Government Recently Released Information Proving Larry Klayman Has Standing

Screen Shot 2015-08-28 at 11.22.34 AM

As I noted, the DC Circuit Court reversed Judge Richard Leon’s injunction against the phone dragnet. The judges disagreed on whether Larry Klayman had standing — because he is a Verizon Wireless but not Verizon landline subscriber, which had been the only thing confirmed by the government. All agreed he had not shown he had the high certainty of standing required to uphold an injunction against the program. But the per curium opinion did agree that the case has not been mooted, because by immediately restarting the bulk program after the passage of USA F-ReDux, the government showed that the harm could recur.

That’s important, because information proving that Klayman does have standing has recently been released in an official (albeit probably inadvertent) release.

Part of the IG Reports on the phone dragnet Charlie Savage obtained by suing shows that — at least in 2010 — the Primary Order for the phone dragnet went to AT&T, Sprint, Verizon’s subsidiaries (the former MCI part of Verizon’s business, which I believe is its backbone), and “Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless.”

I’ll say more about what I think this really means in a later post — and why I think the suit against bulk surveillance needs to be, and can be, tweaked somewhat to ensure standing.

But for the moment, know that for at least one 90 day period in 2010, Verizon Wireless as well as Verizon’s landline was ordered to turn over phone records.

6 replies
  1. edge says:

    Correction –
    “he is a Verizon Wireless but not Verizon landline subscriber, which had been the only thing confirmed by the government”
    I think you meant Verizon business, not Verizon landline in that sentence, no?

    • emptywheel says:

      No, in this case I meant landline. Not because that’s right — none of this is. But because that’s the false impression the govt has left up to now: that they were collecting the customer records from those who had landline service from Verizon.

      So judges are saying (here and in SF) “if landline, then standing, if cell, no standing.”

      In truth, everyone is affected more broadly bc this is backbone collection, not customer phone bills. But the government has deliberately tried to obscure that.

  2. Nell says:

    Another sm correx: Third-from-bottom paragraph “Verizon’s subsidies” should be “Verizon’s subsidiaries”, yes?

    And thanks for your continuing sharp eye.

  3. wallace says:

    quote” No, in this case I meant landline.”unquote

    Landline? Verizon? Wait..wait.. “land line” is a misnomer. At least from 3 months ago. I personally went to Verizon in Luddington Michigan, to arrange for a fucking “landline”. For all intents and purposes, every person I dealt with at the Verizon store, “called’ the service and hardware”..a “land line”, when in reality, it is no such thing. It used to be, a “land line”, plugged into a hardwired outlet in your home, which connected to the world by honest to goodness WIRES. No more. A “land line” now, connects to a box that “broadcasts” wirelessly, to a Verizon substation, that then connects to the normal wireless network. There is NO SUCH THING anymore..of a “land line”, in the sense we used to know it. PERIOD. I don’t know what bearing this has on this case, but I do know this. IF the government is using the term “land line”, to squelch a persons “standing”, they are full of of three months ago.

Comments are closed.