Comments on news posted 2013-06-06 10:33:30: The Guardian created a bit of a firestorm late yesterday by unearthing a secret order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) demanding that Verizon hand over records pertaining to phone calls made on their network on a daily basis. ..
While disturbing on many levels, I wonder how this is different from VZ and all the others who sell this data to advertisers?
In correct terms, your LIBERTY is not on the line when business sell the aggregated data. The government gets it all, not some, and they can take your liberty away from you.. hell, they can ALWAYS come up with a reason to put an "enemy" away if they want.
Well the NSA has to fill their shiny new datacenter in Utah with something. That something is your phone records, emails, tweets and anything else electronic. But don't worry it's all to protect you from terrorists. They're not Big Brother. Really they aren't.
So here's the thing - there's nothing illegal about this. Wiretap laws cover the actual conversation. The metadata that's being reported here isn't covered at all. Just like authorities (or probably any agency or law enforcement organization) can get this information (but not typically at this scale) as well as your email (also not protected), Internet activity (again, not content) etc.
And lets not forget Verizon will sell this to anyone willing to write a check. Government OR commercial. Verizon considers this information their proprietary information. Not yours.
Privacy laws in this country suck.
edit: This is what automation CAN bring (but doesn't have to) - surveillance on a massive scale. None of it currently illegal and much of it by corporations. License plate readers, Internet activity tracking (deep packet inspection), who you talk to, automated traffic enforcement, credit card activity, bank transactions, travel information, cell phone location information, DNA databases and so much more.
Just another mountain out of a molehill story. Metdata is not a phone tap. This info has been available to police for decades. And since FISA ordered it, it is completely legal.
This may not be unconstitutional since, per Katz vs United States pen registers are not considered a search and seizure, but since the statute authorizing pen registers requires individual suspicion, it's very likely illegal.
This is a HUGE money maker for Verizon. I know someone who works in LE that processes these requests and I've been told the Verizon charges an astronomical amount per request.
No, it's not a mountain out of a molehill. Metadata is still data, and it is no one's business but mine, and the phone company. If I've done something wrong, get a fucking warrant!
I don't care if it's been available to the pigs for decades, they shouldn't have this information, solely because it's none of their goddamned business who the fuck I call. I'll be calling Verizon to cancel my account today, and I won't be paying the ETF. They can (and will, I'm sure) sue me for it, but it's all I can do. I've heard just about enough of this bullshit.
You bootlicking authoritarian lovers crack me up. "Since FISA ordered it, it is completely legal." Get off your knees. They have legalized the murder of American citizens on American soil through the NDAA, I'm sure you would say that's fine, too, since the government has now legalized murdering us.
If someone got a law passed saying it's OK to punch you in the face, would you be fine with that, just because it's "legal"?
Hey clone, so yeah, that's the thing isn't it? There are plenty of laws that say it's okay for cops to punch you in the face. There are plenty of laws that run contrary to "mores".
Just what did you think Verizon was doing with this data? Of all of the government agencies the "Nightmarish Scary Agency" is the one I trust the most. It's the local yahoos with no controls over what's done with the data and commercial entities I worry about most.
Now that the Nightmarish Scary Agency has gotten their hands on this data and the public knows hopefully people will sit up and pay some frickin attention the massive databases that are being compiled on them and do something about privacy laws in general.
This data should be around as long as required for billing reasons and no longer and not be put to any other use. ALL of the types I mentioned above.
Somehow I doubt they exist other than in your mind...
"Don't tase me, bro!" "The burners deployed and we have a fire." etc.
Cops have incredible personal discretion when handling the public. They can engineer a situation to do nearly whatever they want to you - inflict pain, bodily harm, etc and are covered by the law. And if they're not outright covered by the law they're covered by the courts who, except with exceptional evidence, side with them.
They're allowed to use reasonable force in the process of arresting someone, or for defense like anyone else. Is that sometimes abused? Heck yeah. But is that allowed for in the law? No way, they just very often get the benefit of the doubt in he said/she said situations.
Somehow I doubt they exist other than in your mind...
"Don't tase me, bro!" "The burners deployed and we have a fire." etc.
Cops have incredible personal discretion when handling the public. They can engineer a situation to do nearly whatever they want to you - inflict pain, bodily harm, etc and are covered by the law. And if they're not outright covered by the law they're covered by the courts who, except with exceptional evidence, side with them.
Not a figment of my imagination.
Those aren't laws.
Once you can cite real laws then we will discuss it.
Guy gets tased for not hanging up his phone. Probably killed too. You go try this in a mall and see if there's any difference in the law for you vs. cops.
There simply are no LAWS authorizing unreasonable force. Of course it happens, but it's extralegal. If I'm wrong, I'd be very curious to see the law in question.
I'll be calling Verizon to cancel my account today, and I won't be paying the ETF. They can (and will, I'm sure) sue me for it, but it's all I can do. I've heard just about enough of this bullshit.
If you don't think that the other carriers have similar orders then OK fight Verizon and go AT&T.
No, it's not a mountain out of a molehill. Metadata is still data, and it is no one's business but mine, and the phone company. If I've done something wrong, get a fucking warrant!
I don't care if it's been available to the pigs for decades, they shouldn't have this information, solely because it's none of their goddamned business who the fuck I call. I'll be calling Verizon to cancel my account today, and I won't be paying the ETF. They can (and will, I'm sure) sue me for it, but it's all I can do. I've heard just about enough of this bullshit.
You can cancel Verizon, but every other carrier will also yield on this issue. They have no reason to fight it, the data has never been protected.
This blame for this invasion of your privacy rests solely with the government. Funny, i seem to recall that this administration campaigning against such tactics.
Agree with you completely. Funny how the leftie run media defending this FAILED to report how the Director of National Intelligence flat out lied...
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked at a March hearing whether the National Security Agency collects any data on millions of Americans.
"No sir ... not wittingly," Clapper responded, acknowledging there are cases "where inadvertently, perhaps" the data could be collected.
Just another mountain out of a molehill story. Metdata is not a phone tap. This info has been available to police for decades. And since FISA ordered it, it is completely legal.
Did hell just freeze over? TK supports something that the Obama administration does!
FYI US Senator Lindsey Graham came out this morning and said he's fine with all this. He used the "I have nothing to hide" argument.
Also FauxNooz just played the March testimony (before a Congressional hearing) of the NSA chief saying "we keep no records on US citizens". Oops. But I'm sure his words will be parsed to show that he didn't lie.
Also FauxNooz just played the March testimony (before a Congressional hearing) of the NSA chief saying "we keep no records on US citizens". Oops. But I'm sure his words will be parsed to show that he didn't lie.
I'm sure that's more like, "no unauthorized" records. But in any case they may very well not care about the identities behind the phone numbers until something "pops up".
Chatting with Verizon Customer Service this morning to express my outrage - I was informed that Verizon Wireless is NOT included in this - only Verizon landline carrier operations. Not sure how much I believe this but that's what they're claiming...
I highly doubt they even know. Legally they're not supposed to talk about this whatsoever, especially not with lower level support employees. My guess is they were just blowing smoke at you to try and keep you happy.
my kids is: Whatcha doin. nothin. You? Nothing. I dunno. Wanna play some Blackops? Nah. I just n00btube everyone. How about some minecraft? Ok. but my Dad wants me to go with him to sign up for littleleague. Littleleague blows. They're all fags. ha ha. No way. ... Hey, lets take our airhawks to the park! Yeah, I got mine and new chargr. Cool.
Verizon is under court order to comply. They have no choice. If there's an issue, it is with the judge. Blame the courts.
Not only that, but there's other stuff in the story which is just wrong. First, as a big disclaimer - I'm not a fan of this administration by any stretch, and I'm a big advocate of privacy. But I don't think there's anything to this. First, there's nothing 'illegal' about this, contrary to what's written about it. Second, the FISA courts were not created to give legal cover after the fact. That's simply not the case. These courts have been in place since the Carter administration, and approval has to be given by the courts. Third, as josephf points out, correctly, Verizon is being forced by the courts to comply. There is much to blame them about with regard to their billing and customer service departments, but I fail to see how they are to blame, at all, in this case.
Finally, while I'm no fan of big data collection by the government on behalf of American citizens, they're not collecting information about the content of these communications. They're grabbing metadata. Which numbers are being called, by which other number, and when. I've seen nothing in any of the stories on this to indicate that they're grabbing actual communications. Yes, there have to be safe-guards in place with this type of stuff - but that's what the FISA courts are all about. I'm having trouble understanding what the big deal is about, to be honest.
I'm surprised that so many more people are so surprised by this. It's as if it's suddenly news to them.
It's only news in the sense that it's yet another reminder that communications are of interest to the gov't.
It is not news to most of us. Just that fact that there are finally those out there putting it in the spotlight to educate those with their heads stuck in the sand.
Wow, look at all the sheep. The government having all this data about you with no real need or reason to have it it does not trouble you people? No warrants required, no suspicion of any crime. Just a giant fishing expedition. I guess the Constitution escaped most people in what passes for an education system these days.
Well, goodbye Fourth Amendment (along with the Fiifth, First and working on the Second very hard), but nothing to worry about. The Constitution is only a piece of paper. You can go back to sleep now.
Wow, look at all the sheep. The government having all this data about you with no real need or reason to have it it does not trouble you people? No warrants required, no suspicion of any crime. Just a giant fishing expedition. I guess the Constitution escaped most people in what passes for an education system these days.
Well, goodbye Fourth Amendment (along with the Fiifth, First and working on the Second very hard), but nothing to worry about. The Constitution is only a piece of paper. You can go back to sleep now.
Oh come on. Look, I'm a conservative. I think the abuses of this administration with regard to the IRS scandal are very real. I also find it extremely hard to believe that Obama was out of the loop on that scandal. But it doesn't help matters to find contraversies where none exist. The point is that phone METADATA is not private. The supreme court held as much in 1979. It is public information and the government hasn't needed a warrant to get it. It's been going on for a very very long time. Don't take my word for it, though:
I think it's hard to call McCarthy (they prosecutor who put the blind sheik behind bars following the first WTC attack) a sheep. He's exactly right - there's nothing to this story. It seems to have escaped everyone that the administration didn't order Verizon - a FISA JUDGE did. Meaning that there IS oversight.
This boils down to big data and correlation vs privacy rights. Spy agencies by their definition operate above the law, so FISA is simply a placeholder for said activities.
As soon as taps were developed the NSA and it's precursors were on the job, so what has changed? Nothing. The technology has made it easier and there is more data to draw from. Good I say.
By gathering broad-based data they can run analytics on behavior with a bigger data set that by going and get one-off warrants which is inefficient and clearly too slow to act. This will make them more effective, which is what you want. You want the spy agency to be the best, right?
The issue becomes that when the government becomes too big (like it has mushroomed) they now have a feeling of a right to do whatever they want and that is where a benign government turns into a tyranny. Well we are seeing that flourish under the current governments watch. The IRS targeting specific applications of the law and groups, justice department storming buildings overrriding state laws, and it goes on.
You cannot regulate behavior through rules, you need to keep the hands of the tyrant tied. The founders understood that.
If you think that all they are collecting is metadata you are, IMO, l wrong. The right of privacy by an American citizen is long gone. For example the IRS uses a a rather large computer COMPLEX to track tax returns, spending habits etc. and have been doing it for at least 15 years and recent developments have revealed how upright and aboveboard they are.. The rest of the Federal three letter entities are even more aggressive but god help you if you object to their aggressive tactics because that's all the help you will get.
... To Help To Protect U.S. Citizens, I Doubt It. This Information Will Be Used To Spy On Everyone In Regards To Financial "Verbal" Transactions, Prosecutions On Various Subjects, & ObamaCare.
Once you gave the government the power of martial law, you executed your Rights in spectacular glory. The article is like what that Rmoney liked to say. "corporations are people too, my friends".
Verizon is one of the phone companies currently being sued over its alleged disclosure of customer phone records to the NSA. In a response to the court last week, the company asked for the entire consolidated case against it to be thrown out on free speech grounds.
The response also alleges that the case should be thrown out because even looking into the issue could violate state secrets, of course, but a much longer section of the response tries to make the case that Verizon has a First Amendment right to "petition" the government. "Based on plaintiffs' own allegations, defendants' right to communicate such information to the government is fully protected by the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment," argue Verizon's lawyers.
Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can't do anything about it. In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.
"Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy "is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to communicate."
With all of the phone company cases consolidated into one master case, Verizon is hoping to have the case thrown out on free-speech grounds, putting an end to its legal troubles over the issue. Should it fail, the Bush administration is already preparing to ask Congress for retroactive immunity for all telecommunications companies that assisted the government after September 11, 2001. The government is also fighting hard in court on behalf of the phone companies, filing repeated briefs which claim that "state secrets" trump even the legality of the alleged security programs.
Verizon also makes a few bucks as well by selling your records. Which makes it a business transaction that is normally done every day with tons of companies that you have records with.
Senate endorses retroactive FISA immunity for warrantless wiretapping
Bush wins hard-fought battle after Senate immunizes telecom companies that illegally opened their networks to the Feds. There's a chance a suit against AT&T could continue. Declan McCullagh by Declan McCullagh July 9, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
The Democratic-controlled Senate handed President Bush a major political victory on Wednesday by voting to derail lawsuits against telecommunications companies that unlawfully opened their networks to the National Security Agency.
Senators voted 69 to 28 for the bill, which would rewrite federal wiretap laws by granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as long as the government claims the request was "lawful" and authorized by the president.
Wednesday's vote followed a last-minute effort by liberal and libertarian activists to convince enough Democrats to kill or modify the bill. DailyKos called the bill "a pardon to Bush"; some activists created a Wiki to hone their message; a Salon columnist dubbed the bill a "coverup of surveillance crimes."
Many of those efforts were aimed at Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, who told us half a year ago that he would definitely not support retroactive immunity. That was then. Now he does--and he voted for the final bill on Wednesday.
Sen. Hillary Clinton voted against it. Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, wasn't present for the vote but has repeatedly stressed his support for the measure (including in our voters' guide published earlier this year).
Earlier, by a 32-66 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have removed the portion of the legislation offering retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that engaged in illegal activities. The U.S. House of Representatives already approved the underlying legislation last month.
Opponents of the bill said it would allow Bush to cover up illegal warrantless wiretapping. "If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "That's why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity."
It's not yet clear what this means for the lawsuits against telecommunications companies, including one that the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought against AT&T that is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Under Sec. 802 of the Senate bill, which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, no lawsuit may proceed against any "electronic communication service provider" if either one of two conditions is met.
The first is that the company provided assistance "in connection with an intelligence activity" authorized by the president between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007, when the wiretap program was altered to include more judicial oversight. The second condition involves a company that received a "written request" from the U.S. Justice Department saying the activity was lawful and authorized by the president. (AT&T has suggested once, and twice, that such a paper trail exists.)
Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, says his group will continue to pursue its lawsuit. "We'll be challenging the constitutionality of this law," he said. "We think it unconstitutionally violates separation of powers and due process... We are going to be challenging this immunity as unconstitutional."
read "Verizon unsurprisingly complying with a court order." ?
Is Verizon the bad gut here or the government?
Oh and BTW, just because the memo leaked named Verizon, I for one am not naive enough to believe that AT&T, T-Mobile and probably all other cell carriers and probably and VOIP companies have similar orders.
Ronnie Reagan and his "Evil Empire"? We're LIVING in it folks. America has been gone for decades. Adolph Hitler gone high tech. Don't like it? They'll send a drone your way to "discuss" it. Look at the ever increasing numbers of citizens murdered by Storm Troopers...errr... police. There's no longer even an EFFORT made to defuse any situation, it's shoot em, bag em, and get back to the donuts. That's the new Amerka sheeples...and it's just going to get worse and worse.
When you title the article "Verizon UNSURPRISINGLY..." it implies Verizon has a choice and did it just to be dicks. Sorry but when ORDERED to by the government you don't get a choice.
Yes, you do. You or I can't, but when you're a multi-billion dollar corporation the size of Verizon Communications, you can tell daddy to go fuck himself once in a while. BUT, if you want to keep getting all the sweet spectrum deals and pesky regulatory oversight thrown out the window, you don't do that. Verizon didn't become what they are today playing by the rules.