Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A curious grad student may have revealed that internet companies like Yahoo and Verizon are making a huge amount of money from the government for turning over your private data to them.
Want to know how much phone companies and internet service providers charge to funnel your private communications or records to U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies?That's the question muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed a few months ago.
Now that is a very interesting question to ask, isn't it? I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that the companies in question don't want you to know:
But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that, among other things, they would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public.Yahoo writes in its 12-page objection letter (.pdf), that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it "to 'shame' Yahoo! and other companies -- and to 'shock' their customers."
"Therefore, release of Yahoo!'s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies," the company writes.
Verizon took a different stance. It objected to the release (.pdf) of its Law Enforcement Legal Compliance Guide because it might "confuse" customers and lead them to think that records and surveillance capabilities available only to law enforcement would be available to them as well -- resulting in a flood of customer calls to the company asking for trap and trace orders.
"Customers may see a listing of records, information or assistance that is available only to law enforcement," Verizon writes in its letter, "but call in to Verizon and seek those same services. Such calls would stretch limited resources, especially those that are reserved only for law enforcement emergencies."
Other customers, upon seeing the types of surveillance law enforcement can do, might "become unnecessarily afraid that their lines have been tapped or call Verizon to ask if their lines are tapped (a question we cannot answer)."
I'll take lame excuses for $1000, Alex. People might think their phone lines have been tapped? Yeah, that's kind of the point. Other companies complied. And let's just say the money is pretty damn big:
He found that Cox Communications charges $2,500 to fulfill a pen register/trap-and-trace order for 60 days, and $2,000 for each additional 60-day-interval. It charges $3,500 for the first 30 days of a wiretap, and $2,500 for each additional 30 days. Thirty days worth of a customer's call detail records costs $40.Comcast's pricing list, which was already leaked to the internet in 2007, indicated that it charges at least $1,000 for the first month of a wiretap, and $750 per month thereafter.
Ain't America great? Not only can the government spy on you without a warrant, they've found a way to use taxpayer money to make other people rich in the process.
Politics
Comments
It's a curious thing that the government has the temerity to invade a person's privacy but doesn't have the follow-through brass ones to tell the company in question to take their bill and shove it. Surely the person being tapped should at least get a cut of that bill -- after all, without the suspect customer, the phone company wouldn't have made that money at all!
Posted by: Nils Ross | December 16, 2009 9:25 AM
"Therefore, release of Yahoo!'s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security,"
Uhhhhh isn't that the whole point of the exercise?
You don't protect people's privacy and you don't want people to find out that you don't protect their privacy because then they'll know that you don't protect their privacy.
Posted by: JohnV | December 16, 2009 9:30 AM
This will learn the DOJ to use the Glomar Response more often. I can't believe the DOJ didn't (b)(1) and (b)(3) this one to death. They would have gotten away with it despite this meddling kid and his dog. The cowardly courts will dodge all but the most blatant violations of the law by claiming that Congress doesn't really want them to make judgment calls about intelligence operations and foreign policy despite being given explicit oversight authority by Congress.
Posted by: History Punk | December 16, 2009 9:49 AM
Me am dumb and need someone to comprehend issue for me.
Is the issue that the government (hopefully for law enforcement purposes) is looking at too many records, or is it that the companies are making the government (and thus taxpayers) pay too much for such info?
Posted by: Monimonika | December 16, 2009 9:54 AM
Monimonika-
No, that was just a means to an end. The grad student figured that if he knew how much these companies charged and knew how much had been paid to them - the information he requested through FOIA - then he could do some simple math and figure out how many times the government had tapped someone through each company.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 10:15 AM
My gut reaction is that they should increase prices. The more expensive, the better.
Posted by: rpsms | December 16, 2009 10:18 AM
rpsms, I am assuming that you're thinking higher prices = the government less willing to do such wiretaps, etc. Unfortunately, you're forgetting that the money the government is paying these private companies in order to spy on citizens comes from the taxpayers. Assuming you pay taxes, this means the government isn't spending its own money, it's spending YOUR money to do this.
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 16, 2009 10:33 AM
The telcos get paid when they tap someone's line? \Oh hell, that's almost like in Brazil, where they bill torture victims for their own arrest and interrogation. (I saw that movie for the first time a couple of weeks ago, and this already is the *second* time something in the real world has evoked an idea from it. Life imitates art -- unfortunately).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 16, 2009 12:02 PM
Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but this calculation does not distinguish whether the taps were warranted/legit/(whatever your standard is) or not, correct? I'm guessing that's why the other companies were not too hesistant in providing their lists.
What's confusing me is what your issue about this is. You seem to focus on how much tax money is being spent on the taps, and strongly imply that the issue is that the government is wasting tax money (possibly to do unlawful(?) wiretaps?).
You also seem to imply that people have the right(?) to find out if they're being wiretapped. I'm against warrantless wiretapping, of course, but how are companies supposed to handle customers who are being wiretapped for legitimate/warranted reasons who call in asking whether they're being wiretapped? Do they have the right to know?
Sorry for being obtuse about this (as well as meandering).
Posted by: Monimonika | December 16, 2009 12:03 PM
"if people knew our reputation for protecting their privacy was wholly undeserved and false, we might lose that reputation."
no shit, sherlock. let me translate that complaint into even plainer english: "please, mr. judge your honor, don't make us tell the truth to our customers! they might quit being our customers if we had to be truthful to them!"
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 16, 2009 12:08 PM
Total Information Awareness, TIA, I don't know what they call it now but when Poindexter was pushing it that was what they were calling it. Before they 'defunded the program' under that name.
It can be assumed that everything you do electronically either is being monitored or is being collected for possible review later. Which is the kicker here. Collection is easy. Sifting, analyzing, documenting, reporting and disseminating those reports are time and resource consuming.
As troubling as government spying is the greater worry for me is from the private sector. There are profits to be made collecting and selling your every move.
On the up side the next time you misplace your keys you might be able to call your local FBI office and ask them where you put them ... and get an answer.
As the old joke goes ... Know yourself. If you need help. Call the FBI.
Posted by: Art | December 16, 2009 12:14 PM
My understanding (may be faulty here) was that if the government had a subpoena or a court order for a wiretapping, then the carrier must comply regardless of payment or lack thereof. Is that right?
If that's correct, then what's the paylist for? Non court ordered reviews and wiretapping?
And if there are non-court ordered wiretappings, then how is Verizon and Yahoo confirming that the request is coming through a legitite government agency?
Posted by: OgreMkV | December 16, 2009 1:02 PM
They know the value of greasing he company's wheels. The profit motive is a wonderful tool no matter what it's been used in aid of.
Posted by: tacitus | December 16, 2009 3:20 PM
"And if there are non-court ordered wiretappings, then how is Verizon and Yahoo confirming that the request is coming through a legitite government agency?"
Oh, that one's easy - if the check clears, it's legitimate.
Posted by: BobApril | December 16, 2009 8:34 PM
And they think we care because...?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 17, 2009 12:09 AM
rpsms@6, my gut reaction is exactly the opposite.
If the companies make a lot of money off surveillance, they have no incentive to demand all the legal formalities. It'll get to the point that an official will hand them a bundle of money, no warrant, and the company will happily roll over. (Haven't we already seen this?)
No, these companies should provide these services for the cost of the labor, or less. No profit here; that's just wrong.
Posted by: dcsohl | December 17, 2009 9:58 AM
"...this means the government isn't spending its own money, it's spending YOUR money to do this."
Zmidponk, the government does not have its own money to spend. It's all our money.
Posted by: quantumspock | December 17, 2009 10:25 PM
quantumapock #17:
That's...kind of...my point...?
Posted by: Zmidponk | December 18, 2009 2:45 PM