Verizon bamboozlement

TPM's Josh Marshall is having a little trouble trying to jibe the Verizon/Bell South denials with the USAToday's backing of their story:

I think I've got the answer: they're lying.
[...]
Now, I don't know that they're lying in a precise, semantic sense. In fact, I suspect they're not. There must be some way in which what they're saying is technically true. But if it were more than technically true, they would have said it and said it more emphatically last week, before a bunch of lawsuits got filed.
[...]
My hunch is that there's some third party involved here, a subcontractor, a private vendor, perhaps another government agency. And because of that their claims are technically true. Or, maybe, they allowed the NSA to take the data (a variety of technical means suggest themselves) rather than 'providing' it to them. Who knows.

I think he's on the right track. My suspicion is that the "delay" was the result of two factors: an assumption that the crisis would blow over after the issuance of a standard pro forma denials, and unforseen financial risks presented by litigation filings and the S&P "hold" advisory.

I would also assume that they had to get with somebody at the White House to hammer out some language that sounded more definitive, in the hopes that USAToday would be knocked back on their heels. USAToday's response was less than resolute, which makes me wonder whether they have any hard evidence.

If I were to try to go through the parsing exercise, I would break it down this way:

When Verizon says:

in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

It could be interpreted to mean:

1. It wasn't in the "aftermath," of 9/11, but some time after, or perhaps even prior to 9/11.
2. Verizon wasn't approached, but approached the NSA on their own, or the non-arrangement was brokered in some way by a third party.
3. The non-arrangement that never happened wasn't for tracking domestic calls, but the intent was to capture international calls. "Data" could mean almost anything. Maybe they are allowing NSA to trap call route headers or some other call tags that don't directly tie back to a "customer," especially if the calls just happen to be from other carriers traveling on their trunk lines.

Verizon says:

From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses.

I find this an interesting construction. Why break it down, instead of saying you have 5 major businesses? Are the ISP and the LD acquisitions that don't count in some way?

Verizon say:

Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Could mean:

1. "Asked" may be a term of art, for all I know. "Ordered" in some way, might be more accurate, and gives them the imprimateur of it all sounding involuntary.
2. "Provided" may also be another term with specific meaning. Again, if they were in some way ordered or otherwise compelled to turn over records, they can claim they didn't "provide" them.
3. Again with the delineation of "customer records" and "call data." If they are building a database out of call source and destination and time stamp, they may be able to claim that "customer phone records" refers to name/address and "call data" is the actual content. They're still up to their necks, but it sounds like they kept their pants zipped.

Verizon say:

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple "calls across town" are being "tracked." In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls.

Could mean:

1. Again with the use of the term "turned over." Could it be they were compelled in some way, or perhaps the disclosures were inadvertant? They're looking for international calls, and they just happened to trap domestic calls.
2. As for the reference to "local calls," I think they are playing a game with semantics. With some telephone companies, you can choose to pay flat rate with unlimited calling, or buy your local calling by bulk. They have to track that somehow. Don't forget about toll calling? Technically, they may be correct in that purely local calls which could mean the same CO or the same area code aren't tracked, but I think USAToday is probably was just referring to the difference between regular calls and the ones you make by dialing a "1+".
   

I'm no expert on telecom stuff, but I would tend to agree with Marshall that they are deliberately misleading (if not outright lying) to try to bluff their way through this. It would behoove the EFF and likeminded civil rights guardians to not let them off the hook so easily.