‘CHRISTOPHER B. BRANSON, ESQ. 392 Hillside Street Yarmouth, Maine 04096 (h) (207) 846-6667 (0) (207) 523-8213 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 06-12-06 June 12, 2006 THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS ‘Mr. Dennis Keschl, Acting Administrative Director State of Maine, Public Utilities Commission 242 State Street, State House Station 18 Augusta, Maine 04333-0018 RE: Docket No. 2006-274 Dear Mr. Keschl: Enclosed for filing with the Commission is the following: 1. Comments of Complainant, Christopher B. Branson, in Response to Verizon ‘Maine’s Opposition to Ten Person Complaint Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincers Chrfstopher B. n, Es Maine Bar No. 7270 'SAC\CBBIrelu\Verizon 20061-ifing 6-12-0600STATE OF MAINE Docket No, 2006-274 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Request for Commission Investigation into ‘Whether Verizon is Cooperating in Maine With the National Security Agency's Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program COMMENTS OF COMPLAINANT, CHRISTOPHER B. BRANSON IN RESPONSE TO VERIZON MAINE’S OPPOSITION TO TEN PERSON COMPLAINT INTRODUCTI This Ten Person Complaint against Verizon Maine presents an exceedingly important issue to the Commission ~ whether Verizon Maine is violating either state or federal law by releasing confidential customer information. The Maine Legislature made clear the significance of this, issue by enacting 35-A MRS.A. § 7101-A which provides in relevant part: acy right. Telephone subscribers have a right to privacy and the protection of this right to privacy is of paramount concern to the State. Also at stake are state and federal constitutional privacy protections, including the Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches and the First Amendment right of association. (The Maine Constitution also protects these interests. See Me. Constitution, Art. 1, § 4 (warrantless searches); Me. Constitution, Art. 1, § 3 (religious association)).. Verizon Maine’s response is significant for what it does not say. It fails to provide any information about whether and to what extent it has been disclosing customer information. It also fails to respond to the Commission’s request that Verizon Maine specifically address the application of 35-A M.RS.A. § 7101-A in this case. And it fails to provide any evidence, byaffidavit or otherwise, that an investigation by this Commission will threaten or harm any legitimate security programs or other state interest. These Comments make five points: if ‘The Commission has an obligation to investigate privacy violations, including violations of 35-A M.R.S.A. 1701-A. ‘The investigation of Verizon Maine would not require the disclosure of privileged or sensitive information in violation of any federal law. Verizon Maine has no standing or authority to assert the so-called “states secret doctrine.” Verizon Maine’s assertion of privilege is unsupported by any affidavits or other evidence of any kind. Even Ifthe state secret doctrine protects certain information in this case, the Commission can protect that information without dismissing this investigation. DISCUSSION 1. The Commission has an Obligation to Investigate Privacy Violations, Including Violations of 35-A M.R.S.A. 1701-A. ‘The Legislature and the Law Court have both made it clear that this Commission has an obligation to investigate a public utility when 10 customers believe there has been a violation of law. The Legislature prescribed as follows: 1. Filing a Complaint. When a written complaint is made against a public utility by 10 persons aggrieved that . apractice or act of a public utility is in any respect unreasonable, insufficient or unjustly discriminatory ... the commission shall investigate the complaint. 35-A MRS.A. § 1302(1) (emphasis added).