John M.R.

Paterson
207 228-7212 direct
jpaterson@bernsteinshur.com

THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY SUBMITTED

TO THE COMMISSION ON 6/30/06 IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS.

August 4, 2006

Dennis Keschl, Acting Administrative Director

Maine Public Utilities Commission
State House Station 18
242 State Street
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Request for Commission Investigation into Whether Verizon is Cooperating in
Maine with the National Security Agency’s Domestic Wiretapping Program
Docket No. 2006-274

Dear Mr. Keschl:

I write on behalf of the Maine Civil Liberties Union in response to a letter I received
yesterday from Assistant Attorney General Peter Kreisler of the U.S. Department of Justice
expressing the view of the federal government that the Commission may not undertake the
investigation requested by the Complaint in this matter. I also learned yesterday that this
matter is on the Commission’s agenda for consideration on Monday August 7. In light of
the time constraints I request that this matter be delivered to the Commission immediately.

Under the circumstances, time does not permit a complete response to the extensive
comments in or attachments to Mr. Kreisler’s letter. However, I did not want our silence to
be interpreted as an expression of agreement with his arguments.

At this point in the proceedings the Commission has been supplied with a multitude
of arguments and copies of recent relevant decisions and little purpose is served by restating
all that is set out in those filings. However, a few essential points must be made. At its
core, the argument of the federal government and Verizon is that federal law trumps the
August 4, 2006
Page 2 of 3

constitutional rights of those people in Maine who use Verizon for telecommunications
service. Relying on a number of federal laws, and a federal common law evidentiary
privilege covering so-called “state secrets,” it is the clear position of Verizon and the
Department of Justice that they may do as they please with respect to the sharing of
telephone user records without regard to the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

We categorically reject that argument. Indeed, taken to its logical extension, the
federal government claims the power to do as it pleases and insulate itself from inquiry into
violation of citizens’ rights merely by an invocation of national defense or security. That is
not and must not be the law.

Moreover, the opponents of this Complaint repeatedly overstate what is sought by it.
Nothing in the complaint seeks the disclosure of classified information or information that
would compromise national defense. Further, the contention by Verizon and the DOJ that
the mere disclosure of the fact that Verizon had provided user records to the NSA or other
agency would compromise national defense, is belied by the thoughtful recitation of the
facts in the decision of the U.S. District Court in Hepting v. AT&T. In that case the Court
thoroughly reviewed the extensive public disclosures of the federal government’s
telecommunications record gathering. In view of those public statements, including
statements by the President, the continued assertion that a limited inquiry into the conduct
of Verizon would harm national security is simply ludicrous.

Further, the position of Verizon and the government tortures logic. If Verizon has
not shared user records with the NSA or other agency, all it need do is say so. Nothing in
any federal law prevents Verizon from saying “We did not do it.” Nothing in such denial,
assuming it is true, would violate any law. If on the other hand, Verizon did engage in such
record sharing, all we seek are answers to the following questions:

(1) Did Verizon disclose customer telephone records to a governmental entity?

(2) If it did disclose customer records, did it do so voluntarily and if so was it paid to
make the disclosures?
(3) What was disclosed? (e.g. the names, telephone number and addresses of the caller
and the person called, the date, time of day, the length of the call or communication,
the content of the communication, etc.)
(4) Did customers consent to the disclosures, and if so how was the consent obtained?
(5) If customers did not consent, what legal document (e.g., warrant, court order,
certification or subpoena) was provided to the company to authorize disclosure and
on what statute did it rely?

In seeking answers to these questions the Commission need not be concerned in any way
with any governmental practices. This complaint does not seek information as to the
content of information gathered, merely as to the fact of such activity, the type of
information disclosed and the purported legal basis for it, if any. All that is at issue are
Verizon’s practices. For purposes of both Maine law and the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, it is entirely irrelevant to whom this information was disclosed by Verizon or
the content of any disclosed communications; all that is relevant is whether or not the
recipient of records was a governmental entity, not which governmental entity received
August 4, 2006
Page 3 of 3

records, the purpose of the disclosure or the government’s subsequent use of the records.

It is also notable that in its argument the government choses to simply ignore the
federal Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702. It is as much the law of
the land, and is as binding on Verizon and the U.S. government as are those laws relied on
by the Department of Justice. It is as much the supreme law of the land as the other laws
cited by the DOJ.

We urge the Commission not to be swayed by threats of litigation from the

Department of Justice. What would be a greater harm is if the Commission determined that
it would not undertake its duty to attempt to protect the statutorily and constitutionally
protected rights of Maine citizens, simply because it feared a lawsuit. After all, if the
Commission will not make this inquiry, who will? If in the end the government believes it
must initiate suit, then the courts will decide the matter.

Based on the foregoing, the MCLU strongly urges the Commission to undertake the
requested inquiry.

Very truly yours,

John M.R. Paterson

cc: All Parties per Commission Service List

Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Kreisler
Deputy Attorney General Linda Pistner