Re: Cut off the head... - dslreports.com

Author	All Replies
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	reply to ropeguru 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 15:59:26 ·
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK	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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:11:25 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:40:36 ·
ieolus Support The Clecs join:2001-06-19 Duluth, GA	Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no? -- "Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:46:05 ·
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK ·Future Nine Corpor.. ·Teliax VOIP ·Cox HSI	reply to amigo_boy 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)
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:49:07 ·
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: ·Charter Pipeline ·AT&T Southwest	reply to amigo_boy 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...
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:54:42 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	reply to ieolus 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 16:58:59 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	reply to wierdo 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:04:30 ·
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK ·Future Nine Corpor.. ·Teliax VOIP ·Cox HSI	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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:07:52 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	reply to morbo 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:16:27 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	reply to wierdo 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:21:10 ·
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: ·Charter Pipeline ·AT&T Southwest	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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:25:18 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 17:30:06 ·
en102 Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA ·RoadRunner Cable ·DSL EXTREME ·DSL EXTREME	reply to morbo 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 19:11:06 ·
TechGuy99 join:2003-09-15 Flushing, NY edit: December 17th, @09:07PM	reply to amigo_boy 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!
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 21:02:46 ·
amigo_boy join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ ·Cox HSI ·magicjack.com ·EarthLink	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
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 21:25:59 ·
TechGuy99 join:2003-09-15 Flushing, NY	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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 21:43:47 ·
wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK ·Future Nine Corpor.. ·Teliax VOIP ·Cox HSI	reply to amigo_boy 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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-17 22:19:00 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to amigo_boy 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!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-18 04:37:02 ·
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs:	reply to TechGuy99 well said.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-12-18 10:24:15 ·


Saturday, 11-Oct 03:32:40	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 9 years online! © 1999-2008 dslreports.com.republican-creole page compression OFF