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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    company
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the legal implications of telecommunications companies, specifically AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth, providing customer phone records to the NSA without warrants, while Qwest refused to comply due to concerns over legal ramifications. The legality of this data sharing is questioned, particularly regarding the violation of privacy rights and the potential breach of contracts signed by customers. The NSA's actions are scrutinized for bypassing judicial oversight, raising concerns about due process and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The conversation suggests that while privacy violations are troubling, proving harm for legal action may be challenging, as courts often require demonstrable damages beyond feelings of privacy loss. The potential for a national class action lawsuit against the cooperating companies is proposed, emphasizing the need for accountability and the protection of civil rights. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding privacy and telecommunications, including the Communications Act and the Privacy Act of 1974.
  • #51
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...
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #52
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #53
franznietzsche said:
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...)
 
  • #54
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #55
Moonbear said:
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).
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • #58
loseyourname said:
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.
 
  • #59
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Evo are you confirming they do need a subpoena??

ECPA permits the government to compel two kinds of information using a subpoena.
 
  • #61
Art said:
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.
 
  • #62
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.
 
  • #63
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.
 
  • #64
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.
 
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
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.
 
  • #68
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
"military and state secrets privilege."
Why does that sound like the Soviet Union. :rolleyes:

I don't think "military and state secrets privilege" covers criminal or otherwise illegal activity.

Where does one draw the line with respect to domestic surveillance. Certainly, intelligence gathering methods and information, e.g. which persons are suspected of involvement with terrorist organizations, and how that was determined should be secret, but that still doesn't preclude oversight vis-a-vis something like FISA courts.

Suppose one has a Muslim friend who just happens to a common name, something equivalent to "John Smith". Does this entitle the government to investigate one because of one's association with "John Smith". No! Would anyone who knows a John Smith be subject to arbitrary and capricious investigation. No! There is such a thing as "due process" with procedures and formalities, e.g. judicial oversight.
 
  • #72
So, were only 4 companies asked for call records? Qwest is tiny in comparison to Sprint. When they say Verizon, do they mean MCI? MCI is now Verizon. And why Bellsouth instead of SBC? SBC was 10 times larger than BellSouth before they bought AT&T.
 
  • #73
Evo said:
Wait, I found it.

ECPA permits the government to compel two kinds of information using a subpoena.
But this program wasn't compulsory. Ie, that law tells what info they must give if subpoena'd. That doesn't necessarily imply that they can't simply turn it over on request. What we're looking for is what information, if any, the phone company can voluntarily give.
 
  • #74
Ivan Seeking said:
This is one significant distinction between civil and criminal law. In a civil case, the burden of proof is shifted.
No, it isn't. It is just reduced. The burden is "a preponderance of the evidence" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
  • #75
According the the USA Today article, the government has contracts with and is paying AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth for the information. I finally had a chance to read the entire article.
 
  • #76
Thu May 11, 12:00 AM ET

The Nation -- Two months after the New York Times revealed that the Bush Administration ordered the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless surveillance of American citizens, only three corporations--AT&T, Sprint and MCI--have been identified by the media as cooperating.

----------

Despite the President's rigorous defense of the program, no company has dared to admit its cooperation publicly. Their reticence is understandable: The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation of the government officials who leaked the NSA story to the Times, and many constitutional scholars and a few lawmakers believe the program is both illegal and unconstitutional. And the companies may be embarrassed at being caught--particularly AT&T, which spent millions advertising its global services during the Winter Olympics. "It's a huge betrayal of the public trust, and they know it," says Bruce Schneier, the founder and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security, a California consulting firm.

Corporations have been cooperating with the NSA for half a century. What's different now is that they appear to be helping the NSA deploy its awesome computing and data-mining powers inside the United States in direct contravention of US law, which specifically bans the agency from collecting information from US citizens living inside the United States. "They wouldn't touch US persons before unless they had a FISA warrant," says a former national security official who read NSA intercepts as part of his work for the State Department and the Pentagon.

----------

...today's global telecom market includes dozens of companies that compete with AT&T, Sprint and MCI for telephone and mobile services, as well as scores of Internet service providers like Google, Yahoo! and AOL that offer e-mail, Internet and voice connections to customers around the world. They are served by multinational conglomerates like Apollo, Flag Atlantic and Global Crossing, which own and operate the global system of undersea fiber-optic cables that link the United States to the rest of the world. Any one of them could be among the companies contacted by intelligence officials when President Bush issued his 2002 executive order to obtain surveillance without FISA approval.

Nobody's talking, though. Asked if AT&T, which was recently acquired by SBC Communications, is cooperating with the NSA, AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp said, "We don't comment on national security matters." He referred me to a recent AT&T letter to Representative Conyers, which stated that AT&T "abides by all applicable laws, regulations and statutes in its operations and, in particular, with respect to requests for assistance from governmental authorities." MCI, which was acquired in January by Verizon, and Sprint, which recently merged with Nextel Communications, declined to comment. Attorney Gidari, who has represented Google, T-Mobile, Nextel and Cingular Wireless (now part of AT&T), believes that "some companies, both telecom and Internet," were asked to participate in the NSA program. But he suggests that only a limited number agreed. "The list of those who said no is much longer than most people think," he says.

The NSA, some analysts say, may have sought the assistance of US telecoms because most of the world's cable operators are controlled by foreign corporations. ...The NSA could get access to this traffic by sending a submarine team to splice the cables in international waters, as the agency once did to the Soviet Union's undersea military cables. But that is an extremely expensive proposition, and politically dicey to boot--which is where the US telecoms come in. "Cooperation with the telcos doesn't make NSA surveillance possible, but it does make it cheaper," says Schneier, the technology consultant.

----------

History proves a good guide to how the NSA would go about winning cooperation from a telecom company. When telephone and telegraph companies began assisting the NSA during the 1940s, only one or two executives were in on the secret. That kind of arrangement continued into the 1970s, and is probably how cooperation with the NSA works today, says Kenneth Bass III, a Justice Department official during the Carter Administration. "Once the CEO approved, all the contacts [with the intelligence agencies] would be worked at a lower level," he says. "The telcos have been participating in surveillance activities for decades--pre-FISA, post-FISA--so it's nothing new to them." Bass, who helped craft the FISA law and worked with the NSA to implement it, adds that he "would not be surprised at all" if cooperating executives received from the Bush Administration "the same sort of briefing, but much more detailed and specific than the FISA court got when [the surveillance] was first approved." :bugeye:

Those executives, all of whom hold security clearances, meet at the White House once a year--Vice President Cheney was the speaker at their last meeting--and hold quarterly conference calls with high-ranking officials. ...AT&T also makes no bones about its national security work. When SBC was preparing to acquire the company last year, the two companies underscored their ties with US intelligence in joint comments to the FCC. "AT&T's support of the intelligence and defense communities includes the performance of various classified contracts," the companies said, pointing out that AT&T "maintains special secure facilities for the performance of classified work and the safeguarding of classified information."

MCI, too, is a major government contractor and was highly valued by Verizon in part because of its work in defense and intelligence.

----------

There's another group of companies, largely overlooked, that could also be cooperating with the NSA. These are firms clustered around the Beltway that contract with the agency to provide intelligence analysts, data-mining technologies and equipment used in the NSA's global signals-intelligence operations. The largest of them employ so many former intelligence officials that it's almost impossible to see where the government ends and the private sector begins.

----------

Are firms that cooperate with the NSA legally culpable? Bamford, who is not a lawyer but probably knows more about the NSA than any American outside government, says yes. "The FISA law is very clear," he says. "If you don't have a warrant, you're in violation, and the penalty is five years and you can be sued by the aggrieved parties." Kevin Bankston, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adds that US law "not only prohibits unauthorized wiretapping; it also prohibits unauthorized disclosure or use of illegally wiretapped information. As long as you were doing that, you're potentially liable." Schneier, the technology consultant, harbors no doubts either. "Arguing that this is legal is basically saying we're in a police state."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060511/cm_thenation/20060320shorrock

One must assume that the intelligence community has researched all avenues, which means they have approached all such companies -- certainly domestically. The telecoms that have government contracts are easier to pinpoint, that's all.

While soldiers are dying to protect our so-called freedoms, we are actually losing our freedoms right here at home due to hunger for power and capitalist greed. Can Congress do anything about it? No:

Senators Edward Kennedy and Russell Feingold--have attempted to obtain information from companies involved in the domestic surveillance program. But they've largely been rebuffed.
The only way to stop the abuse is to put an end to the Bush/Cheney cabal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
Desperate times call for desperate measures. In times of war, open societies have been willing to accept the need for secret spy services. Americans now spend upwards of $40 billion a year on intelligence. Given a hard choice between security and privacy, most Americans would probably choose to sacrifice some of the latter to get more of the former. The harder question is whether the techno wizards at the NSA, overwhelmed by tidal waves of digital data, searching for tiny poisonous fish in a giant sea, can provide true security from another 9/11.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12779087/site/newsweek/page/2/

A. The "war on terror" is a war with no end. It is not a a temporary loss of privacy, but possibly an infinite loss. Then one must ask, "what are our soldiers dying for?"

B. Americans want their government to do what ever is necessary to catch terrorists, but not at the exclusion of the Constitution, Rule of Law or human rights.

C. There is no proof the exchange for privacy results in security, and at a high cost not only in civil liberties but in tax dollars too.

We were told "that eavesdropping or "data collection" had been narrowly focused on Al Qaeda terror suspects." However, when we learn that the NSA has eavesdropped on thousands of phone calls WITHIN the United States, we know the "data collection" is not focused on Al Qeada terrorists," but on innocent and unsuspecting American citizens.

Ultimately what angers Americans is that Bush has lied to them once again. Americans know they cannot trust this administration to protect civil liberties, or anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
russ_watters said:
No, it isn't. It is just reduced. The burden is "a preponderance of the evidence" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Civil procedures allow victims to prevail more often than do criminal ones for several reasons. There is no presumption of innocence. In criminal court, guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt”; that is, it must be a virtual certainty that the defendant is guilty. In civil court, liability is established by “a preponderance of the evidence”; that is, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s account is accurate.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408f.asp

On the other hand
A plaintiff generally has the burden to prove a case,
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-about/overview-american-legal-system

I saw a couple of links that stated that there is a presumption of innocence, but apparently this gets muddy since the defendant is not under threat of losing his or her civil liberties. I don't know what exceptions allow for a shifted burden of proof though. I thought this was the norm but apparently not so. There may also be a dinstiction between contract and tort law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
It seems that the admin supporters are playing to the trivial argument that since stripped of the names of the customers, the phone companies escape liability in turning over the records. The obvious counter-argument is that the names are easily obtained if desired.

Has anyone seen if there are any limitation whatsoever on what the NSA can do with the information given that it was volunteered by the phone companies? I think two talking heads on CNN have claimed that there are absolutely no restrictions now. And I'm not asking what the "trust-us" folks are actually doing right now, I am asking for the worst case potential threat. That is the real issue here. Can they legally track all calls to and from Democratic hearquarters? Can they track all calls to and from Bush's political enemies? Apparently they can now legally do so.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
However, that was for the wiretapping, not the wholesale release of private records. Your link links to the ATT class-action suit in question.
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
It said the motion was to dismiss that suit against ATT, so I'm not sure that that is a distinction with a difference. Unless I'm missing something.
 
  • #83
franznietzsche said:
It said the motion was to dismiss that suit against ATT, so I'm not sure that that is a distinction with a difference. Unless I'm missing something.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The suit mentioned in your link was filed in January. The release of phone records of all users is another issue and only came up this week.
 
  • #84
Ivan Seeking said:
I'm not sure what you're saying. The suit mentioned in your link was filed in January. The release of phone records of all users is another issue and only came up this week.

Ok, I didn't catch that.
 
  • #85
franznietzsche said:
Ok, I didn't catch that.


Good! I don't think the DOJ can get in the middle of this one since the alleged violations of civil liberties are, in and of themselves, separate from the spy programs.
 
  • #86
BellSouth, AT&T added to NSA lawsuit

..The complaint, filed in Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion in fines to their 200 million subscribers.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran said that since the lawsuit was filed Friday they have been overwhelmed with calls from people wanting to join the suit.

They are violating federal law, which mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000 for every person whose records have been disclosed," Afran said, adding that many who have called his office are "outraged" by the government's and phone companies' actions[continued]
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/NSA.suit/

Join the Legal Fight Against Big Brother Corporations

On Friday, May 12, 2006 I, along with fellow public-interest lawyer Bruce Afran, filed the first lawsuit challenging the domestic spying operation conducted by the Bush White House, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the major phone companies.

We are seeking to permanently enjoin an Orwellian Big Government/Big Business snooping operation that monitors the calling habits of 200 million Americans. [continued]
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May06/Mayer17.htm

Telecoms deny illegally handing over call records

Three of the nation's largest phone companies deny that they improperly handed over their customers' domestic calling records to the National Security Agency.

AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon Communications said earlier this week that they were not approached by the NSA and asked to hand over records to the government.

Verizon said Tuesday said that it was "not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records." It went on to say that "none of Verizon's businesses--wireless or wireline--provided customer records or call data." [continued]
http://news.com.com/Telecoms+deny+illegally+handing+over+call+records/2100-7348_3-6073179.html
 
Last edited:
  • #87
ACLU sues phone companies for turning over records to NSA

SAN FRANCISCO - Three chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union sued AT&T Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. in state court Friday to block the telecommunications companies from providing phone records to the federal government.

Two complaints filed in San Francisco Superior Court claim the companies violated state law by helping the National Security Agency assemble the largest database in the world.[continued]
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/14678001.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that are slapped with privacy suits for cooperating with the White House’s controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.[continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20535385/
 
  • #89
They seem to grant legal immunity to everyone they deal with. The private security companies in Iraq can actually get away with murder.

On the original topic, the ISP's are also selling information to the government. And selling is the operative word here. The government doesn't get anything for free.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Replies
11
Views
27K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Back
Top