Skip to main content

I believe this 2001 FCC document, which you can read in full here explains EXACTLY how the US contracted with telecoms to data mine for the NSA via the DOJ, FBI, and the FCC.  The "definition of terms" and wording is simply stunning.

The Agreement is a pdf so I can't copy and paste it for you.

This agreement is with Telstra Corporation Limited, Pacific Century Cyber Works (PCCW, and Reach Ltd, the Department of Justice and the FBI, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement."

It is astounding to note that Telstra signed this Agreement on April 10, 2001
before September 11th, before the Patriot Act, and before all the other legislative actions in response to the hienous attacks of 911.

We can logically assume that the Agreement was in the works prior to this date.  

What is VERY INTERESTING to note is that the CEO of Telstra was listed on the George W. Bush for President ORGANIZATION list seen here, so Telstra had a relationship with George W Bush BEFORE THE ELECTION of 2001!

I want you to read this 2001 agreement.  Knowing the Bush DOJ, Gonzalez, one might assume this is what the agreements with other worldwide telecoms looked like, too.  I believe this is the blue print for Agreements between foreign telecoms and the USA requiring telecoms to gather and store customer activity.  If you read the document you will learn the process to do so.

How could this telecom surveillance agreement between the companies above and the US DOJ and FBI (on behalf of NSA) legally be in the works in April, 2001?

Reach signed this document in October, 2001, and the DOJ and FBI signed the Agreement on November 29, 2001.

I tried to track down how this could be possible and found a few documents.

This 1995 Senate record is quite revealing.  The word "surveillance" is used:

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with--

          (A) a court order directing such assistance signed by
        the authorizing judge, or

          (B) a certification in writing by a person specified
        in section 2581(7) of this title or the Attorney
        General of the United States that no warrant or court
        order is required by law, that all statutory
        requirements have been met, and that the specified
        assistance is required, setting forth the period of
        time during which the provision of the information,
        facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and
        specifying the information, facilities, or technical
        assistance required.

No provider of [wire or electronic
        communication service,] wire, electronic, or digital
        communication service, officer, employee, or agent
        thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified
        person shall disclose the existence of any interception
        or surveillance or the device
used to accomplish the
        interception or surveillance with respect to which the
        person has been furnished an order or certification
        under this subparagraph, except as may otherwise be
        required by legal process and then only after prior
        notification to the Attorney General or to the
        principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any
        political subdivision of a State, as may be
        appropriate.

Any such disclosure, shall render such
        person liable for the civil damages provided for in
        section 2520.
No cause of action shall lie in any court
        against any provider of [wire or electronic
        communication service,] wire, electronic, or digital
        communication service, its officers, employees, or
        agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person
        for providing information, facilities, or assistance in
        accordance with the terms of a court order or
        certification under this chapter.

A quick search of Passed TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 Laws didn't result in finding this language again.  The above was produced in the Republican-controlled Senate during the 104th Congress action.

PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE/NSC-63 - SUBJECT: Critical Infrastructure Protection

Because of our military strength, future enemies, whether nations, groups or individuals, may seek to harm us in non- traditional ways including attacks within the United States. Because our economy is increasingly reliant upon interdependent and cyber-supported infrastructures, non-traditional attacks on our infrastructure and information systems may be capable of significantly harming both our military power and our economy.
1995 - EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 - CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.
Perhaps ironic in retrospect, at least President Clinton et al was thinking about "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government.

Key in the relationships with DOJ, FBI, and NSA are authorizations required by the FCC for a telecom to operate.  Each telecom, in order to communicate into the US has to apply using a 214 Application.  If you click on this link you can learn more about FCC 214s.

The question is:  

Are these telecoms required to enter similar agreements with the DOJ & FBI on behalf of NSA?

The good news is that the FCC has to notify the public.  Personally, I wouldn't have thought of scouring FCC records to see which telecoms might have signed similar agreements.

For example, here is the FCC page pertaining to Reach and the File Number: ITC-214-20001228-00771 mentioned in the Agreement:

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU FCC SELECTED APPLICATION LISTING BY FILE NUMBER REPORT WR07 - Tue Jul 23 13:39:46 2013 File Number: ITC-214-20001228-00771

Description: Application for authority to provide facilities-based and resale services between the United States and permissible international points except Kiribati. Applicant agrees to be classified as dominant on the U.S.-Australia route and the U.S.-Hong Kong
You can spend some time in this FCC compilation of documents pertaining to Reach.  But it is interesting to note that Kiribati may have declined to play along.

What is also fascinating to note is the law firm representing Reach, VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. the law firm where Alberto Gonzales was a partner before becoming a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court and later Bush's Attorney General.

The FCC actually provides long lists of telecom reports called International Authorizations Actions Taken

Here are links to a few, so you can get a gist of what information the FCC makes public:

February, 2012 - International Authorizations Actions Taken PN

There is reference to Reach in this 2001 report.

May, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS GRANTED

February, 2004 - STREAMLINED INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR FILING

Related Content for Fiber Deployment - Reports for dates 01/01/1999 - 12/25/2007

A team of investigators with a budget could use this FCC info to track the NSA programs quite possibly.

Here's another question that arises:  

How long were the plans, at least in this Agreement's care, in process before 2001?

Personally, I'm thankful Snowden dropped the dime!

AN ASIDE:  People keep saying:  OK, we know this, now what are we going to do about it.  

My answer:  Journalism. The media has completely dropped the ball and not dug into the Telstra story.  We may not be Matt Taibbe, Amy Goodman, or Bill Moyer, and we certainly don't have the budgets and staff

BUT WE CAN DIG AND REPORT.  Every little bit helps.

Also, people drop in here alot with the help of twitter.  You, the community, can help dig a little deeper with a diary that exposes some aspect of information being hidden or obfuscated by the media.

If you see a topic, like the info in this diary that is under reported, and you have some spare time, you can contribute.  NO INFORMATION IS TOO SMALL.  Perhaps you can dig and share additional information in the comments section below.  This will help others interesting in uncovering and exposing not just what is happening but HOW.

I'm certainly not a trained journalist, but my passion to help people see what we have to fix is what drives me to spend a few hours everyday trying to add to the information the media refuses to research and report, with few exceptions.

Well, time to wrap up today.

Thanks for dropping in.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for this. (4+ / 0-)

    FWIW, you can convert PDF files to either Word or HTML.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:04:10 PM PDT

    •  Looks like AT & T is on top of the NSA Telecom Net (5+ / 0-)

      I received a different document via email.  I'm on a list now!!

      Anyway, in a huge doc, this was included

      In the Matter of                    

      AT&T Corp., British Telecommunications, plc,

      VLT Co. L.L.C., Violet License Co. LLC, and

      TNV [Bahamas] Limited Applications   

      For Grant of Section 214 Authority, Modification   
      of Authorizations and Assignment of Licenses in   

      SES-ASG-19981110-01655 (2) Connection With the Proposed Joint Venture Between  

      31.     AT&T and its global partners:

      AT&T provides global seamless services through its AT&T-Unisource Communications Services (AUCS) joint venture with Unisource (which is owned by PTT Telecom Netherlands (KPN), Telia, and Swisscom) and WorldPartners (consisting of Unisource, KDD, Telstra, and Singapore Telecom).  

      AT&T is the exclusive distributor of AUCS and Worldpartners services in the United States.  

      AT&T also acquired IBM's global data networks in December 1998.  AT&T states that approximately two-thirds of the assets it acquired from IBM relate to switching and related facilities located in the United States.  AT&T also states that, in contrast to the large global MNC accounts that it serves through Unisource and WorldPartners, IBM's customers are primarily small and mid-sized corporate customers that purchase on average only tens of thousands of dollars of service annually.    

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our public corporations have ALWAYS been (6+ / 0-)

    focused on promoting commercial interests. The Republican mantra about running government like a business and, at the same time, keeping government out of business was a grand deception designed to disguise the fraternal relationship between commerce and legislation.
    When Bill Clinton talked about protecting intellectual property from foreign interests and proprietary and copyrighted matter from espionage it sounded like a novel 21st Century enterprise instead of a continuation of what the federal agencies had been providing all along, simply because it came out of the mouth of a Democrat. That Bill Clinton sold his soul to Rockefeller and his Council of the Americas didn't become obvious until after his "boyhood" chum McLarty left as chief-of-staff, the Free Trade Agreement having been done, and moved to the Council of the Americas and his subsequent partnership with Henry Kissinger.
    Clinton may have not started out in that camp, but when he needed money, he bought into the David Rockefeller agenda.
    These people aren't necessarily antagonistic towards human rights. They're just exploiters and aim to take their opportunities where they can. They are not into sharing and caring, or even equitable exchange.
    That electronic warfare would seem attractive to them, is to be expected. Electronic warfare is surreptitious and appeals to people greatly concerned about protecting their own skin.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:05:38 PM PDT

    •  The Power Brokers all belong to the same clubs (4+ / 0-)

      I'm so disgusted.

      Just for fun, here's an interactive map to track Tim McCarty III

      He worked for the Obama 2012 Campaign.  Obama is just a puppet, or so it seems.  Bill Clinto II, Bush III

      http://www.muckety.com/...

      What will it take to shake the tenticles of the CFR zealots?

      A national strike?  An international strike?

      Dismal

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:21:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It may be that groupism is essential to power-lust (0+ / 0-)

        After all, to be powerful, one has to subordinate someone else. One can be creative by oneself. One can love by oneself. Love spills over. Hate destroys.
        Perhaps people who hate feel isolated and insecure when they have no-one to hate. Perhaps people who love can exist quite contentedly in solitude.

        Do people feel lonely because they are hateful, or do they hate because they feel alone? Which preconceived notion defines their state?
        I prefer preconceived notion to prejudice because prejudice referse to a pre-emptive judgement, before all the evidence is in, and I'm not sure there's any judgement involved in the attitudes some people bring with them. Also, preconceived notions aren't necessarily negative. When they are manifest as enthusiasm by fans or groupists, we tend not to notice as much.
        Groupism = an irrational attraction or antagonism. For some people it may be the essence of social behavior. Imagine saying to yourself, "I am social because I hate/love other people." Compare that to "I am social because interdependence is chracteristic of humans and I am human." The first is a self-centered definition that is self-contained; the second derives from a connected perspective, of the individual as part of a whole.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, you are really going gangbusters (2+ / 0-)

    and I am seriously in awe.

    Our problem now is that WE fear our pols, they do NOT fear us - that needs changing!

    by glitterscale on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 04:15:35 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site