Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | No win scenario for the Telcos
The open the lines, they get sued. They don't open the line, the gov't starts f*cking with their business as we saw with I believe it was Qwest.
The FCC does it to companies they fine all the time. The company doesn't pay the fine and says take us to court (over obscenity for example), the FCC drags their fee with licensing and station purchases. Pay the fine, suddenly the feet dragging stops.
The gov't is so corrupt they have everyone coming and going. The telcos should absolutely get immunity and those politicians to authorized such illegal activity (if there even was any) should be sent to prison. The telcos are the victim of gov't abuse as much as their customers are. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:  
1 edit | Then let the Telco companies proove that they were the victims -- let them show that their merger approvals were contingent upon them giving the govt access to such records in secret.
Right is right, wrong is wrong, and if you want to play the game you gotta own up to the consequences when you get caught red handed. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by PhoenixDown  :Then let the Telco companies proove that they were the victims -- let them show that their merger approvals were contingent upon them giving the govt access to such records in secret. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and if you want to play the game you gotta own up to the consequences when you get caught red handed. Well said! |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | reply to PhoenixDown
What consequences? Who do you think is going to pay for the millions greedy bloodsucking lawyers will get out of their class action suit?
The customers will.
Meanwhile, according to Qwest, they were threatened with not being able to get future gov't contracts if they didn't comply.
I'm surprised that so many here want to punish telco customers for the blackmailing the gov't did.
If there is no immunity then individual telco customers should be forced to prove the value of their damages and how EXACTLY they were damaged. The "proof" argument goes both ways. Just because the telco did it, doesn't mean anyone was damaged. No REAL damage = no money.
If there was "criminal" activity, then that prosecution is for the State, not some ambulance chasing bloodsucker to determine and get Sen. Edwards filthy rich off of. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to PhoenixDown
How about having the "victims" prove in court that they were in fact victims and not just fear mongers feeding off the rhetoric?
The only case I am aware of the made it to the supreme court was sent back to the lower court because the plaintiffs lacked standing. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| Carbidyne -
Your looking at just the possible monetary damages that would be awarded. Depending on how this pans out, I believe the possibility of criminal charges should be explored.
In addition to that, I believe any award or judgment would likely include some of settlement where the company would be required to have an (internal or external) group responsible for seeing that customer's privacy is protected.
After the Worldcom and Enron fiasco, those company were forced to have an "ethics" department and put into place strict ethical guidelines. Many other companies not involved with similar accounting scandals followed suit and implemented (or strengthened) their own ethic committees.
(And no I'm not talking about about SOX)
Given the information available, I believe that these companies acted in an unethical and illegal manner but done is done, this at least will help limit the possibility of such transgressions occurring again in the future.
Lesopp,
quote:
How about having the "victims" prove in court that they were in fact victims and not just fear mongers feeding off the rhetoric?
I'm all for that but the government would play ball and not hide in fear behind the "national security risk" claims. Hold sessions behind closed doors if its that much a concern but the grievances should be heard by, and explored by, the court. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by PhoenixDown :I believe the possibility of criminal charges should be explored. The "immunity" deal doesn't extend to criminal prosecution. Only civil.
»rpc.senate.gov/_files/L43S2248FI···07ML.pdf
"Section 202. Limitations on civil actions for electronic communication service providers.
This provides retroactive immunity from 'covered civil actions' if a series of conditions are met:..." Mark |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| I wasn't aware of that but I still believe that the interests of the public are best served if the civil suits are allowed to proceed forward -- and that is mostly due to the red tape the govt has thrown up around anything touching the wiretapping program. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by PhoenixDown :...the interests of the public are best served if the civil suits are allowed to proceed forward -- and that is mostly due to the red tape the govt has thrown up around anything touching the wiretapping program. Isn't that justification similar to the Government's excuse for bypassing warrants? If it's just a matter of what's "easier," anything can be justified, right?
Mark |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | reply to PhoenixDown
How so? How is it in the best interests of the "public" to punish phone customers and make greedy lawyers rich?
It's all a smoke screen. Congress is using the telco to divert attention from other more important matters, like spending control (as Congress rejects ending earmarks and raises taxes on everyone making more than $30,000 a year). |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| quote:
How so? How is it in the best interests of the "public" to punish phone customers and make greedy lawyers rich?
How is it in the best interest of the public to continually excuse companies for their actions based on the premise that any punitive damages would be passed to the customer as a rate increase? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Because it's true. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs: | And that lends validity to your point how exactly? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | Because companies don't print money. They get it from customers.
When a company pays millions to greedy lawyers, it has to come from somewhere. And that's the customers.
In this instance, those that hate Bush are so zealous in their hatred that they'll punish the very customers they claim have been so wronged. This is an ideological battle that is being waged and the telcos and their customers are just pawns. Anyone who "complied" with someone they don't like should be punished, it doesn't matter who ends up paying the punishment or even that anyone was actually harmed, just their side "wins" in court. I find that sad.
Thus far, not a SINGLE telco customer has proved ANY damages whatsoever.
No damages = no money.
If a criminal act too place, the prosecution should be taken up by the State.
The telcos should absolutely be given civil immunity. By not doing so you only punish the customers and reward the lawyers. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | why do i get the feeling you would whore out your mom if she was anything other than a republican? |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:
| reply to Dogfather
By your logic:
a) Companies should be exempt from any monetary legal action simply because the judgment amount would be passed on to the customers in the form of a rate hike. True or not, you are essentially stating that they can do whatever they please without any worry or penalty.
b) If the penalty is severe enough, it will impact share holder value and thus serve as a reminder that the share holders and the board have an obligation to ensure that their companies are not engaged in illegal behavior. The company will not be able to recoup this via rate increases as you suggest - at least not beyond a certain point - without customers going to alternate providers. Thus the merit of your point is moot.
c) You also make the blanket assumption that the companies will have to pay "millions" to greedy lawyers. The Company did not have to participate in the alleged crimes to begin with, thus negating the need for lawyers after the fact. Don't want to do the time, don't do the crime, right?
d)
quote:
Thus far, not a SINGLE telco customer has proved ANY damages whatsoever.
As I stated earlier, if the lawsuits are allowed to go forward and the truth of the situation to be revealed -- then a COURT OF LAW can rightfully determine the merits of the case and decide whether the telco is guilty of any wrong doing. What are you so afraid of that you can't stomach the idea of having the case weighed on its own merits in a court of law?
e) Not everyone is a Bush hating zealot simply because they disagree on telco immunity. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by PhoenixDown :Companies should be exempt from any monetary legal action simply because the judgment amount would be passed on to the customers in the form of a rate hike. I think that's true when the legal action is a civil one, as a proxy for criminal action which couldn't be obtained through regular means.
We've had a number of self-styled freedom fighters admit that's what this is about. It's basically a social action carried out by a handful of people (and organizations with an agenda) to impose the social action they couldn't obtain through normal channels for social actions.
I think, in such a case, it's perfectly legitimate to point out that it will just result in higher fees to customers (or to taxpayers who pay more through no-bid contracts which the government will use to recompense the telcos). That's a lot different than criminal charges (which we're told should have occurred, but justice can't be served for whatever reason, thus the need for private civil actions).
Mark |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | reply to morbo
said by morbo :why do i get the feeling you would whore out your mom if she was anything other than a republican? Because you see politics in everything. Bush is a moron and Clinton is more of a Republican than that 'tard, but I don't think that telco customers should be forced to make greedy bloodsucking waste of skin lawyers rich simply because Bush is a moron.
There are 2 separate issues, civil and criminal. No one was damaged, so no civil restitution (since nothing need be restored) should be paid. Any criminal wrong doing by gov't or corporate officers should be pursued on a personal level.
The story is a simple one.
Gov't blackmails telco, comply or never get a gov't contract again.
Telco caves (except Qwest)
No one is actually damaged.
No damage = no money for the Sen Edwards types just looking to get rich
Criminality should be prosecuted by the State, STARTING which those to blackmailed the telcos.
Civil immunity yes.
Criminal immunity no. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to PhoenixDown
By the fact that it would even go to trial damages the telcos even if they're cleared.
That's the problem in a system that doesn't make the loser pay.
I would be all for "letting the truth out" under the condition that if the "class loses" they (the lawyers) should have to pay the telco the same millions they're demanding from the telco. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Dogfather
no damages? violating the right to privacy of 200+ million U.S. citizens is nothing?
AT&T broke the law.
it doesn't matter why AT&T did it.
it doesn't matter who threatened them or blackmailed them.
now they have to deal with the situation they created, both in civil court and criminal court. |
|
