AT&T: Anti-Transparency and Trickery

/4 Comments/in /by

I noted last month that Verizon released its transparency report before the Tech Company transparency deal, which gave it a way to avoid revealing this embarrassing detail:

Had Verizon released a transparency report yesterday, it would have added at least the following two details:

Non-Content FISA orders:

4 orders affecting 107,700,000 customers

Content FISA orders:

? orders affecting ? selectors (probably measuring the number of search terms — maybe something like “250″ — Verizon searches for off its upstream collection affecting millions of people)

It would have painted a very different picture.

AT&T wasn’t as smart as Verizon, only now releasing its so-called transparency report. (h/t Kash Hill)

Here’s how it communicated to its customers that it provides all their call records and sucks up Internet data off its switches using search terms.

Screen shot 2014-02-18 at 9.26.06 AM

 

You see, it’s supposed to reveal all of its FISA Court orders, not just the orders it gets under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is a different thing. While the number of non-content orders might still be quite small: just 4 orders, presumably, plus some exotic ones thrown in. The number of customer accounts affected would be “all.”

Moreover, in the content section, AT&T is supposed to describe “customer selectors.” This is different than accounts, because, in AT&T’s case, it also includes the number of search terms is sucks right off the circuits (which affects millions of accounts).

Congratulations, AT&T, you have demonstrated definitively these transparency guidelines are not about transparency at all.

image_print
4 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    You see, it’s supposed to reveal all of its FISA Court orders, not just the orders it gets under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is a different thing. While the number of non-content orders might still be quite small: just 4 orders, presumably, plus some exotic ones thrown in. The number of customer accounts affected would be “all.”

    I assume that under the law requiring these reports, there’s also a clause that provides the telecoms with immunity for incompletely reporting what is required.

    Wouldn’t want to kill the intelligence community’s golden goose, you know.

  3. thatvisionthing says:

    What’s the difference between content and noncontent, examples?

    What’s the difference between FISA orders and FISA court orders, examples, dummy level?

    Sorry, I haven’t been following well lately and probably never did grasp fundamentals. Also I have AT&T and strange things happen and I wonder if they are interfering with my ability to connect and freely post. Have those kinds of questions been raised, whether AT&T or NSA or whatever contractor or Five Eye, has the right to not just tap but actually interfere with your connection and content? There’s no internet provider competition here and Feinstein is senator, so… screwed. I already can’t access my e-mail anymore because Yahoo policy changed ca Snowden June 2013 and won’t let me see it unless I click a box that says I agree to have my mail scanned and analyzed, which feels like a crime to me. Hello Congress, hello EFF, hello Edward, hello Glenn, Jeremy, Laura and Marcy.

Comments are closed.