N.J. Attorneys Sue Verizon for Privacy Violation
Two activist N.J. attorneys filed suit late Fri. against Verizon, alleging the Bell gave subscriber data to the National Security Agency (NSA) in violation of the Telecom Act and the Constitution. In a case that in many ways mirrors an Electronic Freedom Foundation action against AT&T, the lawyers seek damages that could run to the billions (CD April 24 p6). Meanwhile, the govt. filed Sat. for state secrets privilege in the EFF-AT&T case.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer sued in U.S. District Court, Manhattan, where Verizon has its hq. They based their suit partly on a USA Today story saying the U.S. had agreements with all the Bells but Qwest to provide call information on millions of subscribers (CD May 12 p1). Afran and Mayer have made reputations as gadflies with actions such as suing N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine (D) for appointing his successor in the U.S. Senate.
“No warrants have been issued for the disclosure of such information, no suspicion of terrorist activity or other criminal activity has been alleged against the subscribers,” the suit said. The suit seeks $1,000 per violation, or $5 billion if the case becomes a class action. Afran and Mayer told reporters they will seek documents dealing with the NSA program’s origination and President Bush’s role.
The duo will face the same hurdles EFF faces in its AT&T case, observers told us. “For consistency alone, the Administration is very likely to invoke state secrets in every [carrier] case” that may come along, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington U. privacy expert. Turley -- who called “ludicrous” a govt. assertion last week that the information EFF wants would compromise national security (CD May 2 p8), said that “it would significantly undermine [Administration] efforts to get the AT&T case dismissed” if it didn’t invoke state secrets in every similar case. Brittany Berowitz of the Center for National Security Studies agreed. Any suit in which details of govt. data collection could be made public likely will meet the same kind of resistance, she said.
Meanwhile, the DoJ moved early Sat. to dismiss EFF’s case under the state-secrets provision. Asst. Atty. Gen.- Civil Division Peter Keisler said discovery of details of potential surveillance would compromise national security. DoJ’s brief related the heightened security to a Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution giving the Bush Administration the right to use whatever force it considers necessary to fight the 9/11 attackers and conspirators. EFF attorney Kevin Bankston said the filing, heavily redacted, was sent to the court with 2 classified documents the group wasn’t allowed to see.
AT&T has filed for dismissal on trade-secrets grounds. The San Francisco district court where the EFF-AT&T case is being heard will hold a hearing Wed. on the point. No hearing date has been set on the state secrets claim.