◆ SpookStack

It's nota compulsive. But, of course, the carrier has no particular interest in protectmg -- if you're looking at my records or you want my records, for example, the phone company has no particular interest in protecting my privacy rights, and [ never find out about it, so { can't go te court 10 protect them. Correct? CAPRONI: 1 don't represent the carriers, but | would disagree with the theory that they have no particular interest in protecting your records. In fact... NADLER: What is their interest? CAPRONI: In fact, the carriers were diligent in making sure that any record they gave to us they subsequently obtained a national security letter for. NADLER: But wait a minute. But Mr. Fine's report says that in many, many instances, hundreds of instances, that never happened. CAPRONI: As of right now there are still some numbers that have not received national security letters to back up the requests. NADLER: Well, back up years later after the report. But that's backfilling. In other words -- and that's certainly not evidence that the phone companies were diligent in seeking these things. That's saying that after this report was done someone said, "Wow, we gota problem on our hands. We better go get these letters four years later, or three years later." So that's not evidence of what we're talking about. CAPRONI: Respecttully, even though ['m not defending their practice. tt ts not the case that It was only afler Mr, Fine's report came out that (hey were attempting to make sure that the paperwork documentation was appropriate for every record they obtained. And let me also say... NADLER: And you think the paperwork documentation should be done and appropriate. CAPRONI: And if it's not, the records are going to come out of our database and be destroyed. NADLER: And in this morning's Washington Post it says, "Under past procedures, agents sent exigent circumstances letters to phone companies seeking toll records by asserting there