AT&T to Post Transparency Reports Amid Contentious Surveillance Review

"I have confidence that the NSA is not engaged in domestic surveillance or snooping around,” Obama said, reiterating earlier statements. But he pointed to the public perception battle as people worry their phone privacy is being invaded as well as a need for giving the international community more confidence. He acknowledged risks of future abuse. He plans to make a “definitive statement” on what recommendations the White House will accept, reject and which require more refining in January, he said. “I'm taking this very seriously.

In the Section 215 phone program, which has received “the most attention” domestically, that same intelligence information might be obtained by having “the private phone companies keeping these records longer” and making the metadata accessible, Obama said, referring to one of the 46 recommendations of his review group. “That might cost more.” That shift may also create the need for different checks and balances as well as require certain technological solutions, he said.

AT&T said Friday it would follow Verizon’s lead and make public government requests for information. “To further our efforts to be as transparent as possible within the government guidelines in which we operate, like Verizon recently announced, we intend to publish a semi-annual online report that will provide information on the number of law enforcement requests for customer information that our company receives in the countries in which we do business,” said Wayne Watts, senior executive vice president and general counsel, in a blog entry (http://bit.ly/JQpNqU). AT&T expects to publish the first report in early 2014 covering information received in 2013, he said.

National laws limit what companies can say publicly about the requests they receive, Watts said, “but here is what we can say": When AT&T receives a government request for customer information, “we work hard to make sure that the requests or orders are valid and that our response to them is lawful.” AT&T has and will continue to challenge government requests “if we believe they are unlawful,” Watts said. AT&T doesn’t allow any government agency “to connect directly to our network to gather, review or retrieve our customers’ information,” he said. AT&T provides wireless customer data location only in response to a court order, “except in the rare cases in which an emergency compels us to do so,” such as when police contact the company to locate a missing child or kidnapping suspect, Watts said.

Certain defenders of the surveillance programs have pushed back against the review group recommendations. Obama has already disputed some of the recommendations, recently saying he would not split the NSA chief position from the leader of Cyber Command, a decision ensuring that a civilian will not lead the NSA -- a review group recommendation. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., issued a joint statement with ranking member Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., expressing concerns. Several of the recommendations “should not be adopted by Congress, starting with those based on the misleading conclusion that the NSA’s metadata program is ‘not essential to preventing attacks,'” the intelligence committee leaders said. “The NSA’s metadata program is a valuable analytical tool that assists intelligence personnel in their efforts to efficiently ‘connect the dots’ on emerging or current terrorist threats directed against Americans in the United States.” The program is vital, they said.

"I have serious concerns with some of the report’s 46 recommendations,” Rogers said in a separate statement. “Any intelligence collection reforms must be careful to preserve important national security capabilities. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to enact meaningful reforms in the near future.” Obama also pushed back. “We need this intelligence,” he said. “We can’t unilaterally disarm.”

Several stakeholders and observers expressed mixed feelings about industry holding onto the data Thursday (CD Dec 20 p3). The five members of the review group jointly wrote a New York Times op-ed, reiterating the top recommendations. “The government should end its domestic program for storing bulk telephone metadata,” the group said (http://nyti.ms/1dXnjjm). “The current program creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy and civil liberty. In some cases, the government will have a national security justification for access to such metadata, which should be held instead either by private providers or by a private third party, and which should be available only after an appropriate order by a court.”

In a call with reporters Friday, several privacy advocates said they would oppose data retention mandates but did not say the recommendations are a serious cause for concern. Mandatory data retention mandates would be “a huge burden on companies” and be a civil liberties problem, said Rainey Reitman, chief operating officer of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s activism team director. Congress has decided not to do it before, said Greg Nojeim, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Project on Freedom, Security and Technology. “I really think people are overstating what the report really says,” said legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, reiterating what she told us Thursday.

One advocate looked to the telcos. Kevin Bankston, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute policy director, applauded Verizon’s move to release a transparency report of government information requests. Other telcos will hopefully follow suit, Bankston said during the media call. “Transparency reports by companies is a critical check,” he said.

Other telcos we contacted declined to say whether they would also publish reports detailing government requests for information. A CenturyLink spokesman told us it provides information to the government only “when required or permitted by law,” and wouldn’t comment on “matters of national security or specific requests for information.” A Windstream spokesman said the telco has “nothing new to share beyond our current privacy policy statement.” That statement says the telco will comply with government requests for investigation, but does not state that it will publicly detail those requests. Frontier did not respond to requests for comment. A USTelecom spokeswoman declined to comment.

"I commend AT&T for its commitment to transparency, and I hope additional wireless carriers will follow AT&T’s and Verizon’s lead and disclose their law enforcement requests for customers’ wireless information,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “I plan to introduce legislation to strengthen privacy safeguards for consumers and increase regular disclosure of requests for this information about Americans.”