Verizon has issued a statement – here's the text. This is pretty straightforward. The USA Today story appears to be false. Now, the question becomes did USA Today get suckered into reporting a political hit piece out of their desire to get a leak of the year prize? Oh sorry, that should read Pulitzer.
I don't think USA Today is going to look very heroic, or even very credible, pretty soon.
One of my commenters earlier said something to the effect that the companies were trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit by issuing these statements. I pointed out that to do so would destroy their credibility when any suit went to trial. I think these companies are telling the truth, because to lie right now would be their ruin in court.
Don’t jump to conclusions, Gaius. It’s quite possible Verizon is invoking some Clintonian wordplay here. So let’s withhold judgment on this one for a while.
Gaius,
Ah, the New York Times article on the denial spotted where Verizon could have pulled a Clinton:
“But Verizon’s statement left open the possibility that MCI, the long-distance carrier the company bought in January, did turn over such records — or that the unit, once absorbed into Verizon, had continued to do so.
Verizon said Verizon did not provide customer records to the National Security Agency “from the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago.”
Nowhere does the statement discuss what MCI did or is doing. Ending the denial right at the time of MCI’s purchase is a dead givaway.
Verizon is playing us for suckers with this non-denial denial.
Gaius,
And another reason for distrusting Verizon’s veracity:
http://redbanktv.org/blog/2006/04/faking_the_count.html
—————————————————————————–
Edward McKenna is the mayor of Red Bank, New Jersey. In a normal week, he receives about 10 faxes from constituents. In three days last November, McKenna says he got more than 200.
EDWARD McKENNA: “Those faxes all purported to come from people who said they were Red Bank residents. In fact, each fax started out by saying, “I am a Red Bank resident and I vote.”
These so-called residents all wrote in support of new legislation to increase competition in the cable industry. McKenna noticed the faxes had names, but no signatures.
EDWARD McKENNA: “When I called them, a number of them said they had not authored any such letter. Nor did they authorize anyone to send it on their behalf.”
He says the traced the fax number back to an organization funded by the telephone giant Verizon.
Dawn Holian with Common Cause has studied these front groups, also known as “astroturf.”
Bradley, a Clintonian parsing would still destroy them in front of a jury, would you agree?
Gaius,
Not sure what you mean. All I can see is that (1) Verizon’s statement took several days to release, which means the company took time to word it extremely carefully and (2) the statement deliberately omitted any mention of MCI.
Make that (3) — another blog poster pointed out that the statement denied providing customer information to the NSA. If the company allowed NSA access to its lines to collect information, it would be technically correct to say the company did not provide the information, correct but but misleading. There’s probably half a dozen more dodges like that high-priced lawyers and PR types can come up with, while still appearing to be blunt and honest. You have to read every word in these statements.
Finally, what would get Verizon in front of a jury? The government could block any legal action by claiming secret details of NSA activities could be revealed.
Bradley, I think it will eventually get to the courts now, under this administration or the next. If and when it does, a statement like this would kill them. Same with BellSouth’s earlier statement to the same effect. I think you are doing a little Clintonian parsing here yourself.
The companies are at extreme risk for saying this. The USA Today folks are at no personal risk whatsoever if they published a lie (given to them by a politically motivated “leaker”). Case law is in their favor.
Gaius,
You appear to have already made up your mind to believe Verizon, no matter what.
If the companies are telling the truth (and with lawyers to guide them on what is legally correct they probably are), they won’t suffer even if they did help the NSA. Remember, Verizon saw fit to twice mention it cannot and will not confirm or deny working with the NSA. That gives them legal cover in case it turns out they were helping the NSA in some other way that they construe not to be “providing” information.
Also, you have failed to address my point about Verizon’s omission of MCI from its non-denial denail. Guess you don’t have an answer for that one.
You think I am doing Clintonian parsing? I think you are being naive to swallow what Verizon is feeding you without a shred of skepticism. Big company lawyers and PR people get big bucks to make these non-denial denials. Sad that you, who is so skeptical in other matters, unthinkingly fall for their line.
The reporters are at extreme risk in seeing their careers damaged or ended if they are wrong. If you think otherwise, look at the sorry downward-spiraling career of Jason Leopold. Ever heard of him?
Bradley, I have no idea why they did – or did not – omit MCI. You are assuming they did. And you’re trusting the NYT, which, sadly, just is not what it once was.
I don’t blindly swallow Verizon’s statement. But I am taking the weight of the evidence of two of the three companies mentioned in the USA Today story. I also have enormous faith in the overall American jury system. Juries actually do get it right more often then they get it wrong historically. I know how I’d vote if I read Verizon’s statement and it turned out they were dodging and weaving around the truth.
And perhaps I should clarify, the USA Today folks are at no LEGAL risk – yes, their individual reputations and careers might be damaged or even destroyed. But the paper itself is almost bulletproof in a lawsuit. The paper itself stands to lose credibility and readership, but is almost unreachable by a lawsuit.
Gaius,
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that since companies might be held liable in a lawsuit, it would be disadvantageous for them to lie, therefore they aren’t lying.
In that case, why would companies ever lie? Well, sometimes lying has its desired effect.
Bradley’s parsing of Verizon’s statement seems spot on–it seems clear to me that they worded it very carefully, being very careful to limit the time frame of their denial and the business units involved in the denial.
Again, if you think you’re not a potential target for this, you’re a fool. Domestic spying can be just as useful to ensure that friends remain friends as it is to punish enemies.
Pingback: The Sandbox
I still don’t understand why everyone (on the Left) has gone nuts on this issue. What’s the big deal? So the NSA is compiling data (that has no identifiable tags) for the use in the war on terror. I only wish that the NSA, FBI and CIA had done this and other covert analysis and data mining prior to 9/11 – and shared the information amongst themselves. If they had 2,977 innocent men, women and children would be alive today.
It’s as Mark Steyn pointed out. After a terrorist attack, charge that the government didn’t connect the dots. When in search of a leak of the year – er – Pulitzer prize charge that the government is connecting the dots.
So let me get this straight:
Leak of a CIA agent for political purposes, good.
Leak of a questionably legal program, bad.
No proof of the former.
No proof of the latter.
Your opinions, or those of others do not constitute proof.
Gaius,
Do you think the CIA agent was outed just for grins?
The fact that the legality of the NSA data-mining operation is being debated is proof that it’s questionable. I didn’t say it’s legal, I said it’s legality is questionable.
There’s considerable talk right now that Wilson cheerfully told others what his wife did long before the so-called leak.
“There’s considerable talk”. Yep, that’s proof.
Gaius, you seem to have two standards of proof. Unsabstantiated rumor that supports your views are fine, but generally accepted facts must be proven in a court of law before you’ll accept them.
It makes it very difficult to have a conversation with you.
Juggler, I point these things out to show there are more than what you present as proof out there. Ok?
But gee, Gaius, you have to use your head now and again.
Sure, it’s not been proven in a court that Valerie Plame’s identity was leaked for political purposes, but look at what we know. Her husband, Joe Wilson, wrote a column critical of the Bush administration. Soon thereafter, a columnist known to be friendly to the Bush administration writes a column identifying Plame as a CIA agent.
I suppose there’s a small possibility that it wasn’t done for political purposes, but get real.
I am, I think you’re thinking with your agenda in mind. Fitzgerald has not been able to charge one person with the alleged crime despite having reporters cave in and talk to the grand jury – guess what? There may be no there there and you don’t even want to think about that. Your mind is made up.