Verizon Wiretapping - Letter Requesting Change To Questions To Verizon
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Verizon Wiretapping - Letter Requesting Change To Questions To Verizon as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 827
- Pages: 3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON AUGUST 15, 2006
Dennis Keschl Acting Administrative Director Public Utilities Commission 18 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0018 RE:
MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Request for Commission Investigation Into Whether Verizon is Cooperating in Maine With the National Security Agency’s Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program, Docket No. 2006-274
THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS Dear Mr. Keschl, Last week the Public Utilities Commission issued an Order in the above-referenced proceeding that directed Verizon to file a sworn affirmation of seven enumerated representations. We appreciate the Commission’s willingness to consider initiating an investigation into Verizon’s possible cooperation with the data gathering programs of NSA or other federal agencies. In this filing, we are requesting that the Public Utilities Commission “sharpen” several of these representations so that the Commission can determine whether Verizon has, or has not, been cooperating with any telecommunications data gathering program. We are making this request because we are concerned that, in their present form, the representations are too loosely worded, and therefore provide only vague statements about what actions Verizon has, or has not, taken to cooperate with a the intelligence gathering programs of the National Security Agency (NSA). During deliberations, the Chairman made it clear that one of his expectations in having Verizon swear under oath to its own representations was that they not be misleading. However, that objective cannot be met if those representations incorporate words and phrases that are inherently vague and potentially misleading. Our concern is that the “representations” are taken from two Verizon press releases that, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, were most probably drafted by Verizon’s
attorneys. As a result, the Commission is asking Verizon to swear to statements that may already have been worded in ways that might be misleading. For instance, in some cases the “representations” refer only to Verizon’s present and future actions, rather than to its past actions. Other representations are so broadly worded that, even if sworn to by Verizon, the representations will provide no indication, one way or the other, as to whether Verizon has violated state and federal laws protecting the privacy of telephone customers. The Complaint in this proceeding asks the Commission to investigate whether and to what extent Verizon has cooperated with the NSA’s data gathering program. An affirmation by Verizon of its own broadly-worded representations will not necessarily resolve those issues. Most notable of the broadly-worded representations is Number 6 in which Verizon is asked to swear that it is not presently providing “unfettered access” to its customer records or providing information to the government “under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.” The language involving “unfettered access” and “fishing expedition” provides a loophole so broad that Verizon may be able to provide a sworn affirmation without necessarily indicating to the Commission that the Company is not violating 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 7101-A or the federal laws protecting customer’s privacy. Therefore, in order to ensure that it can determine whether the cause of the Complaint has been removed, we request that the Commission make the following changes to the representations contained in its August 9, 2006 Order: 1)
Representations 1, 2, and 3 - ask Verizon to respond based on the understanding that the terms “customer records” and “call data” include e-mail records and email content.
2)
Representation 6 - delete the word “unfettered.” The breadth and vagueness of the term makes Representation 6 essentially meaningless.
3)
Representation 6 - change “Verizon” to “Verizon and MCI” and “has not” to “have not” and “does not” to “do not and will not.”
4)
Representation 6 - delete “under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.” The breadth and vagueness of this qualifying phrase makes Representation 6 essentially meaningless.
5)
Representation 7 - delete the phrase “that all its activities fully comply with law” and substitute “and that all MCI and Verizon activities have complied, and will comply, with law.”
6)
Add a new request that Verizon certify that: “Neither Verizon nor MCI has provided any federal agency with access to its facilities or infrastructure such that the agency would have access to Verizon’s telecommunications network or the data that the network carries.”
2
This request is consistent to the Commission’s understanding of Verizon’s representations that is set out in ¶ 2 of the “Discussion and Decision” section of the 8/9/06 Order. 7)
Representation 4 - change “will provide” to “has provided and will provide.”
8)
Representation 5 - change “seeks to ensure” to “has ensured and will ensure.”
9)
Add a request, that for Representation 5 and for Representation 6, Verizon define and provide examples of exactly what it is referring to by the term “information.”
If the Commission or its Staff has any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,
William C. Black Deputy Public Advocate
Wayne R. Jortner Senior Counsel WCB/dt cc: Service List
3
Dennis Keschl Acting Administrative Director Public Utilities Commission 18 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0018 RE:
MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Request for Commission Investigation Into Whether Verizon is Cooperating in Maine With the National Security Agency’s Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program, Docket No. 2006-274
THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS Dear Mr. Keschl, Last week the Public Utilities Commission issued an Order in the above-referenced proceeding that directed Verizon to file a sworn affirmation of seven enumerated representations. We appreciate the Commission’s willingness to consider initiating an investigation into Verizon’s possible cooperation with the data gathering programs of NSA or other federal agencies. In this filing, we are requesting that the Public Utilities Commission “sharpen” several of these representations so that the Commission can determine whether Verizon has, or has not, been cooperating with any telecommunications data gathering program. We are making this request because we are concerned that, in their present form, the representations are too loosely worded, and therefore provide only vague statements about what actions Verizon has, or has not, taken to cooperate with a the intelligence gathering programs of the National Security Agency (NSA). During deliberations, the Chairman made it clear that one of his expectations in having Verizon swear under oath to its own representations was that they not be misleading. However, that objective cannot be met if those representations incorporate words and phrases that are inherently vague and potentially misleading. Our concern is that the “representations” are taken from two Verizon press releases that, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, were most probably drafted by Verizon’s
attorneys. As a result, the Commission is asking Verizon to swear to statements that may already have been worded in ways that might be misleading. For instance, in some cases the “representations” refer only to Verizon’s present and future actions, rather than to its past actions. Other representations are so broadly worded that, even if sworn to by Verizon, the representations will provide no indication, one way or the other, as to whether Verizon has violated state and federal laws protecting the privacy of telephone customers. The Complaint in this proceeding asks the Commission to investigate whether and to what extent Verizon has cooperated with the NSA’s data gathering program. An affirmation by Verizon of its own broadly-worded representations will not necessarily resolve those issues. Most notable of the broadly-worded representations is Number 6 in which Verizon is asked to swear that it is not presently providing “unfettered access” to its customer records or providing information to the government “under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.” The language involving “unfettered access” and “fishing expedition” provides a loophole so broad that Verizon may be able to provide a sworn affirmation without necessarily indicating to the Commission that the Company is not violating 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 7101-A or the federal laws protecting customer’s privacy. Therefore, in order to ensure that it can determine whether the cause of the Complaint has been removed, we request that the Commission make the following changes to the representations contained in its August 9, 2006 Order: 1)
Representations 1, 2, and 3 - ask Verizon to respond based on the understanding that the terms “customer records” and “call data” include e-mail records and email content.
2)
Representation 6 - delete the word “unfettered.” The breadth and vagueness of the term makes Representation 6 essentially meaningless.
3)
Representation 6 - change “Verizon” to “Verizon and MCI” and “has not” to “have not” and “does not” to “do not and will not.”
4)
Representation 6 - delete “under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.” The breadth and vagueness of this qualifying phrase makes Representation 6 essentially meaningless.
5)
Representation 7 - delete the phrase “that all its activities fully comply with law” and substitute “and that all MCI and Verizon activities have complied, and will comply, with law.”
6)
Add a new request that Verizon certify that: “Neither Verizon nor MCI has provided any federal agency with access to its facilities or infrastructure such that the agency would have access to Verizon’s telecommunications network or the data that the network carries.”
2
This request is consistent to the Commission’s understanding of Verizon’s representations that is set out in ¶ 2 of the “Discussion and Decision” section of the 8/9/06 Order. 7)
Representation 4 - change “will provide” to “has provided and will provide.”
8)
Representation 5 - change “seeks to ensure” to “has ensured and will ensure.”
9)
Add a request, that for Representation 5 and for Representation 6, Verizon define and provide examples of exactly what it is referring to by the term “information.”
If the Commission or its Staff has any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,
William C. Black Deputy Public Advocate
Wayne R. Jortner Senior Counsel WCB/dt cc: Service List
3
Related Documents
Verizon Wiretapping - Verizon Letter
August 2019 29
