Re: Cut off the head... in

Re: Cut off the head... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19639189 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:50:18 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:50:18 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19665976 wierdo :

said by Rob 23 :

HI HCT. Can you look at this ( half way down the page )»www.pcworld.com/printable/articl···ble.html Comcast received 1.2 Million circuit switched phone customers from the AT&T merger.

That would likely be telephone over cable, prior to the more recent VoIP services.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19665976 Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:23:18 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19662724 TechieZero : Yeah its not like the government to have pushed them around b4 and force them to splinter their companies. :uhh:

/The biggest monpoly we have is government...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19662724 Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:29:52 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647423 anon : HI HCT. Can you look at this ( half way down the page )»www.pcworld.com/printable/articl···ble.html Comcast received 1.2 Million circuit switched phone customers from the AT&T merger. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647423 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:38:55 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647152 GOLFnSUN :

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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647152 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:56:18 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647070 xrobertcmx : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19647070 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:47:00 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646517 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646517 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:28:13 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646121 Talis : Lol :) I sure hope you are the telcos lawyer. With a defense like that they are bound to win :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646121 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:05:58 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646114 LilYoda : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19646114 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:04:50 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19645793 wierdo :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19645793 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:15:07 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643626 morbo : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643626 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:32:12 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643564 morbo : well said.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643564 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:24:15 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643397 Cod :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643397 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:55:23 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643072 TheWickerMan :

said by morbo

:

nice attempt to change the focus, but you didn't answer the question:

Of course not. He's too busy typing and retyping the phrase "self-styled freedom fighters." :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19643072 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:46:43 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642968 tkdslr :

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)?? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642968 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:11:44 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642894 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.

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642894 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:49:14 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642650 KrK : 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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642650 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:02 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642564 81399672 :

said by GOLFnSUN

said by morbo

:

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.

For protection from countless, groundless, harassing, yet costly lawsuits - each of which would have to be defended at great cost.

Groundless? They violated the law. It's as simple as that. For defending each lawsuit, they can ask the court to merge them in to one and likely will get that request granted. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642564 Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:28:30 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642093 NoOneButMe : 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 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19642093 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:59:50 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641609 wierdo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641609 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:19:00 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641447 MichaelWacey : The count is currently 40. They will undoubtedly be combined into a single class. So, it is not countless.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641447 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:54:43 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641370 TechGuy99 :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641370 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:43:47 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641363 xrobertcmx : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641363 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:42:45 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641268 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641268 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:25:59 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641095 TechGuy99 :

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641095 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:02:46 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641045 amigo_boy :

said by MichaelWacey

:

I am not sure I understand you last point. Phone companies keep detailed records for a long time. This is primarily for billing reasons. I would assume that ISPs do not keep such detailed records.

I assume the same thing. Which means comparing requests for phone records and ISP records isn't a good comparison. Let's say a some radical Lithuanians (to avoid upsetting Arabs) crash a jet into a skyscrapper. It sounds like the government could go to phone companies and get records of all their phone calls (going back more than a year). But, they couldn't go to ISPs and get the same thing (every email correspondent, web page visited, ftp host connected to, etc.).

If that's true, a warrant could only cause collection to occur going forward (which would be useless at that point). The only way to look back is if the data is collected.

said by MichaelWacey

:

My bottom line is that warantless searches are unconstitutional on the face of it. Phone companies know that they should not cooperate with warrantless searches. If they did nothing wrong, they do not need immunity.

My bottom line is that

1) Warrantless searches which are "unreasonable" are unconstitutional. Everyone seems to forget that qualifier which the Founders (everyone loves to quote) felt was important to include. In the face of an attack by a non-state entity, the definition of "reasonable" can expand.

2) It's not clear to me that simply collecting traffic (so it is available if needed, as phone records are available) is a "search." We have photo radar and red-light cameras. We have no expectation of privacy in public places. Is the Internet a "public place?" If someone chooses to communicate using a tool that hops across multiple companies which that person has no contractual relationship with, should they expect privacy? Why was SSL/TLS, SSH, etc. invented if everyone has an expectation of privacy generally?

On a related note, if all the government is doing is making connections of who is associating with who (so when the wild Lithuanians crash a jet, an associational history can be developed) is that a violation of privacy? When an acquaintance pulls into your driveway for a visit, do you expect everyone to pretend they didn't see the car? Why should your associations (not content) via email be private?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19641045 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:54:36 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640879 MichaelWacey : I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

If I were going to change the constitution, I would amend it to limit the presidents pardon ability. In particular, he/she should not be able to pardon anyone who was ever under his/her direct control. The wording and unintended consequences would be tricky but I think it is worth it.

I am not sure I understand you last point. Phone companies keep detailed records for a long time. This is primarily for billing reasons. I would assume that ISPs do not keep such detailed records. But any phone company could respond to a properly executed warrant asking for records over the past several weeks or even months. A request can also be made to be notified of calls - this can only be done going forward.

It is not clear to me that phone companies have the facilities to record conversations. I believe that the law enforcement agency actually performs the recording. Does anyone know for sure?

My bottom line is that warantless searches are unconstitutional on the face of it. Phone companies know that they should not cooperate with warrantless searches. If they did nothing wrong, they do not need immunity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640879 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:29:54 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640759 amigo_boy :

said by MichaelWacey

:

But, as we found with Watergate and many other times, we do not have an effective way to ensure that the Executive Branch is acting constitutionally.

The Constitutional way to deal with that is to amend the Constitution, not go to civil court seeking damages for customers who evidently don't care enough to leave the ISP.

This has more to do with politics than the 4th amendment. It's not bad enough to get impeachment or criminal trials against the ISPs. So, civil court is used. It's not bad enough to get the ISP customers to leave. So, an activist organization has to file a class action suit on their behalf.

said by MichaelWacey

:

There is nothing in the current Constitution to stop the president from ordering one or more people to perform illegal acts.

Thank God for that. Lincoln wouldn't have issued the Emancipation Proclamation (contrary to existing property law), or suspended habeas corpus, and Roosevelt wouldn't have transferred ships to Britain contrary to the Neutrality Act.

This gets back to how those making the most fuss over current events have the luxury of their standard not being applied in history. Had it been applied, there's a good possibility we wouldn't exist as a nation today. That's very convenient. Demand something that's never existed, benefiting from the fact that it's never existed, and simply ignore how others had to rise to real-world challenges, in realtime, without the benefit of arm-chair quarterbacking years later.

said by MichaelWacey

:

These firms have hundreds if not thousands of lawyers on call. They sue and are sued on a daily basis

The don't have the opportunity to seek immunity in other civil cases. They do in this case. If they did in other cases I'm sure they would. SImply because it makes good business sense to reduce the potential cost of litigation.

Your logic (that just because they spend billions on litigation it shouldn't matter how much they spend) is unrealistic.

said by MichaelWacey

:

Now, lets assume the wire taps are illegal. If the president ordered them, is he going to ask the AG to investigate? Probably not. So, an illegal act will go unpunished.

You have available to you an impeachment trial and, subsequently DoJ action against the telcos. If you can't accomplish that because it's too unpopular, why should those who followed the President (who's evidently popular enough to evade impeachment) be held more responsible?

said by MichaelWacey

:

Note that both Verizon and AT&T are asked to provided phone records daily.

How long do ISPs keep records of all their customers' traffic? I'm pretty sure the police can go to my telephone provider and get phone records going back more than a year. Can they do the same thing for all my network traffic (all protocols, etc.)? If not, then it's not a direct comparison is it? It would mean they could only view *forward* from the moment they have an interest in someone, not backward?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640759 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:14:05 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640358 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19640358 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:11:06 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639840 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639840 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:42:10 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639838 wierdo :

said by GOLFnSUN

:

And it wasn't a business decision but one based on patriotism.

Thankfully, patriotism is not an excuse for poor behavior.

As with torture, if it's that important, go ahead and break the law. If you really were saving the nation by doing it, no jury will convict you. If they do, you can join the likes of Jesus and John Brown, people both willing to die for what they believe in. Only you wouldn't die, just sit in prison for a while, where you could bask in the glow of your heroism and martyrdom.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639838 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:39:18 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639818 MichaelWacey : But, as we found with Watergate and many other times, we do not have an effective way to ensure that the Executive Branch is acting constitutionally.

There is nothing in the current Constitution to stop the president from ordering one or more people to perform illegal acts. It it every gets to trial, the president can pardon them. It actually takes a lot of trust, but many people will blindly follow a leader.

In the current case, lets assume the wire taps are legal. Then why do they need immunity? To protect themselves from poorly funded left wing groups? These firms have hundreds if not thousands of lawyers on call. They sue and are sued on a daily basis ( I believe that more than 70% of civil bases are brought between corporate entities). Why should they get immunity in this case?

Now, lets assume the wire taps are illegal. If the president ordered them, is he going to ask the AG to investigate? Probably not. So, an illegal act will go unpunished.

Note that both Verizon and AT&T are asked to provided phone records daily. They have well established policies and procedures around this. No court order means no records. They messed up here and their stock holders (I am one of them) should pay.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639818 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:36:47 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639804 amigo_boy :

said by morbo

:

AT&T and Verzion are entitled to special treatment (retroactive immunity) because they made bad business decisions? that is some twisted version of corporate welfare.

Gawd. You guys are all over the place. Now you're self-appointed role is that of protector of the free market system? Riddle me this: If the free market is what it's all about, why aren't AT&T and Verizon customers stampeding to the clearly marked exits? Why does it take some whiney people hurling the "crime" bomb to save AT&T customers from themselves? And to make the market do what it apparently won't do on its own?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639804 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:34:38 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639780 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639780 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:30:06 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639755 GOLFnSUN :

said by morbo

:

AT&T and Verzion are entitled to special treatment (retroactive immunity) because they made bad business decisions?

No. They are entitled to it because they helped defend the US against her enemies at government request. And it wasn't a business decision but one based on patriotism. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639755 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:26:58 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639741 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639741 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:25:18 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639717 morbo : AT&T and Verzion are entitled to special treatment (retroactive immunity) because they made bad business decisions? that is some twisted version of corporate welfare. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639717 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:21:38 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639713 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639713 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:21:10 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639692 GOLFnSUN :

said by morbo

For protection from countless, groundless, harassing, yet costly lawsuits - each of which would have to be defended at great cost.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639692 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:17:30 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639685 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639685 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:16:27 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639674 morbo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639674 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:14:31 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639658 amigo_boy :

said by MichaelWacey

:

Actually, the people you are talking about do not have standing to bring a Criminal case in this matter. Only the federal justice department could do that. But, since the administration is pushing for immunity and the justice department works for the administration, it is unlikely that the entity with standing will pursue a case.

Exactly. The next step is to change government. I hear self-styled freedom fighters professing their dedication to everything Constitutional... but throwing down their toys and sinking to civil court rather than living up to the demands of the Constitution (impeachment, criminal charges brought by the AG, changing government if corruption is so deep that neither are possible, etc.).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639658 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:12:03 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639641 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639641 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:09:10 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639636 MichaelWacey : Actually, the people you are talking about do not have standing to bring a Criminal case in this matter. Only the federal justice department could do that. But, since the administration is pushing for immunity and the justice department works for the administration, it is unlikely that the entity with standing will pursue a case.

So, it is really a mater of Legal Possibility and not facts or wants that drive people to Civil Court.

What we need is a forward thinking State Attorney General to find a way to bring a case for all the people in the state.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639636 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:08:02 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639635 wierdo :

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. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639635 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:07:52 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639611 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639611 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:04:30 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639577 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639577 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:58:59 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639555 morbo : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639555 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:54:42 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639527 wierdo : 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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639527 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:49:07 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639494 ieolus : Violation of Civil Rights (4th Amendment perhaps?) is adjucated in civil court, no?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639494 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:46:05 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639483 morbo :

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.

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639483 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:45:23 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639448 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639448 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:40:36 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639404 CylonRed : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639404 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:34:51 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639340 pnh102 :

said by GOLFnSUN

:

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. :D
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639340 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:59 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639255 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639255 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:11:25 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639250 wierdo :

said by DotMac

:

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639250 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:09:48 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639227 GOLFnSUN :

said by DotMac

:

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.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639227 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:06:02 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639189 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639189 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:59:26 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639172 ropeguru :

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.

But if they are never taken to ANY court because they are given immunity, then we will never know. Now will we??
--
FWD#: 223611]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639172 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:54:59 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639064 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639064 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:38:39 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639049 gatorkram :

said by DotMac

:

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19639049 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:37:27 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638999 morbo : 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... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638999 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:29:32 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638981 DotMac : Oh, so that makes it okay.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638981 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:27:10 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638980 DotMac : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638980 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:26:52 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638916 amigo_boy :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638916 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:18:21 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638914 Tsume : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638914 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:18:09 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638890 GOLFnSUN :

said by gatorkram

Eisenhower?; JFK? etc. Every administration since the cold war began has had access to this info.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638890 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:14:11 EDT Re: Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638880 morbo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638880 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:12:52 EDT Cut off the head... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638841 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.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19638841 Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:07:29 EDT