I want to sue my phone company for releasing my personal info

[Ivan Seeking]

Assuming it can be proven, of course.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1193478,00.html

Since Quest did not turn over the phone records of their users, as did AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth, obviously cooperation was voluntary. That being the case, they are liable for their actions. I would like to see a national class action suit against all three companies.

 

[Evo]

Where does it say Qwest was asked to comply? I see no mention of them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, good point. It was implied in one report that they refused, but I don't recall hearing that for certain.

There is still the issue of whether this was voluntary in either case. Were they ordered by a court to turn the information over?

 

[Evo]

AT&T, Verizon & Bell South would be heavy carriers of "international calls". Makes sense they would have been the only three companies asked to comply. The request, as I recall was to monitor international calls to certain countries. If you haven't been calling one of those countries, you can relax.

 

[Pengwuino]

Too bad even the Bush-hating Democrats in Congress said there's no legal right to having your phone # kept from the NSA.

Think first, then begin the rhetoric.

I bet these newspapers are making a killing off the public's over-reactive ways

*edit* oops bad mistake up there

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evo,
No, they turned over a list of domestic call activity for the last three years on "tens of millions of users", as is being reported.

 

[Evo]

Also, it wasn't listening in, they had an algorythm to check for key words.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The tracked phone numbers called and recieved.

 

[Evo]

Evo,
No, they turned over a list of domestic call activity for the last three years on "tens of millions of users", as is being reported.

Who says so? I worked for AT&T random calls were not recorded, do you have any idea how many billions of calls that is?

Are you just talking about archived numbers? That's not actual phone calls.

edit: So, if you weren't calling any terrorists, I guess your safe. Anything you do over a public network is public, when will people realize that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Too bad even the Bush-hating Democrats in Congress said there's no legal right to having your phone # to the NSA.

Think first, then begin the rhetoric.

I bet these newspapers are making a killing off the public's over-reactive ways

Stay on topic. This is about the phone company. Think first, then spout the nonsense.

 

[Pengwuino]

Who do you think is giving them the number activity? Go find any part of your contract that says they couldn't do that. You'll be surprised.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who says so? I worked for AT&T random calls were not recorded, do you have any idea how many billions of calls that is?

Are you just talking about archived numbers? That's not actual phone calls.

They know what numbers you called, and incoming, and how long you talked. That is private information.

 

[Pengwuino]

They know what numbers you called, and incoming, and how long you talked. That is private information.

Not according to the contract you sign/the US legal system.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who do you think is giving them the number activity? Go find any part of your contract that says they couldn't do that. You'll be surprised.

It doesn't matter what the contract says. That's what courts are for. And we are talking about tens of millions of US citizens.

 

[Pengwuino]

It doesn't matter what the contract says. That's what courts are for. And we are talking about tens of millions of US citizens.

Have you found any legal experts that have said saying what # you called is illegal? Theres already many saying its not...

And what do you mean it doesn't matter what the contract says. That's like not paying your mortgage payments and then sueing because a bank takes your house away.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not according to the contract you sign/the US legal system.

What are you talking about?

 

[Pengwuino]

What are you talking about?

It's not illegal, no one, not even the radicalist of Congressmen are saying its illegal, give it up. Feingold was even briefed on it and gave the ok to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. This certainly requires a legal challenge.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not illegal, no one, not even the radicalist of Congressmen are saying its illegal, give it up. Feingold was even briefed on it and gave the ok to it.

You are again off-topic. I am talking about a civil suit. Why don't you stay out of it until you catch up.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well of course, you can sue. It will all only depend on what your contract says.

 

[Pengwuino]

You are again off-topic. I am talking about a civil suit. Why don't you stay out of it until you catch up.

You already said it doesn't matter what the contract says so you were off topic first, sorry. Unless you think contracts aren't legal basis for civil cases.

 

[Evo]

They know what numbers you called, and incoming, and how long you talked. That is private information.

Actually, no. People think so, but not legally so.

Why do you think it is so easy for law enforcement to get those records?

 

[scott1]

Too bad even the Bush-hating Democrats in Congress said there's no legal right to having your phone # kept from the NSA.

Think first, then begin the rhetoric.

I bet these newspapers are making a killing off the public's over-reactive ways

What is illegeal with the NSA keeping your phone number

Yes I think the New york times is trying to make money off this kind of stuff they were the ones that illegealy discalffied sercret govemnet information and they try to make it look that there the "hero's" how protecting our "freedom" if you want proof look at the title for the thread about the secert wire tapping.

 

[SOS2008]

WASHINGTON - Following a report that the U.S. agency in charge of a domestic spying program is building a database of every phone call made in the country, President Bush on Thursday told the nation from the White House that all anti-terrorism efforts are within the law.

----------

USA Today reported Thursday that the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies — AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. — but that the program “does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.”

Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

----------

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told Fox News Channel: “The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers — how does that fit into following the enemy?”

----------

The NSA has “access to records of billions of domestic calls,” USA Today said. Although customers’ names and addresses are not being handed over, “the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information,” it said.

----------

“Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?” Leahy asked. “These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything. ... Where does it stop?”

----------

Among major U.S. telecommunications companies, only Qwest Communications International Inc. has refused to help the NSA program, the paper said.

Qwest, with 14 million customers in the Western United States, was “uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants,” USA Today said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/page/3/

Qwest and Google are the only companies protecting privacy rights that I know of to date. So much for the 200 million customers sold out by AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.

 

[Curious3141]

Ivan, I'm confused about what you want to do. Let's break it down :

1) Was a criminal act committed?

A : I'm not well up on the law, but according to Pengwuino/Evo and your own concession, no law was broken. So no criminal suit can be filed. Fine, you accept that, let's move on.

2) Was the phone company in breach of contract?

A : I don't know, that depends on the contract you signed. If, as the Penguin stated, you signed a document that authorised the phone company disclosing your records to the government, then what case do you have? The whole thing hinges on that paper with the fine print, let us know if there's a clause that explicitly allows them to release the info about called/received numbers and call durations. If there's no such clause *and* there's no "catch-all clause" that allows them to do whatever they wish, then, maybe, you have a case for breach-of-contract. Usually, companies protect themselves with a vague and all-encompassing catch-all clause, so I wouldn't be too confident.

3) Was there any harm done to you or to your interests as a direct result of a breach of contract, if one is proven to exist?

This is the basis of negligence law. If and only if you can prove that you were harmed in some substantive way by the release of such info (in such a way that some contract you knowingly signed was contravened), then you have a case for a negligence suit. "Harm" or "damages" implies more than just a feeling of privacy violation - legitimate examples of these would be bodily harm or financial loss.

I am not a lawyer, but this is my layman's take on it. I would be grateful if a real lawyer could correct my ramblings. But the way I see it, you don't really have anything approaching a case.

If you just want to make a stink and get the regulations changed, I suggest you go with that ultimate ungoverned judge, jury and executioner - *the free press*. Get a sympathetic reporter to blow the story up into big news, and then, maybe, change will be effected. But then, this is already happening, and the way the current political tide is, I don't see much changing.

 

[Astronuc]

I did hear tonight that Qwest refused to comply, while the three others, AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp, sold the phone records to the government. The government did not subpoena nor request records via search warrants.

The question would be - "Is this a violation of due process?"

There was also mention of the fact that Qwest was threatened (coerced, intimidated) with loss of government business if they did not cooperate.

Why does it seem the Bush administration behaves like Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO)?

Interesting read - http://www.ricoact.com/

 

[Manchot]

Was there any harm done to you or to your interests as a direct result of a breach of contract, if one is proven to exist?

Loss of my right to privacy is harm. Maybe not enough for a law suit, but enough to feel violated.

 

[Curious3141]

Loss of my right to privacy is harm. Maybe not enough for a law suit, but enough to feel violated.

You answered your own question. Not enough for a lawsuit. And you're right.

Here's an article that deals with privacy violations : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/11/BUGN8GL7S01.DTL

The important excerpt is this one :

In your case, the horse left the barn with your private data awhile ago. Luckily, you didn't suffer any financial harm from this breach. But that also means you don't really have any grounds to file a lawsuit over it.

"Unless this person could show substantial damages -- say, she lost a business deal because of this -- a lawsuit would probably be a waste of time," Johnson said. "Even though you feel some sense of loss because privacy is of value to you, unless you can quantify that in court, there's probably no reason to sue."

Here's another one giving a whole lot of privacy related lawsuit judgements : http://www.perkinscoie.com/casedigest/icd_results.cfm?keyword1=privacy&topic=Privacy

I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, but this bit stuck out :

the court found JetBlue to be bound to the privacy policy as part of JetBlue's contract for transportation services, but dismissed the contract claims since the plaintiffs failed to allege economic damages--rather, they sought damages for loss of privacy, which under New York common law is not recoverable under a breach of contract claim.

***
Look, I'm not saying privacy violation is not wrong or not "icky". I'm just saying it's probably not successfully actionable in a court of law.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Well certainly you can file a lawsuit for anything, but that doesn't mean it won't get thrown out the second it gets in front of its first judge - before you even have a chance to make an argument.

This certainly requires a legal challenge.

You're after a pretty big change in privacy policy/law. The courts aren't the way to do it - the legislature is.

This isn't like recording phone calls - the phone company has no good reason to do that. But they must keep calling records. That is critical to the operation of their networks, not to mention billing you for the calls. So clarifying, this is just about the voluntary releasing of that information to the government. I'd like to see an argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to do that and a legal basis for the suit. That'd be the first question the judge asks. The answer can't be 'uh, well, I don't like it' - there must be a legal basis for the suit or it gets thrown out before it even hits a courtroom.

 

[Art]

It could be a violation of the 1974 Privacy Act

Privacy Act Overview

The Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a, protects against an invasion of privacy through the misuse of personal information by government agencies. The Act allows citizens to determine how records are collected, maintained, used, and disseminated by the federal government. It also provides provisions for an individual to inspect, copy, and correct personal information the government is maintaining on them.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/about/privacyact/default.htm

And in more detail;

(5) in order to protect the privacy of individuals identified
in information systems maintained by Federal agencies, it is
necessary and proper for the Congress to regulate the collection,
maintenance, use, and dissemination of information by such
agencies.
'(b) The purpose of this Act (enacting this section and
provisions set out as notes under this section) is to provide
certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of
personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies, except as otherwise
provided by law, to -
'(1) permit an individual to determine what records pertaining
to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such
agencies;
'(2) permit an individual to prevent records pertaining to him
obtained by such agencies for a particular purpose from being
used or made available for another purpose without his consent;
'(3) permit an individual to gain access to information
pertaining to him in Federal agency records, to have a copy made
of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such
records;
'(4) collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of
identifiable personal information in a manner that assures that
such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose, that the
information is current and accurate for its intended use, and
that adequate safeguards are provided to prevent misuse of such
information;
'(5) permit exemptions from the requirements with respect to
records provided in this Act only in those cases where there is
an important public policy need for such exemption as has been
determined by specific statutory authority; and
'(6) be subject to civil suit for any damages which occur as a
result of willful or intentional action which violates any
individual's rights under this Act.'

http://www.eff.org/Legislation/?f=privacy_act_74_5usc_s552a.law.txt

At the very least every subscriber should request a copy of their personal files from the gov't to see what is being recorded about them. This should keep the gov't busy for a while. 'The devil finds work for idle hands'

In fact you could start a campaign. Send an email to 10 sympathetic friends including a link to a form requesting a copy of the personal information the gov't is holding on them and ask them to each forward it to ten more friends. With popular support the gov't would soon be trawling through millions of requests for information.

 

[Astronuc]

The Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a, protects against an invasion of privacy through the misuse of personal information by government agencies.

The key here is whether or not the government has misused private information, and this is the government, not the phone company.

It would appear that the phone companies have done nothing illegal or anything for which one could successfully sue them.

Since the government obtained the information without a subpoena or warrant, the question remains as to whether these actions constitute a violation of due process. There is a reason for having law enforcement of investigative/intelligence agencies obtaining a warrant - the protection against unreasonable 'search and seizure'. The Bush administration has decided to circumvent this protection. In a matter of 'national security' or rather 'common defense', it is certainly reasonable for the government to obtain a warrant after the fact if waiting for such a warrant would fail to prevent a criminal (violent or destructive) act. The law already provides that, but the Bush administration ignores it in favor of acting in secret. That's the big deal.

This document discusses - Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic
Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

 

[Art]

Here's a very comprehensive article relating to america's privacy laws. The extract below pertains to Ivan's particular bone of contention,

CONSUMER PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE:
A VIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES

<snip>B. Communications-Related Information Held by the Private Sector

Americans are also concerned about the government's ability to access information held by the private sector, especially personal communications. As a result, under existing law, government agents must present a warrant to access telephone company facilities to conduct wiretaps. Postal employees may review mail content only for the purpose of determining the intended recipient's address. Postal regulations also limit government access to transactional data about postal based communications. For example, in order to record the return addresses of those who send mail to a particular address, a federal agency must provide the post office with a written statement justifying the mail "cover" on the basis of suspected criminal activity.(10)

One area in which U.S. law may be more comprehensive than that of our European counterparts is electronic communications. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) limits the circumstances under which federal and state government may access the contents of transactional data in both real time communications and stored communications.(11) Specifically, the statute prohibits eavesdropping on oral, wire, and electronic communications. ECPA recognizes that communications systems generate information about system users, so-called transactional data. Thus, the government can obtain basic subscriber information, including name, address, toll records, etc., only with a subpoena. The government must have a search warrant or court order upon a showing of specific and articulable facts demonstrating relevance to a criminal investigation, in order to obtain other transactional data such as a list of addresses to which a particular message was sent.

http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/varney/priv&ame.htm

As Astronuc said any legal recourse would probably have to be taken against the fed gov't rather than the phone companies unless there are individual state laws (which may well be the case) protecting consumers from such behaviour.

 

[BobG]

It's impossible for the average person to evaluate a program that's highly classified. That's why people have to rely on the checks and balances built into the system, such as Congressional oversight and the FISA court.

You can get a general idea of whether the program is legal or not by how each party reacted.

Qwest refused to comply, at some risk, because they felt complying would carry an equal risk. They would be in violation of Section 222 of the Communications Act.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The NSA bypassed the FISA court because of the chance that the FISA court might disagree - "don't ask the question because you might not like the answer". As long as the question was never asked, there was a chance that the program was legal. Asking the question could create a situation where there would be no doubt that the program was illegal.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

Congressional oversight was very limited in this case due to the limitations in technical knowledge of the Congressmen and their inability to consult anyone who could educate them on the issue due to the security classification of the info. This is a problem. As important as security is, you have to give the people responsible for making decisions about the program the means to make a decision.

I think the chances of this program being illegal are quite a bit better than 50/50. In fact, given that there is a law that prohibits phone companies from releasing the info that the NSA wanted, I'm surprised Qwest was the only company that resisted.

By the way, here's the link to the USA Today story causing the current debate: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, no. People think so, but not legally so.

Why do you think it is so easy for law enforcement to get those records?

But don't the police need a warrant to access phone records ? I thought they did, but I may be wrong.

I thought it required judicial oversight if your right to privacy was going to be breached.

Edit : Just read Art's reference which corroborates my above point.

 

[Evo]

But don't the police need a warrant to access phone records ? I thought they did, but I may be wrong.

I thought it required judicial oversight if your right to privacy was going to be breached.

Edit : Just read Art's reference which corroborates my above point.

They need a subpoena, which would be easy to get.