  gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| Cut off the head... Cut off the head of the snake, if you expect to kill it.
These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it.
Go after the ones who asked for the data in the first place.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
1 edit | Re: Cut off the head... go after the ones that GAVE THE DATA WITHOUT A WARRANT: AT&T and VERZION.
this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. | |
|
| |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Cut off the head... How their legal departments didn't see this coming from miles away is baffling
But if Verizon and AT&T are liable, so are those in gov't who took the information. Those people responsible should be sent to jail. | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Cut off the head... i'm sure there was an extensive discussion in the legal departments of these two companies, just like there was at Qwest.
agreed- AT&T and Verzion aren't the only ones that are guilty of breaking the law. However, good luck with tracing it into the bowels of the NSA... | |
|
| | | gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
| said by DotMac4:How their legal departments didn't see this coming from miles away is baffling But if Verizon and AT&T are liable, so are those in gov't who took the information. Those people responsible should be sent to jail. My guess is, the government told them, they would be protected, and so far, they were right.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by DotMac4:But if Verizon and AT&T are liable, so are those in gov't who took the information. Those people responsible should be sent to jail. Unfortunately, there's a little thing getting in the way of suing the government for asking for the information in the first place: sovereign immunity | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by morbo:this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault.
Can you guys quote the founders for that high-minded principle?
Mark | |
|
| | |  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy:said by morbo:this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault. Can you guys quote the founders for that high-minded principle? Mark But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we??
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by ropeguru:But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we?? Is that an argument for trying all crimes in a civil court just because "it's easier?" We don't do that when other crimes have been committed. We're only doing it in this case because those who insist a crime occured can't rise to the level required to prove the crime (court of impeachment). They can't even prove it by taking telcos to criminal court.
Instead of sucking it up, and focusing on changing the government, they're simply resorting to civil court -- while quoting the founders to make it sound like they're the true, pure defenders of freedom and Constitutionality.
To me, it's as disgusting as what they accuse the telcos of. I wouldn't be proud of it. And, it's why the EFF doesn't speak for me.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: Cut off the head... Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo:Civil court is where you sue a company for violating its stated privacy policy. It's also where you recover damages for violation of the wiretap act. Yell at Congress if you don't like it, they wrote the laws allowing such suits. I wish you guys would get your stories straight. All we hear about is how a "crime" was committed, and the telcos should be held responsible for their "criminal acts." When it's pointed out that "criminal" court is the place to prove such a claim, not "civil" court, suddenly it's about contractual violations and "damages." The same lower standards that to hot coffee to being banned.
But, all the while we're to remember that self-styled freedom fighters are pure, following the Constitution, and saving us from the pragmatists. (wink).
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: Cut off the head... Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by ieolus:Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no? If your 4th amendment rights are being violated, you file a claim with the Department of Justice who can pursue criminal statutes if it involves a criminal conspiracy to deprive you of your rights. Since the alleged conspiracy was led by the President, you would presumably seek articles of impeachment, thus making conviction of the remaining/lessor conspirators easier.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| You guys? You obviously have me confused with some other people.
Stop painting yourself as the defender of all that is good and right with the world.
Also, criminal actions are often also civil torts. Learn about the legal system before you comment further and make yourself look more like a fool. (Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws) | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo:Some criminal laws even go so far as to create a private cause of civil action, like many environmental laws This one doesn't. You're right that you can go to civil court for damages arising from a criminal action. But, normally people first try to prove their claim of criminal action. The Constitution provides for impeachment. And, the Justice Department is the place to go if your rights have been criminally violated. Self-styled freedom fighters can't rise to either of those standards. So, they're just skipping it. Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery.
Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy: Resorting to the same court where awards are handed out like the lottery. Telco customers will face higher costs. Self-styled freedom fighters will feel vindicated. But, in the end the original claim that "a crime was committed" won't be proven. Mark You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts.
For someone who doesn't even believe the telcos did anything wrong, you seem awfully obsessed with someone proving they committed a crime. Listen to too much Rush lately?
Given that you continue making demonstrably false claims like "awards are handed out like the lottery," I think I'm about done with you. Thanks for playing. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please bring a factual basis to your next response.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by wierdo:You seem unaware that often the result of civil cases is not an award of damages but an injunction against further commission of the same acts. If an AT&T customer wants to go to court to seek an injunction, go ahead. My guess is that a court would dismiss it on the basis that you can "vote with your feet." It doesn't take the EFF to do this for any individual customer.
Again, I wish you guys would get your stories straight. Others are talking about "hitting the telcos where they'll feel it" (monetarily, which you'd think "voting with your feet" would have accomplished already.).
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Cut off the head... any billion dollar judgement against AT&T = higher costs, lower stock price, etc.
that must be passed along to their customers.
that means higher prices.
that means their competitors get more market share.
that results in less money for AT&T.
that = justice. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo:any billion dollar judgement against AT&T = higher costs, lower stock price, etc. that must be passed along to their customers. that means higher prices. that means their competitors get more market share. that results in less money for AT&T. that = justice. If AT&T customers cared, wouldn't they just leave? Why the contorted means to an end? First we hear how the President committed a crime. But, you can't prove that in a court of impeachment. The telcos committed a crime. But, you can't get the AG to file criminal charges. You'll sink to civil court to impact the telcos financially. You blame the telcos sinking to payola to buy legislation in response to your own lowered standards. And, you want to speak for AT&T customers (in a class action suit) to impact AT&T in ways customers won't.
Why don't you just admit it, you have no more principles than the people you claim to be fighting against.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I, for one, do not see a problem with that.
If they committed a crime, this would be their punishment.
Customers would also seek competition due to shady business practices, proven in a court of law.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
2 edits | said by amigo_boy:If an AT&T customer wants to go to court to seek an injunction, go ahead. My guess is that a court would dismiss it on the basis that you can "vote with your feet." AT&T and Verizon are MAJOR operators of both ILEC and internet switches. By giving access to their networks and peering points they not only gave access to their own traffic but the traffic of EVERYONE who uses their network. THAT'S MOST OF THE VOICE AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE ENTIRE INTERNET TRAFFIC OF THE UNITED STATES! And yes, that includes any data/voice from Qwest that just happened to take a single hop into/out of their networks. There is no opting out. There is no walking away. There can’t be. There are no competitors!
And before you say that this is a private matter, the extensive rights of way needed to form a new major telco are an extremely limited commodity. It is impossible for any modern company to acquire them. Unless you wish to go back to the robber baron days of yore, or would prefer to see the government claim eminent domain so that a private party can dig up your backyard to lay fiber, there will never be another true competitor.
This was an extreme abuse of power and trust.
The matter of those in the government attempting to, and succeeding in, garnering such information is a separate issue. A company entrusted with such an incredible amount of power, when it would not have received that power without the help of the government, and therefore the people of the United States of America, must be held liable when it violates that trust!
They must not be allowed to commit such abuses no matter who is in office! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by TechGuy99:AT&T and Verizon are MAJOR operators of both ILEC and internet switches. By giving access to their networks and peering points they not only gave access to their own traffic but the traffic of EVERYONE who uses their network. Which tends to prove my point about how ridiculous it is for someone to use the Internet and claim a privacy expectation. Especially if they don't use encryption. Their communications will travel through companies with whom they have no contractual relationship. Wasn't this the primary basis for developing SSL, SSH, sftp, etc?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Cut off the head... said by amigo_boy:Which tends to prove my point about how ridiculous it is for someone to use the Internet and claim a privacy expectation. Especially if they don't use encryption. Their communications will travel through companies with whom they have no contractual relationship. Wasn't this the primary basis for developing SSL, SSH, sftp, etc? Mark Of course there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Just because a phone line crosses over a neighbor's yard does not mean they have the right to listen in on your private phone calls. The telcos have no right to hand over your private calls and/or data to a third party without EXPLICIT notification or unless ordered to do so by a legal warrant. And in the case of a warrant only the voice and data that is explicitly requested is allowed to be transferred. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| I see, so if I lease a line from my ISP who in turn leases it from AT&T, it's OK for them to dump my traffic because it happens to be muxed onto a fiber that also carries some of their Internet traffic?
Or more apropos, say I lease a line to connect my locations in (for example) Arizona and Alabama. These days, that's mostly done by using the network provider's IP circuits, on which they run MPLS to essentially tag each packet with the ID of the virtual circuit it belongs to. So here I am paying for a private circuit, yet when AT&T decides to hand off all their traffic, mine goes through also.
Contrary to popular belief, it's not just the Internet anymore, as essentially every national network provider transports every circuit, private and otherwise, over the same fiber, using technology like MPLS to separate out the various services. In many cases (say if Level3 is participating in this or a similar scheme, as it's widely known they do this), voice traffic is also affected, since many providers now use VoIP internally on MPLS virtual circuits to transport the voice traffic.
So yes, services on which one, by law has an expectation of privacy are also being monitored. Hell, if you bothered to read the ECPA (1986), you'd know that by law you have an expectation of privacy with data services as well. E-Mail, for one, is specifically named.
Encryption was primarily about hiding your sensitive information from the government, it was (and remains) hiding it from ne'er do wells who would intercept your sensitive information in transit. Thieves, that is.
Do some research before you mouth off. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | well said. | |
|
| | | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | i think it can be proven that AT&T committed a crime, and thus they can be prosecuted in criminal court. The problem is that the government will try to protect them, as they did ask them to break the law. It will be very difficult, but possible as there is always a trail. Look at how congressmen keep putting forth retroactive immunity bills for consideration. Disgusting. I am very surprised at the lack of outrage by the public. It's like congress putting forth a bill for retroactive immunity for ENRON.
However, it's easier to get them in civil court. Plus, it will hit them where it really hurts: their pocketbook.
It's a good PR tactic by you to attack civil court as some cheap version of justice ("hot coffee" cases as such. nice touch!), but the reality is that it is another forum for justice when the other forum is more difficult, for the time being... | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo:but the reality is that it is another forum for justice when the other forum is more difficult, for the time being... If the police and state AGs used civil court because "it's easier" (to get around those annoying hurdles criminal court imposes), self-styled freedom fighters would be screaming!
Pot, kettle, black.
Mark | |
|
| | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Oh PLEASE.
The only way to go after people for wrongdoing when the Government won't is in civil court. The Government brings criminal charges against people or companies, an individual or company cannot prosecute. If the Government won't prosecute, the ONLY PLACE it can end up is in civil court.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by amigo_boy:said by morbo:this "excuse" is favored by the telco lobbyists fighting for immunity. AT&T and Verizon had a choice. they decided to break the law. period. This "excuse" is favored by those who can't prove a law was broken. They aren't going to criminal court, but instead to that civil court. The same place you go when you spill hot coffee on yourself and it just *has* to be someone else's fault. if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity?
simple enough question. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cut off the head... said by morbo:if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? If a law was broken, why are self-styled freedom fighters resorting to *civil* court?
If I had a bunch of people seeking to bypass criminal court, relying on ambulance chasers and the nearly non-existent standard of civil court, I'd be nervous too. Just the cost of litigation under those lower standards could be enormous.
They're facing the same thing you are. You can't rise to the standards of criminal court. So, you lower yourself to civil court. Why should the fact that telcos are trying to defend themselves from *that* cheap shot be indicative of their guilt? Don't you have the burden of rising to the standard of criminal court? It seems like you're blaming the telcos for your own diminished standards.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
2 edits | Re: Cut off the head... nice attempt to change the focus, but you didn't answer the question:
if no law has been broken, enlighten us as to why AT&T is spending millions of dollars on lobbying to get immunity? if they haven't committed any crime, they wouldn't need immunity from criminal OR civil court. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | | | The hot coffee was from a broken machine that was boiling the coffee and the McDonalds in question had been warned many times prior to it becoming a civil matter.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | | |  LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: Cut off the head... And as a side note, every other citizen of the world knows that coffee is made with boiling water, and that boiling water scalds in seconds. My 3 year old kid knows that.
A Mexican, english or indian person would have said "awwww cr@p! that hurts!!"
But in the USA, no... the government has to legislate to protect its citizens against their own stupidity.
I can't wait to see the first case when someone is going to burn himself with its stove, and sue cause the plate was too hot... Will we then regulate all stoves, and therefore make it impossible for a whole country to sear meat and boil water on the stove?
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
|
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Re: Cut off the head... said by LilYoda:And as a side note, every other citizen of the world knows that coffee is made with boiling water, and that boiling water scalds in seconds. My 3 year old kid knows that. And most coffee drinkers in America know that the coffee that comes out of their coffee makers won't scald them nearly instantly, since they don't boil water, since boiling the water makes for nasty coffee.
McDonald's was in fact keeping their coffee hotter than any other restaurant, arguably so that it would stay hot longer.
Right wing smear radio did an excellent job of blaming the victim in this particular instance, so that they could advance their idiotic "tort reform" agenda. I believed it for a long time, until someone pointed out that I would do well to learn more about the lawsuit rather than shooting my mouth off without knowing what I was talking about.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand, other than it being used by people who would have an irrational hatred of civil lawsuits.
Edited to remove erroneous temperature reference | |
|
| | | | | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
2 edits | Re: Cut off the head... First of all boiling water makes excellent coffee, that's how expresso pressure machines work 
»www.boyds.com/coffee/brewingguide.html
quote:
A second requirement of water for good coffee brewing is the water temperature as it passes over the coffee grounds. Ideal brewing temperature is 200°F, plus or minus 5°F (at sea level).
If you read about the lawsuit here: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
You will see that McDo's coffee IS made with near-boiling water. What they had to do is reduce the temperature at which it is served to the customers. So basically, they have to reduce the temperature of an inherently scalding hot product so that careless people don't hurt themselves.
The same lawsuit was rejected in the UK by the way, the court recognising that
quote:
If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C (149 °F) will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55–60 °C (131–140 °F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85–95 °C (185–203 °F)
IIRC, the maximum allowed serving temperature for coffee was lowered in the US in the aftermath of the McDo's coffee lawsuit
Secondly, I'm no rightwing smear radio listenner, nor do I have an agenda. Just pointing out that some civil lawsuits, including the coffee one, tend to go overboard and lead to legislation to protect people from their own stupidity.
Anyway, as you said this is off topic, I was just responding to yet another claim that McDo was right and the plaintiff was the most innocent people on earth. In this specific case, she was stupid or careless enough to burn herself with a product she should have been careful about, if she had an ounce of common sense...
--
"Money and sex, storage and bandwidth: only too much is ever enough"
Arno Penzias - Former Head of Bell Labs, and Nobel prizewinner | |
|
| | | | | | | I think you missed the point. In normal circumstances I would agree with you, I even used to until I had to review the case.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | | | What head ? AT&T merged with comcast in nov 2002, All the (dirty deed doers) Now work for AT&T/COMCAST, broadband and circuit switched phone moved to AT&T/comcast. The CEO of AT&T took over as the head of AT&T/COMCAST until he retired in 2004. verizon is in this because of the MCI merger and that CEO is history. | |
|
| | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Cut off the head... said by Rob 23 :
What head ? AT&T merged with comcast in nov 2002, All the (dirty deed doers) Now work for AT&T/COMCAST, broadband and circuit switched phone moved to AT&T/comcast. The CEO of AT&T took over as the head of AT&T/COMCAST until he retired in 2004. verizon is in this because of the MCI merger and that CEO is history.
Please tell me you are joking, right? Everything you stated above is incorrect.
Here's what really happened:
-AT&T bought Mediaone Cable back in 2000.
-Less than 2 years later AT&T sells off its cable division (old mediaone) to Comcast. There was NO merger or partnership between Comcast or AT&T.
-AT&T is purchased by Southwest Bell (SBC) in 2005. The newly combined company is managed and run by SBC, but because of the well established AT&T brand, they decide to keep AT&T as the name. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Cut off the head... HI COD. Can you take a look at this? »www.corp.att.com/news/2001/12/19-4135 and this »www.comcast.com/about/pressrelea···prid=291 IT was a 72 BILLION dollar merger. sbc merger was for att long distance network,it was for 16 billion So if you look at the dollar value ATT/COMCAST is 80% of the old AT&T. SO comcast received att broadband customers and local circuit switch voice customers.and the att ceo cio and others moved to att/comcast. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Cut off the head... said by Rob 23 : HI COD. Can you take a look at this? » www.corp.att.com/news/2001/12/19-4135 and this » www.comcast.com/about/pressrelea···prid=291 IT was a 72 BILLION dollar merger. sbc merger was for att long distance network,it was for 16 billion So if you look at the dollar value ATT/COMCAST is 80% of the old AT&T. SO comcast received att broadband customers and local circuit switch voice customers.and the att ceo cio and others moved to att/comcast. The merger was between Comcast and AT&T Broadband. There were no voice circuits included in the merger. You have no idea what you are talking about as COD pointed out.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Cut off the head... That would likely be telephone over cable, prior to the more recent VoIP services. | |
|
| | | said by gatorkram:Cut off the head of the snake, if you expect to kill it. These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it.
Go after the ones who asked for the data in the first place. Eisenhower?; JFK? etc. Every administration since the cold war began has had access to this info.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Cut off the head... Oh, so that makes it okay. | |
|
| | |
2 edits | Re: Cut off the head... said by DotMac4:Oh, so that makes it okay. It makes it OK by me because they are using the capability to protect the US from those who would do the whole country harm. And it is also OK by a majority of the Senators, including Democrats.
»news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071217/pl_···nes_dc_3
Backers of immunity, who include some Democrats as well many of Bush's fellow Republicans, contend companies should be thanked, not punished, for helping defend the United States.
| |
|
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Cut off the head... said by fAcEtIOUs:And it is also OK by a majority of the Senators, including Democrats. I don't know. Maybe the Democrat party is trying to convince people that they actually love the USA. 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | |  CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | Except when they DON'T use it for that or bust the wrong folks... Lets see- we have several hundred prisoners in Cuba - only 80 are expected to face charges...
Lovely - the potential for incredible misuse or frankly - the wrong interpretation (remember - the justification for going into Iraq was with incorrect data and other data was ignored to justify the invasion) can lead to many years of no trial for US citizens and possibly no contact with lawyers to boot.
Sorry - terrorism has been around BEFORE there were telephones - if they have evidence then let them get a warrant but they don't get free reign stomp all over the Constitution because they are the govt.
Just because Democrats and Republican's want to trample the Constitution and break their sworn job to UPHOLD the Constitution, does not mean they are right to do so. This type of thing is what the Constitution is supposed to protect the citizens from but instead it is being ignored by both parties. nothing like irrational fear brought to you by the govt to justify ignoring the Constitution. | |
|
|  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Comcast
| So the govt is sued and is out billions of dollars instead of the telco... difference is that EVERYONE pays when the govt loses money, only telco subscribers pay when the telco loses money.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by gatorkram:These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it. Go after the ones who asked for the data in the first place. That's exactly the point isn't it? We hear people say a crime was committed. But, those same people can't rise to the level of proving a crime through a court of impeachment. They want to lower the standard to proving those who followed the so-called ringleader committed a crime. But, they can't rise to that level either. So, they'll settle for "bleed 'em dry" civil court. The same place where hot coffee was abolished. Where cases are viewed as your chance to win the lottery.
And all the while we're to remember these are the high-minded folk, following the Constitution, taking the high road, quoting the founders (often out of context) to prove how different they are from the dirty pragmatists.
Mark | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | | didnt quest tell the feds to goto H3ll ? so the rest could have allso done the same but thay wanted something you know thay got something in return | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Cut off the head... yes, but that point is conveniently ignored when posters here claim that AT&T and Verizon had no choice in the matter.
it also shows the "nasty" side of what some here have called patriotism. the AT&T and Verizon's acts were patriotic but Qwest's decision not to break the law was unpatriotic? huh??
such twisted logic. | |
|
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL Reviews:
·Speakeasy
| said by gatorkram:Cut off the head of the snake, if you expect to kill it. These companies didn't approach the government, and say, hey man, would you guys like all this data. It is my understanding they were asked to do it. No.. they were bribed into doing it.
That makes them co-conspirators to the crimes in question.
Why do you think all the recent Federal government communications contracts where awarded to everybody except "Quest" (who refused)?? | |
|
|  TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | Yeah its not like the government to have pushed them around b4 and force them to splinter their companies. 
/The biggest monpoly we have is government... | |
|
| | Stike out? Can we have the strike out fixed? | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Stike out? No. The strike out is making a point. | |
|
 KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
1 edit | I wish I could do anything I wanted and then just have a law passed to retro actively make it legal. One more year of this, just one more year, unless of course Bush decides he should be the supreme ruler for life. | |
|
|  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: I wish said by Kilroy:One more year of this, just one more year, unless of course Bush decides he should be the supreme ruler for life. Somehow I don't think "for life" would be very long in that case.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | pffttt...... Just remember who these morons are and vote them out of office, Fu#k em all. These jerk offs are pissing away our hard fought/earned freedoms, and they need to suffer for it. this is a sad day for all americans.
--
BlooMe | |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1
1 edit | Kommie Karl Strikes Again Kommie Karl and his opinion again...I thought it was actual news until I saw who wrote it. His ability to blur the facts is as creative as his comprehension of the facts. | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Problem is... If AT&T is made to pay, customers (who were the ones wronged here) lose with higher rates and no one other than bloodsucking ambulance chasing lawyers win just as they always do with these BS class action suits.
--
~ Project Hope ~
Team Discovery | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen quote:
... I have seen six presidents — six in the White House ...
Where else would most presidents be?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | Re: Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen He could have seen them on TV. | |
|
|  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | In an undisclosed secure location.... oh you meant the 'visible' president.
sorry. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Dodd is a Poor Drama Queen said by firephoto:In an undisclosed secure location.... oh you meant the 'visible' president. sorry. True. I could have been talking about this guy for all you know. Next time I will be more specific.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | not so fast Dodd is leading a filibuster starting today of the new FISA bill with telecom immunity. | |
|
| |  Effort To Scuttle Telecom Immunity Push Fails?? - not yet
So a lot of people are getting their panties in a knot prematurely.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
 roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | This was merely the cloture vote... Which ends the debate on the bill (S2248)
If you really want to make a difference, get on the horn NOW to both of your senators and tell them to vote this bill down. Everyone who calls makes a difference. Want to make a bigger difference? Write a hand written letter to them, telling them to defeat S2248. It's time to take it into the streets. Demand that the senators whose salary YOU pay, serve the people, and not the corporations who give them contributions. If you don't vote for them, they would be out of a job. I'm on the horn with Schumer's office right now. Is his aide going to hear it from me... AGAIN! Hillary is next.
Don't question it, JUST DO IT, because it's the only way that we have any chance of seeing another bad piece of legislation passed, and our rights eroded even more, in the name of corporate interests.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: history. People need to look at the history of this,the AT&T of 2001 is AT&T broadband - local circuit switched phone and long distance. In Nov 2002 AT&T local phone & broadband merged with comcast to become AT&T/comcast, The CEO and most of the upper management are now with comcast. The issue is local phone records. AT&T is now two diff company's. SBC merged with AT&T after all this took place. YOU now have AT&T/SBC & AT&T/COMCAST. IT all needs to go away. Just fix the law for today's technology. | |
|
| | roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: This was merely the cloture vote... Why the heck would I want to encourage my elected officials to vote FOR telco immunity? I do not believe that the telcos should be granted immunity, and should be held accountable for giving away our fourth amendment rights, as defined in the Constitution. After all, this is a country of laws and not corporations.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | Unbelievable Unbelievable how many of you want to not only cripple our nation's ability to protect us from terrorism but want to somehow punish corporations who cooperate. I have a much bigger problem with those who refused to do so *Quest, I believe.) They deserve the punishment not AT&, Verizon etc. Your "politics" appears to override any common sense. | |
|
|  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Unbelievable Right, because letting government decide whats good for all of us and trample over existing laws under the guise of 'fighting terrorism' is the best course of action. Who needs checks and balances? Heck, I hear it has worked wonders for Russia.
Qwest deserves a medal, and I'm glad for once MN is in Qwest territory. | |
|
| woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
3 edits | Surely you don't believe the drivel coming out of your own mouth?
--
BlooMe
_________________________________________________________
"It is not drivel coming out. Over two hundred years ago many people fought for the rights that we are now taking for granted. If you have not read the Declaration of Independence recently, it would be a good idea to read it now. Granting the president unilateral and unchecked powers will create a modern day King George."
_____________________________________________________________
My reply was for "tbstephs" reply.see quote below
"Unbelievable how many of you want to not only cripple our nation's ability to protect us from terrorism but want to somehow punish corporations who cooperate. I have a much bigger problem with those who refused to do so *Quest, I believe.) They deserve the punishment not AT&, Verizon etc. Your "politics" appears to override any common sense"
Peace | |
|
| | OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Unbelievable It is not drivel coming out. Over two hundred years ago many people fought for the rights that we are now taking for granted. If you have not read the Declaration of Independence recently, it would be a good idea to read it now. Granting the president unilateral and unchecked powers will create a modern day King George. | |
|
 DrStrangeTechnically feasiblePremium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 | Dewey defeats Truman? Looks like Dodd forced Reid et al to back down after all.
»www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/···ance.ap/
The FISA bill was tabled until January, and Dodd says he'll filibuster it again then if it contains immunity for the telecollaborators AT&T and Verizon. | |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State | It's Coming Voters will cast their anger, frustration, sorrow and poverty at the next Presidential Election. Don't forget to join the next American Revolution and vote!
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside | |
|
|
|
