NSA: AT&T Targets Billing Intermediaries

Despite public statements that AT&T was given a DoJ waiver to do something, AT&T says that the billing companies fraudulently did something.

Unfortunately for AT&T, the ongoing CALEA relationship shows that AT&T was fully involved and aware of what was going on: AT&T well knew about the billing intermediaries. AT&T claims that the intermediaries did something illegal (that AT&T had not approved, did not authorize, or was unaware) are not believable.

Ref Ref Ref

How do we explain Winson and Elkins interest in immunity for crimes? Kavanaugh is the name that links Verizon, OLP, and the concern with immunity for liaiblity. [ Winson & Elkins ]

* * *

The smokescreen is simple: AT&T is playing both sides of the argument. First it denied that there was a problem; now it wants the world to believe that AT&T had no idea what was going on.

Unfortunately for AT&T, the NARUS STA 6400 line of evidence contradicts the AT&T assertions. Also, the Verizon line of evidence fully shows that the CALEA conferences fully discussed using intermediaries to transfer data.

It is not credible for AT&T to have shifted position. Rather, the available information suggests that AT&T has made out of court inconsistent statements.

First, it argued that there was nothing wrong;

Then, it said that the conduct was permissible;

Then, it claimed it could not comment;

Now, it is claiming that someone fraudulently did something.

Yet, look at the NARUS STA 6400 line of evidence; and compare with the matching data related to Verizon: It is the same people.

How does AT&T explain its involvement with NARUS, and attendance at the conferences where the NSA was present, but now AT&T wants us to believe that it had no idea about the intermediaries?

The facts speak for themselves. The firms related to AMDOCs have been affirmatively linked to Verizon, SAIC, Amdocs, Telcordia -- all firms which AT&T and the other CALEA conferences knew about.

In addition, there's fiducianet, and the other companies which the SEC has well documented were part of the intermediaries.

If AT&T wants us to believe that it had no idea what the intermediaries were doing, how does AT&T explain:

A. Attendance at conferences;

B. The cross talks with the NARUS STA 6400 conference attendees

C. AT&T and Verizon links to SAIC, Telcordia, and the NARUS STA 6400 system

D. The discussion which Drew C. Arena held at the CALEA conference

Is AT&T asking us to believe that despite all the people, conferences, and information that implicates AT&T involvement with NARUS STA 6400 and the billing intermediaries, which they didn't know what was going on?

But then, if there is a claim of fraud -- why isn't the AT&T relying on the DOJ "get out of jail free" card?

Surely, for there to have been fraud, there would have to be a claim that there was wrong dong. yet, AT&T says there was no wrong doing; and they had a letter.

Are we asked to believe that AT&T, despite its known link with the NARUS STA 6400 and the NAVY undersea training on fiber optic splitting, that it had no idea what was going on?

How can AT&T at the same time claim that it had "no idea" about the fraud; but then claim it have a letter that says there is no problem?

AT&T, by claiming in a suit that there has been fraud, or an unauthorized release of data, cannot explain why AT&T has not credibly maintained control of the data; nor does AT&T credibly discuss the ongoing relationship it has with the billing-subpoena intermediaries.

the only way that AT&T could sue a billing company for fraud in re billing data was if AT&T knew about the CALEA intermediaries; but failed to prevent something that they knew, or should have known, the DOJ "get out of jail free" letter would not have stopped.

AT&T's story isn't adding up. Surely, someone at AT&T could explain this.

* * *

Adverse Inferences

A. AT&T failed to adequately protect its data;

B. AT&T knows well that billing companies act as intermediaries

C. AT&T has fatally commented on billing data which DOJ says isn't something that can be discussed

D. The AT&T suit against the billing companies is like AT&T suing itself -- AT&T through the CALEA system permits intermediaries like fiducianet to provide this data to other parties

E. AT&T is arguably reckless in not protecting its data;

F. AT&T and Verizon have common lines of evidence, and this lawsuit establishes that there is a data-transfer issue which the States of Maine, Vermont, Missouri, and Delaware should be intimately involved

G. Nothing with DoJ Asst. Attorney General Keisler has said to any court should be relied upon

H. There is a reasonable basis to doubt AT&T's statements about the billing problems; and the case to be made is how long AT&T has known about these data-management problems.

I. The only catalyst for this lawsuit is a diversion to make the public believe that AT&T is concerned about something that AT&T "with a letter" was told was permissible

J. AT&T fails to account for the CALEA conferences linked to NARUS, Verizon, and the billing intermediaries

We judge that AT&T has long known, or should have known about this conduct and that it was part of the CALEA intermediary agreements. We consider this lawsuit a smokescreen.

* * *

You will see that AT&T's effort to go after the billing companies are not credible.

Ref The billing companies are well linked to the NARUS STA 6400 CALEA conference data.

Ref The intermediaries, which AT&T well knew through CALEA were handling billing data, were also handling the subpoenas and NSLs. The firm has been affirmatively linked with the White House. Ref

Ref All the Verizon data related to the billing intermediaries matches the same players linked to the NARUS STA 6400. But to compound the problem, Verizon is affirmatively linked through DoD documents through Telcordia to the NSA. The contract documents include specific Executive Orders which prohibit classification of illegal activity.

Ref Here is the NAVY training program fully integrated with AT&T and the underwater fiber optic splicing. Is AT&T saying that it doesn't know about this as well?

Ref AT&T lobbyist makes fatal public statements, contrary to AT&T interests, and wholly inconsistent with DoJ, AT&T, and Verizon assertions in re billing.

Ref The issue isn't simply illegal transfer of data -- in the form of billing data or other subpoenas -- but how that data was used to commit violations of Geneva. These are war crimes: Unlawful detention, warrantless surveillance, insults against civilians and other human rights violations during an illegal war. Arguably, AT&T and Verizon should have known that the billing/subpoena intermediaries linked to CALEA were supplying data to the NSA, DoJ, DHS and White House that was supporting illegal violations of the Constitution: Kidnapping, unlawful rendition, and other warrantless detentions in Eastern Europe.

Does AT&T and Verizon plan to sue Eastern Europe for failing to stop what Verizon and AT&T apparently failed to exercise due diligence; or is this simply a matter the AT&T/Verizon board of directors hope the auditors, using SAS99, will never find out about?

Too late. Audit scope increase, director-officer liability, insurance premiums, malpractice, and apparent problems with failing to detect ongoing illegal activity. Looks like someone ignored the multiple reports of internal control problems, and the board of directors and audit committee didn't really do a credible job of making sure:

The laws were followed;

The warrants were bonafide;

The procedures were followed;

The foreseeable use of that data was lawful;

That they removed themselves in a timely manner when they were aware that the data was being used to support illegal rendition, unlawful detentions, and other war crimes.

Can you say, "Big party for the auditors"?

Here's that for you: The planning activity for the audit engagement to find out how lazy the AT&T and Verizon board of directors were; and whether they did or did not blow off the auditors; or whether it was something else that got in their way:

How much money did the White House offer AT&T and Verizon board of directors to remain silent or engaged in alleged malfeasance?

Were the state-level governance rules and standards of conduct applicable to the boards of directors at AT&T, Verizon, and their auditors "not enough" to wake them up to the potential Geneva liabilities?

The funny thing is, this is all public information: ref, and the voters get to chew on this for the next 70 days.

How you liking this? [Crunch, crunch, crunch]

American corporate governance is worthless. Can’t trust them to follow the law, do what is right, or stand up when there's a sign of a problem. You require the world to do your jobs, and then you blame everyone else for you entrenched, abysmal failure to exercise your fiduciary duties.

And the likes of Viet Dinh wants to get away with Sarbanes Oxley. The very things that might act as a trip wire are to be thrown to the winds, and permit more abuse of power and arguably reckless disregard for international law. It doesn't appear as though any internal mechanism was going to break this cycle.

Americans: You have proven yourselves to be worthless, unreliable, and willing to move without regard to your freely chosen professional standards. It was your choice, but now you want to blame everyone else. Not going to buy that argument.

* * *

AT&T's lawsuit against the intermediaries is not believable. It appears to be more of a smokescreen to have us believe the role of intermediaries is something new. AT&T has long worked with similar intermediaries to transfer data from the fiber optic cables to the NSA.

If AT&T "doesn't know" who these intermediaries are, how do they know what information they did or didn't have access to? Any claim that the Social Security numbers were or weren't accessed could only be made if AT&T was certain who/when the access occurred; and what method/mode the access occurred.

AT&T cannot credibly claim that an uncertain intermediary did or did not do something. If AT&T does know that something is protected, then AT&T would know which firms did or did not have access to that data; and which had otherwise been denied, or were not provided access.

Lawsuits don't give AT&T standing; standing gives standing. This is like DoJ claiming that because it can sue Maine, that it has lawful standing to prevent the Maine PUC from enforcing the law.

AT&T has yet to explain how, if at all, the profits the AT&T intermediaries might be required to return to AT&T for providing this data to the NSA.

How does AT&T know the number of times that the intermediaries "fraudulently posed" as customers, unless there was specific information on these people? This doesn't add up. In order for AT&T to know that anyone was doing something wrong, someone would have to know there was a problem. This looks like AT&T is hoping to shift the attention from the billing-intermediary issue to an "unknown" external party; all the white NSA-AT&T cooperating through CALEA isn't given the court attention.

AT&T's story isn't adding up.