switching station.
Verizon declined to comment beyond a statement issued last week that said the company does not provide any government agency with unfettered access to customer records. >> Unfettered access? That’s true if they removed names that can be added back easily with reverse look up.
“If and when AT&T is asked by government agencies for help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions,” said AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris. >> Under the Patriot Act, this means nothing.
If their record-keeping is anything like my bill, all the reports will be inaccurate. Unless, of course, their bills are deliberately inaccurate to rip me off. Oh, now that couldn’t be. oh, wait, I’ve got to clean all of this sand off my head.
It depends on what the meaning of supply is. The records in question may have been on an unsecure hard drive on an accessible network. That doesn’t mean we are responsible if the data was downloaded without our knowledge.
I’m sorry but I find BellSouth’s clarification almost laughable. So they conducted an internal review because jeezzzzzzzz they might not have known they were turning over millions of phone records?..hahahaha
I suspect but can’t prove of course that Ma Bell’s nose just grew by more than a silly millimeter.
No need to be sorry. We’re all with you.