Overclock.net banner
Cancel

[Wired] Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers

3884 Views 71 Replies 42 Participants Last post by  Urufu_Shinjiro, 
thiussat
From Wired
Dec 1, 2009

Quote:


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. 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 â€" and to ’shock’ their customers.â€

“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 â€" 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.â€

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).â€

Verizon does disclose a little tidbit in its letter, saying that the company receives “tens of thousands†of requests annually for customer records and information from law enforcement agencies.

Soghoian filed his records request to discover how much law enforcement agencies â€" and thus U.S. taxpayers â€" are paying for spy documents and surveillance services with the aim of trying to deduce from this how often such requests are being made. Soghoian explained his theory on his blog, Slight Paranoia:

In the summer of 2009, I decided to try and follow the money trail in order to determine how often Internet firms were disclosing their customers’ private information to the government. I theorized that if I could obtain the price lists of each ISP, detailing the price for each kind of service, and invoices paid by the various parts of the Federal government, then I might be able to reverse engineer some approximate statistics. In order to obtain these documents, I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with every part of the Department of Justice that I could think of.

The first DoJ agency to respond to his request was the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which indicated that it had price lists available for Cox Communications, Comcast, Yahoo and Verizon. But because the companies voluntarily provided the price lists to the government, the FOIA allows the companies an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their data under various exemptions. Comcast and Cox were fine with the disclosure, Soghoian reported.

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.

But Verizon and Yahoo took offense at the request.

Yahoo objected on grounds that its pricing constituted “confidential commercial information†and cited Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act.

Exemption 4 of the FOIA refers to the disclosure of commercial or financial information that could result in a competitive disadvantage to the company if it were publicly disclosed. The company claims its pricing is derived from labor rates for employees and overhead and, therefore, disclosing the information would provide clues to its operating costs â€" regardless of whether these same clues are already available in public records, such as those the company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also claims that since Soghoian is trying to determine the actual amounts the Marshals Service paid Yahoo for responding to requests, the price lists are irrelevant, since “there are no standard prices for these transactions.â€

But equally important to Yahoo’s objections was the potential for “criticism†and ridicule. Yahoo quoted Soghoian on his blog writing that his aim was to “use this blog to shame the corporations that continue to do harm to user online privacy.â€

Yahoo also objected to the disclosure of its letter objecting to the disclosure of pricing information saying that “release of this letter would likely cause substantial competitive harm†to the company. The company added, in a veiled threat, that if the Marshals Service were to show anyone its letter objecting to the disclosure of pricing information, it could “impair the government’s ability to obtain information necessary for making appropriate decisions with regard to future FOIA requests.â€

If anyone out there has a copy of Verizon or Yahoo’s law enforcement pricing list and wants to share it, feel free to use our anonymous tip address.

See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
BlackOmega
That is quite interesting. Big brother is watching.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
angrysasquatch
Quote:


But equally important to Yahoo's objections was the potential for "criticism" and ridicule. Yahoo quoted Soghoian on his blog writing that his aim was to "use this blog to shame the corporations that continue to do harm to user online privacy."

Lol, so yahoo just admitted that they are a corporation that continues to do harm to online privacy?
Reply
Save
Like
TheLegend
It's a pretty gray area, but I think this somehow is analogous to the Patriot Act.

All of us, including myself, hate it, but we'd think otherwise when a time arrives when it would benefit us or our country.

I wonder if other ISPs and conglomerates use similar antics...
Reply
Save
Like
T
Charging a government (of the people?) a fee to get information about a person with that person's tax money without informing that person or the people as a whole about how much they're charged OR what they're being charged for?! "only authorized people are allowed to know how much we charge" -yahoo

Talk about free money... how did the telecoms work out a sweet deal like that?! Oh I forgot about lobbyists. At least I'm not the only one getting the shaft from comcast.
Reply
Save
Like
Thedark1337
Wow i guess big brother really is watching -___- " I Hate when they spy just to try and protect the nation. It does nothing but corrupt even more of our nations into spending millions of tax money to spy on their users for terrorist or piracy reasons.
Reply
Save
Like
GuilT1
I don't mind the government spying as much as I hate that companies get the big bucks for selling our personal info. If you are being investigated for something that requires them to look into your background, then chances are you are doing something criminal. This information should be free to investigative government agencies, not use tax payer money to spy on tax payers.
Reply
Save
Like
Higgins
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuilT1 View Post
This information should be free to investigative government agencies, not use tax payer money to spy on tax payers.
x1000

I feel that this card is used when it shouldn't be, but this is corporate greed.

With the whole "spy capabilities," if i'm routing a connection through a server i'd be surprised if that information wasn't easily pulled up.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
B
Don't know why anyone would be shocked or confused by any of these capabilities, or the willingness of companies to share them.

You use a phone and you had better assume someone is listening. You walk around with a cell phone that has a battery in it, and a lot of someones know where you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegend View Post
It's a pretty gray area, but I think this somehow is analogous to the Patriot Act.

All of us, including myself, hate it, but we'd think otherwise when a time arrives when it would benefit us or our country.
No, absolutely not, never.

In my view, the Patriot Act is far more harmful than any of the occurrences it could ever plausibly prevent.

A full 767 smashing into a landmark every single day would be a lesser wrong, IMO.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
SgtSpike
2
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blameless View Post
No, absolutely not, never.

In my view, the Patriot Act is far more harmful than any of the occurrences it could ever plausibly prevent.

A full 767 smashing into a landmark every single day would be a lesser wrong, IMO.
Seriously? You'd rather sacrifice thousands of American's lives every day than have a few wiretaps on suspicious people? Sorry, not trying to turn this into a political discussion, but I just find that almost... unhuman!


This is definitely one of the more absurd things I have heard. Why can the government not just subpoena the information? Or are they essentially contracting out the wiretap to the phone company? I guess that makes a little more sense.... but it is essentially a monopoly, so the phone companies can charge however much they want with complete disregard to the actual cost to themselves.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Opeth07
so we get spied upon and the government uses our money to pay for it. So I'm paying to have my privacy violated. Can't I at least see the documents they have on me? Would only be fair.
Reply
Save
Like
K
If it can prevent another 911, Im fine with it. Im not doing anything that I want to hide.
Reply
Save
Like
Opeth07
Quote:


Originally Posted by kingwilliam
View Post

If it can prevent another 911, Im fine with it. Im not doing anything that I want to hide.

it finally arrives, the "if you have nothing to hide...." argument. I dont feel like I have to give up my rights for another 9/11 to be stopped.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Vostro
Quote:


Originally Posted by Blameless
View Post

A full 767 smashing into a landmark every single day would be a lesser wrong, IMO.

Seriously? I dont think there is anything else you could have said to make you sound more self-centered and heartless. I understand why some are upset about the issue but saying that having thousands of people die is better than having the government listen to your conversation about what movie youre going to watch tonight is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Higgins
2
Quote:


Originally Posted by Blameless
View Post

A full 767 smashing into a landmark every single day would be a lesser wrong, IMO.

Your privacy > 210 people/day


Wow, you must be one important person.

EDIT:

Quote:


it finally arrives, the "if you have nothing to hide...." argument. I dont feel like I have to give up my rights for another 9/11 to be stopped.

You don't have to give them up. The Patriot Act already authorizes the government to that information.

In the end, i hardly consider my internet records private since i'm using servers that do not belong to me. However, If there was a bill that authorized police to search houses without rime, reason, or a warrant, i would be promptly leaving the country.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Rep+
Reactions: 1
ZHoob2004
the point of this article is not the fact that they have the capability to be spying on us, it is the fact that they are charging the government such ridiculous amounts for something that no one else can provide.

If the government needs phone records from quest, they have to pay quest's price, even if a competitor of quest charges $20, they have to pay however much quest wants as they have the records. (quest is an example as they are a common phone provider where I live)

I say the government should get that information free or for a rate set by law as it hardly takes the resources the companies claim it takes. ($40 for a 1-2MB file of phone records?)
Reply
Save
Like
D
5
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vostro View Post
Seriously? I dont think there is anything else you could have said to make you sound more self-centered and heartless. I understand why some are upset about the issue but saying that having thousands of people die is better than having the government listen to your conversation about what movie youre going to watch tonight is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post
Seriously? You'd rather sacrifice thousands of American's lives every day than have a few wiretaps on suspicious people? Sorry, not trying to turn this into a political discussion, but I just find that almost... unhuman!


This is definitely one of the more absurd things I have heard. Why can the government not just subpoena the information? Or are they essentially contracting out the wiretap to the phone company? I guess that makes a little more sense.... but it is essentially a monopoly, so the phone companies can charge however much they want with complete disregard to the actual cost to themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgins View Post
Your privacy > 210 people/day


Wow, you must be one important person.

EDIT:

You don't have to give them up. The Patriot Act already authorizes the government to that information.

In the end, i hardly consider my internet records private since i'm using servers that do not belong to me. However, If there was a bill that authorized police to search houses without rime, reason, or a warrant, i would be promptly leaving the country.
Not just his privacy, the privacy of everyone.
I am pretty neutral on this issue though.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
thegreatsquare
It's a convenient end run around the American Constitution to say companies can collect information to be subpoenaed by our government that the government would not be permitted to collect itself. If our government does not have the right to wiretap everyone, it has no legal basis to grant such a right to others.

IMO.

Edit: I know referring to the gov't makes what I said "political", but commenting on the law and the "legality" of things is usually ok. This was just a time where they go hand in hand. Mine was a stand alone statement and opinion. I won't say no more on it.
Reply
Save
Like
TheLegend
I didn't mean to stir any political debate, but if I happened to inadvertently then I apologize.

Please refrain from any political discussions as it is against the ToS. Thanks in advance.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
dzalias
2
Quote:


Originally Posted by TheLegend
View Post

I didn't mean to stir any political debate, but if I happened to inadvertently then I apologize.

Please refrain from any political discussions as it is against the ToS. Thanks in advance.


What happens when politics spills over into the topics of this board? It's inevitable.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Overclock.net
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Hardware News Intel CPUs PC Gaming NVIDIA Water Cooling
Top