- Related Stories
-
AT&T sued over NSA spy program
January 31, 2006 -
Bush allies defend NSA surveillance
January 24, 2006 -
Just how extensive is NSA's spy program?
December 22, 2005 -
Carnivore redux
January 31, 2005
Even after the recent scrutiny of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance project approved by President Bush, an intriguing question remains unanswered: Which corporations cooperated with the spy agency?
Some reports have identified executives at "major telecommunications companies" who chose to open their networks to the NSA. Because it may be illegal to divulge customer communications, though, not one has chosen to make its cooperation public.
Under federal law, any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication"--unless specifically authorized by law--could face criminal charges. Even if cooperation is found to be legal, however, it could be embarrassing to acknowledge opening up customers' communications to a spy agency.
A survey by CNET News.com has identified 15 large telecommunications and Internet companies that are willing to say that they have not participated in the NSA program, which intercepts e-mail and telephone calls without a judge's approval.
Twelve other companies that were contacted and asked identical questions chose not to reply, in some cases citing "national security" as the reason.
Those results come amid a push on Capitol Hill for more information about the NSA's wiretapping practices. On Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is expected to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and President Bush and his closest allies have been stepping up their defense of the program in preparation for it.
To be sure, there are a number of possible explanations for the companies' silence. In some cases, a company's media department could have been overworked. Another possibility is the company's lawyers were unavailable or chose not to reply for unknown reasons.
Also, some survey recipients, such as NTT Communications, responded with a general statement expressing compliance "with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law" rather than addressing the question of NSA surveillance.
Who's helping the NSA?
CNET News.com asked telecommunications and Internet companies about
cooperation with the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping
scheme. We asked them: "Have you turned over information or opened up
your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?" | |
| Company | Response |
| Adelphia Communications | Declined comment |
| AOL Time Warner | No [1] |
| AT&T | Declined comment |
| BellSouth Communications | No |
| Cable & Wireless* | No response |
| Cablevision Systems | No |
| CenturyTel | No |
| Charter Communications | No [1] |
| Cingular Wireless | No [2] |
| Citizens Communications | No response |
| Cogent Communications* | No [1] |
| Comcast | No |
| Cox Communications | No |
| EarthLink | No |
| Global Crossing* | Inconclusive |
| Declined comment | |
| Level 3* | No response |
| Microsoft | No [3] |
| NTT Communications* | Inconclusive [4] |
| Qwest Communications | No [2] |
| SAVVIS Communications* | No response |
| Sprint Nextel | No [2] |
| T-Mobile USA | No [2] |
| United Online | No response |
| Verizon Communications | Inconclusive [5] |
| XO Communications* | No [1] |
| Yahoo | Declined comment |
* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers. | |
A lawsuit that could yield more details about industry cooperation is winding its way through the federal courts. Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group based in San Francisco, sued AT&T after a report that the company had shared its customer records database--though not its network--with the NSA.
AT&T would not respond when asked whether it participated. An AT&T spokesman, Dave Pacholczyk, said: "We don't comment on matters of national security."
The News.com survey, started Jan. 25, found that wireless providers and cable companies were the most likely to distance themselves from the NSA. Cingular Wireless, Comcast, Cox Communications, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile said they had not turned over information or opened their networks to the NSA without being required by law.
Companies that are backbone providers, or which operate undersea cables spanning the ocean, were among the least likely to respond. AT&T, Cable & Wireless, Global Crossing, Level 3, NTT Communications, SAVVIS Communications and Verizon Communications chose not to answer the questions posed to them.
The New York Times reported on Dec. 24 that the NSA has gained access to switches that act as gateways at the borders between the United States' communications networks and international networks. But "the identities of the corporations involved could not be determined," the newspaper added.
At the water's edge
Analysts and historians who follow the
intelligence community have long said the companies that operate
submarine cables--armored sheaths wrapped around bundles of fiber optic
lines--surreptitiously provide access to the NSA.
"You go to Global Crossing and say...once your cable comes up for air in New Jersey or on the coast of Virginia, wherever it goes up, we want to put a little splice in, thank you very much, which NSA can do," said Matthew Aid, who recently completed the first volume in a multiple-volume history of the NSA. "The technology of getting access to that stuff is fairly straightforward."
Aid was citing Global Crossing as an example, not singling it out. Global Crossing describes itself as an Internet backbone network that shuttles traffic for about 700 telecommunications carriers, mobile operators and Internet service providers. According to the International Cable Protection Committee, the company has full or partial ownership of several trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cables.
- More from News.com on this story's topics
Internet
Mobile/wireless
Federal government
Privacy
Verizon Communications
GLOBAL CROSSING LTD
CENTURYTEL INC
Time Warner
CABLE & WIRELESS PLC
Yahoo
Cablevision Systems
EarthLink
COMCAST CORP-SPECIAL CL A
SAVVIS COMMUNICATIONS CORP
Qwest Communications International
NTT
Sprint Nextel
AT&T (formerly BellSouth)
Google
CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS CO
Microsoft
Level 3 Communications
United Online
AT&T
Charter Communications
See more CNET content tagged:
NSA,
cooperation,
surveillance,
survey,
Internet company
This borders on treason. The New York Times has violoated the Espionage Act by illegally disclosing the existence of a classified program. The Times will have its day in court and CNET comes dangerously close to the same legal jeaporadies by identifying communiation networks which are not participating in the NSA's terrorist survelliance program.
CNET -- you could have posted the survey results with general answers, but no you had to go the extra mile and identify the communications networks that are not participating.
Let's just give the terrorists their own private communication network while we're at it so that they too can have a right to privacy while they discuss how to murder us.
Why don't you focus on the details of what goes on with this program. It listens to conversations of suspicious people living in the US and tracks their conversations abroad as well as their activities within the US. It doesn't listen to domestic conversations of regular americans.
Cut the nonsense. Report the truth !!!
I'm starting to believe that George Soros and his whole Air America team of clowns are running CNET.
Come on guys, get back on track.
As for the NSA monitoring, of all local communications, history tell us this program became reality after the innauguration of the current encumbent in 2000, at 1600 pennsylvania avenue(previous programs by past president's all were subject to the 1968 spy act, something that his cronies who seek to abuse the system on a daily basis on the basis the ends justifies the means and the means justify the ends, fail to omit in their public dialogue)
the following two statements apply here!
1/Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
2/Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
If what dictates probable cause is not contacts in a cellphone,
but computer sniffing, arguing for probabe cause would
probably be considerably harder.
This person fit our model and has a 79% chance of engaging in
suspicious activity. That's what you would want to move on if
you've got a big net and you're looking for the best leads.
Probabilistic. But try passing that by a court.
I'll bet it's the process that leads to actual surveillance that
would fail to fetch warrants.
The open question remains why the admnistration has chosen to
keep even the few people it briefs in congress largely in the
dark. (And, of course, why no effort has been made to seek
approval or real oversight.)
The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on and monitoring all global, international electronic communication emissions from the middle of that Maryland cow pasture since ?By memorandum of October 24, 1952, President Truman established the National Security Agency (NSA) as the organization within the U.S. Government responsible for communications intelligence (COMINT) activities.?
Why is anyone shocked, shocked that the NSA in eavesdropping on any and all phone calls and Internet packets going to and fro on links between domestic and international communication nodes? That is the precise job Give ?Em Hell Harry Executive Ordered them to do.
There is a good reason why knowledgeable folks say the NSA acronym really stands for NEVER SAY ANYTHING. That is, never say anything over the phone, FAX or Internet you do not mind the government reading or listening to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/820352.stm
The 64 Trillion U$D BLACK BUDGET question is, when does a *Terrorist Surveillance Program* cross the Constitutional line and become a *Domestic Eavesdropping Program*?
I shall be waiting with bated Techno-Geek breath for ?A glimpse at the technical details of how the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance system seems to work,? when Part Two of this Declan and Anne series is launched onto the Web tomorrow. JP
I have no problem with monitoring provided it is conducted in a legal manner with provisions in place to protect americans rights. I'm all for monitoring targets that are linked to known factions in the middle east who are a national security threat to the United States and our allied friends around the world.
Email's transitory stops don't secure your message, these packets can be intercepted by the government, maldoers, whomever: http://www.essentialsecurity.com/Documents/article12.htm
Yes it is sad that we're still here isn't it
I think have a better appreciation for your concerns, but I still feel that some of them may be ill-founded.
For example you said "Had FISA never been passed, Gonzales' case would be a lot stronger (and the president wouldn't have any laws to break). But FISA exists, and so it appears that he has broken the law."
But the legislation is never the final authority. That is reserved for the Constitution. Warrantless survelliance has yet to be struck down by the courts but this specific program from the Bush Administration hasn't been heard yet.
No law will be upheld if it is found to be unconstitutional within the specifics of the case brough before the court.
You concluded with "Still, I don't really care about whether it's legal in the technical sense. I care that we have two fundamental elements of
our democracy being largely ignored. 1. Checks and balances. 2. Federal law."
My opinion but it seems to be like you might be contradicting yourself here. How can you not care about whether it is legal in the technical sense and only be concerned with checks and balances and Federal law. Isn't that all the same thing?
And in the system of checks and balances, Congress is given the authority to delcare war, has the power of the purse, and the Senate can ratify treaties. The Executive exeucutes -- especially when it comes to foreign intelligence. The courts have oversight into the legality of such programs and again -- so far the courts have upheld warrantless searches by the Executive for national security. It seems to me that the checks and balances put in place by the Framers are working as intended.
The comment I made about Anti-American rehetoric was in response to someone elses comments.
Anyways that's my $.0.02 thus far.
It does appear that there is need for clarity on FISA and you mentioned some of the reasons. Hopefully Congress will stop posturing and start legislating.
My biggest objection is to the way the media has framed the case. You've seen on this forum all those who insist that the 4th Amendment is absolute -- which is ironic because liberals are rearely strict constructionalists when it comes to the Constitution.
People need to tone down the rhetoric and try to understand better before they start making accusations -- and that includes Senators
I also stand by my original post that CNET's decision to publish this information was unneccessary, unhelpful and in doing so they are following in the footsteps of the NY Times which may find itself facing charges of violating the Espionage Act when this is all over.
What great value did posting this information serve, while the legality of the program is being discussed in Congressional hearings? Seems to me it didn't do much other than give terrorists information as to which communications networks are more secure for their nefarious purposes. Why would we want to release information which makes it easier for terrorists to communicate more securely? It seems that some are so convinced this activity is legal -- while hearings are transpiring -- that they think somehow they are doing us all a favor by publishing this. Now that's irony and it's also very dangerous.
- Are You Scared Yet?
-
by
February 7, 2006 11:28 AM PST
- Kevin,
you should be ashamed, you still think there is a boogey man, and that
GW can keep you safe, without applying any security at our ports or at
our borders....
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
Hide
reply
Processing
-
-
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>All I can say to you is BOO!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.