dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
Yahoo issues DMCA takedown, ensuring even more attention...
by Karl Bode 02:22PM Monday Dec 07 2009
Last week privacy activist Chris Soghoian wrote a blog entry detailing how carriers share or sell user data to the government. While Sprint's system of sharing GPS data saw the brunt of the publicity, Soghoian's article also discussed how he filed a FOIA request for info on the sharing practices of companies like Verizon and Yahoo. Yahoo and Verizon denied the request for access to how much they charge the government for access to user data, claiming the details of such programs would "shock and confuse" customers.

Interestingly, Techdirt notes that this week those pricing lists have been leaked anyway, and a slew of documents relating to the issue have now been posted to the whistleblower website Cryptome. The website has posted both Verizon (pdf) and Yahoo's (pdf) user data sharing and pricing guides for law enforcement. Sprint's pricing breakdown is here:
quote:
•Basic subscriber records: approx. $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter
•Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx. $20 for a group with a
single moderator
•Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx. $30-$40 per user
•Contents of Groups: approx. $40 - $80 per group
Anyone really shocked or confused?

Needless to say, Yahoo isn't too happy with the whole thing and has filed a DMCA takedown request to try and get the document pulled from the website. Cryptome's response? They've simply now posted the takedown request itself (pdf) to the website, along with their e-mail discussion with Yahoo's lawyers. Verizon has yet to filed their own takedown request -- but that could be because the Verizon document is from 2002.

view:
topics flat nest 

Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

Why?

Privacy is long gone. I'm just curious why these companies are allowed to charge law enforcement agencies for access? There should be a law to prevent them from making profit from this.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

Re: Why?


They would simply claim it is only to cover cost, and not profit.


nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:17
And the Verizon pricing info in the document is over 6 years old - real relevant today....How about some current 'leaked' documents?

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

Re: Why?

said by nycdave:

And the Verizon pricing info in the document is over 6 years old - real relevant today....How about some current 'leaked' documents?
I don't think the price is all that important, but what is important, is that it happens so often, they need a price list in the first place.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/6 ··· 71/4f240

nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:17

Re: Why?

I know that, but the leaked Verizon document is a bit dated for this discussion. And all common carriers have to provide LEA's pricing/contact information for the various requests made (CALEA requirements) - I don't see what this document has to do with 'selling user data' to the government.
Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast
They sell the info because that changes the laws regarding how the government can obtain and handle information. As long as the government is paying for it then the rules are significantly different than if the government is seizing the information in some way.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

Re: Why?

Technically you're paying for it.

skuv

@rr.com
Government agencies charge fees to have some documents accessed and copied to be sent to you.

Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires?

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Why?

And if you read the PDF's involved you would see that they aren't charging for EMERGENCY actions and info related to barricaded suspects; 911 calls; etc. They are charging for historical records that would be used LATER in legal proceedings(both criminal & civil).

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by skuv :

Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires?
Why should the government be able to buy the data? What is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the government can exercise a commercial end-run around it?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Why?

said by NormanS:

said by skuv :

Why should a business not be allowed to recoup the expense of looking up and gathering the information that law enforcement requires?
Why should the government be able to buy the data? What is the point of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if the government can exercise a commercial end-run around it?
Warrants are only needed for SOME of your private data based on specific laws. There is NO LAW that protects all your data from government scrutiny(i.e. a generic right to privacy). Especially when you have turned that data over or have put the data in the hands of 3rd parties.

There are specific laws protecting phone records; library rentals; movie rentals; health records; etc. But there is NO general right to privacy(at least according to SC decisions), no matter what the 4th Amendment says. There are so many court decisions limiting the right to privacy, it is a swiss cheese of an amendment. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ame ··· titution
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Why?

I already knew that. I was hoping somebody would comment on the nature of our government, though: "Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations."

We have been downgraded from, "people", to "corporate chattel".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

2 edits

Re: Why?

said by NormanS:

We have been downgraded from, "people", to "corporate chattel".
I don't see that improving without amending the 14th amendment.

That amendment was ratified 1866 and was a hasty measure to extend the BoR to state and private infringement; to give the feds authority to enforce the BoR as states and localities attempted to reinstitute slavery through laws which stripped freed slaves of rights.

After the Civil War, courts upheld the long-standing tradition that the BoR only barred Congress from infringing rights. States were free to do what they wanted; victims had to look for relief there.

The Feds had no jurisdiction because citizens were citizens of states (not the federal government). They had nothing to enforce even if they had jurisdiction (the BoR was a bar against Congress, not state legislatures). They passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act. But, the courts ruled it was a Dead Letter.

Anyway, the clause of the 14th causing so many modern problems says:

quote:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This was intended to give the Feds jurisdiction. (A subsequent clause intended to extend BoR protections to state actions.).

However, as the industrial revolution began 2-3 decades later, with corporations gaining power, the Court ruled that corporations are citizens due to the fact that they are legally (although fictionally) "persons" created by legislative fiat. They are "born" legislatively and treated by the law as real "persons." They enjoy the rights of naturally born persons.

They have the same freedom of speech as you or I. The same protection against search and seizure.

The other problem with that clause is that it makes us unique in the world regarding foreign visitors. If a child is born here, he is instantly a citizen. Most countries have a defined process where the citizenship of a child is based upon the citizenship of the parents, and a child may elect to become a citizen of the country after so many years.

So, that clause contributes greatly to our illegal immigration (and, unintended naturalization of the product of both legal and illegal immigrants).

But, it still gets back to how the public is content. These things which are a problem to a few are accepted as the status quo by the vast majority of Americans who are busy working as day laborers to corporations in "at will" states; going home enjoying whatever their consumer-Soma is (video games, reality shows, MP3 downloads).

These laws (or lack thereof) achieve legitimacy due to the consent of the governed. To you and I it looks like a problem. But, nothing will ever change unless there is a serious, even-handed movement to amend the 14th Amendment. Not a bunch of pitchforking Lyndon LaRouche followers, who sound like Charlie Manson. ("Acid's goovey; kill the pigs.").

Mark
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
Easier way of saying it, the only right to privacy you have it whats in your brain. No hooking up to the electroshock machine with a lie detector until the right answer comes out.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit
said by Anonymous:

I'm just curios why these companies are allowed to charge law enforcement agencies for access?
Because you use them without requiring any guarantee they wont?

When I post to Yahoo Finance groups I'm met with a warning that I'm not anonymous and Yahoo will reveal information about me in accordance with their ToS.

I never looked at the ToS. I assume it's broadly worded to give Yahoo the advantage. Especially considering it's a free service. So, I assume I'm really not anonymous in the most literal sense.

IMO, the vast majority of people don't care about something like this. It's just a few privacy activists. And, that's why Yahoo, et. al. don't have any problems.

I think your only solution is to vote with your feet. If you don't like Yahoo's policies, don't use them. I can't see having a public law to control all business, placing them under statutory liability, for a problem most people evidently don't believe is a problem.

Mark

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Why?

said by amigo_boy:

I think your only solution is to vote with your feet. If you don't like Yahoo's policies, don't use them.
I can't. Not unless I bail from my ISP (official name: 'at&t Yahoo! HSI). Hmmm. Come to think of it, maybe now it the time to investigate a switch to Speakeasy, or Sonic. DSL Extreme is out of the question; they are a cozily in bed with Google as AT&T is with Yahoo!.
I can't see having a public law to control all business, placing them under statutory liability, for a problem most people evidently don't believe is a problem.
I can. Or, maybe, let's just repeal the U.S. Constitution, and replace it with a multi-corporate TOS!

Born in the U.S.A., read the U.S.A. TOS.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit
The FTC is looking to beef up privacy rules online:
»news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2009120 ··· acyrules
The FTC will look for ways to enforce privacy standards that are "better for consumers and fair to businesses as well," he said.

Some U.S. lawmakers have also talked about introducing comprehensive privacy legislation by early next year.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: FTC; Congress looking at enhanced privacy rules/laws

Privacy rules mean nothing. Lets talk about data retention. Everything is accessible through a subpoena. Sadly you can't recover the contents of previous phone calls unless your the NSA. I've tried in a court case. Only call records, not contents :-(

docball

join:2003-03-25
Key West, FL
The good news is there are still people and websites willing to put their neck on the line to ensure the public stays informed.
Good job boys

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

You can't copyright FACTS!

The postings are FACTS. Their is nothing on the list deserving of copyright. The owner of the website knows this, which is why he's basically telling them to f*ck off. You cannot copyright a FACT. A price list is a FACT, not a derivative work.
--
Republicans : Ignorant, illiterate, whacked out hillbillies with nothing to lose. More viewers for FOX news.

technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO
kudos:1

Re: You can't copyright FACTS!

This crap makes me sick...

I do understand that some of this information could be classified as proprietary if it didn't involve my tax money at work. Since that is not the case, this information should be available by request.

cabana
Department of Adjustments
Premium,Mod
join:2000-07-07
New York, NY

Re: You can't copyright FACTS!

soooo... if the government is paying... doesn't that mean ... technically "we" are paying?

I know I know ... new proposal! Instead of the USF and all those other mysterious government fees ... we just call it even. You don't charge me those fees and I promise not to mind your using MY tax dollars to buy my information
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by karlmarx:

The postings are FACTS. Their is nothing on the list deserving of copyright. The owner of the website knows this, which is why he's basically telling them to f*ck off. You cannot copyright a FACT. A price list is a FACT, not a derivative work.
Sure you can but the First Amendment right of a free press to publish non-classified newsworthy facts trumps copyright! Because this involves the government there is absolutely no doubt the founding fathers intended the First Amendment to be applicable.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: You can't copyright FACTS!

said by Sammer:

said by karlmarx:

The postings are FACTS. Their is nothing on the list deserving of copyright. The owner of the website knows this, which is why he's basically telling them to f*ck off. You cannot copyright a FACT. A price list is a FACT, not a derivative work.
Sure you can ...
Mr. Marx is correct. You can't copyright facts. For example, the White Pages lacks sufficient creative expression to warrant protection. It's just facts (name, phone), printed without embellishment, sorted in a natural (uncreative) way.

Yellow pages contain similar facts, but are arranged into cateogories, the generation of which and selection into are creative expression. And, the facts are embellished with hyperbole.

A price list is more like the white pages. If it were significantly ornate, the overall price list could be copyrightable. But, the individual prices would be a fact.

Mark

Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

Re: You can't copyright FACTS!

said by amigo_boy:

A price list is more like the white pages. If it were significantly ornate, the overall price list could be copyrightable.
Have you actually read the document? It's not a price list - it's policies and procedures that look fully like a creative work to me. A few paragraphs contain dollar amounts, but it's certainly not just a table of item/price.

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit

Re: You can't copyright FACTS!

said by Steve:

It's not a price list - it's policies and procedures that look fully like a creative work to me. A few paragraphs contain dollar amounts, but it's certainly not just a table of item/price.
I agree. I was just addressing Mr. Marx who said facts can't be copyrighted (and the other fellow who said they can). I was giving an example of what are facts, and how information adorning facts can make them copyrighted, or remain copyrighted even though the facts can be extracted. I said verbatum copying isn't allowed under fair use.

I wasn't trying to say the use in question is ok (or equivalent to White Pages). Just put some definitions to what he and Mr. Marx said.

Mark

Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium
join:2002-09-06
Johnston, RI
said by karlmarx:

The postings are FACTS. Their is nothing on the list deserving of copyright. The owner of the website knows this, which is why he's basically telling them to f*ck off. You cannot copyright a FACT. A price list is a FACT, not a derivative work.
Hmm maybe I will get a copyright on price lists and then take everybody to court for violating my copyright.....
--
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
Yahoo, meet Streisand Effect.

zalternate

join:2007-02-22
freedom land

Warrants?

Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.

Why oh why do the Feds think that our rights and freedoms do not apply to the digital medium?
Just because there is no specific regulation or law, does not mean that our rights do not exist in the digital world.
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Warrants?

said by zalternate:

Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.
Why would they be required to get a warrant? What makes your relationship with a business private? What prevents the government from talking to others about you?

Mark
sameshtdd

join:2006-01-04
Teaneck, NJ

Re: Warrants?

said by amigo_boy:

said by zalternate:

Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.
Why would they be required to get a warrant? What makes your relationship with a business private? What prevents the government from talking to others about you?

Mark
The real argument is does the average person have an expectation of privacy about certain things (like e-mail). I would say you do since your e-mail is password protected and companies tell you never to share your password.

If you can show the average perosn has an expectation of privacy then 4th amendment about illegal search/seisure applies.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit

Re: Warrants?

said by sameshtdd:

The real argument is does the average person have an expectation of privacy about certain things (like e-mail). I would say you do since your e-mail is password protected and companies tell you never to share your password.

If you can show the average perosn has an expectation of privacy then 4th amendment about illegal search/seisure applies.
I understand what you mean. From my perspective, you are protected if you possess your email. The governmant can't access what you possess without a search warrant.

But, if you enter into a business relationship, then their holding of your email is, effectively, their property. The 4th amendment would apply to them.

If their agreement with you offers no guarantee of privacy (and even says they will share the info with their "partners," which can be government agencies) then you've essentially ceded your expectation of privacy. The provider has no 4th amendment right if their partner pays the specified price.

You mention that providers like Yahoo tell you not to share your password. But, is that to protect you? Or, is it to protect their servers from unauthorized access? From people who didn't agree to the ToS?

I'm definitely concerned with an issue that overlaps this one: the plethora of private databases containing information about you, and used for "background check" purposes. (Or, in the case of Lexus Nexus, the government is their largest customer.). It bothers me how there are so few controls on this -- and we believe we're doing ourselves a favor by preventing the government from maintaining a database (which could be controlled).

But, if someone does business with another entity, and agrees to a ToS which doesn't require the entity to treat customer info privately, it's hard to accept that they expected privacy.

That's why I don't mind that private databases have information. I probably granted dissemination when I did business with various services. But, I think it could be more centralized and giving me some rights over that information to ensure it's accurate, etc.

Mark

DaveAnon

@qwest.net
When I send you a letter in the post, there are federal protections against third parties being able to intercept it. The Post Office doesn't just say "oh, hey there Big Brother, This dude just sent a letter and it says ..xxxx " - not without Big Brother needing a warrant anyway. (They can get the addresses you send things to without a warrant, though)

The average person treats email as a digital version of snail-mail, with similar perceptions - including an expectation of protections which ought to be there.

The fact that they aren't is a problem.

»ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/p ··· /privacy
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

Re: Warrants?

said by DaveAnon :

When I send you a letter in the post, there are federal protections against third parties being able to intercept it.
I agree. But, like your relationship with a telco, it's modified by public law which creates statutory damages for treating your information in ways defined by that law.

Such statutory moderation of other business relationships don't exist. Maybe they should. But, they don't. For now, if you expect privacy of your email you should use your own local client and encrypt what you expect to be private.

If you don't want to be identified as the owner of an ID posting to forums, don't obtain one (or, use an anonymizing proxy).

Mark
ualdayan

join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN
said by zalternate:

Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.

Why oh why do the Feds think that our rights and freedoms do not apply to the digital medium?
Just because there is no specific regulation or law, does not mean that our rights do not exist in the digital world.
Search warrants are not required to get user data; you agree to it in Yahoo's terms of service.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit
said by zalternate:

Well hopefully these companies are not selling or giving away this information without a court approved warrant.
Some things need warrants and some do not. As the Verizon PDF says, they need warrants to tap phone lines; turn over call records; and other things related to phone records.

But web posts; groups postings; etc are all public info not needing any warrants and are available based on the company's TOS.

Email seems a gray area; courts have ruled both ways regarding whether court action is required to obtain emails from an ISP.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

hmmmmm....

Not to be off topic, nor bragging, but my wife and I have good jobs for the moment, and like to pay cash for every thing. I got weird looks when I just bought a flat panel (42") and payed in cash. At first the clerk didn't want to let me do it, and then he said I needed ID for the warranty. I said that when it breaks I will by a new one after the initial warranty runs out. In California when you buy something that is defective they almost have to take it back. Peace.
--
BlooMe
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

4 edits

as i said yesterday

its not so much that law enforcement has access but that Canadian private data is being mixed with the data these Americans are STEALING as there is no law on the books i know that legally gives them the right to take any Canadian data due to privacy laws

it may and is in fact legit for our law enforcement too do so ( currently with a written order form a judge known as a warrant ) but this oversight is not in this system and yahoo ,rogers has some explaining to do....do you even use email lol

i stopped using it when they got sold to rogers
carnivore /echelon and there son systems do not just take one email they harvest the whole servers and they stay hooked up.

IS this without a warrant search and seizure of Canadian data legal, no not until stephen harpers warrant less search and seizure bill goes into affect BUT again its only FOR OUR law enforcement not the Americans.

DID i wake up as a state in the USA under there patriot act 1 and 2?
MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

Re: as i said yesterday

said by 33358088:

DID i wake up as a state in the USA under there patriot act 1 and 2?

Pretty much.

p.s. I have multi-coloured tinfoil hats for sale

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by 33358088:

i stopped using it when they got sold to rogers
Who got sold to Rogers. If you are speaking of Yahoo!, tell me which of the following companies own Yahoo!:
AT&T (USA)
BT Internet (UK)
Yahoo! BB (Japan)
Rogers (Canada)
Verizon (USA)
Xtra (New Zealand)

Yahoo! has not been sold to anybody, they have business contracts with all of the above. They are still publicly traded as: YAHO.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

fios_user

@verizon.net

Verizon FiOS and Cryptome

Anyone on Verizon FiOS unable to access the cryptome site? It works just fine on a proxy.........
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

2 edits

ROGERS

as in rogers yahoo
read the article silly and know its Americans that are harvesting this data and thats why this is an issue
UGH

»Yahoo spy price lists
go read the page form like i dunno yesterday
don't know why but a ton of american news and other stuff is like getting a tomorrow flag LOL

this is yesterday news and go read the linked page about rogers response was funny
like AWWW damn we got caught

AND yahoo was made and created by two canadians whom sold it and its a candian cmpany that has made deals with all the above and its 1st deal was with ROGERS CABLE
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

what about the $200 toilet paper rolls ?

hahahaha.we can just imagine what the gov pays for some of their services.

and telco companies will try to make as much as they can off anyone including our gov.
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

3 edits

yea true

and if its small enough print them old timers in govt can always say they didn't have eye coverage
oh and back in the late 90's when it was definitely illegal for rogers to have foreign security agencies running around with your data they admitted it too me on a phone after i said my firewall proggy they could not get through and spammed me with tons a ip ranges and then canceled temp the account until i phoned. ( NOTE all there security ip ranges all 550 of them were american in origin )

P.S. i still have the hard drive and hte logs in case you think its BS
it was shortly after that that the port 59 exploit of zone alarm that rogers always said to people to sue came out.

thats why i never use cable and thats why i never want nothing to do with rogers

why is it that all these wanky telcos keep stiffing innovation and freedom and are allowed to keep this up
maybe we should start acting like the greeks

doc69
Premium
join:2004-08-01

?????

I pay for cell service from Verizon. I pay taxes to the government.
So I'm paying Verizon twice? Gotta love the good ole USA!!!!
--
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE."
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

3 edits

HERE you go people

didnt say it was more then email
enjoy
»secure.wikileaks.org/leak/yahoo- ··· 2008.pdf

haha
give em a call for me and say

"oh i forgot to turn off my custom made firewall"

note how its supposed ot get warrants for stuff......but doesn't
OH and why the leak now ? Could someone really hate Microsoft this much?
»www.cbc.ca/cp/technology/091204/ ··· 11A.html

/me waves making sure you all have a bit larger picture of it all......

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Hey providers!

How about kicking back some of that cash you're making off our backs to us!