how-to block ads
|
-
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
1 edit | reply to toobad
Re: They have my full support
said by toobad :
too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is
Once again, for your edification, the choices I have are AT&T and Comcast, and a number of third party providers of VOIP that would require a DSL circuit, or a cable connection. As it happens, I have ADSL service through COVAD over AT&T copper. That means I can just get a VOIP provider, use Skype, Magicjack, etc.. EXCEPT, if I cancel my AT&T landlines, I believe I will lose my ADSL with COVAD, or I will have to convert it to dryline service. I don't think, but haven't investigated the issue fully as yet, I can get a dryline DSL service without going directly with AT&T. I think there may also be a few remaining CLECs in my area, and I will find out more in the next few days.
My AT&T services have been reliable, though unimproved, for the 30+ years I've lived here. The service is reasonable, but not as cheap as it could or should be. There is so much noise on my lines I can't get over 3Mbps/520Kbps ADSL. That pisses me off. So does the prospect of having to subscribe to Comcast HSI, unbundled. I like having a hard-wired telephone service, especially with 911 service that is reliable and accurate.
I don't understand why I can't get Verizon service in my AT&T area. After all, isn't this the post Bell monopoly era 30 years on? Fuck, where is all that competition that was supposed improve technology and lower costs, and allow me to choose among multiple vendors for service?
Lastly, I do have some choices, though they are far from ideal. However, why am I being forced to accept such a major change in terms, and such a lopsided position in a contract that has lasted for so long? Christ, I have excellent credit, and an on-time payment history for the entire length of my service with AT&T. Why should I have to agree with the onerous terms in AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement? Why am I forced to surrender my legal rights to privacy, and indemnify everybody under AT&T umbrella for illegal acts AT&T has, or may, undertake?
I have to change telephone company providers, DSL providers, and potentially lose telephone numbers I have had for 30+ years. It is a major PITA, but I will not accept the terms of the new AT&T RSA. Why should my life be disrupted without benefit to me?
FUCK AT&T! | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas  :This is not about warrants. That is simply the cover story. This is a power struggle. The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. They perceive the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts. That way, they can file lawsuit after lawsuit, effectively stopping action by the Executive branch via "death by 1000 cuts". Now that's quite creative but pretty silly. That's like saying that some defense lawyers might be successful in getting defendants acquitted, so we should do away with defense lawyers and court proceedings because after all, the prosecutors are doing the will of the executive.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. | |
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. No, you're ignoring the laws that exist (like ECPA, which was mentioned above), which expressly create legislatively an expectation of privacy, and in fact, penalties for interception of communications.
The ECPA was passed, in part, because of the ambiguity of other wiretap laws to electronic store and forward communications.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. [...] Open your eyes and see. Has the EFF ever been on the side of making any electronic information available to the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community, or the Military? Has the EFF ever not filed a lawsuit or helped others file lawsuits as their primary way of asserting their views? Can you give me an example of the EFF opposing the customary power of the court to empower the government to perform electronically surveillance on a specific individual? I can't think of one.
What I can find [click here for funky Google search] is hundreds of pages of documents submitted to non-judicial policy-makers -- such as the House Energy and Commerce committee (telecom is within their perview), the House Judiciary Committee, the US Copyright office, Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and so on.
When the EFF files in such examples, it is prior to a matter reaching the court. So your contention that the EFF perceives that, "the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts," is not supported as the EFF gets involved well before a controversy reaches the court.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :said by MyDogHsFleas :said by person300 :
This damn attitude that corporations and government employees(high positions obviously, not the garbage man) have that their above the law is ridiculous. I seriously hope they win.
This is not at all what this is about. This is about, should the Government ever be allowed under any circumstance to search and use as evidence data on a computer or on the network? Maybe you should do a little research. This has nothing to with the government not being allowed to obtain evidence. It has 100% to do with them obtaining it legally using the system that is already in place and had been in place for a looooong time to receive the proper permissions to do so. There was absolutely no reason why they couldnt seek warrants for the people they wanted to track. Happens multiple times virtually every day throughout this nation. If they already had the ability to cast the net they cast and to start secretly gathering this information, than there was no need for this corrupt government of ours to make laws protecting them. They did not follow the already established laws, violated the rights of millions of people, and got caught. The corporations and every person that made that happen needs to be punished just as you would if you did the same thing. This is not about warrants. That is simply the cover story. This is a power struggle. The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. They perceive the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts. That way, they can file lawsuit after lawsuit, effectively stopping action by the Executive branch via "death by 1000 cuts".
Open your eyes and see. Has the EFF ever been on the side of making any electronic information available to the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community, or the Military? Has the EFF ever not filed a lawsuit or helped others file lawsuits as their primary way of asserting their views? | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :All they have to do is look. If they want to break the law. They need to capture and read the data. They're not supposed to by law. Just because they CAN do so does not make it legal to do so.
--
"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!) | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :I'm sorry this is the same attorney general that was appointed by who? Oh that's right.... the same guy he was "serving" when he made those "interpretations". Keep in mind that we're talking about the power of the executive branch. The AG is an extension of that power. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President, not the Senate or the Supreme Court. The AG is a cabinet position who oversees functions that are legislatively activated (the Justice Department, FBI, etc.). But, a member of the Executive's staff, who isn't subject to legislative restriction.
That's just the nature of our divided government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. It's not perfect. It leads to excesses. But, presumably, less excess than concentrating all power in one branch (the legislative).
IMO, that's what was at stake with the 2001-2007 surveillance. It relied upon the Executive branch's powers, which were recognized by 18 U.S.C. 2511. It was further exacerbated by cherry-picking an AG who would be an efficient tool of the Executive branch. All legal. All according to our system of government. Counterbalanced by the Judicial branch (which it never rose to, or at least not yet).
said by Skippy25 :Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a while since i have read up on this.... but didnt the law that allowed them to start it without a warrant also require them to still get one in a reasonable time. We're talking about two different things. The basis of so-called immunity was an existing law (18 USC 2511) which said telcos are immune from criminal or civil prosecution for providing customer data under a few different circumstances. One of those was when the Executive branch tells them no warrant is necessary. This law doesn't spell out how the government should conduct surveillance. It only spells out the conditions under which telcos are immune from liability.
Is it a contradiction with FISA? Sure. But, the Administration's argument was that FISA didn't legislate the Executive branch's power into nothing. The legislative branch doesn't have that power. And, that 18 USC 2511 is an admission of that limit of the legislative branch (over the executive).
If you want to learn more, you should read Gonzalez's paper. You may not agree with his position. But, he lays out the reasoning, including legislative history and congressional intent (in the form of comments made by the drafters of 2511 and FISA).
»www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
Page 23 is the culmination concerning 2511, but he makes a few references to it in prior pages. I recommend reading the entire thing.
Mark | |
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to amigo_boy
I'm sorry this is the same attorney general that was appointed by who? Oh that's right.... the same guy he was "serving" when he made those "interpretations".
Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a while since i have read up on this.... but didnt the law that allowed them to start it without a warrant also require them to still get one in a reasonable time. Did they do that? To the best of my knowledge this secret recording went on for years and not a single warrant was ever obtained for it. Am I wrong on that?
Regardless not a single entity in the government should ever have the power that this former AG and you claim they have based on your interpretation. If they do, then it needs to be fixed and not broadened and expanded to give immunity. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. IMO, the analogy to US postal mail is a bad one. A better analogy would be using postcards to communicate, expecting privacy. Internet traffic isn't sealed in an envelope. It's visible to a lot of people during its journey. All they have to do is look. Just like a postcard.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law.
Mark | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines. All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. It's less about someone writing a letter encouraging a terrorist attack or so on (because these people most likely would communicate in secret and use codes) but more about more mundane things such as bank account numbers, payments, friends and family, medical records, and so on. The type of stuff that if it fell into the hands of an honest person accidently wouldn't be a big deal--- but could be a major problem if dishonest crooks deliberately sought such information to commit fraud or scam you.
--
"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!) | |
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to amigo_boy
So warrants really have no place in your world? | |
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by person300 :
This damn attitude that corporations and government employees(high positions obviously, not the garbage man) have that their above the law is ridiculous. I seriously hope they win.
This is not at all what this is about. This is about, should the Government ever be allowed under any circumstance to search and use as evidence data on a computer or on the network? Maybe you should do a little research. This has nothing to with the government not being allowed to obtain evidence. It has 100% to do with them obtaining it legally using the system that is already in place and had been in place for a looooong time to receive the proper permissions to do so. There was absolutely no reason why they couldnt seek warrants for the people they wanted to track. Happens multiple times virtually every day throughout this nation.
If they already had the ability to cast the net they cast and to start secretly gathering this information, than there was no need for this corrupt government of ours to make laws protecting them.
They did not follow the already established laws, violated the rights of millions of people, and got caught. The corporations and every person that made that happen needs to be punished just as you would if you did the same thing. | |
toobad
@swbell.net
 from:
amigo_boy
| reply to ross
too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is | |
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by NetAdmin :Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ? Intentionally obtuse seems like an appropriate term when it's not my responsibility to research and prove your position. Do you like to revise history much? You were asked to research and prove YOUR position. My position has been for your to provide some justification for your opinion in the form of legal precedent or scholarly legal discussions.
If you disagree with those sources, it's your responsibility to provide precedent, judicial and scholarly interpretation, etc. Knock yourself out. Up until recently, you didn't provide those sources to back your position, so whining about others not doing something that you should have done before you posited your lay opinion of the law falls to deaf ears.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to NetAdmin
said by NetAdmin :Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ? Intentionally obtuse seems like an appropriate term when it's not my responsibility to research and prove your position. I've already provided:
- Attorney General Gonzalez wrote a lengthy analysis[1] of the power of the executive branch, and referred to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) as proof of the legislative branch's admission (concession) of that power, and their inability to legislate it away.
- The legislative branch affirmed Gonzalez's analysis when it referred to 18 U.S.C. 2511 as the basis of the executive branch's power, and what would invoke so-called immunity.[2]
If you disagree with those sources, it's your responsibility to provide precedent, judicial and scholarly interpretation, etc. Knock yourself out. But, don't expect me to do it for you when the law's plain words are clear, and have been interpreted by an AG, and both houses of Congress in their literal sense ("telcos are immune from any legal action, civil or criminal, if the AG, or others, certify no warrant is necessary.").
[1] See page 23. »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
[2] See page 88. »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
Mark | |
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by NetAdmin :I'm not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to interpret the law, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a high-school graduate to read 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1]. Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ?
And yeah, I can read it. I can see and understand what the words are saying, but legal interpretation requires more than just reading the text of the law, which is why there are millions of people who specialize in its interpretation. I had to consult a lawyer once to interpret a civil law that looked straight forward in English, but due to precedents in prior cases, required more work on my part to used correctly.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :The EFF is squarely in the corner of the Judicial branch -- they think the best way to decide issues like this is via lawsuits and court proceedings. Personally, I think this is by far the least effective way to proceed -- by a long shot. [...] their way will drag us into a quagmire of class action lawsuits and cripple our ability as a country to make progress. [...] That the EFF focuses on the judicial system, and the effectiveness of that tactic, is is an interesting perspective. I'll be thinking about that. I agree that courts are a "sledgehammer" approach due to the fact that the judiciary cannot make law, it can only rule it out as unconstitutional or under precedent or make an adjudication of an issue based upon it. The EFF is not known for lobbying. Perhaps they are the ACLU for the telecom sector?
The EFF has been around a long time, how have they crippled our ability to make progress?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :So the EFF is just about memberships.... I didn't say EFF is "just" about memberships. But, it's obvious they have a conflict of interest. They may inflame their supporters to increase contributions and paid memberships (which translates into mailing lists and solicitations).
This isn't peculiar to EFF. The NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. do the same thing. They use the most outlandish of each other's membership literature to inflame their own membership. I use to see it all the time when I was on their mailing lists (10-15 years ago). It was never clear if their advocacy was for public policy, or to "steer" their membership into a certain, generous "mood."
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines.
What you're really saying is that you have an expectation of privacy when it doesn't really matter to you. It wouldn't be a big problem if a neighbor read the letter. It wouldn't be a big problem if employees read it when it's torn open (or stolen) at the post office. Sure, you'd huff and puff about how that's not supposed to happen. But, it wouldn't matter because you weren't really expecting privacy *when it counts*.
On the other hand, if you were plotting a biological attack, or sharing how to build a dirty bomb, you wouldn't expect privacy through the postal mail. You wouldn't expect it on the internet.
It's very hard to take people seriously that they expect internet privacy, but they don't encrypt their emails, or use https when communicating on forums, etc. They don't expect privacy. If they did, they'd encrypt. We know that's true.
Mark | |
|
