Here's some comments from a company I've worked with on the extension of FISA. I'm going to have to call some buddies over there and get their thoughts on this.


http://businesspr.eu/news;subsentio-comments-on-the-extension-of-fisa

Subsentio Comments On The Extension of FISA

DENVER, Colorado, January 15, 2013 Subsentio, a Trusted Third Party service bureau for Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance (LAES), today announced that it supports the recent extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) as amended in 2008.

Marcus Thomas, former Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a member of Subsentios Advisory Board explained the importance of FISA. The ability to monitor the activities of foreign nationals who intend to do harm to the United States and its citizens is an absolutely critical tool for law enforcement agencies. Many lives have been saved and will continue to be saved with the extension of this legislation. We applaud the US Congress and President Obama for their foresight in keeping FISA in place for another 5 years.

One of the least understood aspects of FISA is the notion that it is a rubber stamp for warrantless wiretaps, added Ward Jackson, Chief Security Officer at Subsentio. Weve only had 2 warrantless wiretaps at Subsentio and they were both criminal exigent circumstances that involved the kidnapping of a child. FISA is different. Each FISA docket that we have been involved with has always been accompanied by the appropriate paperwork. As a matter of policy, Subsentio would never initiate a wiretap without the proper authority from the courts, FISA or criminal. Since all FISAs are classified, we recommend that each carrier has someone with a Secret / Top Secret security clearance on staff or on retainer to review the order.

Erik Cecil, General Counsel for Subsentio expanded on the companys policy of reviewing all court orders prior to executing the warrant. On occasion, court orders can be written incorrectly. This may happen because the law enforcement agency may be understaffed and overworked thus unable to review the state and federal legal issues that may come up in this rapidly changing area of technology and privacy regulation. Subsentio carefully reviews all court orders. Moreover because Subsentio has excellent relationships with law enforcement, we are also able to expeditiously obtain corrections where they are legally required. This protects Subsentios clients who may be liable if the warrant is invalid and who regardless, want no questions as to the validity of the electronic surveillance they provide to law enforcement. It also benefits law enforcement because valid court orders means they can do their jobs more effectively and efficiently. We encourage all service providers to review any court ordered request for electronic surveillance, including FISA orders, prior to initiating and providing any requested electronic surveillance.

Subsentio, Inc. is trusted by both service providers and law enforcement agencies to perform court ordered lawful electronic surveillance. Based in Centennial, CO the company serves landline, mobile wireless, rural local exchange carriers, wireless carriers and national and regional VoIP providers. Additional information is available at www.subsentio.com.

People will shy away from Verizon contracts once the news is out.

I suspect that Verizon was assured that their actions would not be released to the public. Now that they are, they may blame their loss of business on the government.

OTOH, perhaps they will try to find that the other carriers are doing the same thing.

for Verizon, just happened to be the first to leak.

They can't tell them to "fuck off"

The warrant has to have very specific information on it like the TARGET PHONE NUMBERS!

Are you saying the FISA court shouldn't have approved the warrant? Or are you saying the warrant didn't cover all phone records. Someone earlier had posted a link to the FISA court document. I thought it was pretty clear.

When a court order is presented to a telecomunications company personnel within that company are to review the order, it's accuracy and there are usually "best effort" agreements in place to get the taps up as soon as possible.


For regular criminal warrants all the way up to FISA warrants, the warrant may say:

Intercept all call meta data (Calling/Called Party/Duration/) + audio(media) for company Cali_Democrat
TN under survalence-
972-111-1000
972-111-1001
972-111-1002
972-111-1003
972-111-1004
972-222-8000

People within the company pull those phone numbers from order entry and provisioning systems, see what switch they are on, what type of services they have, how the tap will be implemented. During that process they say, oh, 972-222-8000 isn't owned by Cali_Democrat, that number is assigned to Snooper2. I don't see Snooper2 on the warrant-
At that point it gets rejected back to the judge or in some cases the LEA case agent may be contacted to say, you got a typo fix that so we can implement.

There are people a lot more versed than I in this but I'm pretty sure Verizon could/should have told them again to fuck off....


Just because you get served with an order like that "even signed by a judge" doesn't mean you have to comply. As a telecommuncations provider your customers have specifc rights to privacy I believe this completely tramples on top of. I can link to a bunch of FCC regs that state a consumers right to privacy.

it was a call for meta data alone. If I understand it correctly they never claimed a warrant to intercept actual communications.

besides, to tap every customer on Verizon or anyones network at the same time would be well....


Absolutely impossible-

why verizon and not others?

did the others push back?

verizon should have at least done it for show, but it seems they didnt

whatever one might think about Kochs, they were fighting this crap, regardless of their intentions in doing so

.

The ones executing the order are the real one's at fault...not those who actually ordered it.

Its Verizons fault.

I thought we were bonding

...I agree they SHOULD have...but when the Fed's show up with the paperwork it's game over..