Missouri PSC Commissioners Ask AT&T: What Was Legal Authority To Disclose Customer's Private Data?

On Monday, Cole County Circuit Judge Tom Brown will consider the request by two members of the Missouri PSC that he order AT&T to respond to their subpoenas from last month that ask AT&T under what legal authority they released the privacy information of Missouri phone and Internet customers.

Commissioners Steve Gaw and Robert Clayton issued subpoenas on June 19, 2006 and June 22, 2006 requesting that AT&T and their affiliates produce the following documents:

1. Any order, subpoena or directive of any court, tribunal or administrative agency or officer whatsoever, directing or demanding the release of customer proprietary information relating to Missouri customers of [the AT&T affiliated entitites].

2. A copy of any confidentiality agreement or agreements related to the release of customer proprietary information relating to Missouri customers of [the AT&T affiliated entities].

3. Any other documents, materials or information pertinent to items 1 or 2, above.

4. Copies of all records maintained pursuant to PSC Rule 4 CSR 240-33.160(6) involving the disclosure of CPNI to a third party.

They also requested that AT&T produce witnesses who could provide testimony on the following questions:

1. The number of Missouri customers, if any, whose calling records have been delivered or otherwise disclosed to the National Security Agency ("NSA") and whether or not any of those customers were notified that their records would be or had been so disclosed and whether or not any of those customers consented to the disclosure.

2. The legal authority, if any, under which the disclosures referred to in Paragraph 1, above, were made.

3. The nature or type of information dislcosed to the NSA, including the telephone number, subscriber name and address, social security numbers, calling patterns, calling history, billing information, credit card information, internet data, and the like.

4. The date or dates on which the disclosures referred to in Paragraph 1, above, were made.

5. The particular exchanges for which any number was disclosed to the NSA.

On July 11, 2006, AT&T provided a lengthy, but ultimately unresponsive reply to the subpoenas. Attached to it was a letter from the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which seems to suggest that if AT&T responded to the question about what legal authority it had to disclose its customer's private information, it would compromise national security.

Hmmmm....you can't even say what legal authority you are using when you violate state law to release private customer information? That's an interesting interpretation.

On July 12, 2006, Commissioners Gaw and Clayton filed an Application to Compel Production of Documents and to Compel Witnesses to Appear in Cole County Circuit Court, along with a draft order for the Judge.

There is a hearing set for Monday, July 17, 2006 at 1:00 p.m.

Missouri has already featured prominently in the NSA wiretapping story, as news accounts have revealed that AT&T has a facility in Bridgeton, MO which is apparently being used by the NSA for their effort.