Verizon, AT&T get most bucks from feds for wiretaps

[kpete]

Source: CBS

How much are your private conversations worth to the U.S. government? Turns out, it can be a lot, depending on the technology.

In the era of intense government surveillance and secret court orders, a murky multimillion-dollar market has emerged. Paid for by U.S. tax dollars, but with little public scrutiny, surveillance fees charged in secret by technology and phone companies can vary wildly.

AT&T, for example, imposes a $325 "activation fee" for each wiretap and $10 a day to maintain it. Smaller carriers Cricket and U.S. Cellular charge only about $250 per wiretap. But snoop on a Verizon customer? That costs the government $775 for the first month and $500 each month after that, according to industry disclosures made last year to Congressman Edward Markey.

Meanwhile, email records like those amassed by the National Security Agency through a program revealed by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden probably were collected for free or very cheaply. Facebook says it doesn't charge the government for access. And while Microsoft, Yahoo and Google won't say how much they charge, the American Civil Liberties Union found that email records can be turned over for as little as $25.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593273/verizon-at-t-get-most-bucks-from-feds-for-wiretaps/?tag=socsh

---

[indepat]

1. I would bet if those rates were cut in half, the gross profit margin would still be greater than

95% and, if so, tantamount to stealing from a baby. What a not-so-stealthy way to off-load tons of money from the U.S. Treasury into corporate coffers, all in the guise of national defense.

[TriplD]

2. So how do they calculate it when they are scooping everything up?

Or did the telecoms lie to Congress when they told them this?

[bloomington-lib]

3. I should at least have a free phone bill if I'm paying that much to be spied on

[adirondacker]

10. Yeah, right? They could save a fortune paying the going rate of $75.00 a month. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

4. 9/11. Chicken or the egg?

[NorthCarolina]

5. So, our own tax dollars are used to spy on us. What a Democratic concept. nt

[chimpymustgo]

6. Wow. K&R

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

7. It reminds me of.....

.....the Chinese government billing the families of those executed for the bullet following the execution. Verizon should send me a check.

[grantcart]

8. A little context would be helpful.

It is unfortunate that the author mixes in a reference to the current NSA controversy which will mislead some readers.

It is referring to wiretaps executed with a warrant that would be used by the FBI, DEA, IRS other federal agencies and state law enforcement bodies.

In 2012 the total number of wiretaps was 3,395 for the entire country:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports/wiretap-report-2012.aspx

A total of 3,395 wiretaps were reported as authorized in 2012–1,354 authorized by federal judges and 2,041 by state judges. Compared to the applications approved during 2011, the number approved by federal judges increased 71 percent in 2012, and the number approved by state judges rose 5 percent. Two state wiretap applications were denied in 2012.

Using the highest possible figure and rounding up that would bring the total to less than $ 3 million, a figure that the author almost certainly was aware of but did not include.

Moreover the article gets very sloppy a little bit further down when it had this

Still, the fees can add up quickly. The average wiretap is estimated to cost $50,000, a figure that includes reimbursements as well as other operational costs. One narcotics case in New York in 2011 cost the government $2.9 million alone.

In the context of the article it makes it seem that the electronic costs involved are high (which the ACLU in the article points out it is not) when it is obvious that it is referring to the costs of the law enforcement to operate the surveillance and prepare for prosecution. At one point it is saying that the total Verizon received was estimated between $ 3 and 5 million (which would have to include local wire taps as well) and there is one case that cost $ 2.9 million alone. It doesn't add up.

All in all a rather sloppy bit of reporting that doesn't add to the NSA debate in anyway.

[snooper2]

9. That won't detract the idiots promoting (they listenin' to all me calls!)

The writer of this could just look at the FCC website LOL-


Journalism is dead-

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-assistance-law-enforcement-act

Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief
CALEA section 109(b) permits a "telecommunications carrier," as that term is defined by CALEA, to file a petition with the FCC and an application with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to request that DOJ pay the costs of the carrier's CALEA compliance (cost-shifting relief) with respect to any equipment, facility or service installed or deployed after January 1, 1995. First, the carrier must file a section 109(b)(1) petition with the FCC and prove that, based on one or more of the criteria set forth in section 109(b)(1)(A)-(K), implementation of at least one particular solution that would comply with a particular CALEA section 103 capability requirement is not "reasonably achievable." Second, if the Commission grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, the carrier must then apply to DOJ, pursuant to section 109(b)(2), to pay the reasonable costs of compliance for one of the solutions proposed in the section 109(b)(1) petition. DOJ may then either pay the reasonable costs of compliance or deny the application.

If DOJ denies the section 109(b)(2) application, then the carrier is deemed to be CALEA compliant for the facilities, networks, and services (facilities) described in the section 109(b)(1) petition until those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification. When those facilities are replaced, significantly upgraded or otherwise undergo a major modification, the carrier is obligated under the law to become CALEA compliant. The FCC may also specify in its CALEA section 109(b)(1) order granting a carrier's petition the specific date when the replacement, upgrade or modification will occur and when CALEA compliance is required. Thus, a carrier's obligation to comply with all CALEA requirements is only deferred when (1) the FCC grants a section 109(b)(1) petition, and (2) DOJ declines to pay the additional reasonable costs to comply with one or more of the CALEA requirements. No qualifying carrier is exempt from CALEA.

Section 109(b)(1) petitions must be adequately supported, and the FCC decides whether to grant the petition strictly in reference to criteria set out in section 109(b)(1). Accordingly, carriers are encouraged to consult with competent legal and technical counsel before filing such a petition. Please note that a filing fee of $5,880.00 is required to accompany all CALEA section 109(b)(1) petitions filed with the FCC. See Appendix E entitled "Section 109(b)(1) Petitions for Cost-Shifting Relief: Filing Instructions," and paragraphs 38-57 of the CALEA Second Report and Order for detailed filing instructions and further explanation of the scope of relief, and its limitations, available under section 109(b).