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

[Ivan Seeking]

Which they didn't have. And they weren't about to get one for tens of millions.

The beauty of this approach [the law suit] is that it takes the process out of the hands of an inept and corrupt congress, and potentially puts ten or twenty million people [or more] in control through the legal process. If companies are afraid of civil repercussions when they compromise your privacy, they may start to act more responsibly.

The other part is that this creates a legal entity - the claimants in the class action suit - that is large enough to take on the corporations. And the money would attract the best lawyers in the nation. What is a reasonable price for violating my civil rights, times ten or twenty million.

Again, Russ, the entire point is to not rely on a corrupt congress that has already failed to protect my rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, for those here confused about criminal and civil law, OJ Simpson was acquitted on murder charges, but convicted on civil violations, and sued by the family of his dead wife.

 

[Evo]

Which they didn't have. And they weren't about to get one for tens of millions.

The beauty of this approach [the law suit] is that it takes the process out of the hands of an inept and corrupt congress, and potentially puts ten or twenty million people [or more] in control through the legal process. If companies are afraid of civil repercussions when they compromise your privacy, they may start to act more responsibly.

The other part is that this creates a legal entity - the claimants in the class action suit - that is large enough to take on the corporations. And the money would attract the best lawyers in the nation. What is a reasonable price for violating my civil rights, times ten or twenty million.

Again, Russ, the entire point is to not rely on a corrupt congress that has already failed to protect my rights.

The companies would be protected it seems by what Astronuc posted. Any fault would be with the government if they acted inappropriately.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Show me where. I see Astro make the assertion, but I see nothing saying the phone company can release the personal records for tens of millions at will.

This isn't like a targeted wire tap, this is mining.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just heard that law suits are already being filed.

 

[Evo]

Show me where.

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

If they requested the records with the intent to search for international calls, this seems to let the companies off the hook.

I don't approve of it, but the blame would lie with the president and government agencies. It's the "needle in the haystack", they took the whole haystack.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They are randomly mining domestic call information. They are allegedly looking for patterns in large databases that suggest terrorist activity.

I agree that the government is a problem, but now the phone companies are as well. But this time there is something that can be done. And this time it won't matter if Bush and the Rove can dupe half the country.

 

[Evo]

They are randomly mining domestic call information.

Well, that's likely what they're doing but not likely what their reason for the request was.

I agree that the government is a problem, but now the phone companies are as well. But this time there is something that can be done.

I think the companies will be reluctant to turn over information in the future due to the flack this is getting, but I'm not so positive a suit will work. Too much gray area.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then why did Quest refuse; and they did refuse. They knew this was a problem.

 

[Evo]

Then why did Quest refuse; and they did refuse. They knew this was a problem.

Having dealt with Qwest, their record keeping is probably so bad, they didn't have anything to turn over and were trying to avoid embarrassment.

 

[russ_watters]

It could be a violation of the 1974 Privacy Act...

A lot depends on the wording of your service agreement with the phone company, which, I remember from previous threads, I had trouble tracking down. The "without his consent" part is key: by signing up for the service, you consented to whatever was in that policy.

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'

You get a copy of your calling records from the phone company every month. For bigger customers, the phone company mails cd's.

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

Ehh, to you (and me), maybe, but to Ivan (and a lot of other people), the privacy in and of itself is important as well.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by USA Today
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.

Huh. Now that's interesting. If correct, it would be a pretty clear legal violation to turn over those records, but is it correct? From what I understand, companies hand over information like that all the time to the police without warrants or subpoenas (I think) - so wouldn't that make that illegal?

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

Do they even need a subpoena?

 

[Moonbear]

Isn't it the phone companies information to do with what they want? They let you use their networks. Besides, they already make your phone number publicly available in the phone book. You should probably read that little pamphlet every company seems to send out that includes their privacy policy. Only if they violated what they've sent you in writing as part of your contract (continuing service with them after receiving that is considered agreeing to the contract) would you have a case in civil court as a breach of contract situation. Generally, unless you specifically request something different, those things all default to permitting them to disclose certain information to third parties (telemarketers, government, whoever they want).

 

[Evo]

From what I understand, companies hand over information like that all the time to the police without warrants or subpoenas (I think) - so wouldn't that make that illegal? Do they even need a subpoena?

You're right, it appears a subpoena may not be necessary in this case. Stored records of phones calls (numbers) apparently can be handed over according to the article Art posted.

For voice communications:
"ECPA allows for disclosure of information under certain exceptions: consent of one party; disclosure to service providers as a necessary incident of providing the service; and disclosure to law enforcement concerning inadvertently obtained evidence of a crime.

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

 

[franznietzsche]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

Stored records cannot be handed over without administrative subpoena, which the NSA does not have.

 

[Gokul43201]

For voice communications:
"ECPA allows for disclosure of information under certain exceptions: consent of one party; disclosure to service providers as a necessary incident of providing the service; and disclosure to law enforcement concerning inadvertently obtained evidence of a crime.

I don't understand what those exceptions mean. Will someone please explain them in simple-talk ?

 

[russ_watters]

I spent about 20 minutes googling and looking at privacy policies, but they are vague on the particulars regarding the circumstances under which a phone company can release the information. Even that quote you just posted, Evo - it doesn't explicitly say whether or not a subpoena is required. I'd really like to find something clearer, because that's kinda a critical part of this issue...

 

[Astronuc]

Ehh, to you (and me), maybe, but to Ivan (and a lot of other people), the privacy in and of itself is important as well.

Actually, I don't care what the government knows about me, as long as they leave me alone. They can spy on me as much as they want, as long as I am at liberty, I couldn't care.

 

[Evo]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/

Stored records cannot be handed over without administrative subpoena, which the NSA does not have.

The article is inaccurate, they site 2703, which does not cover voice, it covers electronic communications (e-mail etc...)

 

[Art]

The article is inaccurate, they site 2703, which does not cover voice, it covers electronic communications (e-mail etc...)

If you click on there FAQ link it says this

3. Does the SCA apply to phone records? Yes. The rules apply to an “electronic communications service,” which includes both phone and e-mail communications.

 

[BobG]

Isn't it the phone companies information to do with what they want? They let you use their networks. Besides, they already make your phone number publicly available in the phone book. You should probably read that little pamphlet every company seems to send out that includes their privacy policy. Only if they violated what they've sent you in writing as part of your contract (continuing service with them after receiving that is considered agreeing to the contract) would you have a case in civil court as a breach of contract situation. Generally, unless you specifically request something different, those things all default to permitting them to disclose certain information to third parties (telemarketers, government, whoever they want).

Not necessarily. The agreement/contract has to be legal in order to be binding.

In most places, if a tenant signs a lease agreeing to no pets, but later gets a pet while living in the house/apartment, the landlord can legally only do two things: require a pet deposit (it can't be 'unreasonably' high, but it can be high) and pester the tenant with empty threats. Same thing goes for kids - a landlord can't legally forbid kids from a house/apartment (even if it's 12 kids in a two bedroom apartment), can't forbid smokers, etc. (The lack of property rights for a landlord would be pretty controversial if they weren't such a small minority.)

The same principle goes for any other agreement you sign. The terms have to be legal in order for the terms to be binding (the overall effect of an unenforceable term in an agreement is kind of iffy, so buying a pet or starting smoking just to jump a lease usually wouldn't work).

 

[Amp1]

There is also a case to be made for a lawsuit. Although the phone companies have used a catch all phraseology in their contract, it only appears to let them off the hook. The truth of it is they are still liable. An example is the warnings and releases signed for amusement park rides, school trips, organized sports in schools and similar stuff. Even though it appears there isn't anything they can be sued over once you have signed or given consent in writing, they are still liable for a claim to be made against them. I believe the same thing applies in the case of the phone companies. It's misdirection, because you signed something that says you can't sue you will likely believe your powerless to do so but in reality you are not bound or prevented from bringing suit.

 

[loseyourname]

The beauty of this approach [the law suit] is that it takes the process out of the hands of an inept and corrupt congress, and potentially puts ten or twenty million people [or more] in control through the legal process. If companies are afraid of civil repercussions when they compromise your privacy, they may start to act more responsibly.

The other part is that this creates a legal entity - the claimants in the class action suit - that is large enough to take on the corporations. And the money would attract the best lawyers in the nation. What is a reasonable price for violating my civil rights, times ten or twenty million.

Use vonage or skype. I don't even own a phone and I've gotten along fine for years that way. If you don't like your service provider, stop using them. There are more direct ways to hurt a company than a lawsuit that is very unlikely to succeed. If those tens of millions of people simply dropped their service, imagine what that would do.

This shouldn't even be about legality, but simple market dynamics. When a company offers you a service and you don't like that service, you don't buy.

 

[BobG]

Use vonage or skype. I don't even own a phone and I've gotten along fine for years that way. If you don't like your service provider, stop using them. There are more direct ways to hurt a company than a lawsuit that is very unlikely to succeed. If those tens of millions of people simply dropped their service, imagine what that would do.

This shouldn't even be about legality, but simple market dynamics. When a company offers you a service and you don't like that service, you don't buy.

No doubt that this will help Qwest recover from their past problems. They suddenly went from being seen as scandalous and disreputable to heroic.

 

[Evo]

Wait, I found it.

ECPA permits the government to compel two kinds of information using a subpoena. First, the government may compel the disclosure of the basic subscriber information (discussed above in section C.1) listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2):

(A) name; (B) address; (C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations; (D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized; (E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and (F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number)[.]


http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/s&smanual2002.htm

 

[Art]

Evo are you confirming they do need a subpoena??

ECPA permits the government to compel two kinds of information using a subpoena.

 

[Evo]

Evo are you confirming they do need a subpoena??

Yes, reading through this document looks like it, although there are "exemptions". If my phone would stop ringing I might actually be able to make sense of it. That link I provided goes into great detail.

 

[Gokul43201]

It appears that there is only one exception that does not require a subpoena...

D. Compelled Disclosure Under ECPA

18 U.S.C. § 2703 articulates the steps that the government must take to compel providers to disclose the contents of stored wire or electronic communications (including e-mail and voice mail) and other information such as account records and basic subscriber information.

Section 2703 offers five mechanisms that a "government entity" can use to compel a provider to disclose certain kinds of information. The five mechanisms, in ascending order of required threshold showing, are as follows:

1) Subpoena;

2) Subpoena with prior notice to the subscriber or customer;

3) § 2703(d) court order;

4) § 2703(d) court order with prior notice to the subscriber or customer; and

5) Search warrant.

One feature of the compelled disclosure provisions of ECPA is that greater process generally includes access to information that can be obtained with lesser process. Thus, a § 2703(d) court order can compel everything that a subpoena can compel (plus additional information), and a search warrant can compel the production of everything that a § 2703(d) order can compel (and then some). As a result, the additional work required to satisfy a higher threshold will often be justified, both because it can authorize a broader disclosure and because pursuing a higher threshold provides extra insurance that the process complies fully with the statute. Note, however, the notice requirement must be considered as a separate burden under this analysis: a subpoena with notice to the subscriber can be used to compel information not available using a § 2703(d) order without subscriber notice. (One small category of information can be compelled under ECPA without a subpoena. When investigating telemarketing fraud, law enforcement may submit a written request to a service provider for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer engaged in telemarketing. See 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(D).)

...for investigating telemarketing fraud.

 

[Evo]

There's also voluntary disclosure.

E. Voluntary Disclosure

Providers of services not available "to the public" may freely disclose both contents and other records relating to stored communications. ECPA imposes restrictions on voluntary disclosures by providers of services to the public, but it also includes exceptions to those restrictions.

The voluntary disclosure provisions of ECPA appear in 18 U.S.C. § 2702. These provisions govern when a provider of RCS or ECS can disclose contents and other information voluntarily, both to the government and non-government entities. If the provider may disclose the information to the government and is willing to do so voluntarily, law enforcement does not need to obtain a legal order to compel the disclosure. If the provider either may not or will not disclose the information, agents must rely on compelled disclosure provisions and obtain the appropriate legal orders.

When considering whether a provider of RCS or ECS can disclose contents or records, the first question agents must ask is whether the relevant service offered by the provider is available "to the public." If the provider does not provide the applicable service "to the public," then ECPA does not place any restrictions on disclosure. See 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a). For example, in Andersen Consulting v. UOP, 991 F. Supp. 1041 (N.D. Ill. 1998), the petroleum company UOP hired the consulting firm Andersen Consulting and gave Andersen employees accounts on UOP's computer network. After the relationship between UOP and Andersen soured, UOP disclosed to the Wall Street Journal e-mails that Andersen employees had left on the UOP network. Andersen sued, claiming that the disclosure of its contents by the provider UOP had violated ECPA. The district court rejected the suit on the ground that UOP did not provide an electronic communication service to the public:

I don't think they could use this though.

 

[Art]

I presume the telecoms and the gov't will rely on this piece to defend their actions,

ECPA provides for the voluntary disclosure of non-content customer records by a provider to a governmental entity when: (22)

1) the disclosure "may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service," § 2702(c)(3);

2) the provider "reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death of serious physical injury to any person" justifies disclosure, § 2702(c)(4); or

3) the disclosure is made with the consent of the intended recipient, or pursuant to a court order or legal process § 2702(c)(1)-(2).

In general, these exceptions permit disclosure by a 'provider to the public' when the needs of public safety and service providers outweigh privacy concerns of customers, or else when disclosure is unlikely to pose a serious threat to privacy interests.

There's also a neat summary chart in section F.

 

[Astronuc]

Lawmakers Seek Details of NSA Phone Project
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5401886

All Things Considered, May 12, 2006 · News of domestic data-gathering by the National Security Agency dominates Capitol Hill for a second day. Lawmakers have had plenty of opportunity to ask Gen. Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA, about the operation: Hayden is currently campaigning for Senate confirmation as director of the CIA.

Hayden has won wide praise for his personal abilities. But his ties to the NSA has even his supporters and Republican senators saying they needed to know more before confirming the Air Force general.

Two Republican senators who met with Hayden and discussed his nomination to be CIA director said that at his confirmation hearing next week, he must explain his role in collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) say Hayden should be forthcoming in his responses, since the program was begun while Hayden was the head of the NSA. They also urged the Bush administration to do a better job of informing Congress of such programs.

I heard Chuck Hagel express concern, and he wants to know why they needed the records. I have heard several Republicans and Conservatives express concern, although several would give the NSA the benefit of doubt, pending details.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Verizon Communications Inc. faces its first lawsuit ...

..."This is the largest and most vast intrusion of civil liberties we've ever seen in the United States," said New Jersey attorney Bruce Afran, who sued with attorney Carl Mayer in federal district court in Manhattan, where Verizon is headquartered.

...The lawsuit seeks $1,000 for each violation of the Telecommunications Act, or $5 billion if the case is certified as class-action.[continued]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3860409.html

I heard it was 9 Billion.

 

[Astronuc]

What strikes me as extraordinary is the fact that it was records of millions of Americans - not specific people - but effectively every user.

Now in theory, the NSA used software to mine patterns or perhaps simply looked for suspect phone numbers. However the government was snooping without a warrant or subpeona.

In all fairness, if the government is looking for specific numbers related to national security, they can't just share that out in the public, i.e. they could not simply provide the list of suspect numbers to the telecoms companies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The thing is, the NSA didn't have the power to do anything, but the telephone companies, less QWest, simply rolled over at the expense of everyone's civil liberties. I am absolutely furious! They all deserve to be bankrupted by this.

On another level, IMO, the issue of how these coporations handle our private information has been a huge problem for a long time now.This may help to bring it all to a head.

They are now talking about 230 million affected users. Also, note that there are no [may not be any] laws to govern how the NSA uses this information. From what I understand, since it was smply handed over to them, they can do pretty much what they want. They can check the numbers of journalists and see who they're calling and where they're getting their information. Or, they might track the numbers called from Democratic headquarters, etc.

 

[SOS2008]

In another thread we already discussed that a company can monitor Internet/email in their company, but only with prior notification to the employees. Assuming my phone company sent a notification in a phone bill, like they do so frequently that none of us ever read it, I pay extra for an unpublished number. To further protect citizen's privacy, we now have the Do Not Call list, which I am on as well. What's the use of these measures if telecommunication companies can volunteer the information without our knowledge or consent?

Aside from the communications act (per BobG), and other laws in the thread, the law suits have begun:

Breaking the Law?
A privacy advocate explains why Americans should care about the NSA’s database of phone records.
May 12, 2006

...For privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based nonprofit, the answer is clear: the NSA is spying on Americans. And, according to EFF, it is illegal for telecom companies to supply customer calling details to the NSA unless they follow established legal procedures to obtain a warrant.

If the EFF has its way, the onus may soon be on the federal government to prove that its requests to the telecom companies were legal. In January of this year, the group filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for "allowing and assisting" the NSA's "illegal wiretapping and data-mining." The Department of Justice has already stepped in, indicating April 28 that it intends to seek dismissal of the case by asserting the "military and state secrets privilege." With recent allegations in USA Today that Verizon and BellSouth also covertly provided information about domestic phone calls to the federal government, the progress of EFF's suit will be scrutinized by civil libertarians and other privacy advocates. A hearing to determine the court schedule for this case will be held May 17.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762065/site/newsweek/page/2/

I have nothing to hide. However, when government officials such as BushCo display total disregard for the Constitution and Rule of Law time and again, I am concerned. It is very important to protect civil liberties no matter what, because you never know when those in power may choose to abuse it--to frame certain individuals with contrived charges, for example.

So I hope these companies are sued, and I hope the NSA program is stopped. In the meantime, as a consumer I will not use any of the companies that sold out their customers (and I pray we can rid ourselves of the tyrants in our government as soon as possible).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the onus may soon be on the federal government to prove that its requests to the telecom companies were legal

This is one significant distinction between civil and criminal law. In a civil case, the burden of proof is shifted.