If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   You think your telephone fees and charges are outrageous? Check out what Verizon is charging the NSA to spy on you   (usatoday.com) divider line 67
    More: Interesting, NSA, Verizon, U.S. Cellular, Christopher Soghoian, profit center, intelligence assessment, Perkins Coie, fees  
•       •       •

12096 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2013 at 7:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-11 03:10:42 AM
How many levels of evil is that?
 
2013-07-11 04:43:58 AM
Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it
 
2013-07-11 05:01:41 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it


In which case, they're charging ME.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-07-11 06:01:58 AM
It used to be LE would come into the central office and put a recording device on the persons copper landline. Then they built locked rooms that cabled out to the main switch.

Those rooms went dark ~10 years ago. Curious why Verizon and others can justify a cost for these actions.
 
2013-07-11 07:35:13 AM
What  subby is trying to say is: NSA charges us to spy on us.
 
2013-07-11 07:36:58 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it


In before the "meh, that's what they are charging the government, fortunately I dont have to pay those fees" crowd.

I am paying verizon $775 a month to have the nsa spy on me and another $100 for cell service and another $200/mo for fios. Why dont I own verizon stock again?
 
2013-07-11 07:37:37 AM
Land of the fees
 
2013-07-11 07:40:02 AM
So they should just pass a law making it so that every month the citizenship must fill out forms and let the government know what they're doing, saying, and to who, plus a $10 filing fee. They can get it all done for a profit. Typical government bureaucratic waste.
 
2013-07-11 07:40:19 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it


How about we cut out the middleman, and I pay Verizon directly to NOT let anyone wiretap me?

/then it would be blackmail, and we could throw the gastards in jail
 
2013-07-11 07:43:27 AM

loser0: How about we cut out the middleman, and I pay Verizon directly to NOT let anyone wiretap me?


Or..How'bout they pay me $775/mo directly and I let them wiretap me? That would be some nice beer money right there.
 
2013-07-11 07:45:17 AM
So we're borrowing money from China in order to finance spying on Americans.

Sounds about right.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-07-11 07:46:07 AM
Read past the intro. Retail wiretaps are expensive. Wholesale data mining is cheap or free.

This is not new. Telecom equipment makers don't bundle spying features into their systems because warrant / subpoena compliance costs are only billable to the government if there is a separate line item. (Or that used to be the case.)  Your data has been for sale at a price for a long time.
 
2013-07-11 07:52:23 AM
Umm are people just trying to be outaged...this isn't about the NSA this about wiretaps... Of course there is a fee, but usually it is charged to the person at trial...
 
2013-07-11 07:57:50 AM

loser0: MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it

How about we cut out the middleman, and I pay Verizon directly to NOT let anyone wiretap me?

/then it would be blackmail, and we could throw the gastards in jail


I remember when I had a landline that there was a $5/month fee for not having your name listed on the white pages.

Also, there is a privacy guard on domain name registrations.
 
2013-07-11 07:59:47 AM
ATT: 325 + 10/day = 625 per monthish
Verizon: 775 first month, 500 each month after

Bottom line: it's cheaper to spy on an ATT customer in the short-hand, but more expensive in the long-run.

/I am so using this question next year with my Algebra students
 
2013-07-11 08:01:02 AM

abhorrent1: loser0: How about we cut out the middleman, and I pay Verizon directly to NOT let anyone wiretap me?

Or..How'bout they pay me $775/mo directly and I let them wiretap me? That would be some nice beer money right there.


How 'bout they pay me $775/hr directly to spy on other people for them. That would be some nice mansion money right there.
 
2013-07-11 08:01:55 AM
I think for my $775 I should get free unlimited G4 mobile wireless from those stingy bastards at Verizon. Plus the NSA guys would get to watch the video I download too so it would be win-win.
 
2013-07-11 08:02:02 AM

loser0: How about we cut out the middleman, and I pay Verizon directly to NOT let anyone wiretap me?


How much would you charge to not rehearse?

You couldn't afford it!

/Marx Bros.
 
2013-07-11 08:03:04 AM

powhound: Bottom line: it's cheaper to spy on an ATT customer in the short-hand, but more expensive in the long-run.

/I am so using this question next year with my Algebra students


One time $325 activation fee for AT&T.  Then it's about $300/month after that.  In the long run (and the short run) Verizon costs more.

/you teach math?
 
2013-07-11 08:03:45 AM
As a technical person and a taxpayer I read about the prices being charged and this bit

"Prather said phone companies have the technical ability to turn on a switch, duplicate call information and pass it along to law enforcement with little effort."

and I have to agree with the guy. You can design a system like this, include the authentication system and have it up and running within a day or two. Add in parameters for how long you generate the data and then sit back and use that same system for years with only the occasional security patch and audit. The amount of work this system would need is absurdly low.

The amount of money law enforcement gets charged is routinely $50,000 per wiretap. That's the equivalent of charging everyone a dollar to go across a toll to go across a bridge in downtown Chicago that was built in the 1920 and has paid for itself back in the 1930's.

We've gotten to the point anymore where we have surveillance just because we can, and because we should. That being said, we need some kind of roadblocks to prevent our society from becoming a complete police state. These prices, which are realistically hundreds to possibly /thousands/ of times higher than the telcos actual expenses may be the only thing keeping us from from an even more widespread surveillance state.
 
2013-07-11 08:05:50 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it


+1
It's like how government healthcare is "free".    Economics, how does it work?
 
2013-07-11 08:06:34 AM

OscarTamerz: I think for my $775 I should get free unlimited G4 mobile wireless from those stingy bastards at Verizon. Plus the NSA guys would get to watch the video I download too so it would be win-win.


Then they would be perverts too!
 
2013-07-11 08:09:12 AM
Great. Now terrorists will chose their service provider based on how quickly it will bankrupt the government.

Hmmm.... That's...So what will it require to be put on a must-wiretab list?
And will that mean, that all phonenumbers belonging to that person have to be monitored?

Then having 10 phones, that you regularly talk about bombs on, will drain the coffers for the equivalent of two average salaries...

/Can someone patent a new form of terrorism or is it too 'Dogbert'?
 
2013-07-11 08:09:58 AM

MemeSlave: Economics, how does it work?


It's got something to do with the gravitational pull of the moon, I'm pretty sure.
 
2013-07-11 08:11:25 AM
Does this mean that if the police want to interview me as a witness I can charge them $100/hr for the privilege?
 
2013-07-11 08:13:04 AM
Now they now gone too far!

July 10, 2013 - U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Big Shift On Civil Liberties vs. Counter-Terrorism


American voters say 55 - 34 percent that Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
In a massive shift in attitudes, voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 14, 2010, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country.
LOL@ humans
 
2013-07-11 08:18:15 AM

The Muthaship: powhound: Bottom line: it's cheaper to spy on an ATT customer in the short-hand, but more expensive in the long-run.

/I am so using this question next year with my Algebra students

One time $325 activation fee for AT&T.  Then it's about $300/month after that.  In the long run (and the short run) Verizon costs more.

/you teach math?


Yes, but I never claimed waking up early was my strong suit. How I long for that "delete stupid post" button that doesn't exist.

/point is, it's still a fun question for my little darlings
//now, on to the coffee
 
2013-07-11 08:19:10 AM

tbhouston: Umm are people just trying to be outaged...this isn't about the NSA this about wiretaps... Of course there is a fee, but usually it is charged to the person at trial...


But "free" to those who aren't "doing anything wrong."
 
2013-07-11 08:20:10 AM

powhound: How I long for that "delete stupid post" button that doesn't exist.


Happens to the best of us.
 
2013-07-11 08:28:53 AM

powhound: The Muthaship: powhound: Bottom line: it's cheaper to spy on an ATT customer in the short-hand, but more expensive in the long-run.

/I am so using this question next year with my Algebra students

One time $325 activation fee for AT&T.  Then it's about $300/month after that.  In the long run (and the short run) Verizon costs more.

/you teach math?

Yes, but I never claimed waking up early was my strong suit. How I long for that "delete stupid post" button that doesn't exist.

/point is, it's still a fun question for my little darlings
//now, on to the coffee


Kids are already in school and most of them haven't even had coffee. Way to be a dick to your students. Dick.
 
2013-07-11 08:30:28 AM
onyxruby: These prices, which are realistically hundreds to possibly /thousands/ of times higher than the telcos actual expenses...

That's what kills me about it.  State run telcom would actually be preferable ...might as well.Fark Verizon, Time-Warner, etc... what they charge for what they provide is ludicrous
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-11 08:32:11 AM
www.charteryachtparadigm.com
The sloop snoop NSA, the Verizon CEO's new Yacht!
 
2013-07-11 08:36:48 AM
Verizon is far and away the worst telecommunications company.  They charge people like they have a monopoly when they have about a dozen competitors.  It's a wonder anybody stays with them.
 
2013-07-11 08:40:13 AM

imontheinternet: Verizon is far and away the worst telecommunications company.  They charge people like they have a monopoly when they have about a dozen competitors.  It's a wonder anybody stays with them.


In lots of areas, they sort of do.  I hate them, but where my business is, I have no other real option.
 
2013-07-11 08:40:56 AM

real_headhoncho: How many levels of evil is that?


Well Honestly, I'm torn:
On the one hand I'd rather the FBI and NSA just stopped doing this because it's fundamanetally wrong and does extreme violence to American's cherished values such as our right to privacy.

But on the other that basically ain't gonna happen because there are way too many on the HIll and in Government who respond "sounds fine to me" when offered Franklin's famous propostion of trading liberty for temporary security.   So maybe where ethics and civics have failed, the almighty dollar can succeed.  If telcos make it extremely expensive to get this information, maybe agency budget constraints will cause there to be controls put on the junior G-men who want a massive data dump every time they want to take down a kid slinging E at a local nightclub.
 
2013-07-11 08:44:40 AM
Great! Ultimately I'm paying to have myself spied on.
 
2013-07-11 08:47:05 AM

PreMortem: It used to be LE would come into the central office and put a recording device on the persons copper landline. Then they built locked rooms that cabled out to the main switch.

Those rooms went dark ~10 years ago. Curious why Verizon and others can justify a cost for these actions.


Are you familiar with how the government has been on an outsourcing trend lately? Hiring just one knowledgeable tech can reach 120k/yr in the DC area. This way, the CIA goes to someone who is already collecting the information and simply buys it from them.
 
2013-07-11 08:47:18 AM
The only thing truly outrageous:

bestofthe80s.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-11 08:48:06 AM
My wife and I don't use Verizon, we have our telephone network, because, frankly, we're better than you people.

I also don't own a TeeVee and I use a non-ironic rotary phone.

Pretty much King Sh*T of F*ck Island over here.
 
2013-07-11 08:49:10 AM
There's something perversely poetic about this.
 
2013-07-11 08:49:54 AM

The Muthaship: imontheinternet: Verizon is far and away the worst telecommunications company.  They charge people like they have a monopoly when they have about a dozen competitors.  It's a wonder anybody stays with them.

In lots of areas, they sort of do.  I hate them, but where my business is, I have no other real option.


Other companies will work with you.  They have portable antennae that connect to the internet and act like short range cell towers.  I had to get one for my place.  Even if it costs a few bucks a month, you save a ton compared to Verizon.
 
2013-07-11 08:51:21 AM

imontheinternet: Other companies will work with you.


That is cool, I didn't know about that.  But, it's a trucking company and we deliver over a wide (and largely rural) area that has sh*tty coverage from all the other carriers.
 
2013-07-11 08:52:26 AM
"Can you hear me now?"
 
2013-07-11 08:58:45 AM

ChipNASA: My wife and I don't use Verizon, we have our telephone network, because, frankly, we're better than you people.

I also don't own a TeeVee and I use a non-ironic rotary phone.

Pretty much King Sh*T of F*ck Island over here.


Oh, you.
 
2013-07-11 09:03:30 AM
So, GOP.  Here's a great opportunity for you to slash the budget.  Whaddaya say?
 
2013-07-11 09:04:13 AM
Think about google, their entire business model is to give away software in order to collect this data, why the hell should they turn it over to anyone for free?
 
2013-07-11 09:08:48 AM

The Muthaship: imontheinternet: Other companies will work with you.

That is cool, I didn't know about that.  But, it's a trucking company and we deliver over a wide (and largely rural) area that has sh*tty coverage from all the other carriers.


Yeah, that makes things a little more complicated.
 
2013-07-11 09:30:04 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, technically... that's still charging ME.

/unless the CIA is sharing a cut of their drug money to cover it


Charging us to violate our 4th amendment.
 
2013-07-11 09:58:54 AM
It's not illegal if someone gets an invoice, right?

Right?
Right?
 
2013-07-11 10:07:39 AM
So does any of this do a damn thing for a cash bought burner?

Hell Metro PCS does not require an ID or credit card for service. My caller ID once said I was getting a call from BIG DAAAADAY.

I doubt that was on his birth certificate or social security card.
 
2013-07-11 10:28:07 AM
They're the phone company. They don't care.

asimplerhapsody.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-11 10:37:45 AM
berylman: : These prices, which are realistically hundreds to possibly /thousands/ of times higher than the telcos actual expenses...

That's what kills me about it.  State run telcom would actually be preferable ...might as well.Fark Verizon, Time-Warner, etc... what they charge for what they provide is ludicrous


OxnRuby: That is a truly terrifying thought.  Like, irrational monster under the bed thought.  When the rapacious greed of the telcos is somehow the hero of the story, e'r'budy needs to look what's goin' round.

berylman: I would love for a lawyer to chart out a way to use the Constitution's requirement that the government run a postal service to argue for nationalization of the telcos in the public interest of reliable and non-exploitative service.  Based up on the quality of service (poor by world standards, see S. Korea), price paid (high by world standards considering the quality of service), and profits generated by their oligopolistic system, I think there's an argument to be made.
 
2013-07-11 11:05:43 AM
Nice to know someone's making a killing off the death of civil liberties.
 
2013-07-11 11:20:39 AM
I wonder if you can somehow use this information as a tax deduction?I mean if Rmoney can deduct $70K for a horse, I should be able to deduct under the Government Sponsored Surveillance Tax Credit®
 
2013-07-11 11:24:22 AM
it would be cheaper to cc the nsa on all of our texts
now if they would give us a number to do this...
i for one do not care what they do because they will do it anyway
 
2013-07-11 11:26:34 AM

The Muthaship: powhound: Bottom line: it's cheaper to spy on an ATT customer in the short-hand, but more expensive in the long-run.

/I am so using this question next year with my Algebra students

One time $325 activation fee for AT&T.  Then it's about $300/month after that.  In the long run (and the short run) Verizon costs more.

/you teach math?


this.
god help america
 
2013-07-11 11:47:13 AM

hinten: What  subby is trying to say is: NSA charges us to spy on us.


Well, at least they haven't started charging us for our own interogation
www.letoilemagazine.com

"Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. "
 
2013-07-11 12:40:30 PM
Submitter realizes WE'RE paying for that shiat, right?
 
2013-07-11 12:48:41 PM
Law enforcement has had the ability to tap your phone for as long as telephones have existed. To read some of the hysterical comments here you would think that no one knew this before Snowden's big reveal. Even worse, people seem to be assuming that because they can tap your phone, then they must be listening to everybody's phone calls, even though that is mathematically impossible (virtually the entire population would have to be employed in the sole task of listening to each other's phone calls).

Do you make phone calls to known Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen or Pakistan? If so, there is a good chance that the government is listening to your phone calls. This is a good thing. I want them to do that. Apparently many of the posters here see this as an egregious violation of the terrorist's constitutional rights and want the government to respect their privacy. You are entitled to your opinion, but then don't complain when the government fails to stop the next terrorist attack.

This business of collecting meta-data is a separate issue, and I don't know if that is justifiable. Eventually the courts will have to decide if that type of information has fourth amendment protection. But keep in mind, that is the same kind of information your email provider has been selling to marketers for years.
 
2013-07-11 12:51:42 PM

MythDragon: Well, at least they haven't started charging us for our own interogation


Oh the naivete of youth.
 
2013-07-11 12:59:29 PM

imontheinternet: Verizon is far and away the worst telecommunications company.  They charge people like they have a monopoly when they have about a dozen competitors.  It's a wonder anybody stays with them.


CSB:

I recently bought a winter home in AZ (I'm Canadian.  Shocker I know).  I needed a phone for the alarm company so I went to Verizon.  After about 30 minutes of paperwork and BS they tell me they can't sell me a phone line because they can't verify my identity.  "What would they need" I enquired.  A valid US Passport and/or US driver's license. "How about a Canadian Passport" I asked.  Sorry... that isn't good enough.

So I asked them if they really meant that to get their crappy $20 a month phone service that I would have to quit my job in Canada, apply for US citizenship, take the exam, pass, renounce my Canadian Citizenship (giving up my excellent and free healthcare) get a drivers licence and a passport and then re-apply for a $20 a month phone service?

And the guy on the other end of the call said....

wait for it...


"If you want a Verizon phone, yes".

Cox had me hooked up in less than a hour.
 
2013-07-11 01:02:00 PM
 
2013-07-11 01:04:28 PM

revrendjim: Law enforcement has had the ability to tap your phone for as long as telephones have existed. To read some of the hysterical comments here you would think that no one knew this before Snowden's big reveal. Even worse, people seem to be assuming that because they can tap your phone, then they must be listening to everybody's phone calls, even though that is mathematically impossible (virtually the entire population would have to be employed in the sole task of listening to each other's phone calls).

Do you make phone calls to known Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen or Pakistan? If so, there is a good chance that the government is listening to your phone calls. This is a good thing. I want them to do that. Apparently many of the posters here see this as an egregious violation of the terrorist's constitutional rights and want the government to respect their privacy. You are entitled to your opinion, but then don't complain when the government fails to stop the next terrorist attack.

This business of collecting meta-data is a separate issue, and I don't know if that is justifiable. Eventually the courts will have to decide if that type of information has fourth amendment protection. But keep in mind, that is the same kind of information your email provider has been selling to marketers for years.


And so, because you used the term Al-Qaeda in your post and the NSA's virtual ears just perked up, you have absolutely no problem with them tapping your phone and listing in to everything you say.

And in the future when the US Govt. du Jour decides that posters on FARK are the real current enemy of the state (see: Nixon Years) you have no problem with them tapping your phone?

You are the type of person who is going to destroy your country.  The "terrorists" just have to sit back and let your fear do it for them.
 
2013-07-11 01:34:37 PM

John the Magnificent: revrendjim: Law enforcement has had the ability to tap your phone for as long as telephones have existed. To read some of the hysterical comments here you would think that no one knew this before Snowden's big reveal. Even worse, people seem to be assuming that because they can tap your phone, then they must be listening to everybody's phone calls, even though that is mathematically impossible (virtually the entire population would have to be employed in the sole task of listening to each other's phone calls).

Do you make phone calls to known Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen or Pakistan? If so, there is a good chance that the government is listening to your phone calls. This is a good thing. I want them to do that. Apparently many of the posters here see this as an egregious violation of the terrorist's constitutional rights and want the government to respect their privacy. You are entitled to your opinion, but then don't complain when the government fails to stop the next terrorist attack.

This business of collecting meta-data is a separate issue, and I don't know if that is justifiable. Eventually the courts will have to decide if that type of information has fourth amendment protection. But keep in mind, that is the same kind of information your email provider has been selling to marketers for years.

And so, because you used the term Al-Qaeda in your post and the NSA's virtual ears just perked up, you have absolutely no problem with them tapping your phone and listing in to everything you say.

And in the future when the US Govt. du Jour decides that posters on FARK are the real current enemy of the state (see: Nixon Years) you have no problem with them tapping your phone?

You are the type of person who is going to destroy your country.  The "terrorists" just have to sit back and let your fear do it for them.


If those things were happening then you would have a point.
 
2013-07-11 05:31:37 PM
Time to sue them then.
 
2013-07-11 05:41:07 PM
From TFA:
 "They were monstrously more than what the telecoms could ever hope to charge for similar services in an open, competitive market, and the costs charged to the governments by telecoms did not represent reasonable prices as defined in the code of federal regulations," the lawsuit said.


Oh, that's nice, Mr Prosecutor.  Maybe we can establish an open, competitive market in wiretaps.  I'm sure a lot of people would like to tap your phone if it were an actual free and open market.  I'm also not aware of anybody selling things at cost.  There's always a profit margin if you want to make money.  This is the entire point of running a business.
 
2013-07-11 09:41:23 PM

oryx: Great! Ultimately I'm paying to have myself spied on.


In the words of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, "You'll PAY to know what you really think!"
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report