A Story Slipping Away?

By: Vaughn Ververs
Topics: In The News

(AP / CBS)

Are we watching a story fall apart before our very eyes? Something is certainly going on with that USA Today front-page splash about the secret NSA program to collect and analyze all the phone calls made within the United States. The story, published last week, sparked a fierce debate about privacy and the government's ability to spy on Americans. It drew rebukes from even administration allies. There were no blanket denials made by the administration and no protestations of inaccurate reporting by those in the know. And there were no denials made by the phone companies named in the story as having provided information to the NSA – at least until now.

This afternoon, Verizon became the second of three companies identified in the USA Today story to deny having provided bulk customer information to the NSA. To backtrack a moment, the USA Today story claimed that Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T had entered into a contract with the NSA in the aftermath of 9/11 to provide data on its customers. According to the paper, the NSA "has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans" under the program and one source was quoted calling it the "largest database ever assembled in the world." The database, reportedly only consisting of phone numbers, are analyzed to detect "calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity."

Now, however, both Verizon and BellSouth are denying having been asked or having provided such information to the NSA. A statement from Verizon this afternoon stated, "contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records." Similarly, BellSouth yesterday said "that it never gave the NSA that information, nor was it ever asked by the NSA to provide that information." So far, no comment from AT&T, but there appears enough here to start wondering about the accuracy of the original USA Today story.

It is curious that these two companies took several days to issue these denials (the story broke last Thursday and the companies did not deny it then). A BellSouth spokesperson said the company wanted to do a thorough review to ensure that no such agreement had been made. It's also worth considering there have been several class-action lawsuits filed in the wake of the USA Today story, so that could have something to do with the denials.

Still, we're entering some rocky territory, especially for a story about a "secret" program based entirely on anonymous sources. Given the administration's refusal to confirm or deny the report, the company denials and the anonymous sources, it may be time to ask how we'll ever get the truth out of this story.

11 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 11 Comments


by ragweed42 May 19, 2006 1:57 PM EDT: Two companies PR departments and lawyers craft denials and the story is going away? Since when has the "nothing to see here, please move on" response been meaningful, much less cause for a journalist to abort their inquiry. I'd point out that BellSouth and Verizon did not originally deny the story. They only did so after lawsuits were filed. AT&T didn't bother because an insider turned over physical evidence (and the judge denied a motion to exclude it). The ex CEO of Qwest has no personal interest and he still sticks to his story. And what if you read the statements from Verizon and BellSouth? They don't deny what USA Today said, only the implication that the companies don't value privacy or that "contracts" or "billing records" were involved. And what incentive do those companies have not to lie? How about Verizon, their denial has at least one clear falsehood: they don't keep records of local calls (in fact, they do -- ask someone with a copy of a Verizon EODUF). It may not appear on your bill -- but that's because it's an internal record, not a "customer record", intended for CLECs and such. No. The story isn't dead. Vever's attention span might be spent, but that's about it.; Reply to this comment


by esskayee May 17, 2006 7:29 PM EDT: When the USAToday story brokeon May 11, I emailed both Verizon Communications and Verizon Wireless. I received responses in each case, and neither response was a denial. The most recent response, from Verizon Wireless on May 14, said "Anything to do with the NSA is of course highly classified, so we can't comment on whether or not the news article causing concern is even accurate. But we can say that, to the extent that we cooperate with government authorities, we are confident that we are complying with all applicable statutes." So how come NOW they can talk?; Reply to this comment


by May 17, 2006 7:25 PM EDT: On May 5, Bush signed a presidential memorandum that 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)) The telephone companies could lie and not be held liable.; Reply to this comment


by v_ververs May 17, 2006 3:34 PM EDT: ohiomeister: My point is not that there isn't anything to see here based on these statements, only that the statements are all we have when both the sources of the story and the government won't talk. Basically, we have no idea whether the whole story, part of the story or none of the story is true. Just an observation.; Reply to this comment


by ohiomeister May 17, 2006 1:09 PM EDT: 1. Why would Nacchio of Qwest say that the NSA requested access and he refused? He has not incentive to lie now that he's not part of the company. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/ washington/17phone.html? ex=1305518400&en= 8140d4505038bc0d&ei=5088&partner= rssnyt&emc=rss 2. Look at those statements. They are full of WEASEL WORDS. Not to be mean, but if your take on this matter is that there's nothing to see here based on those statements, you may want to consider another line of work. If Verizon and BellSouth wanted to deny that they ever got involved with the NSA, they would have done so when U.S.A. Today contacted them before they published the story, or at the very latest soon after publication, rather than now. They also would have issued a straight-forward denial. Here's my advice to you. Whenever a denial is not the most straight-forward denial of the matter possible, assume that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I thought you guys learned that lesson after Clinton.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 May 17, 2006 12:12 PM EDT: I think the White House has told the phone companies that they are not permited, BY LAW, to divulge anything about this secret program as it would violate state secrets policies (a rationale borrowed from Tony Blair). Therefore, they are LEGALLY obligated to deny any involvement (Kind of like Mission Impossible IV).To DIVULGE WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO AIDING AND ABETTING THE HOARDES OF TERRORISTS.; Reply to this comment


by alphaa10-2009 May 17, 2006 4:44 AM EDT: Meanwhile, Bush has been told the public thinks he is "listening" to their calls. Not exactly, but close. What the NSA does is actually far worse-- their high-speed, voracious computers analyze datastreams real-time. These marvels of computer power need only a little longer to construct a web of data points between individuals in the domestic USA-- based on the information telcos provide about millions of Americans. This is how the NSA "listens" to your calls. Only later, as they deem appropriate, they can record individual conversations anytime they wish, What the NSA wants right now is to create a web of suspect links to and from domestic USA phone numbers. Once NSA connects your number and name to a suspect number in the web, the matter is left to "professional judgment" of law enforcement officials. Again, the key to this scheme is voluntary cooperation by business database managers. So, Bush is told by his spin doctors, "All you have to say to defuse this flap, Mr. President, is 'We do not listen to your private calls'." As usual, the official Bush denial is tantamount to untruth, equivalent to, "No one thought the levees would break."; Reply to this comment


by alphaa10-2009 May 17, 2006 4:31 AM EDT: Today's AP/CBS story parades Verizon's denial and BellSouth's denial-- but denial of exactly *what* seems the issue. If you parse the statement of each telco, there are big areas not stated explicitly. For example, Verizon says it "was not asked by the NSA... to provide customer phone records." By "customer phone records" did Verizon imply that if NSA requested only a subset of existing customer call records, this does not constitute handing over "customer phone records" in toto, as Verizon knows them? An attorney might also ask, "What do you mean by "was not asked by the NSA". Did another government agency or official make such a request? Only detailed cross-examination could pierce such a thick smokescreen as the twin denials seem to represent. In any case, the telco denials took their time, did they not? As Vaughn noted, we might think a simple, direct and honest response to the question, "Have you given any customer call records to the NSA?" would prompt the emphatic denial, "This company has provided no customer phone records of any kind at any time to the NSA." The fact certain telcos choked early on such a disclaimer implies they may have given out such data-- or believed they might have.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller May 16, 2006 11:30 PM EDT: "More on the telco mumbo-jumbo. This CNN story says Verizon has denied having a "contract" with the NSA to turn over customer data. Contract? Is this about synergies? The Verizon statement itself said there was no "agreement." But same difference, I think. Did we think Verizon got a small ownership stake in the NSA? This is nice too ... As the President has made clear, the NSA program he acknowledged authorizing against al-Qaeda is highly-classified. Verizon cannot and will not comment on the program. Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it. Why do I feel like this is like a grade schooler who's suddenly gotten a Junior G-Man Secret Decoder Ring? I'll buy the idea that what the NSA is doing with this data is highly classified. The notion that what the telcos are giving to the NSA is classified strikes me as a bit rich. I'll leave it to some telco experts to decipher the terminology and conceptual messiness that I'm sure underlies this mumbojumbo. But I'm sure that if the USA Today story was really false in any normal, reality-based sense of the term they would just say so and not resort to all the gobbledygook and parsing. And if they'd been in a position to deny it they wouldn't have waited like, what, a week to get around to it?" http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008479.php; Reply to this comment


by mjmelly May 16, 2006 11:27 PM EDT: I think all three phone carriers did turn over customer records, there is no denying it along with the other stuff that goes on in this country but we do turn our heads quiet a bit in this country and do not get involved. After several days of weighing the option of getting rid of Verizon as a telephone provider, I am doing just that in the morning. We have other options, such as cell phones and broadband. If everyone would stand together and shut down their phones, just maybe we can be heard.; Reply to this comment