The High Cost of Spying on YOU

When illegal spying on Americans by our own government was at its height, during the Bush/GOP Regime, I often wondered why the telecoms and major ISPs were so anxious to join in.  I concluded that they must be getting big bucks, but I never realized quite how had it is.  You are paying so much to have our government to your telephone calls, read your email, and track your web surfing that they dont want you to know how much it is.

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 — 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).”

 

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 — and thus U.S. taxpayers — 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… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Wired>

If you actually believe that the only government spying on US Citizens is through legal subpoenas, I have a wonderful bridge for sale in a major east coast city.  I believe it continues, because President Obama had not delivered on either the transparency on this issue or the repeal of related parts of the Patriot Act he promised during his campaign.  I suspect that the price we pay for illegal spying on us is much higher than for the legal wiretaps.

Action Alert: Send Pro Stupak DINOs a Coat Hanger

I found an interesting article about the practical effects of the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Like most anti-choice efforts we've seen come out of Congress and state legislatures in the past 30+ years since abortion was legalized, Stupak's Coathanger amendment is another attack on the practical side of the issue: on access. Rather than going for Roe and actually proposing something that could result in it's being overturned, he's going the practical route of making it more difficult to obtain by stretching the limits of the Hyde amendment beyond the breaking point.

The Stupak amendment does not literally say that plans on the exchange can’t include abortion coverage, it just makes it completely impossible that a plan could for several reasons. To pretend that a reading of the Stupak amendment could not easily be used to stop the sale of plans covering abortion on the exchange is absurd. That is like claiming a law making it illegal to sell tubes capable of having a bullet pass through at high speeds would not be a ban on firearms. Nita Lowey is correct that this amendment could easily put new restrictions on a woman’s ability to buy an insurance plan that does include abortion coverage from a private insurance company, even with her own money.

Once the dust settles on the legal issues of what this bill does, you have to look at the practical results. Even if insurers participating in the exchange can find the needle to thread to offer abortion coverage, would they? No, says one industry expert.

"I really think it would be impractical," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant....

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won't be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn't make much business sense.

"It's not an ideological issue, it's not about abortion or not abortion," Laszewski says. "It's about what is administratively simpler, easier to administer. It just adds a level of complexity they will likely avoid."

Sara Rosenbaum, a health lawyer and professor at George Washington University, agrees that it's impractical to expect health insurance plans to cover abortion in the exchanges, even for people paying the full premiums without federal help.

"If you speak to insurers in the industry, they will tell you that they simply can't operate under these circumstances," Rosenbaum says. "They need to be able to offer standard products that get administered in a standard way for everybody."

For insurers, it's about the bottom line, and the bottom line is easier to maintain through standardized, streamlined processes. That means offering a standard product, in this case one that excludes abortion... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

In my last article on this subject, I said essentially the same thing, but did I did not reason it out as clearly as this does.  This is a Republican attempt to kill health care reform and a DINO attempt to win points with the theocon set.  Nothing we can do will influence the Republicans in Congress.  The only solution for them is to vote them out of office, but we should pressure the DINOs in every way possible.  I received a petition from Credo Mobile that I found most appropriate:

Sign this petition and send a coat hanger to the 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats -- all men -- who voted to pass the Stupak Amendment.

"We know what happens when women are denied access to reproductive health care including abortion. And we can't go back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions. Reconsider your vote on the Stupak Amendment. Tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the final health care bill that emerges from the conference committee can't turn the clock back on women's rights."

To send a DINO a coat hanger, Click Here.

Poll Results – 11/2/2009

Here are the results of the Net Neutrality poll.

There is no that our readers are pro net neutrality even though we had five right wing votes and one from a teabagger. ;-)

Our only comment was also from a right-winger.

Showing comments 1-1 of 1.

From J. Smith on October 30, 2009 at 9:15 am. 

You socialist, communist, marxist fools. Get your crap together.

Typically, J Smith ignored the respect rule here.  Also typically, most extremists express intolerance, lacking the intellectual wherewithal to mount a legitimate argument.

Do you care to discuss your vote?  I voted ‘Strongly Support’ because Net Neutrality is the only thing preventing the telecom giants from effectively silencing opposition to their right-wing corporate agenda.

McConJob Wants Your Internet

First please accept my apology you today’s slim offering and for being way behind on answering comments and visiting other blogs.  I have a very severe case of flu here.  My effort will improve as I do.  On to the story.

Last Thursday I posted an article on FCC plans to adopt Net Neutrality.  The idea of a free and open Internet did not sit well with the giant telecoms who want to skew the Internet, so they sent their favorite lackey ton the Senate floor.

The "Maverick" just played his hand on Net Neutrality, and the cards reveal a man who's outsider image doesn't quite add up.

On Thursday, Sen. John McCain introduced legislation to kill the open Internet, the deceptively named "Internet Freedom Act." The bill would stop all FCC efforts to have an open and public discussion about proposed Net Neutrality rules.

This comes from a senator who has received more money ($894,379) from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and their lobbyists than any other member of Congress.

McCain also infamously told the media that he is "illiterate" when it comes to using the Internet and computers…

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Rachel Maddow covered this well:

 

McConJob’s trust sidekick, Mooseolini, had no comment, except that she can see the Internet from her porch.

Open Thread – 10/23/2009

Yesterday I discovered that to upgrade to Windows 7 I have to wait for a DVD to arrive.  However, my early start was thrashes when my AV software notified me I needed to make a major upgrade, and that took a couple hours.  Nevertheless I had time to catch up on comments and visit most of the blogs I frequent.  I expect to stay up to date today.

Updating the Net Neutrality story, we won this round:

U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generated.

The proposed rule now goes to the public for comment until Jan. 14, after which the Federal Communications Commissions will review the feedback and possibly seek more comment. A final rule is not expected until the spring of next year.

"I am pleased that there is broad agreement inside the commission that we should move forward with a healthy and transparent process on an open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said on Thursday…

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

Today’s Jig Zone Puzzle took me 4:36.  To do it, Click Here.  How did you do?

Here’s your cartoon:

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Pat Bagley - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

TGIF!!  What’s up this weekend?

Telecom Firms Face Net-Neutrality Defeat

This is great news.  If you know me, you know how strongly I support net neutrality.

"This is totally new in Washington, that opposed to only the old Goliaths like AT&T, or traditional public utilities commissions or large insurance companies at the table, they are now joined by others like tech growth companies," said Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association, a trade group that represents the investors of Web giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon.

The vote is on a proposal that would begin a months-long process to formulate rules on how Internet service providers manage traffic on their networks while not blocking or unfairly slowing some content. The proposal, favored by Chairman Julius Genachowski, is expected to pass with three votes out of five.

AT&T and other wireless and cable providers say the proposal amounts to giving the government control over the Internet, and that companies will lose the ability to reduce congestion on their networks. Web service providers such as Google and Skype counter that they need unfettered access to all Internet users because the carriers could decide to block services that compete with their own.

A flood of calls, e-mails

In recent weeks, large telecommunications and cable firms have been flooding the offices of Congress, blasting e-mails and calling aides to try to get them to sign onto letters sent to Genachowski in protest of his push for new "net neutrality" rules.

Staffers on Capitol Hill and at the FCC say the most active lobbyists have been from AT&T -- a company that is historically the largest donor to the political campaigns of members of Congress It has spent more than $8 million in lobbying this year on a wide range of issues, including net neutrality, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last week, 72 Democratic members of Congress wrote the FCC in opposition to the net-neutrality proposals. Many of them, staffers said, had been encouraged to write by AT&T. And 52 of them received a total of $180,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T this year, according to the Center.

Over the weekend, AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, reached inside the company for lobbying support, asking its 300,000 employees to write the FCC that net neutrality would severely hurt their business.

AT&T spokeswoman Claudia Jones declined to comment on the company's lobbying on the issue, saying, "Honestly, if you look at letters against net neutrality, they were sent because [lawmakers] had conviction and felt very strongly about it."

Google, by contrast, hired its first Washington staffer in 2005 and opened its first permanent office here last year, with a staff of 20. It has spent $1.8 million in lobbying this year, compared with $6.8 million by Verizon and $6 million by Comcast. Dozens of venture capitalists and high-tech giants, including Amazon, eBay and Facebook, jumped into the debate this week, throwing their support behind Genachowski's proposal, which would benefit their firms… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Do the Big Telecoms want to reduce congestion, as they claim?  Probably.  Is that the only reason, or even the major reason they oppose net neutrality?  Hell no!!!

The biggies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to charge content providers a fee for faster throughput.  That cheats their own customers.  We all have our own Internet services, and except in rare cases where there is community access.  Most of us have different tiers of service from which we may choose.  When I had XYZ, they offered several different bandwidth speeds according to what I wanted to buy.  Under net neutral rules, the only limit on the speed at which I could receive content is the speed of the connection I bought.  That’s fair.  If I wanted faster, I could pay more.  However, if I’m paying for throughput at one speed, and the telecom company slows it down, because they want to sell me competing content or because a competing competing content provider is paying the telecom company to slow down competitors’ content, the company is cheating me out I the bandwidth I  am purchasing.  Make sense?

Furthermore, Big Telecom has a right-wing political agenda.  All the majors, except Qwest, were in bed with the Bush/GOP regime, criminally spying on Americans.  When this story first broke, it was bloggers who brought it to the attention of Americans.  The MSM got on board with the story late and reluctantly.  Given the opportunity, do you think Big Telecom would interfere with content from bloggers who are calling for justice against them?

I say, net neutrality is a must!

Hannity Addresses Liberty University

Now when most people give a university address, they go there, but Seam Hannity phoned his in.

While it is true that Sean Hannity does not have a college degree, the same can be said for NBC’s Brian Williams. Williams, however, who actually reports on the news and does not promote an agenda of hate and intolerance, does have a number of honorary degrees from esteemed institutions such as Catholic University, Providence College (Dominican Friars school), Ohio State, and Bates College. Hannity, on the other hand, has received just one honorary degree not from any Catholic colleges or esteemed mainstream schools – but from Liberty University, a school grounded in conservative Christianity and which recently offered a scholarship to a true victim of the “gay agenda,” ex Miss California, Carrie Prejean. This year, Sean Hannity (a paragon of Christian “family values” whose message is sure to bring a smile to the baby Jesus) was booked to give an address at the Liberty Commencement – along with fellow Fox employee and paragon of Christian “family values,” Karl Rove. Alas, poor Sean was sick. But not to worry. Sean got his chubby fingers working and dialed in his pearls of wisdom. Oh, praise the Lord!

Liberty has strict codes of conduct (no dancing let alone sex!) which prepare the students for a life of GOP virtue. Like Regent, another Petri dish for aspiring young Republicans, it is considered “fourth tier.” And like ACORN, Liberty had a recent problem with voter registrations – something that Hannity didn’t seem to be concerned about unlike his frequent excoriations of ACORN! In their zeal to register lots of new sainted GOP voters, in order to be the “college that elected a president,” they produced new registrations that were "illegible, incomplete, or otherwise ineligible." They also shut down the college Democratic club because Jesus only loves Republicans. But it does recognize good Christians when they see them and Hannity was considered good enough to be bestowed an honorary degree in 2005. (Did he provide tickets to any of his gal pals at the Bunny Ranch?) The late Jerry Falwell, who claimed that gays caused 9-11 (yeah, I know he apologized, but still….), loved Hannity whom he felt was “fighting the battle for freedom on the frontlines for us every day.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <News Hounds>

Liberty University achieved fame when Bush and the GOP packed DOJ and other government agencies with more federal appointees from this fourth rate college than from any other college or University.  Many converted their status from appointee to career employee, promising polluted agencies for years to come.  But that’s the subject of another article.

You may wonder what the Hannidate graphic has to do with this article.  It turns out that Sean has a dating service.  If you go to his web site (no link, because I refuse to provide hits),  if you click the Hannidate button, and if you say you are a man seeking a man, you’ll find an assortment of potential gay lovers.  Please don’t get me wrong.  I see nothing wrong either with being gay or with gay people seeking each other out.  What I do think is wrong is the way this vile hypocrite condemns LGBT people at every opportunity, but has no qualms about serving that community for profit.

FCC to Unveil Open Internet Rules

You may remember that I am a long time supporter if Net Neutrality, and I have some good news.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will unveil in a speech on Monday new proposals that would force Internet providers to treat the flow of content equally, sources familiar with the speech said on Friday.

The concept, referred to as net neutrality, pits open Internet companies like Google Inc against broadband service providers like AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc, and Comcast Corp, which oppose new rules governing network management.

Advocates of net neutrality say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic based on content.

Providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services like video sharing requires active management of their networks and some argue that net neutrality could stifle innovation…

Inserted from <Reuters>

Stifle innovation my litter box!  Providers want to make the Internet like pay-per-view TV to increase their profit.  They also want the ability to limit access to sites, like Politics Plus, whose views opposing their corporate policies, and those of their lackeys, mostly Republicans.  The Internet is one of the few places that common people have the same rights to express our views as giant corporations.  Here at PP, this is authentic grass roots.  I don’t get a penny for this.  The only people who have asked me to keep doing it are readers who like it here.  Although my perspective is definitely leftist, I’m in nobody’s pocket and call them as I see them, even if it means criticizing an ally.  I am not alone.  There are many sites like this out there.  Net Neutrality keeps us free.

PS – the pic is a computer just like mine.